-
The Most Critical Primary Source?
It sounds like the edition I have perused at the University of Adelaide (South Australia).
I bought a recently published copy with a modern [generic] cover, and it is from 1915.
In any edition, it is the critical primary source and yet the most neglected.
Anderson, who does not even devote a full chapter to the Ripper, is endlessly debate and analysed, but not Mac's -- who devoted not only an entire chapter to the case (the de-facto third version of his 'memo') focussing only on the un-named Druitt -- but also arguably removed much of the fiction from his Report(s). He even refers to Montie going missing ('absented') which shows that he knew more about the drownedd barrister than what was in PC Moulson's Report.
There are other key bits about the Ripper throughout the book, including is definition of sexual insanity, eg.it's not a variastion on being gay.
Even more astonishing -- and neglected and/or misunderstood -- is that his very brief preface claims that he was not entirely too late to 'have a go' at the Whitechapel fiend. Chapter IV explians why: he identified the murderer posthumously.
In that preface, Mac also suggestively juxtaposes championship cricket, the Ripper and his own 'inaccuracies'.
Is that really just a coincidence?Leave a comment:
-
Days of My Years
There's a copy up for sale on Ebay that states it is a first edition, but the binding is not like any I've seen. My guess is that it has been re-bound, but I was wondering if anyone has seen this particular one before.
http://www.ebay.com/itm/1914-Jack-Th...item27d1796013
Also, I've seen Anderson's Criminals and Crime in both red and blue covers- any ideas as to how to tell which one is the "true" first edition?
Leave a comment: