ERDNASE

[lybrary]

2. Generically, an "engineer" is someone who has earned a four-year degree from an accredited Engineering college or university.

In Austria and Germany there a millions of engineers, who are legally entitled to carry the title 'Ing.' for Ingenieur (meaning engineer) who did not go to college or university. They go to a special high-school and after a certain number of years in their profession they are allowed to carry the engineering title. Don't know how the situation was a 100 years ago, but I am sure it wasn't fundamentally different back then than it is today. Thousands of engineers went from Europe to the USA back then. There were all kinds of engineers without four years of college or university.

[Jonathan Townsend]

...The guy who empties the trash in my building calls himself a sanitation engineer. ...

We're not so far away from having accredited universities offering advanced degrees in "Sanitation Engineering". No comment about folks claiming to be magicians.

Let's stick to the text and its context. More evidence, please.

[Bill Mullins]

jkeyes -- my post was specifically in response to Chris's statements that engineers were products of trade schools and apprenticeship, meant to denigrate Sanders. This was demonstrably not so.
Again, if Gallaway wanted to call himself an engineer, he could do so, but if the word has a generally accepted meaning (and I think it does), then nothing about what he did or how he was trained made him an engineer.

We could find and discuss various dictionary definitions, but Engineers are people who practice Engineering, and Engineering is the application of science and technology to solve problems, usually involving the design of machines, devices, processes, or structures. Design is the key word.

Gallaway's books show he did a couple of very specialized things:
1. Optimized the layout of small rectangles on large rectangles, to minimize wast.
2. Counted up the various subprocesses that made up a print job, and multiplied those times their respective unit cost to add up to a total.
No doubt, doing either of these things well took a certain amount of intelligence and specialized knowledge, but it wasn't engineering.

The Donnelley school's own literature refers to its program as a "skilled trade". If you read their description of the program, it is obviously a trade school. It is completed by a half-time student in 3 years. Graduates are "journeymen", a term generally applied to trades or crafts -- not professions. The estimating program that is described by both Chris and Gallaway as "engineering" is completed in a year of one-night-per-week courses.

And none of this is meant to denigrate printing or printers, or to say that engineers or engineering is superior in some way. It is different, and it requires more training and education than Chris is giving it credit for.

[performer]

I found this bit interesting. If Sanders was "to a certain extent wealthy" why would he say in the Erdnase book that he "needed the money"? That doesn't make a lot of sense to me.

The author must have felt he needed to give a reason to his readers for the existence of the book. Declaring that he did it for lack of money is a better reason than saying he wrote it to show off his knowledge of card cheating. As Alexander pointed out, profits from the proceeds of the book sales would not appear for months. Anyone in need of money could not afford to wait months.

Dunno. I appreciate the reasoning but it sounds a bit of a stretch to me.

[jkeyes1000]

I just found the old thread on this forum that says that the copyright file for EATCT gives McKinney's address for "Erdnase".

If Sanders wrote the book, and he had filed for copyright, why would he state the printing house to be his residence?

I think it's fairly obvious that McKinney owned a controlling interest in the book, if not the whole thing. Question is: with whom is he more likely to have been a partner--Sanders or Gallaway (and/or Benedict)?

It appears that whoever wrote the book used a pseudonym to hide his identity. He probably also likely did not use his own address so that the work was less likely to be traced back to him.

It is not an uncommon for authors using pseudonyms to have their publisher apply for the copyright. McKinney was the printer and served a somewhat similar function for this self-published book.

I do not find it fairly obvious that McKinney owned a controlling interest in the book. If he did, why would he not file for the copyright himself?

I think you are making my point for me.

You say, "It is not uncommon for authors using pseudonyms to have THEIR PUBLISHER apply for the copyright. McKinney was the printer and served a somewhat similar function for this self-published book".

In other words, McKinney was the self-publisher.

Most pseudonymous writers these days retain literary agents, so they can keep a low profile and still get paid. The publisher doesn't need to know their names. But I don't think that Erdnase had an agent. If it was Sanders, he is unlikely to have entrusted his work to a complete stranger. If he had copyrighted it, he surely would have given the name and address of someone he could rely on.

And here is another interesting question: As McKinney did go bankrupt several years later, that would have invalidated the address on file at the copyright office. If the author indeed held the copyright, why did he not update the address?

[lybrary]

If he had copyrighted it, he surely would have given the name and address of someone he could rely on.

That is a good point. The relationship between Erdnase and McKinney was more than simply 'here print this book for me'.

And here is another interesting question: As McKinney did go bankrupt several years later, that would have invalidated the address on file at the copyright office. If the author indeed held the copyright, why did he not update his address?

The book was sold to the publisher Drake sometime probably in 1903 maybe earlier. If anybody should have updated the filing it was Drake, but I don't think there was some official process or form to update a copyright registration.

[lybrary]

Gallaway's books show he did a couple of very specialized things:
1. Optimized the layout of small rectangles on large rectangles, to minimize wast.
2. Counted up the various subprocesses that made up a print job, and multiplied those times their respective unit cost to add up to a total.
No doubt, doing either of these things well took a certain amount of intelligence and specialized knowledge, but it wasn't engineering.

That is a very simplified point of view which does not reflect reality. The estimator must make many decisions in terms of how the book is composed, imposed, printed, folded, bound, packaged, delivered, .... Particularly imposition has many options, how many pages per signature, what is their orientation, which printing machines are used and can handle the work, what size of paper. All these decisions impacted downstream decisions in terms of folding signatures and which machines could do the job, or if manual folding was necessary, what form of binding was used, did they need special tipping and pasting worksteps, a.s.o. What types of plates were made if any, how the end product was packaged and delivered. Each decision impacted time and cost, availability of machines, usage of machines, level of spoilage and rework, etc. It is truly a complex task for the estimator to find the best possible process how any particular print job should be handled. Gallaway was correct in calling this engineering.

[jkeyes1000]

If he had copyrighted it, he surely would have given the name and address of someone he could rely on.

That is a good point. The relationship between Erdnase and McKinney was more than simply 'here print this book for me'.

And here is another interesting question: As McKinney did go bankrupt several years later, that would have invalidated the address on file at the copyright office. If the author indeed held the copyright, why did he not update his address?

The book was sold to the publisher Drake sometime probably in 1903 maybe earlier. If anybody should have updated the filing it was Drake, but I don't think there was some official process or form to update a copyright registration.

Are we sure that the copyright ownership was transferred to Drake, or merely the right to reprint the book?

In any case, I find it hard to believe that McKinney served as Sanders' agent. Was McKinney known to be anything other than a printer? Did the company publish books, and did it act on behalf of its clients? If there is no evidence of either, then the Sanders hypothesis is very doubtful.

[Bill Mullins]

In Austria and Germany there a millions of engineers, who are legally entitled to carry the title 'Ing.' for Ingenieur (meaning engineer) who did not go to college or university. They go to a special high-school and after a certain number of years in their profession they are allowed to carry the engineering title. Don't know how the situation was a 100 years ago, but I am sure it wasn't fundamentally different back then than it is today.

And neither Sanders nor Gallaway was German or Austrian, so this doesn't really bear on the discussion.

Americans usually graduate high school at 17 or 18. Don't technical Hochschule graduates attend beyond that age? Isn't it more the equivalent of a community college, than a high school (as Americans understand the term)?

Does the Ing course of study last four years?

Thousands of engineers went from Europe to the USA back then. There were all kinds of engineers without four years of college or university.

I know that one of the more famous German engineers who came to America, Wernher von Braun, didn't even enter Hochschule until age 18, and graduated two years later. Two years after that, he got his doctorate. In America, the doctorate would typically take 4 years (two for Masters, and two more for PhD).

[Jackpot]

You say, "It is not uncommon for authors using pseudonyms to have THEIR PUBLISHER apply for the copyright. McKinney was the printer and served a somewhat similar function for this self-published book".

In other words, McKinney was the self-publisher.

Most pseudonymous writers these days retain literary agents, so they can keep a low profile and still get paid. The publisher doesn't need to know their names. But I don't think that Erdnase had an agent. If it was Sanders, he is unlikely to have entrusted his work to a complete stranger. If he had copyrighted it, he surely would have given the name and address of someone he could rely on.

And here is another interesting question: As McKinney did go bankrupt several years later, that would have invalidated the address on file at the copyright office. If the author indeed held the copyright, why did he not update the address?

No, I am not saying that McKinney is the self-publisher. He was the printer. His firm seems to have performed some of the services a publisher would provide for their customers like filing for the copyright.

I agree with the supposition that Erdnase probably did not use an agent (and probably not an attorney) for this undertaking.

Among a number of reasons for not updating the address, perhaps the author no longer felt the copyright had any real value. The original price was $2. Within a relatively short period of time it was being sold for $1.

[Bill Mullins]

@jkeyes -- Have you read the entire thread? or articles by Richard Hatch (Magic, Dec 1999) or David Alexander (Genii Jan 2000) or Marty Demarest (Genii Sep 2011, which includes a reprint of the David Alexander article)? Or The Man Who Was Erdnase?

The reason I ask is that you are asking questions and speculating about things that seem to indicate you aren't aware of some of what has gone on before (which is a problem inherent to internet discussions that have been going on for fourteen years). At least, check this out: a single-page concatenation of this thread, through mid-October 2015. It captures the beginnings of Chris's campaign for Gallaway, and everything before that. Searching for a specific fact or topic on that page is often helpful.

[jkeyes1000]

@jkeyes -- Have you read the entire thread? or articles by Richard Hatch (Magic, Dec 1999) or David Alexander (Genii Jan 2000) or Marty Demarest (Genii Sep 2011, which includes a reprint of the David Alexander article)? Or The Man Who Was Erdnase?

The reason I ask is that you are asking questions and speculating about things that seem to indicate you aren't aware of some of what has gone on before (which is a problem inherent to internet discussions that have been going on for fourteen years). At least, check this out: a single-page concatenation of this thread, through mid-October 2015. It captures the beginnings of Chris's campaign for Gallaway, and everything before that. Searching for a specific fact or topic on that page is often helpful.

No, Bill. I have not read the entire thread. Even I have better things to do than that.

If I ask a redundant question, feel free to ignore it. My purpose us not so much to learn for my own sake, but to stimulate discussion.

Which questions do you think irrelevant in our present context? Sometimes reviewing old ideas from a slightly different perspective can lead to new conclusions.

[Bill Mullins]

It's not that they are irrelevant.

Are we sure that the copyright ownership was transferred to Drake, or merely the right to reprint the book?

This ground has been covered in depth.
Here is the status of the copyright:
It was applied for in Feb 1902. Richard Hatch got the application from the Library of Congress in 1902. The original pages are linked in this post.

When the copyright came up for renewal, in 1930, no one renewed it.

The application is filled out in the handwriting of S. W. Jamieson, who floats around the edges of this mess. For example, his family published (as Jamieson-Higgins) a book called "Jack Pots" (which Chris thinks may be by Erdnase; I don't) which was printed by McKinney. Richard Hatch made the handwriting discovery, after comparing the copyright application to documents in bankruptcy files associated with McKinney and Jamieson (which are hosted online by Chris, and by the Conjuring Arts Research Center).

The book (Expert) says it was copyrighted in Canada and in England, but this appears not to be so.

That is pretty much everything we "know" about the copyright. Everything else is speculation. We don't know that Drake ever bought the copyright from Erdnase; we do know they started printing their own copies in 1905. They could have licensed the copyright, or purchased it outright, or simply have been pirating the book. Or maybe someone at Drake was in fact Erdnase, and they owned it all along.

My purpose us not so much to learn for my own sake, but to stimulate discussion.

Asking questions because you don't know is one thing, and most participants here would be willing to help out on good-faith questions. But if you are only trying to "stir the pot", it isn't necessary, and it is close to trolling.

And yes, it would take a while to read the entire thread. But if you are interested in the subject, it would be at least as worthwhile as reading The Man Who Was Erdnase, or The Hunt for Erdnase, or Hurt McDermott's book, or the annontations in The Annotated Erdnase. And the thread contains most of the useful information that can be found in those other sources.

[lybrary]

Are we sure that the copyright ownership was transferred to Drake, or merely the right to reprint the book?

We are not sure in the sense that we do not have a document that proofs such transfer has happened. But since Drake is the one who reprints and advertises this book as the only publisher we have to assume the copyrights were transferred to him. And this is not hard to believe since we know from the bankruptcy files that Drake had business with McKinney.

In any case, I find it hard to believe that McKinney served as Sanders' agent. Was McKinney known to be anything other than a printer? Did the company publish books, and did it act on behalf of its clients? If there is no evidence of either, then the Sanders hypothesis is very doubtful.

McKinney was only a printer. They did not advertise any publishing services. They did for example most or all of the printing for the publisher Jamieson-Higgins as well as others, such as Drake.

[lybrary]

And neither Sanders nor Gallaway was German or Austrian, so this doesn't really bear on the discussion.

Many Germans and Austrians emigrated to the US before, during and after Erdnase's time. So I think it is relevant, because they brought their profession and education with them.

Isn't it more the equivalent of a community college, than a high school (as Americans understand the term)?

I don't know how Americans understand the term. These technical high-schools finish with the Matura which is how any high-school in Austria finishes. Yes, they are way harder than a regular high-school, and many are one year longer than a regular high-school, but they are still high-schools.

Since you denigrated the printer's profession that they are not engineers, my father and thousands like him have a legal printing engineer title from a very similar high-school which teaches printing and everything that goes along with it, typesetting, binding, design, etc. Those are all engineers who proudly carry the Ing. title and are respected and appreciated as engineers, despite the fact that you think they are not 'real' engineers. They are. Even though Gallaway did not attend such a school and learned the printing as an apprentice he was just like them. He knew every machine and every type a printing business could have owned, understood the pros and cons, how to use them, what limitations they had, how to best work with them, what cost and work time implications they carried with them, etc.

[Bill Mullins]

Those are all engineers who proudly carry the Ing. title and are respected and appreciated as engineers, despite the fact that you think they are not 'real' engineers. They are.

If Austrians consider your father an engineer, good for them - I won't argue the point. I was responding to your specific comments about engineering in the United States: "I think here in the US many engineers get their education from trade schools." Which is wrong. In America, the job title "engineer" has a specific meaning, and has had that meaning since (more or less) the time of the Civil War. Having attended a printing trade school isn't sufficient to qualify.

If anyone cares, here is how the Federal Government defines an engineer. Note the absence of "printing trade school" in the education qualifications.

BTW, still wondering about the source of the Gallaway quotes mentioned here.

[magicam]

@jkeyes -- Have you read the entire thread [and the other major literature]?

No, Bill. I have not read the entire thread. … Sometimes reviewing old ideas from a slightly different perspective can lead to new conclusions.

You are assuming, without the benefit of having a basic foundation in Erdnase research and theory, that your posts offer a “slightly different perspective” on certain issues.

You’ve avowed a dedication to using words precisely and correctly, so please accept the comments below in the spirit of helping you to understand the modern (and applicable to Erdnase's time) meaning of “publisher” and its association with copyright and copyright owners.

You could say that you "published" a book just by printing it and plunking it down on someone's coffee table, but if you are serious about selling it, you need to distribute it.

You could say that, but you’d be mistaken. As my prior post tried to convey, (1) “publisher” is a longstanding and precisely defined term, and (2) being a distributor is not a requisite component of being a publisher, however commonly those two may be associated historically and in current practice. We don’t know 100% who published Expert, i.e., who paid for the composing, printing, and binding. The reasonable inference is that Erdnase (whoever he was) was the publisher, because that’s what it says on the title page – but it’s just an inference, solid and reasonable though it may seem.

Many naive publishers, new to the business, have gone bankrupt because of inadequate distribution.

In publishing’s long history, I’m sure this has happened along the way, especially to one-off, or “twosies”, author/publishers. Can you kindly provide a few concrete, documented examples of publishers – who aren’t the authors – who have gone bankrupt because of inadequate distribution?

When I said that the combination of copyright holder and printer is effectively the publisher, I meant this individual (or corporation) owns the material. Therefore, he (or it) is responsible for the cost of production and distribution.

Interestingly, your point would be well-taken if it were applied to England up until roughly the end of the 18th century. It was common practice for copyrights to be owned by consortia of booksellers, and absent special arrangements to the contrary, expected that those co-owners paid their pro-rata share of production costs. But since then, as booksellers became modern publishers, i.e., they didn’t actually have a bookshop and focused exclusively on financing books, copyrights increasingly vested with the author (a trend that gained momentum in the latter part of the 18th century). In short, by the time Expert was published, in general book publishing the roles of copyright holder and publisher were very distinct, both legally and in practice, and copyright ownership was not strongly associated with also being the publisher.

[Bill Mullins]

Since you denigrated the printer's profession that they are not engineers,

Your characterization, not mine. If you feel that making it clear that printer and engineering are two different and distinct jobs is denigrating to printers, then it would seem that YOU see engineering as superior in some way. I don't (and explicitly said so). I do say, and have shown, that engineering took more education than printing (at least from the 1880s to the 1920s).

[Leonard Hevia]

Since you denigrated the printer's profession that they are not engineers,

Your characterization, not mine. If you feel that making it clear that printer and engineering are two different and distinct jobs is denigrating to printers, then it would seem that YOU see engineering as superior in some way. I don't (and explicitly said so). I do say, and have shown, that engineering took more education than printing (at least from the 1880s to the 1920s).

Superiority is a continuing subtext in Chris' posts:

1. The superiority of Gallaway as the correct and only viable candidate to be Erdnase.
2. The superiority of his Gallaway e-book product he markets here like an ever going infomercial.
3. The superiority of his intellect, evidenced by his smugness, arrogance, condescending responses and insults hurled left and right.

Like Bill, I am also waiting for the source of those Gallaway quotes, and for that comparative percentage list of those uncommon words used between Gallaway and Erdnase.

[jkeyes1000]

@jkeyes -- Have you read the entire thread [and the other major literature]?

No, Bill. I have not read the entire thread. … Sometimes reviewing old ideas from a slightly different perspective can lead to new conclusions.

You are assuming, without the benefit of having a basic foundation in Erdnase research and theory, that your posts offer a “slightly different perspective” on certain issues.

You’ve avowed a dedication to using words precisely and correctly, so please accept the comments below in the spirit of helping you to understand the modern (and applicable to Erdnase's time) meaning of “publisher” and its association with copyright and copyright owners.

You could say that you "published" a book just by printing it and plunking it down on someone's coffee table, but if you are serious about selling it, you need to distribute it.

You could say that, but you’d be mistaken. As my prior post tried to convey, (1) “publisher” is a longstanding and precisely defined term, and (2) being a distributor is not a requisite component of being a publisher, however commonly those two may be associated historically and in current practice. We don’t know 100% who published Expert, i.e., who paid for the composing, printing, and binding. The reasonable inference is that Erdnase (whoever he was) was the publisher, because that’s what it says on the title page – but it’s just an inference, solid and reasonable though it may seem.

Many naive publishers, new to the business, have gone bankrupt because of inadequate distribution.

In publishing’s long history, I’m sure this has happened along the way, especially to one-off, or “twosies”, author/publishers. Can you kindly provide a few concrete, documented examples of publishers – who aren’t the authors – who have gone bankrupt because of inadequate distribution?

When I said that the combination of copyright holder and printer is effectively the publisher, I meant this individual (or corporation) owns the material. Therefore, he (or it) is responsible for the cost of production and distribution.

Interestingly, your point would be well-taken if it were applied to England up until roughly the end of the 18th century. It was common practice for copyrights to be owned by consortia of booksellers, and absent special arrangements to the contrary, expected that those co-owners paid their pro-rata share of production costs. But since then, as booksellers became modern publishers, i.e., they didn’t actually have a bookshop and focused exclusively on financing books, copyrights increasingly vested with the author (a trend that gained momentum in the latter part of the 18th century). In short, by the time Expert was published, in general book publishing the roles of copyright holder and publisher were very distinct, both legally and in practice, and copyright ownership was not strongly associated with also being the publisher.

I should like to apologise to everyone for not whittling this post down, but I'm afraid I can't manage it with this insufferable smartphone.

I'll be brief.

My point was that, if indeed "Erdnase" published the book--that is to say, the copyright holder--then either the author paid for its production (that would be The Lone Author theory, pertaining to the likes of Sanders), or the author essentially traded his copyright for a printing discount, in which case, "Erdnase", being a pseudonym, might just as well refer to the new copyright owner.

To be clear: suppose Gallaway wrote the gambling portion, and persuaded McKinney to let him set the type and make a certain number of copies for himself (let us say, 1,000). This arrangement would render McKinney both owner and underwriter
The author himself would neither be the publisher, not retain the rights to his own work.

If this is still confusing, I'll go again. But that is basically what I am suggesting.

[Zenner]

Since you denigrated the printer's profession that they are not engineers,

Your characterization, not mine. If you feel that making it clear that printer and engineering are two different and distinct jobs is denigrating to printers, then it would seem that YOU see engineering as superior in some way. I don't (and explicitly said so). I do say, and have shown, that engineering took more education than printing (at least from the 1880s to the 1920s).

Superiority is a continuing subtext in Chris' posts:

1. The superiority of Gallaway as the correct and only viable candidate to be Erdnase.
2. The superiority of his Gallaway e-book product he markets here like an ever going infomercial.
3. The superiority of his intellect, evidenced by his smugness, arrogance, condescending responses and insults hurled left and right.

I had to laugh when I saw that the name "Chris Wasshuber" is just that everywhere we look except when advertising his e-book. There he is "Dr. Chris Wasshuber". Does that make him "superior"? The world's most respected magic historian uses just "Edwin A. Dawes" on his magic books; he saves his "Doctor" and "Professor" titles for the field he earned them in - microbiology.

[performer]

I am amused at all the vitriol expended over the inconsequential matter of who wrote a book written about a hundred years or more ago when the author himself plainly didn't want you all to know in the first place. Indeed I have heard rumblings from the spirit world over the matter. The author himself has been reading this thread and is highly irritated over the matter. In my capacity as a psychic reverend he has been in touch with me and wishes to convey the following message.

"I wrote the book anonymously for a very good reason. I didn't want you to know who I was and I still don't. So mind your own business"

[Leonard Hevia]

I am amused at all the vitriol expended over the inconsequential matter of who wrote a book written about a hundred years or more ago when the author himself plainly didn't want you all to know in the first place.

It's a mystery and people love solving mysteries. Curiosity appears to be hard wired in our brains.

[lybrary]

Superiority is a continuing subtext in Chris' posts:

It isn't hard to be superior to somebody like you who states that there is no difference between authoring and publishing.

[Leonard Hevia]

Superiority is a continuing subtext in Chris' posts:

It isn't hard to be superior to somebody like you who states that there is no difference between authoring and publishing.

Wrong--To say that you "published a paper" implies that the material was submitted to a publisher who subsequently printed it in a journal or book. Obviously, telling a colleague that you "published a paper" does not mean that you are the actual publishing company. This is generally understood.

You relish quibbling over semantics, but I suggest that you focus on providing the source for those Gallaway lines that Bill requested. I would like to see your source for this material as well, otherwise it will appear as if you created it.

[Bill Mullins]

You relish quibbling over semantics, but I suggest that you focus on providing the source for those Gallaway lines that Bill requested. I would like to see your source for this material as well, otherwise it will appear as if you created it.

Leonard -- do you think these are fabricated quotes?

[Leonard Hevia]

You relish quibbling over semantics, but I suggest that you focus on providing the source for those Gallaway lines that Bill requested. I would like to see your source for this material as well, otherwise it will appear as if you created it.

Leonard -- do you think these are fabricated quotes?

Yes--I suspect that those quotes are fabricated. Prior to that, there had been no evidence from Chris that Gallaway had used the word "longitudinal" when Bob pointed out that both Sanders and Erdnase used this uncommon word in their works. That was over a week ago, and suddenly we now see a bevy of Gallaway quotes using this word and no source.

But either way it doesn't matter, Gallaway's syntax just doesn't match Erdnase in any way that stands out.

[Bill Mullins]

Olsson's analysis says "In Expert, for example, there is a paucity of words of Greek origin."

Estimating for Printers has on page 3 the following words of Greek origin: practical, geometry, trigonometry, astronomical, mathematics, hours, theories, diagrams.

Page 4 is not quite so dense with Greek words, but includes: paragraph, paper, authentic.

[jkeyes1000]

Olsson's analysis says "In Expert, for example, there is a paucity of words of Greek origin."

Estimating for Printers has on page 3 the following words of Greek origin: practical, geometry, trigonometry, astronomical, mathematics, hours, theories, diagrams.

Page 4 is not quite so dense with Greek words, but includes: paragraph, paper, authentic.

I seriously doubt that Olsson would consider any of the words you mentioned above to be "of Greek Origin"

Even "axiom" might be disqualified, as it drops the alpha.

Just guessing, mind you, but I would think he meant actual Greek words, which were usually italicised, back then

[Leonard Hevia]

On the use of Latin verbiage, Demarest points out in his Genii article on Sanders:

In The Man Who Was Erdnase, the authors speculate that the spelling of "strategem" on the title page, represents a lack of Greek and Latin education on the part of the author. In fact, just the opposite is true. The word "strategem" derives originally from Greek, passing later ino Latin where it is spelled "strategema." The tendency to spell the word with a second "e" is exactly the sort of mistake that would be made by a man who studied Latin for years on end.

Alexander notes in his Genii article that Sanders was home schooled in Latin as well as German and French, and later received "heavy doses" of Latin at Phillips Exeter Academy.

[Bill Mullins]

I seriously doubt that Olsson would consider any of the words you mentioned above to be "of Greek Origin"

The origin of a word is determined not by John Olsson's opinion or consideration, but by the language it comes from. Standard dictionaries trace the etymologies of all of the above words to Greek.

Just guessing, mind you, but I would think he meant actual Greek words, which were usually italicised, back then

Instead of guessing, why don't you look up what he actually said, so you would know if he meant actual Greek words, or (quoting from the report) "words of Greek origin."

[Bill Mullins]

You relish quibbling over semantics, but I suggest that you focus on providing the source for those Gallaway lines that Bill requested. I would like to see your source for this material as well, otherwise it will appear as if you created it.

Leonard -- do you think these are fabricated quotes?

Yes--I suspect that those quotes are fabricated. Prior to that, there had been no evidence from Chris that Gallaway had used the word "longitudinal" when Bob pointed out that both Sanders and Erdnase used this uncommon word in their works. That was over a week ago, and suddenly we now see a bevy of Gallaway quotes using this word and no source.

Chris's new newsletter is out, and it says he "recently discovered [a] Gallaway booklet on Printing Practice, which he wrote for the Training Department of R. R. Donnelley". (Note that this does not appear to be the book mentioned here which is probably by Gallaway, and which apparently is still unexamined.) I hope this is the source of the new quotations. While I disagree with much of his ebook, and think he is sloppy on sourcing the material in it, I've never found him to be fraudulent in the sense of making things up. Dunno why he's being coy about the sources of the quotes, though.

He also says that much of the material in the new booklet also appears in a previously printed book, "Copyfitting", by the Lanston Monotype Machine Co. He draws from this the conclusion that Gallaway wrote that book as well, rather than having copied from it. He says another book by Lanston also quotes some of the same material. This other book is the source of the hand fanning cards he posted a couple of days back; Chris believes that this is Gallaway's hand, and thus it is an actual photograph of Erdnase manipulating cards.

Earlier, in the context of whether or not printing is engineering, I made mention of curriculum of the Lakeside Press school. It is outlined in much more detail here. I hadn't realized that the course included a period of indentured service -- I thought that went out in the 1800s.

[Bob Coyne]

On the use of Latin verbiage, Demarest points out in his Genii article on Sanders:

In The Man Who Was Erdnase, the authors speculate that the spelling of "strategem" on the title page, represents a lack of Greek and Latin education on the part of the author. In fact, just the opposite is true. The word "strategem" derives originally from Greek, passing later ino Latin where it is spelled "strategema." The tendency to spell the word with a second "e" is exactly the sort of mistake that would be made by a man who studied Latin for years on end.

Alexander notes in his Genii article that Sanders was home schooled in Latin as well as German and French, and later received "heavy doses" of Latin at Phillips Exeter Academy.

Sanders quotes Latin extensively in his Montana Organization, Name, and Naming article. And he's clearly familiar with its vocabulary, declensions etc as he describes the derivation of the name "Montana". He also discusses aspects of Roman geography and history.

In the nominative, plural, neuter form, it is used as follows: Sunt loca montana, seu regivant pars regionis inter monies sita (They were mountainous regions, whether they were travelling through that part of the country situated between the mountains— ), Pliny, 6, 22, 7; loca montana et aspera (regions mountainous and rugged), Livy, 39, 1, 5. In the ablative, singular, with the preposition in and in connection with the feminine noun regio, or in the accusative, plural, neuter, with the prepositions in or inter, in connection with locus, the word is used as follows: Exsurgens autem Maria in diebus illis abiit in montana cum festinatione, in civitatem Jada (Mary rising up in those days, went into the hill— this refers rather to montes than to colics— country with haste, into a city of Juda)

and another snippet...

The name montani has also been handed down as the proper and classic designation for the inhabitants of a mountainous country, as even of Montana, by the Latin historians and writers, as follows: occursantes per obliqua montani, interrupto medio agmine, clam insedere (the mountaineers, charging obliquely, and on having broken through the middle of the army, took possession of the road), Livy, Lib. 21, 34; Erigentibus in primos agmcn elivos apparuerunt inminentes tumulos insidentes montani (To them, marching up the first acclivities, the moun taineers appeared occupying the heights overhead),

[Bill Mullins]

(missed the edit window)

He says that the author of "Copyfitting" claims to have originated the term "square pica", a unit of area used by the printer, and that this is relevant since Erdnase originated several technical terms. Unfortunately, "square pica" had been originated long before. Here it is in Mar 1907; Jun 1912; and 1871.

[Leonard Hevia]

The most unreliable recollections in my mind are the ones about the name. Letters are abstract. They don't mean anything. Smith will have heard and read literally many tens of thousands of names in 60 years. The likelihood that the name of Erdnase is still lodged in his mind is pretty much zero, because he did not remember it. I simply don't buy his prompted recollections regarding the name.

This was what Chris thought about Smith's recollection on the name. A bit later on when he discovered Gallaway, he did an about turn on Smith's ability to remember names:

"You might also want to add that the only information Smith volunteers regarding the real name of Erdnase was that it had a 'W' somewhere. Gallaway fits."

Incredible. Chris suddenly puts credence on Smith's powers of recollection. I suppose that Smith's ability to remember things depends on which individual is a person of interest in the hunt for the identity of Erdnase.

"Letters are abstract. They don't mean anything."...you bet.

[Brad Henderson]

re needing the money

what if erdnase was both a realist and a bit of a dick?

imagine if i wrote that preface in response to books that keyes had offered to the public proclaiming social benefits and inspired ideas.

erdnase begins with a ridicule of the pious and reformed. If they are not pious and reformed, why would they be writing these books? well, for the money,
obviously.

in the final sentence erdnase both condemns those whom he introduces at the opening of the preface and, demonstrating a high degree of self awareness perhaps, reinforces the previous statements where he admits to the lack of social value in the work.

The book isn’t meant to do anything more than be - to be read - to sell. The reference to needing the money is a final swipe at the pious who claim to be doing god’s work as the pocket the money.

unlike the other guys, im doing it for the money

can this just be snark?

the punchline to the joke set up in the first sentence?

[Bill Mullins]

For Bob's files:
Erdnase: Self-styled "ex-professionals" have regaled the public with astounding disclosures of their former wiles and wickedness, and have proven a wonderful knowledge of the subject by exhuming some antiquated moss-covered ruses as well known as nursery rhymes, and even these extraordinary revelations are calmly dismissed with the assertion that this or that artifice is employed; in nowise attempting to explain the process or give the detail of the action mentioned.

W. E. Sanders (from a letter 7/6/19130, Sonora, CA]: Certainly in part it is too good to keep, and in a spirit of benevolence and as an offering upon the shrine of professional goodwill toward professional brethren, the following extracts have been exhumed from their obscure place of burial among files containing many another mining report that is less picturesque, less unique.

Erdnase: One single display of dexterity and his usefulness is past in that particular company, and the reputation is liable to precede him in many another.

W. E. Sanders (from the same letter) containing many another mining report that is less picturesque, less unique.

The Sanders letter is interesting for its thoughts on writing -- he is describing the clarity of a mining report. Here's the text:

Some time ago, a report that was stated to have been the result of an examination made upon a mining property located on the vein formation of the famous Mother Lode of the western foothill region of the Sierra Nevada of California, came into my hands and has been carefully preserved by me as a classic. That it is unique among many documents pertaining to minds and mining situations, a perusal of the following excerpts from the text will convince any fair minded unbiased mining engineer. Certainly in part it is too good to keep, and in a spirit of benevolence and as an offering upon the shrine of professional goodwill toward professional brethren, the following extracts have been exhumed from their obscure place of burial among files containing many another mining report that is less picturesque, less unique. The following contains the rich kernel removed from the enclosing shell.
[quoted extracts, ending as follows] "The mine is not far enough developed to justify these assumptions as positive, but --"
[Sanders continues] and here let the report conclude with that reassuring, inspiring, and valiant but.

How plain and simple it all is to write a mining report. Not necessarily one that will 'stick,' but a picturesque and unique document that is readable and fairly well filled with data culled in a measure from geologic reports and folios of the region or from other vicarious sources and containing more or less uncertain assumptions and statements as to ore values and to positive, probable, and possible ore reserves that from their very artlessness and ingenuousness should convince, but which somehow fail to carry a satisfactory weight when their authors are brought 'upon the carpet.' And how many reports presuming to describe mining properties are written that should never have been penned -- because of the wicked waste of ink resulting therefrom.

[Leonard Hevia]

For Bob's files:
Erdnase: ...some antiquated moss-covered ruses...
W. E. Sanders:The following contains the rich kernel removed from the enclosing shell.

Great stuff Bill! The metaphors used by both authors jump right out.

Great examples of Sanders' Latin, Bob!

[Bob Coyne]

For Bob's files:
Erdnase: Self-styled "ex-professionals" have regaled the public with astounding disclosures of their former wiles and wickedness, and have proven a wonderful knowledge of the subject by exhuming some antiquated moss-covered ruses as well known as nursery rhymes, and even these extraordinary revelations are calmly dismissed with the assertion that this or that artifice is employed; in nowise attempting to explain the process or give the detail of the action mentioned.

W. E. Sanders (from a letter 7/6/19130, Sonora, CA]: Certainly in part it is too good to keep, and in a spirit of benevolence and as an offering upon the shrine of professional goodwill toward professional brethren, the following extracts have been exhumed from their obscure place of burial among files containing many another mining report that is less picturesque, less unique.

Erdnase: One single display of dexterity and his usefulness is past in that particular company, and the reputation is liable to precede him in many another.

W. E. Sanders (from the same letter) containing many another mining report that is less picturesque, less unique.

The Sanders letter is interesting for its thoughts on writing -- he is describing the clarity of a mining report. Here's the text:

Some time ago, a report that was stated to have been the result of an examination made upon a mining property located on the vein formation of the famous Mother Lode of the western foothill region of the Sierra Nevada of California, came into my hands and has been carefully preserved by me as a classic. That it is unique among many documents pertaining to minds and mining situations, a perusal of the following excerpts from the text will convince any fair minded unbiased mining engineer. Certainly in part it is too good to keep, and in a spirit of benevolence and as an offering upon the shrine of professional goodwill toward professional brethren, the following extracts have been exhumed from their obscure place of burial among files containing many another mining report that is less picturesque, less unique. The following contains the rich kernel removed from the enclosing shell.
[quoted extracts, ending as follows] "The mine is not far enough developed to justify these assumptions as positive, but --"
[Sanders continues] and here let the report conclude with that reassuring, inspiring, and valiant but.

How plain and simple it all is to write a mining report. Not necessarily one that will 'stick,' but a picturesque and unique document that is readable and fairly well filled with data culled in a measure from geologic reports and folios of the region or from other vicarious sources and containing more or less uncertain assumptions and statements as to ore values and to positive, probable, and possible ore reserves that from their very artlessness and ingenuousness should convince, but which somehow fail to carry a satisfactory weight when their authors are brought 'upon the carpet.' And how many reports presuming to describe mining properties are written that should never have been penned -- because of the wicked waste of ink resulting therefrom.

That professionals/exhume/burial excerpt (and the corresponding erdnase text) is actually the first thing in my document and, I think, one of the most compelling of all the erdnase/sanders correspondences, in that it matches on several levels: the ironic/mocking attitute towards so-called professionals, the exhume/burial metaphor, and the almost identical semantics and alliteration of Erdnases "wiles and wickedness" vs "wicked waste" that Sanders ends the letter with on that same theme. And the bogus/inflated mining claims it references correspond to Erdnases "moss covered ruses" as part of the same metaphor. The matches at all levels are extraordinary, and it's impossible for me to read this and not conclude I'm reading the same writer.

And top top it off, the passage starts with "Certainly in part it is too good to keep..." which matches Erdnase's "A self-satisfied unlicked cub with a fairly fat bank roll was too good a thing to be passed up" ... the feeling of something just too delicious not to be indulged in.

And in this same letter he uses the term "culled"

Plus it includes two nice examples of one of Erdnase/Sanders typical habits -- that of using of scare quotes: when their authors are brought "upon the carpet." and one that will "stick"

I think you were the one who first discovered this letter online and mentioned it quite a while ago on this thread. It's really a gold mine.

I also already have the "many another" idiom in my document, but strangely not this particular instance of Sanders using it. Sanders uses it again also in the college reunion writing: "as sweet and handsome as MANY ANOTHER". So I'll add this new instance to that item.

[performer]

This semantic stuff and comparison to writing styles seems very tenuous to me. I would like some REAL evidence!