Thank you so much for the link to the Gavin Bromley article, Roy. I've heard people praising this article before. I'll read it later tonight.
To Packer's stem:
Most obviously “being in the theatrical line“ refers to actor.
Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
Schwartz, a fraud?
Collapse
X
-
Originally posted by Chris View PostNo, they do not.
Errata suggested that a "theatrical appearance" might just mean that Schwartz looked like a stereotypical stage Jew. So it might, and that could be consistent with Abberline's observation (in relation to the significance of "Lipski") that he had a "strong jewish appearance."
But if you have the appearance of "being in the theatrical line," then that must mean that you look as though you are employed in a theatre, which is different from looking like a character on a stage.
Which theatre employees are you referring to usher,lighting ,ticket kiosk,ice cream seller,that would be a giveaway in terms of appearance so as to be described as 'being in the theatrical line'
Leave a comment:
-
Good morning Errata, Maria et al
Gavin Bromley did a large article, really two in one, about the Batty St lodger, and the second part on Israel Schwartz. With an assist from Sam and Debs he found Schwartz was Russian/Polish.
click this http://www.casebook.org/dissertations/rip-kuer.html
Schwartz's area was the NW corner of St George East tucked into Whitechapel near the finger of Mile End Old Town pointing west. There were thousands of immigrants in this area. Many were bi-lingual, speaking both English and Yiddish. The interpeter could have been one of literally hundreds of people.
Why he did not testify is a mystery. No one knows. I used to think it was because his account contained the cry of "Lipski" and the authorities didn't want that repeated at inquest. But have been told no repeatedly by the experts.
Roy
Leave a comment:
-
Errata,
the Victorian euphemism for Jew was “oriental“ or “foreign“, not “theatrical“. The interpreter who translated for Schwartz was most probably William Wess, the secretary of the IWMC. (As we have documentation that he translated for other Jewish people from the club.) He translated from Yiddish to English, not from Ungarian. Yiddish worked like a lingua franca for Jews.
Leave a comment:
-
I have a question. The Star says that they traced Schwartz back to his place on Backchurch Ln. and said that he was "well dressed" and that "The reporter's Hungarian was quite as imperfect as the foreigner's English, but an interpreter was at hand". Does this seem odd to anyone else? I mean, reporters know the different between well dressed and as well dressed as a poor person can be. Typically they say someone was "neatly dressed" like they made an effort to be appropriate to the setting. But they say well dressed, and I thought this guy was destitute.
And then they say that fortunately an interpreter was at hand. And evidently a different interpreter than the one who helped him at the police station, or I imagine they would have said. And probably interviewed him as well. I gotta say, Hungarian is like no other language. It's closest linguistic relative is Finnish, and it ain't that close. And Hungary simply didn't have the population to release a large number of Hungarian speakers on London, who could walk by this scene and say "Why yes, I speak Hungarian". I mean, if you are trying to talk to a Ukrainian and a Russian speaker walked by, they kind of have a chance of making themselves understood. Like if you speak French and are trying to communicate to an Italian. Zero chance of this with Hungarian. And there wasn't a Hungarian section to the Jewish Ghetto in London, so he wasn't likely surrounded by Hungarians. Theoretically his wife spoke Hungarian, but if she was the translator, they would have said. So who was on hand?
It never really occurred to me before, but it seems far more likely that the Star reporter nicked a copy of the interview and embroidered on it, then that he traced an Eastern European Jew named Schwartz (which is a ridiculously common name for good reason) back to his house and fortuitously caught the guy dressed to the nines with an interpreter lurking in the hallway. I mean, I'm pretty sure that Schwartz would not have said that he "fled incontinently". I doubt that an interpreter would have the English for such a word.
Oh. And there are no quotes. Which is odd for an interview. Even one that is being translated. Quotes are much sexier. That's why the rest of the articles on that page are littered with them.
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by Chris View PostNo, they do not.
Errata suggested that a "theatrical appearance" might just mean that Schwartz looked like a stereotypical stage Jew. So it might, and that could be consistent with Abberline's observation (in relation to the significance of "Lipski") that he had a "strong jewish appearance."
But if you have the appearance of "being in the theatrical line," then that must mean that you look as though you are employed in a theatre, which is different from looking like a character on a stage.
I think "being in the theatrical line" is a euphemism for Jew. Lots of people thought that the only people in the entertainment industries were whores and Jews (Jews being the better end of that spectrum). And there was a certain amount of truth to that. I don't think it would be recognized in a modern context, but back then? But I think it's a euphemism along the lines of "confirmed bachelor" for a gay man, "full-figured" instead of fat, or "a great personality" instead of ugly.
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by packers stem View PostBit irrelevant really as they both mean exactly the same thing do they not.
Errata suggested that a "theatrical appearance" might just mean that Schwartz looked like a stereotypical stage Jew. So it might, and that could be consistent with Abberline's observation (in relation to the significance of "Lipski") that he had a "strong jewish appearance."
But if you have the appearance of "being in the theatrical line," then that must mean that you look as though you are employed in a theatre, which is different from looking like a character on a stage.
Leave a comment:
-
Sorry Maria but this has got to be the finest hair splitting i've ever seen in connection with a statement.
Leave a comment:
-
I'm not sure it's the same. “The appearance of being in the theatrical line" is totally clear (while the details from which this impression was gained are missing), but "had a theatrical appearance" could mean different things. It could even mean (stretching it a bit) that Schwartz' testimony appeared “staged“, that he described the events of the evening of September 30 in an exaggerated, not convincing fashion.
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by Chris View PostErrata
The trouble is that the newspaper report didn't just say he had a "theatrical appearance"; it said he "had the appearance of being in the theatrical line." But of course appearances can be deceptive.
If someone was described as having a 'lower class appearance' or 'having the appearance of being from the lower classes' would we see a difference in the two statements?It's just the english language and the way the writer chooses to set out the sentence.
Leave a comment:
-
I just checked the Star again, and what it says is “This foreigner was well dressed, and had the appearance of being in the theatrical line.“ Very possibly the quote I recall about Schwartz “having a theatrical appearance“ simply comes from some thread.
I'd very much like to conduct a bit of research on Schwartz from different perspectives, but it won't be possible before November at the earliest.
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by mariab View PostTo Chris:
One of the newspaper reports (was it The Echo?) simply said “a theatrical appearance“. I'm sorry, but I can only check it out much later tonight.
Leave a comment:
-
To Chris:
One of the newspaper reports (was it The Echo?) simply said “a theatrical appearance“. I'm sorry, but I can only check it out much later tonight.
Errata wrote:
I imagine a man with stereotypical Jewish features and dress, who strongly resembled the Jewish caricatures on stage might also be described that way. Just a thought.
I definitely think there might be something in what you're saying. Jewish stereotyping, attacking and caricaturizing occurred a lot in the press in the 19th century, both in London and Paris. (Successful, established Jewish personalities such as the baron Rotchild and the composer Giacomo Meyerbeer were not spared.)
Leave a comment:
Leave a comment: