Jeffrey Bloomfield
04-15-2004, 01:38 PM
The other day I posted a comment on the Casebook website, and Howard noted and has asked me to post it here. Instead I will expand it a little, and create it as a new thread for any responses. I just hope that I chose the right part of this website for posting the thread. If I haven't, I apologize ahead of time.
The thread was about what was the worst Ripper books. Leading the pact seemed to be Patricia Cornwall's study of Sickert, but people mentioned other titles. I do feel that certain studies are questionable and weak. Michael Harrison's CLARENCE, WAS HE JACK THE RIPPER? seems to have been slapped together too hastily, presumably to take advantage of the then current popular theory of Dr. Stowell that the Duke of Clarence was the Ripper (Harrison wrote the book in the early 1970s). The subsequent work on the Clarence - Gull - "Mason Conspiracy" by Stephen Knight has been shown to have tainted research. The earlier work by Donald McCormick has many suspicious holes in it (his "Pedechenko" theory got a sly boost from himself, when in one old Encyclopedia he wrote the entry about the Ripper and sited the Pedechenko theory as a done deal). Other weak books are Fred Spiering's and "LIGHT HEARTED FRIEND. And while I have a curiosity about theories concerning known murderers who have been recommended as the Ripper (the "unholy trio" of Deeming, Cream, and Chapman, or Bury or even Mrs. Pearcey), a book connecting the Ripper with the Theo Durrant Case in San Francisco in 1895 is quite hard to believe (the author seems to feel that Theo did not kill the two women in San Francisco for whom he was hung - instead it was the minister of the church Theo belonged to). So, I will admit that I find many of the books weak.
At the same time, I am speaking from a point of weakness. I have never formulated any theory of my own on the Ripper - so perhaps it is not fair to attack any writer who took the time to present a theory. My strength (if I may call it that) is to look at aspects of the case, and do small scale essays tackling them. This may be small potatos, but it satisfies me in shedding some light on what is going on in this mystery. It also gives me a freedom of movement in examing the entire case. If I should ever write a book on the Whitechapel Murder, it will be a book of essays, not a retelling of the story, a la Sugden, Rumbelow, Fido, or my friend Ivor (particularly going into one point of view). I would not come out to speak of D'Onston except to look (if I could) on his contact with say Victoria Woodhull and Tennessee
Claffin - something like that.
The brief comment I made on the Casebook was that unlike the bulk of the previous comments on that thread there was a way of looking positively at even the worst books. THEY ALL ENCOURAGE SCHOLARSHIP INTO VICTORIAN AND EDWARDIAN ENGLAND!! One of the worst ones was Fred Spiering's book PRINCE JACK, where he opted for the theory that Clarence worked together with James Kenneth Stephen as Jack the Ripper.
But I found that Spiering included a large detailed bibliography in the back. That I found was useful and good (even if the book was bad). I also pointed out that the various theories invited further investigation into arcane areas of 19th Century studies.
Cornwall may have gone too far in naming Walter Sickert, but her
emphasis on him has reawaken interest in that artist and his work. Similarly Michael Harrison reminded us of the long forgotten literary career of James Kenneth Stephen. The "Diary" controversy is going on and on, but one side effect is reminding us of the still considerably controversial Maybrick Poisoning Mystery of 1889. Not Whitechapel, perhaps, but 1) was James the victim of poisoning or of illness, and 2) if it was poisoning did Florence do it? The study on the career of Theo Durrant may be
nonsense to me, but it reopened further interest in his odd case and his odd family - recently I purchased a recently published book about Theo's sister Maud Allan, the notorious dancer whose career was smashed by aviation pioneer and right wing politician Noel Pemberton Billing in a 1918 British trial (where Theo's career was gleefully used to help smash Maud). However, that book
(WILDE'S LAST STAND by Philip Hoare) in mentioning Jack the Ripper cites the theory about Dr. Francis Tumblety - he spells his last name as "Tomblety" but that may be an error of proof reading.
My point is fairly obvious - no matter how questionable a historical theory may be, it can be of use to later researchers. An old book, when reread may reawaken a point of view long forgotten, or a set of facts or witnesses unlooked at, or reawaken interest in a long lost figure - how many people rememberd Montague John Druitt before Farson's book - and how much more do we know of him in 2004 than in 1960? So I may
dislike the presented theories, but I will not despise the usefulness of the work.
Jeff
The thread was about what was the worst Ripper books. Leading the pact seemed to be Patricia Cornwall's study of Sickert, but people mentioned other titles. I do feel that certain studies are questionable and weak. Michael Harrison's CLARENCE, WAS HE JACK THE RIPPER? seems to have been slapped together too hastily, presumably to take advantage of the then current popular theory of Dr. Stowell that the Duke of Clarence was the Ripper (Harrison wrote the book in the early 1970s). The subsequent work on the Clarence - Gull - "Mason Conspiracy" by Stephen Knight has been shown to have tainted research. The earlier work by Donald McCormick has many suspicious holes in it (his "Pedechenko" theory got a sly boost from himself, when in one old Encyclopedia he wrote the entry about the Ripper and sited the Pedechenko theory as a done deal). Other weak books are Fred Spiering's and "LIGHT HEARTED FRIEND. And while I have a curiosity about theories concerning known murderers who have been recommended as the Ripper (the "unholy trio" of Deeming, Cream, and Chapman, or Bury or even Mrs. Pearcey), a book connecting the Ripper with the Theo Durrant Case in San Francisco in 1895 is quite hard to believe (the author seems to feel that Theo did not kill the two women in San Francisco for whom he was hung - instead it was the minister of the church Theo belonged to). So, I will admit that I find many of the books weak.
At the same time, I am speaking from a point of weakness. I have never formulated any theory of my own on the Ripper - so perhaps it is not fair to attack any writer who took the time to present a theory. My strength (if I may call it that) is to look at aspects of the case, and do small scale essays tackling them. This may be small potatos, but it satisfies me in shedding some light on what is going on in this mystery. It also gives me a freedom of movement in examing the entire case. If I should ever write a book on the Whitechapel Murder, it will be a book of essays, not a retelling of the story, a la Sugden, Rumbelow, Fido, or my friend Ivor (particularly going into one point of view). I would not come out to speak of D'Onston except to look (if I could) on his contact with say Victoria Woodhull and Tennessee
Claffin - something like that.
The brief comment I made on the Casebook was that unlike the bulk of the previous comments on that thread there was a way of looking positively at even the worst books. THEY ALL ENCOURAGE SCHOLARSHIP INTO VICTORIAN AND EDWARDIAN ENGLAND!! One of the worst ones was Fred Spiering's book PRINCE JACK, where he opted for the theory that Clarence worked together with James Kenneth Stephen as Jack the Ripper.
But I found that Spiering included a large detailed bibliography in the back. That I found was useful and good (even if the book was bad). I also pointed out that the various theories invited further investigation into arcane areas of 19th Century studies.
Cornwall may have gone too far in naming Walter Sickert, but her
emphasis on him has reawaken interest in that artist and his work. Similarly Michael Harrison reminded us of the long forgotten literary career of James Kenneth Stephen. The "Diary" controversy is going on and on, but one side effect is reminding us of the still considerably controversial Maybrick Poisoning Mystery of 1889. Not Whitechapel, perhaps, but 1) was James the victim of poisoning or of illness, and 2) if it was poisoning did Florence do it? The study on the career of Theo Durrant may be
nonsense to me, but it reopened further interest in his odd case and his odd family - recently I purchased a recently published book about Theo's sister Maud Allan, the notorious dancer whose career was smashed by aviation pioneer and right wing politician Noel Pemberton Billing in a 1918 British trial (where Theo's career was gleefully used to help smash Maud). However, that book
(WILDE'S LAST STAND by Philip Hoare) in mentioning Jack the Ripper cites the theory about Dr. Francis Tumblety - he spells his last name as "Tomblety" but that may be an error of proof reading.
My point is fairly obvious - no matter how questionable a historical theory may be, it can be of use to later researchers. An old book, when reread may reawaken a point of view long forgotten, or a set of facts or witnesses unlooked at, or reawaken interest in a long lost figure - how many people rememberd Montague John Druitt before Farson's book - and how much more do we know of him in 2004 than in 1960? So I may
dislike the presented theories, but I will not despise the usefulness of the work.
Jeff