I've read Fernando's article in The Carrollian 8 (The Consumption of the Snark
and the
Decline of Nonsense: A Medico-Linguistic Reading of Carroll's 'Fitful Agony'). I
wouldn't
say that it covers the same ground as my post. While Fernando's article makes
many clever
connections between the Snark, pigs, and consumption, my post is a purely
etymological
discussion. I do not think there any etymological connection between the words
"snark"
and "pig" - which is what I inferred from Fernando's comment below, but perhaps
is not
what he intended.

The article does mention a word I was not aware of: "snarker" meaning "cinder".

I must point out an inaccuracy, but this is not Fernando's fault, but rather the
fault of Skeat's An Etymological Dictionary of the English Language. The
derivation of "wight" from
Old English "wegan" is not the correct one, as I understand it. "Wight" is
understood to be
derived from Proto-Indo-European *wekti- "thing, creature", while OE "wegan" is
from
Proto-Indo-European *wegh- "to go".


> --- In lewiscarroll@yahoogroups.com, fernando soto <ferjsoto42@> wrote:
> >
> > Hi Mahendra,
> >
> > I found you post, with link, interesting.  However, I
> > don't know why this person would go over almost
> > exactly the same ground my article on 'The Snark'
> > covered almost a decade ago.  I guess neither you nor
> > he have read this long. scholarly paper in The
> > Carrollian, #8.  Moreover, I uncovered the very word
> > Snark - a very ancient word - in my researches.  I
> > attempt to give internal reasons why some of the
> > etymological meanings were likely chosen and why the
> > word "Snark", likely not primarily a portmanteau word
> > - was chosen by LC.  In addition, I think I solidly
> > ground the word Snark in the word "pig"; therefore, as
> > you may already know, I don't at all accept that these
> > connections were done at a subconscious level,
> > particularly by someone as "ultrarationalist" and
> > driven by a "rage for order" as Carroll was.   So I am
> > glad you find this type of research interesting, but I
> > guess I must tell you that "it's been done before".
> >
> > All best,
> >
> > Fernando
>

Hi,

I guess I am the one that now doesn't quite
understand.

Because this was posted to the LC group list, I
thought that anything post 1876 (5?) was not to be
considered; otherwise we would likely accept the OED
definition and trace things back to Carroll.

  As far as I can tell, in my article I covered the
meanings associated with the words snirt, sniff,
snark, snork, snort, snur, snurt, snot, snat, snork,
snark, etc.  While these words are not pursued to
their "original roots," I doubt whether we can dismiss
their source as not being "etymological".  In the
etymology provided in that web-page, a very similar
method is employed as the one in my paper: providing
not only roots/words, but possible meanings that link
the roots/words to each other.  In the Dictionary of
Early English the author does trace the route some of
these words took through the centuries.  If this is
accepted, this DEE definition covers most of the
possible pre-1876 definitions in the webpage by John.
If the words "snork" and "Snark are interchangeable,
then all of the grunting and snout definitions seem to
point to pigs.  Moreover, if a snorker is a "young
pig," it stands to reason that a "snarker" is likely
one too, though this is not included in the
definition.  However, if by "etymology" we mean only
the tracing of roots to their "origins," then I agree
with john that "Snark" and "pig" do not share the same
root(s).  It is "snorker", "snork" and "snark" that
do.  It is in this chain that a snorker/pig is a
"snark".

The criticism of Skeat's assumptions are very likely
right, but they don't seem to have any impact on my
arguments.  In this case it isn't that important what
the true root of "wight" is, but only what it was
thought to be previuous to the writing/publishing of
'The Snark'..  As well, I rely mainly on the "creaure"
aspect of the definition, so if Skeat is off on "to
go", that's fine.

There is no comment on the fact that I seem to be the
first LC scholar to have dug up the word "snark," a
word predating Carroll's use.  This seems to point
away from a portmanteau.  Similarly, I don't see a
mention in the web-page to the definition of "snark"
as "the snuff of a candle", surely an important
definition for 'The Snark', whose protagonist is
called "candle ends" and who is snuffed out by the end
of the poem.  No mention is made of the snicker
meanings, as in Carroll had a hell of a long snicker,
almost a century and a half, while his readers were
sent off on this literary Hunting of the Gowk.

Note should probably be taken of Skeat's "Aryan Roots"
near the back of his Dictionaries.  Here he has the
"root" Snark", meaning "to twist, entwine, make a
noose;" and "sna" and "snu" "to bathe, swim, float,
flow."

All best,

Fernando


--- John Anderson <goofy@...> wrote:

> I've read Fernando's article in The Carrollian 8
> (The Consumption of the Snark and the
> Decline of Nonsense: A Medico-Linguistic Reading of
> Carroll's 'Fitful Agony'). I wouldn't
> say that it covers the same ground as my post. While
> Fernando's article makes many clever
> connections between the Snark, pigs, and
> consumption, my post is a purely etymological
> discussion. I do not think there any etymological
> connection between the words "snark"
> and "pig" - which is what I inferred from Fernando's
> comment below, but perhaps is not
> what he intended.
>
> The article does mention a word I was not aware of:
> "snarker" meaning "cinder".
>
> I must point out an inaccuracy, but this is not
> Fernando's fault, but rather the fault of Skeat's An
> Etymological Dictionary of the English Language. The
> derivation of "wight" from
> Old English "wegan" is not the correct one, as I
> understand it. "Wight" is understood to be
> derived from Proto-Indo-European *wekti- "thing,
> creature", while OE "wegan" is from
> Proto-Indo-European *wegh- "to go".
>
>
> > --- In lewiscarroll@yahoogroups.com, fernando soto
> <ferjsoto42@> wrote:
> > >
> > > Hi Mahendra,
> > >
> > > I found you post, with link, interesting.
> However, I
> > > don't know why this person would go over almost
> > > exactly the same ground my article on 'The
> Snark'
> > > covered almost a decade ago.  I guess neither
> you nor
> > > he have read this long. scholarly paper in The
> > > Carrollian, #8.  Moreover, I uncovered the very
> word
> > > Snark - a very ancient word - in my researches.
> I
> > > attempt to give internal reasons why some of the
> > > etymological meanings were likely chosen and why
> the
> > > word "Snark", likely not primarily a portmanteau
> word
> > > - was chosen by LC.  In addition, I think I
> solidly
> > > ground the word Snark in the word "pig";
> therefore, as
> > > you may already know, I don't at all accept that
> these
> > > connections were done at a subconscious level,
> > > particularly by someone as "ultrarationalist"
> and
> > > driven by a "rage for order" as Carroll was.
> So I am
> > > glad you find this type of research interesting,
> but I
> > > guess I must tell you that "it's been done
> before".
> > >
> > > All best,
> > >
> > > Fernando
> >
>
>
>
>


      
________________________________________________________________________________\
____
Never miss a thing.  Make Yahoo your home page.
http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs

The following website is an instruction for setting up a website.
http://homepages.westminster.org.uk/it_new/web/html/html.asp
However, if you scroll down, you will find that the pictorial example
they use is obviously of The Beaver with the rest of the Crew in the
background.  I believe that I am aware of every illustrator's
interpretation of the characters in THOTS but I cannot source this
one.  I have communicated with Westminster School IT Department and
asked them from where they obtainbed this pic but they cannot remember
(and are not particularly anxious to help).  Can any Member of this
site assist??? (with or without Care or Hope)!  Doug H

New  site recommendation:

In the Shadow of the Dreamchild 

"the book that changed the way we think about Lewis Carroll..."

That is very interesting association indeed. "His ability to think
logically enabled him to travel along a line of illogic with perfect
logic". I think spock of Star Trek fame would find this statement
very....ehm.....logical too!! :) :)

Robert.


--- In lewiscarroll@yahoogroups.com, "yoestyle" <mail@...> wrote:
>
> Lewis Carroll is the original Monty Python. His ability to think
> logically enabled him to travel along a line of illogic with perfect
> logic.
>
> There are innumerable instances in the Monty Python series that are
> reminiscent of Lewis Carroll's absurd humour. On the other hand, you
> could  transpose a scene from one of the Alice books into a Python
> sketch and find that it fits in very well. Take, for example,
Alice's
> meeting with the White Knight who confounds her with four different
> titles for his song, depending on whether it is the name of the
song,
> what the name of the song is called, what the song is called and
what
> the song really is.
>
> The above is taken from the Lewis Carroll appreciation page I set up
> recently on: www.oxfordstorypods.com
> I would like to post similar observations or personal/humorous
> insights about Lewis Carroll, your first experience of his books,
etc.
> from any LC fans. It would be nice especially to receive them before
> the 27th of this month, the day on which Carroll was born.
> Please send any contributions via the Contact Us page on
> www.oxfordstorypods.com. Thank you!
>

Hello. I'm new to this group and I happen to work and live in Rome at
International House. I know where (the ancient) via Appia is, but I
have never been to that particular b&b before. I'll see if I can check
it out personally....you've got me curious now. Thank you.

Robert.

--- In lewiscarroll@yahoogroups.com, "jenny2write" <woolf@...> wrote:
>
> Happy New Year, everyone!  I have just come across the Alice in
> Wonderland b&b in Rome. It's had very good reviews indeed on
> tripadvisor.com  I just wondered how it got its name and what it's
> like. So, any Romans on this list? maybe you can check it out and
tell
> us what it is like. They give the address of Via Appia Nuova 138.
Jenny
>

Here is a link that might be worth clicking.
http://www.romeby.com/aliceinwonderland/pages/profile.htm

--- In lewiscarroll@yahoogroups.com, "jenny2write" <woolf@...> wrote:
>
> Happy New Year, everyone!  I have just come across the Alice in
> Wonderland b&b in Rome. It's had very good reviews indeed on
> tripadvisor.com  I just wondered how it got its name and what it's
> like. So, any Romans on this list? maybe you can check it out and
tell
> us what it is like. They give the address of Via Appia Nuova 138.
Jenny
>

A happy belated b-day Mr. Carroll. Thank you for giving me joy
through reading your stories.

Robert

--- In lewiscarroll@yahoogroups.com, "pleasanceone" <pigbaby@...>
wrote:
>
> On this day 176 years ago near the small village of Daresbury a
child
> was born, the third child and first son of a young man and his
wife.
> The child did not grow up to be a king, or a prime minister, he was
not
> a revolutionary nor an army general. In fact his life was fairly
> ordinary.
> And yet without him the world would not be the same. Whether one
would
> call him "great" might be a matter of opinion, but I do not think
> anyone could say that he was unimportant. He taught us the
importance
> of books WITH pictures and conversations, that there is always time
for
> tea, and that they really all just a pack of cards.
>
> So charge up your glasses with sawdust and sand
> And anything else that is ready to hand
> Come stand on the tables and shout down the hall
> Happy Birthday Mr Dodgson,three cheers from us all.
>
> hooray! hooray! hooray!
>

That's very interesting about Liddell

--- In lewiscarroll@yahoogroups.com, "Keith" <keith@...> wrote:
>
> It's 110 years tomorrow (today in some places now) on 14th January
that CLD died at 'The Chestnuts' in Guildford.
>
> Just now been watching 'Time Team' (as archaeology prog) and they
were digging a Roman fort in Binchester where Alice's father Dean
Liddell was born on Feb 6th 1811.
>
> Strange characters both of them. One a dean who should never have
took holy orders and the other a pseudo reverend who should have left
Ch. Ch. and become a writer if only he had had the nerve to leave the
useless place he was in! Liddell was said by Ruskin to be the best
artist England never had.
>
> Keith
>

Lewis Carroll's open mind would have loved this...:) :) :)
http://www.romeby.com/aliceinwonderland/pages/profile.htm

Now curiosity really killed the cat....I'd like to know that too:)

--- In lewiscarroll@yahoogroups.com, "jenny2write" <woolf@...> wrote:
>
> Does anyone know of anything Carroll wrote or said which actually
gives
> his views about what Oxford itself was like? I have seen "The
Deserted
> Parks" of course and read various other comments about university
> politics, but what did he think of the town itself?  Jenny
>

Thanks for the link.  Wonder what it has to do with Alice in Wonderland
mind you.... ;-)
Jenny

--- In lewiscarroll@yahoogroups.com, "dragstripfreaky"
<dragstripfreaky@...> wrote:
>
> Lewis Carroll's open mind would have loved this...:) :) :)
> http://www.romeby.com/aliceinwonderland/pages/profile.htm
>

How do I know if it's his book and not a copy from other companies? I
have Alice A. in w.land. Would there be his writing somewhere in it
(like his name?) or when was it first wrote the story and where?

I just thought of posting this link for people who would like to pay
homage to a great man and writer.

Robert

--- In lewiscarroll@yahoogroups.com, "jenny2write" <woolf@...> wrote:
>
> Thanks for the link.  Wonder what it has to do with Alice in
Wonderland
> mind you.... ;-)
> Jenny
>
> --- In lewiscarroll@yahoogroups.com, "dragstripfreaky"
> <dragstripfreaky@> wrote:
> >
> > Lewis Carroll's open mind would have loved this...:) :) :)
> > http://www.romeby.com/aliceinwonderland/pages/profile.htm
> >
>

Hi Adele, that's an interesting read you found there....the sad thing
(or maybe not :)) is that it's all still wrapped in mystery.,

Rob

--- In lewiscarroll@yahoogroups.com, "Adele Cammarata"
<adelecammarata@...> wrote:
>
> Hi all,
> I was surfing on the net and found out this piece of info about
Cheshire Cat
> s origins....
>
> http://www.purr-n-fur.org.uk/fabled/cheshire/cheshirecat.html
>
> Enjoy,
> Adele
>

----- Original Message -----

From: dragstripfreaky

To: lewiscarroll@yahoogroups.com

Sent: Monday, February 25, 2008 9:00 AM

Subject: [lewiscarroll] Re: Cheshire Cat

Hi Adele, that's an interesting read you found there....the sad thing
(or maybe not :)) is that it's all still wrapped in mystery.,

Rob

--- In lewiscarroll@yahoogroups.com, "Adele Cammarata"
<adelecammarata@...> wrote:
>
> Hi all,
> I was surfing on the net and found out this piece of info about
Cheshire Cat
> s origins....
>
> http://www.purr-n-fur.org.uk/fabled/cheshire/cheshirecat.html
>
> Enjoy,
> Adele
>

---

No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.5.516 / Virus Database: 269.20.9/1295 - Release Date: 23/02/2008 21:35

I just got Lewis Carroll - Complete Works in pdf format and it has a
lost chapter of the second Alice book where she talks to a testy wasp.
Supposedly, Tenniel couldn't get an image for this chapter so he asked
Carroll to drop it and Carroll did.
Does anybody have any info on this subject?  This is the very first
time I ever hear of a "lost" actually dropped Alice chapter.

----- Original Message -----

From: hoyeru00

To: lewiscarroll@yahoogroups.com

Sent: Monday, February 25, 2008 2:35 PM

Subject: [lewiscarroll] "Lost" Alice through the looking glass chapter

I just got Lewis Carroll - Complete Works in pdf format and it has a
lost chapter of the second Alice book where she talks to a testy wasp.
Supposedly, Tenniel couldn't get an image for this chapter so he asked
Carroll to drop it and Carroll did.
Does anybody have any info on this subject? This is the very first
time I ever hear of a "lost" actually dropped Alice chapter.

---

No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.5.516 / Virus Database: 269.20.9/1295 - Release Date: 23/02/2008 21:35

>
> It's documented in his diaries - suggest you read them.

Nothing about a wasp in a wig in his diaries Keith, although Tenniel
wrote a letter to him about it, I think, saying it was un-
illustrateable. And I can't spot anything about removing a chapter in
the diaries either, but perhaps I missed it.

This "missing" chapter was rediscovered (apparently) in proof form some
years ago. I think the book that reprinted the chapter was put out by
the Lewis Carroll Soc of N America. Sorry, don't have papers to hand
here but I am sure someone knows the book I mean!

It's controversial as to whether the chapter is really by carroll as it
has not got a reliable provenance - but unfortunately I think it is his
because corrections are in his handwriting. Morton Cohen is also
convinced it is genuine. The chapter is absolutely no loss to the book,
which would have been much weaker if it had remained in.

----- Original Message -----

From: jenny2write

To: lewiscarroll@yahoogroups.com

Sent: Monday, February 25, 2008 1:49 PM

Subject: [lewiscarroll] Re: "Lost" Alice through the looking glass chapter

>
> It's documented in his diaries - suggest you read them.

Nothing about a wasp in a wig in his diaries Keith, although Tenniel
wrote a letter to him about it, I think, saying it was un-
illustrateable. And I can't spot anything about removing a chapter in
the diaries either, but perhaps I missed it.

This "missing" chapter was rediscovered (apparently) in proof form some
years ago. I think the book that reprinted the chapter was put out by
the Lewis Carroll Soc of N America. Sorry, don't have papers to hand
here but I am sure someone knows the book I mean!

It's controversial as to whether the chapter is really by carroll as it
has not got a reliable provenance - but unfortunately I think it is his
because corrections are in his handwriting. Morton Cohen is also
convinced it is genuine. The chapter is absolutely no loss to the book,
which would have been much weaker if it had remained in.

The "Suppressed episode" was first published in 1977 and copies can
be had from booksellers on http://www.abebooks.com.

It's also in The Annotated Alice
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Annotated-Alice-L-Carroll/dp/0393048470/evertype-21
by Martin Gardner
--
Michael Everson * http://www.evertype.com

----- Original Message -----

From: jenny2write

To: lewiscarroll@yahoogroups.com

Sent: Monday, February 25, 2008 5:49 PM

Subject: [lewiscarroll] Re: "Lost" Alice through the looking glass chapter

>
> It's documented in his diaries - suggest you read them.

Nothing about a wasp in a wig in his diaries Keith, although Tenniel
wrote a letter to him about it, I think, saying it was un-
illustrateable. And I can't spot anything about removing a chapter in
the diaries either, but perhaps I missed it.

This "missing" chapter was rediscovered (apparently) in proof form some
years ago. I think the book that reprinted the chapter was put out by
the Lewis Carroll Soc of N America. Sorry, don't have papers to hand
here but I am sure someone knows the book I mean!

It's controversial as to whether the chapter is really by carroll as it
has not got a reliable provenance - but unfortunately I think it is his
because corrections are in his handwriting. Morton Cohen is also
convinced it is genuine. The chapter is absolutely no loss to the book,
which would have been much weaker if it had remained in.

---

No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.5.516 / Virus Database: 269.21.0/1296 - Release Date: 24/02/2008 12:19

> ----- Original Message -----
> From: jenny2write
> To: lewiscarroll@yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Monday, February 25, 2008 5:49 PM
> Subject: [lewiscarroll] Re: "Lost" Alice through the looking glass chapter
>
> It's controversial as to whether the chapter is really by carroll as it
> has not got a reliable provenance - but unfortunately I think it is his
> because corrections are in his handwriting.

Mmm....but then even a stupid forger would try and make it look like his writing wouldn't they? And a good forger would probably succeed (I'm thinking of Hofmann's work in particular). The sample is so very small, just a couple of words, it would be fairly difficult to be sure of the authenticity without minute examination. In fact a few handwritten words added to a printed document is  a very common device used by forgers to offer a seeming badge of authenticity.

 

>Morton Cohen is also
> convinced it is genuine.

Yes, but you know the Library of Congress was convinced the  Oath of a Freeman was genuine. But Mark Hofmann made it in his kitchen.  If he hadn't been exposed when he was they'd have bought it for $250,000, and still be exhibiting it as one of their most prized artefacts.  Unfortunately expert opinion is worth only so much in detecting fakes.

Until the Wasp  has been checked out it has to remain an unknown quantity.  We came as near as damn it to getting that done once -  we were in touch with the then-owner who was sympathetic, and had located people prepared to do the analysis . But then it was sold again and we lost track of it.  No idea who owns it at the moment. Any info anyone?

 

>The chapter is absolutely no loss to the book,
> which would have been much weaker if it had remained in.

Agreed!  Whoever did it - it's awful!

Mike wrote:
<Until the Wasp  has been checked out it has to remain an unknown
quantity.  We came as near as damn it to getting that done once -  we
were in touch with the then-owner who was sympathetic, and had
located people prepared to do the analysis . But then it was sold
again and we lost track of it.  No idea who owns it at the moment.
Any info anyone?>

I wrote an article called "The Authentic Wasp" for Knight Letter,
Winter 2003.  I collected all the things people thought suspect about
the galleys, and handled them each one by one.  I was able to pretty
much squash all of these things, except for one.

The only thing I couldn't squash completely was the fact that the
thing was sold anonymously.  But, as I argue in my essay, so what!
Thousands of rarities are sold anonymously at auctions every year.
There are myriad reasons people wish to keep their names out of the
catalogs.  It is not enough to question the authenticity of this
document just because it was sold anonymously.  Worrity! Worrity!
Not me.

It is true that the auction description of the item had an incorrect
statement that the piece was bought at the original auction of
Carroll's estate. But that sounds exactly like something a family
selling the piece---after let's say, the owner died---would get wrong.

You have to remember that the document had the episode happening
after the White Knight Chapter where all commentators beforehand
thought the episode was earlier in the book.  I refer here to
Alexander Taylor and Derek Hudson, the latter actually stating the
earlier location as a fact.  Selwyn Goodacre also put it there, but
his paper was not published.  (Rodney Engen, actually puts it there
even though he was writing in 1991.  He needs to update his
library!)

The forger would have been bold to go against Hudson, having to
gamble that Hudson was making a mistake, and that evidence did not
exist for the earlier placement, evidence Hudson may have had but
didn't spell out.

It's quite remarkable that he did that.

Only after the auction in 1977 were items found that supported the
supposed forger's placement of the episode later in the book.  These
were the Illustration Plan for Looking-Glass, clearly showing where a
Wasp was to be drawn.  This was published for the first time in
1992.  If the forger had such a document, he would have probably been
bold enough to start with "Chapter IX".  Why not?

The second item found to support the later placement was one that I
published for the first time for my article.  It is an early content
page for Looking-Glass.  It shows the titles for all the chapters but
leaves a blank for "Chapter X."  Clearly this was where Wasp was
supposed to be, after a chapter originally called "Check!"  If the
supposed forger only had this document, he would have been bold
enough to call the chapter "Chapter X".  Why not?

He acts as if he knew of both of these unpublished pieces, and
dropped the whole idea of it being a chapter.  The forger must have
had some document to go against what he no doubt researched, Hudson,
and all else.  He had to have something!

He was also bold enough to do a rather short chapter, when Looking-
Glass has chapters of a pretty uniform length (not including the last
three).  (I'm still not sure if it was a chapter or an episode,
something I discuss in my article.  One earlier chapter, Wool and
Water, was originally two short chapters, supporting the idea that
Wasp could be a short chapter.)

So we have a forger who knew one of these documents and was lucky
enough to create a forgery that did not contradict the other
document.  Or we have a forger that had some other document and was
lucky enough to create a forgery that did not contradict anything
found since.

He had to have something.  And that something would probably be worth
something at auction too.  But nothing of the sort has ever been sold.

In short, the document has stood up to later finds.  That would be
remarkable if a forger created this.  Do we have a forger who was
dumb enough to not check auction lists but smart enough to go to
Harvard and Christ Church?  He also would have to visit plenty of
other libraries just in case something was there too!

I see no reason at all to test this document.

Matt Demakos

Matt, welcome back.  It's been a long time.

To deal first with your (almost unbelievable) last sentence:  The
point of having it tested would be to find out whether it's genuine.
The more convinced you are that it's genuine the more anxious you
should be to have the tests done in order to prove yourself right.
It would also of course add considerably to the thing's market value,
which makes it all the more strange that successive owners (if they
have been as confident as you are, and as they have said) have been
so reluctant.

Really there's no more to be said.  You think it's genuine and I tend
to think probably not, and neither of us will know any more until and
unless the piece can be identified and tested.  (Or, to be more
exact - I can see good reasons for doubting the piece's authenticity,
on the limited evidence currently available, and would like to see
further tests done to establish the truth one way or the other; you
on the other hand know you're right and know there's no point in
proving yourself right because, well, you already know you're right.
If only the Library of Congress had had you on hand to advise on 'The
Oath of a Freeman').

However, for the benefit of anyone who is interested (and who missed
the earlier debates here), here is a quick summary of the reasons for
doubt:

1) Provenance (the first thing a real forgery expert looks for and
the thing which makes him/her most suspicious).  The provenance isn't
just anonymous, it's fallacious.  The piece is claimed to have been
sold with the rest of Dodgson's effects immediately following his
death in 1898.  No such item appears in the sale catalogue.

2) The abysmal quality of the writing.  I find it hard to believe
that CLD, then at the height of his powers, could not only have
written this garbage but considered it fit for publication.  (Besides
the sheer quality, the style and the characterisation are all wrong,
and it pastiches other parts of the Alice books in a way that real
writers don't).

3) The point Matt dwells on at such very great length, that the piece
comes in exactly the place in the full text where the illustration
plan says it should.  Just one problem here - it doesn't.  Count the
words in the galleys, compare the wordlength with that of the
published TTLG, and by the numbers on the galleys the 'Wasp' should
come BEFORE the White Knight chapter, not after.  (Selwyn Goodacre
did the maths when the Wasp first emerged - see the Lewis Carroll
Society's Wasp Symposium special.)

If anyone is interested in revisiting the more detailed arguments
used by Matt and myself among others in earlier debates I would
recommend a wordsearch of the archives.  (Looking back myself, I find
a few posts around May 1 2000 and a whole string in Dec 2002-Jan
2003).

All the best

Mike
>
> I wrote an article called "The Authentic Wasp" for Knight Letter,
> Winter 2003.  I collected all the things people thought suspect
about
> the galleys, and handled them each one by one.  I was able to
pretty
> much squash all of these things, except for one.
>
> The only thing I couldn't squash completely was the fact that the
> thing was sold anonymously.  But, as I argue in my essay, so what!
> Thousands of rarities are sold anonymously at auctions every year.
> There are myriad reasons people wish to keep their names out of the
> catalogs.  It is not enough to question the authenticity of this
> document just because it was sold anonymously.  Worrity! Worrity!
> Not me.
>
> It is true that the auction description of the item had an
incorrect
> statement that the piece was bought at the original auction of
> Carroll's estate. But that sounds exactly like something a family
> selling the piece---after let's say, the owner died---would get
wrong.
>
> You have to remember that the document had the episode happening
> after the White Knight Chapter where all commentators beforehand
> thought the episode was earlier in the book.  I refer here to
> Alexander Taylor and Derek Hudson, the latter actually stating the
> earlier location as a fact.  Selwyn Goodacre also put it there, but
> his paper was not published.  (Rodney Engen, actually puts it there
> even though he was writing in 1991.  He needs to update his
> library!)
>
> The forger would have been bold to go against Hudson, having to
> gamble that Hudson was making a mistake, and that evidence did not
> exist for the earlier placement, evidence Hudson may have had but
> didn't spell out.
>
> It's quite remarkable that he did that.
>
> Only after the auction in 1977 were items found that supported the
> supposed forger's placement of the episode later in the book.
These
> were the Illustration Plan for Looking-Glass, clearly showing where
a
> Wasp was to be drawn.  This was published for the first time in
> 1992.  If the forger had such a document, he would have probably
been
> bold enough to start with "Chapter IX".  Why not?
>
> The second item found to support the later placement was one that I
> published for the first time for my article.  It is an early
content
> page for Looking-Glass.  It shows the titles for all the chapters
but
> leaves a blank for "Chapter X."  Clearly this was where Wasp was
> supposed to be, after a chapter originally called "Check!"  If the
> supposed forger only had this document, he would have been bold
> enough to call the chapter "Chapter X".  Why not?
>
> He acts as if he knew of both of these unpublished pieces, and
> dropped the whole idea of it being a chapter.  The forger must have
> had some document to go against what he no doubt researched,
Hudson,
> and all else.  He had to have something!
>
> He was also bold enough to do a rather short chapter, when Looking-
> Glass has chapters of a pretty uniform length (not including the
last
> three).  (I'm still not sure if it was a chapter or an episode,
> something I discuss in my article.  One earlier chapter, Wool and
> Water, was originally two short chapters, supporting the idea that
> Wasp could be a short chapter.)
>
> So we have a forger who knew one of these documents and was lucky
> enough to create a forgery that did not contradict the other
> document.  Or we have a forger that had some other document and was
> lucky enough to create a forgery that did not contradict anything
> found since.
>
> He had to have something.  And that something would probably be
worth
> something at auction too.  But nothing of the sort has ever been
sold.
>
> In short, the document has stood up to later finds.  That would be
> remarkable if a forger created this.  Do we have a forger who was
> dumb enough to not check auction lists but smart enough to go to
> Harvard and Christ Church?  He also would have to visit plenty of
> other libraries just in case something was there too!
>
> I see no reason at all to test this document.
>
> Matt Demakos
>

< To deal first with your (almost unbelievable) last sentence: The
point of having it tested would be to find out whether it's genuine. >

It's simple: I find no need to have it tested just like I find no
need to have any random letter tested that was sold anonymously.
There are no red flags here of any considerable size.

< Really there's no more to be said. You think it's genuine and I
tend to think probably not, and neither of us will know any more
until and unless the piece can be identified and tested. (Or, to be
more exact - I can see good reasons for doubting the piece's
authenticity, on the limited evidence currently available, and would
like to see further tests done to establish the truth one way or the
other; you on the other hand know you're right and know there's no
point in proving yourself right because, well, you already know
you're right. >

I see no reason why we can't have a discussion here about it and not
use the "you're bullheaded" accusations.  I, of course, could turn it
around and put that on you.  Let's have a conversation.  There is
plenty to talk about.

< If only the Library of Congress had had you on hand to advise
on 'The Oath of a Freeman'). >

Again, you use the weak argument that just because there was another
case of forgery this could therefore be a forgery.  You could use
this on anything, anytime.  Analogies of this sort are meaningless.
They only say everything should be tested.

< 1) Provenance (the first thing a real forgery expert looks for and
the thing which makes him/her most suspicious). The provenance isn't
just anonymous, it's fallacious. The piece is claimed to have been
sold with the rest of Dodgson's effects immediately following his
death in 1898. No such item appears in the sale catalogue. >

True.  But as I said earlier this is not enough for me to have
concern and it seems to be only a natural, honest mistake.  Plus,
it's a double-edged sword.  Why would a forger make up a fact that
could be proved wrong?  Why not simply be mum on the issue?  Would it
raise the value?  Yes, maybe so.  But I don't think by enough to take
this risk.  This is, admittedly, the only genuine red flag I see
here.  But it isn't enough for me.  No reason to have it tested just
for this.  As I said, families seem to get things like this wrong all
the time.  Jeffery Stern, as I point out in my article (p. 19b),
mentions quite a few letters that point out that goods were sold at
the time of the auction but that were not in the auction.  Therefore,
the piece of misinformation is explainable, and reasonably so.

Also, I have collected many letters from Carroll and know that the
auction catalog often gets details wrong, such as, who the letter was
sent to.  I see no reason why these little "family" errors should
automatically send up a red flag on authenticity.

< 2) The abysmal quality of the writing. I find it hard to believe
that CLD, then at the height of his powers, could not only have
written this garbage but considered it fit for publication. >

It's a galley and by definition that means the writing may not be
fine tuned.  Carroll, like many writers of his day, used galleys to
fine tune the writing, to make deletions, additions, and changes.  We
know Carroll was particularly interested in doing this. Also, it was
deleted from the book so we must expect it to be doubly bad.  You
can't compare, as you seem to be doing, the fine-tuned and published
Looking-Glass with the un-fined-tuned galleys of Wasp.  Apples and
oranges.

By definition and the history that we do know, we must expect it to
be bad.  I think it fits the bill perfectly, by the way.  I can't
agree that it is "garbage" as you state.  That seems to be a
calculated word, said only to bolster your argument.  If it were
indeed garbage, it wouldn't have fooled anyone.  No one I know thinks
it that bad.  If it were "abysmal" as you claim it would not have
been sold at auction twice.

I honestly can't believe that this is an honest assessment of its
value.  Is everyone stupid but you?  It was sold at auction...
twice!  Let's be honest here, it is not garbage nor abysmal.  It may
be subpar or bad but it isn't all that bad.  Carroll was able to
write such a thing.  You say "height of his powers".  This seems to
be added so I can't use the abysmal, garbage of Sylvie and Bruno.
But I think I can.  Sorry, but Carroll was capable of writing garbage.

Perhaps you should point out some of these points about the writing.
I know it is subjective, but what exactly are you talking about
here?

< (Besides the sheer quality, the style and the characterisation are
all wrong, and it pastiches other parts of the Alice books in a way
that real writers don't). >

In my article, "The Authentic Wasp," I list all the similarities with
other episodes that writers have commented on.  I let the reader
judge them for themselves.  I point out that other similarities, even
stronger ones, are presently in the book (p. 17a-b), yes, already in
the book as it stands.  So what is the big deal?  Of the many
complaints about Wasp on this account, only a few are strong enough
for serious mention.

I show that Carroll did pastiche himself as equally here in Wasp as
in other non-Wasp episodes in Looking-Glass.  I had so many such
examples, I actually limited my list to only those that had to do
with the Knight Chapter.

And how, by the way, does this support forgery?  A forger who copies
something from another chapter and amends it would obviously change
the similar words.  One wouldn't leave vestiges of the original.
Doesn't follow.

< 3) The point Matt dwells on at such very great length, that the
piece comes in exactly the place in the full text where the
illustration plan says it should. Just one problem here - it doesn't.
Count the words in the galleys, compare the word length with that of
the published TTLG, and by the numbers on the galleys the 'Wasp'
should come BEFORE the White Knight chapter, not after. (Selwyn
Goodacre did the maths when the Wasp first emerged - see the Lewis
Carroll Society's Wasp Symposium special.) >

You are making several mistakes here.

1) To be exact, Goodacre claims that it comes only 10 pages too
early, not early enough to place it in the spot that other
commentators thought it appeared. That is obviously not enough pages
to place it where the commentators had it.  So your point is lost on
me.  Goodacre would have had to claim it was many more pages than 10
to allow you to make the point you are trying to make here.

2)  Galley pages are not uniform.  I did my homework here.  Some of
the Carroll's galleys at NYU have different size galley sheets even
for the same book.  Look at the Wasp galleys themselves---page 67 is
much shorter than the others!!!  Remember too that Carroll took two
or so years to write this book and the longer he takes the more
variable things can be, especially with galleys; page numbers, paper
sizes, and style, that is, page breaking, chapter breaks, margin
sizes, all can change.  Goodacre's numbers are a perfect world and
galleys by definition are a scramble, used for editing, deletions and
additions.  The Wasp was deleted after all.

In fact, Goodacre never used this as an argument against authenticity
(and neither is Mike).  Being 10 pages too early is not, especially
for galleys and with the issues raised above, any cause for concern.

3) You claim it doesn't come after the White Knight chapter, but ten
pages earlier.  But it isn't the page numbers on the galleys that
show its placement.  Gardner didn't use that to place the episode in
the existing Looking-Glass.  It is the text itself that places it
after the Knight chapter.

Near the end of the Knight chapter we have these words:

"I hope it encouraged him," she said, as she turned to run down the
hill: "and now for the last brook, and to be a Queen! How grand it
sounds!"  A very few steps brought her to the edge of the brook. "The
Eighth Square at last!" she cried as she bounded across…

The Wasp galleys end with these words:

"Good-bye, and thank-ye," said the Wasp, and Alice tripped down the
hill again, quite pleased that she had gone back and given a few
minutes to making the poor old creature comfortable.

So the words "as she turned to run down the hill" in the White Knight
chapter and the words "tripped down the hill again"---note
the "again"---in the Wasp galleys places the episode AFTER the White
Knight chapter.  There may be other textual issues that place the
piece after Knight.

So the whole of your point 3 is miscalculated and does not, by the
evidence and knowledge of what we know of galleys, effectively damage
the point I so "dwell" on.  My "time-line" argument---developed with
Mark Israel but much expanded by me---shows that those who believe
there is some conspiracy here have a lot to answer for.  How did this
forger know more than scholars?  Why was he so brave to do things
that would only draw attention to himself?

This forger knew to place it after Knight and all commentators had it
much earlier than the Knight chapter.  One commentator even had it as
a fact that it occurred much earlier.  If there was a forger he would
have done his homework and read many, many books.  He would have
known that Hudson made such a claim. Why did he go against him?  What
balls!  He must have known something.

Those who believe this thing should be tested need to give better,
more studied and thoughtful reasons for doing so.  I see nothing but
a few minor issues that can be mostly said of anything.  Before we
begin to snip a corner off one of the pages of these galleys and
before we begin to burn it up with some chemical, we need to do make
a full and accurate argument for doing so.  I claim it has not been
made.  We also need to understand the timeline of events and to
properly and affectively respond to what it suggests with a good
understanding of probabilities and coincidences.

Subsequent finds by scholars support the wasp's authenticity.  This
is troublesome for those who suspect it.  It must be explained away
before we take that first snip.

If you are interested in this issue, please seek out my article.  It
was not lightly researched.

Matt