PavelTheGreat wrote: The same standards of decency would have been applied . . .
I think you are projecting here, rather than making a statement that could be verified.
PavelTheGreat wrote: The same standards of decency would have been applied . . .
Bill Mullins wrote:PavelTheGreat wrote: The same standards of decency would have been applied . . .
I think you are projecting here, rather than making a statement that could be verified.
Jonathan Townsend wrote:How strange that the illustrator recalls his lettering but not the figures. Recalls soft hands and soft voice, clothes, some small talk about family, but not the tricks or the guys name.
Jonathan Townsend wrote:...or the guys name.
Zenner wrote:Whew! I have just been doing some catching up on the Forum. I am just as eager as anybody to see what Messrs Forte and Karr have to say but I am not spending that kind of money on a whim. I still feel sure that Edward Douglas Benedict was "Erdnase" and will be very surprised if he turns out to be anybody else!
1. Erdnase was a magician (the evidence is in the book.) Benedict was an ex-professional magician whose show was in three parts. One of those parts consisted of sleight of hand with coins and cards.
2. Erdnase was a customer of McKinney, the printer. Benedict was a customer of McKinney, the printer (See the Bankruptcy Files.) Find me another candidate who was a customer of McKinney!
3. Benedict and Smith both had offices in the same building.
4. Erdnase wrote in an "educational" manner. Benedict was educated at a "Normal School", i.e., a teacher training college.
5. Erdnase knew about publishing books. After retiring from the stage, Benedict became a Sales manager for a book publishing company.
6. Erdnase needed money and Benedict went bankrupt soon after the publication of the book.
Benedict's description tallies with that given by Smith but, unfortunately, I haven't been able to find any reference to his height.
Bye for now,
Peter
Zenner wrote:Whew! I have just been doing some catching up on the Forum. I am just as eager as anybody to see what Messrs Forte and Karr have to say but I am not spending that kind of money on a whim. I still feel sure that Edward Douglas Benedict was "Erdnase" and will be very surprised if he turns out to be anybody else!
1. Erdnase was a magician (the evidence is in the book.) Benedict was an ex-professional magician whose show was in three parts. One of those parts consisted of sleight of hand with coins and cards.
2. Erdnase was a customer of McKinney, the printer. Benedict was a customer of McKinney, the printer (See the Bankruptcy Files.) Find me another candidate who was a customer of McKinney!
3. Benedict and Smith both had offices in the same building.
4. Erdnase wrote in an "educational" manner. Benedict was educated at a "Normal School", i.e., a teacher training college.
5. Erdnase knew about publishing books. After retiring from the stage, Benedict became a Sales manager for a book publishing company.
6. Erdnase needed money and Benedict went bankrupt soon after the publication of the book.
Benedict's description tallies with that given by Smith but, unfortunately, I haven't been able to find any reference to his height.
Bye for now,
Peter
Jonathan Townsend wrote:How strange that the illustrator recalls his lettering but not the figures. Recalls soft hands and soft voice, clothes, some small talk about family, but not the tricks or the guys name.
Then there's mention of Vernon noticing the Canadian copyright filing including photographs. Any hope of finding that document?
PavelTheGreat wrote:Zig Zagger wrote:I got that. INK IS NOT DIRT. But Erd- does not translate as DIRT either. At least not in present times.
I do not know how "erde" was commonly used in late 19th century, but I do know (as before mentioned) that "earth" at that time was most often used in reference to soil or ground, much less than planet.
PavelTheGreat wrote:In literature, I see "earth" in the sense of loose dirt, as in "sprinkling a handful of earth upon the coffin".
Zig Zagger wrote:PavelTheGreat wrote:Zig Zagger wrote:I got that. INK IS NOT DIRT. But Erd- does not translate as DIRT either. At least not in present times.
I do not know how "erde" was commonly used in late 19th century, but I do know (as before mentioned) that "earth" at that time was most often used in reference to soil or ground, much less than planet.
I do agree with that. And by giving both meanings and the "planet earth" thing one first, I did't mean to imply an order.PavelTheGreat wrote:In literature, I see "earth" in the sense of loose dirt, as in "sprinkling a handful of earth upon the coffin".
But here I need to disagree again on the "dirt" aspect. It's at least a very bad example, because the German connotation of "Erde" here is rather a religious one: sprinkling loose, fertile soil from Mother Earth, where all life begins and ends, and NOT sprinkling DIRT upon the deceased. I think a - false - English equivalent here would be to claim, "Ashes to ashes, dirt to dirt." That's just not the right context.
Paco Nagata wrote:The writter may have not been specially interested in hiding his name if we assume that it is showed just backward. So, I wonder why Smith didn't want to identify the guy even decades after.
Maybe the writter is actually Smith?
Zenner wrote:Whew! I have just been doing some catching up on the Forum. I am just as eager as anybody to see what Messrs Forte and Karr have to say but I am not spending that kind of money on a whim. I still feel sure that Edward Douglas Benedict was "Erdnase" and will be very surprised if he turns out to be anybody else!
Peter
PavelTheGreat wrote:Zig Zagger wrote:PavelTheGreat wrote:
I do not know how "erde" was commonly used in late 19th century, but I do know (as before mentioned) that "earth" at that time was most often used in reference to soil or ground, much less than planet.
I do agree with that. And by giving both meanings and the "planet earth" thing one first, I did't mean to imply an order.PavelTheGreat wrote:In literature, I see "earth" in the sense of loose dirt, as in "sprinkling a handful of earth upon the coffin".
But here I need to disagree again on the "dirt" aspect. It's at least a very bad example, because the German connotation of "Erde" here is rather a religious one: sprinkling loose, fertile soil from Mother Earth, where all life begins and ends, and NOT sprinkling DIRT upon the deceased. I think a - false - English equivalent here would be to claim, "Ashes to ashes, dirt to dirt." That's just not the right context.
What I am saying is that "earth" was almost always used for "dirt" in print in this time. "Dirt" was considered a crude word, nearly as bad as word for excrement (which appears to be closely related, as "turd").
In German-American society (not necessarily in Germany itself), relatively vulgar German words might likewise have been verboten.
Zig Zagger wrote:PavelTheGreat wrote:Zig Zagger wrote:
I do agree with that. And by giving both meanings and the "planet earth" thing one first, I did't mean to imply an order.
But here I need to disagree again on the "dirt" aspect. It's at least a very bad example, because the German connotation of "Erde" here is rather a religious one: sprinkling loose, fertile soil from Mother Earth, where all life begins and ends, and NOT sprinkling DIRT upon the deceased. I think a - false - English equivalent here would be to claim, "Ashes to ashes, dirt to dirt." That's just not the right context.
What I am saying is that "earth" was almost always used for "dirt" in print in this time. "Dirt" was considered a crude word, nearly as bad as word for excrement (which appears to be closely related, as "turd").
In German-American society (not necessarily in Germany itself), relatively vulgar German words might likewise have been verboten.
Just to make sure that I don't misunderstand you: You are referring to earth/dirt in the English language and in American print, right? And you are assuming that the replacement mechanism is (or was) the same in German with Erde/Dreck, right? If so, my assessment would be no, rather not.
Of course I wouldn't know for sure, and I obviouly haven't studied such a specific question; but I have a degree in German philology and consider myself pretty well read, and I'd say that I haven't come across such a drastic word exchange strategy. I also think that such matters were probably more prevalent in Puritan American circles and in Victorian England than in Germany. And I seem to recall that most immigrants (German and others) to the U.S. in the 19th century were working class people and thus probably not overly concerned with calling someone among friends or family politely "Erdnase" instead of "Schmutzfink." But I'd be happy to stand corrected if there are some telling examples in German print from that time.
And we should not forget that the word Erdnase, as rare as it is, was and is mainly a topograpical term (just like Felsnase, which you would call "beak of rock", I believe), likely more so than figurative speech for kids or dogs. So it might actually make sense in the context of mining, and it might even imply that S.W. could be hinting at a location, south-westerly of a (prominent) Erdnase. Who knows...
PavelTheGreat wrote:However--this is not the main problem with using "erdnase" to support Sanders. I would accept an argument that says Erdnase is anagram of Sanders. I would accept an argument that says Erdnase means hills and dales, so maybe a mining reference. But I reject argument that says is likely that man re-arranges letters of his name and gets German word that describes his profession. This combination of "evidence" does not make candidate more viable, but less. The chances of this happening are as remote as winning Powerball.
Bob Coyne wrote:PavelTheGreat wrote:However--this is not the main problem with using "erdnase" to support Sanders. I would accept an argument that says Erdnase is anagram of Sanders. I would accept an argument that says Erdnase means hills and dales, so maybe a mining reference. But I reject argument that says is likely that man re-arranges letters of his name and gets German word that describes his profession. This combination of "evidence" does not make candidate more viable, but less. The chances of this happening are as remote as winning Powerball.
Sanders rearranged the letters in his name in different ways in his childhood diaries. And his other writings are filled with wordplay. So it seems very likely that he came across some of the various anagrams of his name, including "ES Andrews", "Wes Anders", "Ward Essen" etc. And if he was the author (given his knowledge of German), "ES Andrews" (reversed) would have led to the chosen pen name of "SW Erdnase", thus affording a clever reference to his profession as well as a throw off (with the obvious backwards spelling of ES Andrews) to misdirect from his true name, which was also embedded in the pen name. This, to me, is a much more satisfying and better explanation than the simpler reversed ES Andrews solution (though that's an adequate solution too). In either case, a candidate (such as Galaway and others) without any connection via the anagrams or reversed spellings are starting with a huge deficit.
In addition, putting the unexplained ES Andrews reversed spelling aside, the idea that Galaway as a printer would have called himself "earth nose" seems pretty far fetched, given that "nose for" is used figuratively to signify a talent for finding something. A prospector/miner is looking for metals and minerals in the ground, thus requiring a nose for it, to "sniff" them out in the ground/earth. Or you might call a farmer "earth nose" if they know when to plant or tend to crops in the ground. So, unless there was some special circumstances in Galaway's case, it seems like a very contrived argument to say that because printers deal with ink and sometimes get it on their bodies, that you'd call one "earth nose."
And even then, why in the world would Galaway pick an obscure reference (in German no less) that just happened to spell a real name ES Andrews backwards? If there's a backwards spelling, there needs to be an explanation for it. With Sanders, in contrast, everything fits beautifully together, especially given that we have documentary evidence that he played with anagrams on his name and engaged in wordplay more generally.
Richard Kaufman wrote:There are many reasons to buy Steve Forte's book, including what will probably be the most insightful analysis of the contents of the book ever put on paper. But Steve writes nothing about which candidate he thinks it might be, nor does he introduce a new candidate. Steve's book is about other things. I suspect Karr's book is about only one thing.
PavelTheGreat wrote:I think you are failing to get my point. I have not calculated the odds, but the chances of anybody re-arranging the letters of his name and getting an actual word or phrase are slight. To discover that this word is fitting to his character or his job is many times more unlikely. This is an absurd conflation.
I will grant you that is fairly possible that a man will make anagram out of his name. But to go further than this is venturing on wild speculation.
I would sooner believe that a mining engineer named Fred P. Jones was Erdnase'. Anybody BUT a man who could re-spell his name as "Erdnase" This is not reasonable argument, is most unreasonable of all arguments in this thread (including "dirt nose").
It fits TOO PERFECTLY. That is the problem.
Bob Coyne wrote:PavelTheGreat wrote:I think you are failing to get my point. I have not calculated the odds, but the chances of anybody re-arranging the letters of his name and getting an actual word or phrase are slight. To discover that this word is fitting to his character or his job is many times more unlikely. This is an absurd conflation.
I will grant you that is fairly possible that a man will make anagram out of his name. But to go further than this is venturing on wild speculation.
I would sooner believe that a mining engineer named Fred P. Jones was Erdnase'. Anybody BUT a man who could re-spell his name as "Erdnase" This is not reasonable argument, is most unreasonable of all arguments in this thread (including "dirt nose").
It fits TOO PERFECTLY. That is the problem.
The reversed spelling and the anagrams and the meaning of Erdnase (as earth nose) are all there. So it's not a question of how likely that is to happen, since it happened. Instead it's a question of whether a given person who fits ALL of those criteria like a glove (Sanders) is a more likely candidate than another given person (Galaway) who matches NONE of them. Clearly the former is more likely, since that person has a reason to notice and then use that particular pen name. Sanders would surely have chosen that name (if he was the author) since it is so perfect, whereas the total mismatch with Galaway makes it much less likely he'd choose it if he was the author. Hence, on that alone, Sanders is a much more likely candidate.
PavelTheGreat wrote:Again you are missing the point. You say all the elements are there--the reversed spellings, anagrams, and meaning of "Erdnase" as earth-nose. These are all hypotheses, not proven facts.
We do not know that Erdnase is an anagram. It might be just German word. It might be just anagram, but not chosen for meaning. I will give you odds of 1-1,000 that Sanders was Erdnase BASED SOLELY ON ANAGRAM THEORY. But if you add the "earth nose" meaning, I give you odds of 1-1,000,000.
Bob Coyne wrote:PavelTheGreat wrote:Again you are missing the point. You say all the elements are there--the reversed spellings, anagrams, and meaning of "Erdnase" as earth-nose. These are all hypotheses, not proven facts.
We do not know that Erdnase is an anagram. It might be just German word. It might be just anagram, but not chosen for meaning. I will give you odds of 1-1,000 that Sanders was Erdnase BASED SOLELY ON ANAGRAM THEORY. But if you add the "earth nose" meaning, I give you odds of 1-1,000,000.
Many pen names are reversed spellings or other forms of anagrams. Bill Mullins has compiled a list of many dozens that have been used throughout history. It's almost impossible to believe that the backwards spelling wasn't deliberate, especially when the forwards spelling is something so odd as "Erdnase." So anyone who fits in that regard, either directly or indirectly via anagram, is much more likely as a candidate.
The resulting forward spelling of Erdnase (as earth nose) might have just been chance and used almost as a nonsense word (like "Rendrag Nitram" for Martin Gardner) . If so, the earthnose meaning doesn't help any candidate, and their respective likelihoods would be based solely on whether they match the reversed spelling or anagrams. But if we assign significance to erdnase as earth nose, then a candidate such as Sanders who matches that also becomes even more likely than he would be otherwise.
Either way, Sanders has a much stronger connection to the pen name (in all respects) than Galaway.
PavelTheGreat wrote:The trouble with your theory is that it is based fundamentally on the name of the author. You start by assuming it is anagram, then look for Sanders and Andrews, etc. to find one that might have written book.
PavelTheGreat wrote:What I am saying is that "earth" was almost always used for "dirt" in print in this time. "
But I reject argument that says is likely that man re-arranges letters of his name and gets German word that describes his profession.
Bill Mullins wrote:Bob - your link in the post previous isn't working. Late-night network maintenance?
Zig Zagger wrote:Paco Nagata wrote:The writter may have not been specially interested in hiding his name if we assume that it is showed just backward. So, I wonder why Smith didn't want to identify the guy even decades after.
Maybe the writter is actually Smith?
I agree that there's another discrepancy, Paco, and thus I have questioned the role of M.D. Smith earlier here, too. (Just as a question worth asking, not as a claim or with any proof!)
Scenario 1: (simple short story)
One E.S. Andrews writes the book and has a good reason for not publishing it under his real name (family matters, a joke among friends, whatever). So he just reverses it to S.W. Erdnase. He puts another clue into the title (and Ruse = Andrews) and also gives the real name of the illustrator, M.D. Smith. So obviously he is not very concerned about being found with a bit of effort, neither through the anagram nor through M.D. Smith. Case closed. Only that we still haven't managed to nail that real E.S. Andrews to everyone's content. And the big question is: Why not? What have we missed?
Scenario 2: (drama)
One Mr X writes the book and has strong reasons for not publishing it under his real name (creditors, the enraged gambling mob, whatever), and he never ever wants to be found. He somehow comes up with the name E.S. Andrews as a red herring or with S.W. Erdnase as a very personal joke that cannot be traced back to him. His real name is never disclosed or it is very well hidden, only for the knowing, somewhere in the text.
And this is where Smith comes in. In this scenario, it would seem quite unlikely to me for the author to take the unnecessary risk of being found via the illustrator. So, theoretically, Smith could have been a false name, too (but apparently it wasn't); or Smith could have been in on it, as a friend of the author or because he was paid an extra amount to tell a fictitious story if someone would ever come to question him about Mr X...
Scenario 3: (science fiction)
M.D. Smith is Mr X, and his clever ruse is making up Erdnase/Andrews while himself taking the unassuming backseat as "illustrator only"... (I know, not very likely; but maybe not over-investigated either?)
I'm not pushing any of these or other scenarios; but what it comes down to, in my view, is that M.D. Smith plays more than a minor role here. Depending on which scenario we lean to, his role shifts; and depending on how much we trust or mistrust him, the reasonable scenario also shifts...
Paco Nagata wrote:Brilliant!
I have enjoyed a lot reading those thought of you, Jan!
That's what I would call "to go to the point, instead of "beating around the bush."
In the "Scenario 2" I would add the possibility that the guy that Smith met wasn't the real writter, but an impostor playing the role of "Erdnase" to hide his identity even from Smith.
PavelTheGreat wrote:Solid foundation is based on writing analysis REGARDLESS OF NAME. Also, investigation of principles (such as Mr. Smith). And circumstances of book production and publication.
By starting with name you are putting cart before horse. YOU CAN BE TOTALLY WRONG.
Remember the words of Shakespeare:
"What's in a name? A rose by any other name should smell as sweet".
By focusing on only those candidates that are anagrams, you are dismissing the distinct possibility that NONE OF THEM IS ERDNASE.
In your mind, you think is a good assumption, so you close your mind to other possibilities.
Thus may be fun game, but is not good detective work.
Odds of having a name with right letters to spell ANY KIND OF WORD is, let us say, 1:1,000
Odds of that word having any relevance to my character or calling is out-of-this-world.
I do not so much dispute the claim that "erdnase" was used in reference to topography, but the suggestion that no German speaking person would make the connection between "ground" and "dirt".
Nobody in English says "earth" for dirt today. Is antiquated. So judging from modern usage is not valid. Idioms change inevitably over the course of centuries.
Zenner wrote:An omission and a couple of answers.
In my hurried posting yesterday I forgot to mention the first indication that Benedict might be a candidate worth researching. There was a Dalrymple family linked to a Benedict family in the genealogy book I downloaded. So there was a reason that Benedict might have thought that he was related to Louis Dalrymple.
Long time readers may remember that I had discovered that an E.C. Andrews worked for the same company as Harry S. Thompson. E.C.'s signature looked as if it was "E.S. Andrews" (There is a photograph of it, if you care to look back.) I have discovered a reason why Benedict would have known E.C. and his parents; his cousin shared a house with them!
The building in which Benedict and Smith both had an office was a very large building - a skyscraper. When "Erdnase" was looking for an artist, he might have remembered seeing a sign on a door, or in the lobby. They may not have actually been known to each other before the enquiry was made.
Roger accepts that Benedict is in the top five possibilities. Why not #1 Roger? I have studied the cases for all the other candidates and have had to dismiss all those who would have had a foreign accent, or were way too old, and those for which there is no evidence that they knew anything about sleight of hand. Thanks to Chris Wasshuber's finding of the McKinney Bankruptcy Files, I know that he was the only candidate to have been a customer of McKinney. Unless we can find someone else in those files who fits all the rest of the criteria, it has to be Edward Douglas Benedict!
Bill Mullins wrote:PavelTheGreat wrote:What I am saying is that "earth" was almost always used for "dirt" in print in this time. "
You keep making statements about how things were without backing them up. This one is easy enough to disprove.
Go to Chronicling America -- the Library of Congress's free newspaper archive. Search for "Earth" on 2/15/1902 (the day that EATCT was copyrighted). On the first page of results, there will be 20 newspaper pages that use "Earth" somewhere on them. Sort by date (because sorting by "relevance" may weight one meaning more than the other). Don't count compound words that use "Earth" (like earthquake), or proper nouns (like Blue Earth County [Minnesota]). A substantial majority of the results mean planet Earth or the world we live on, rather than dirt.But I reject argument that says is likely that man re-arranges letters of his name and gets German word that describes his profession.
This isn't at all an accurate description of the chain from W. E. Sanders to Erdnase.
First, W. E. Sanders has nine letters, and Erdnase has 7. So if you want to make the change, you have the freedom to throw away extraneous letters.
Second, as you have pointed out, the actual phrase/compound word in German is Erde-Nase. So you get to delete the letter of your choice in the name of the profession.
Finally, Sanders' profession was miner or mining engineer. Obviously, this doesn't match an anagram of the name, so you get to pick any language you want to force-fit.
So, while it may be unlikely for a person to anagram their name into their profession (although nominative determinism says that names match professions quite often - the article mentions, for example, an attorney named "Sue Yoo"), the possibility grows substantially when you are allowed to take a name, subtract a few letters, translate it to any language you want, and delete letters from the foreign word.
PavelTheGreat wrote: What motive would Benedict have to write pseudonymously? In most reasonable scenario, he wishes to write magic book. Why not use real name? He is already public figure (performing magician) and contemporary audience may even recognise his act.
PavelTheGreat wrote: To me, it makes more sense that "Erdnase" was made up name for purpose of false attribution or appropriation of Benedict's work.
PavelTheGreat wrote: While Gallaway could have claimed to be the author of EATCT, having simply purchased the rights from Benedict, it would have seemed rather unethical. Perhaps "Erdnase" wanted the copyright, but did not feel justified in applying his proper name to the book.
Zenner wrote:PavelTheGreat wrote: What motive would Benedict have to write pseudonymously? In most reasonable scenario, he wishes to write magic book. Why not use real name? He is already public figure (performing magician) and contemporary audience may even recognise his act.
Perhaps he didn't want other magicians to know that he was exposing?PavelTheGreat wrote: To me, it makes more sense that "Erdnase" was made up name for purpose of false attribution or appropriation of Benedict's work.
Loads of people have written under pseudonyms without telling their readers why.PavelTheGreat wrote: While Gallaway could have claimed to be the author of EATCT, having simply purchased the rights from Benedict, it would have seemed rather unethical. Perhaps "Erdnase" wanted the copyright, but did not feel justified in applying his proper name to the book.
Why bring Gallaway into it at all? Nobody has ever claimed to be the author of the book. There is no evidence that Gallaway even read the book that he filched from work, let alone could do any of the material therein.
I'm going back into hibernation now.
Bye-bye
Roger M. wrote:Benedict is a legitimate candidate.
Gallaway is a ridiculous distraction best left alone back on Chris’s blog.