Inligting

29 April 1941


29 April 1941

Irak

Irakse troepe begin 'n beleg van RAF Habbaniya, die Britse vliegbasis wes van Bagdad

Troepe van 1 King's Own Royal Regiment het van RAF Shaibah na Habbaniya verhuis

Griekeland

Generaal Freyberg aangestel as opperbevelhebber op Kreta

Duitsers voltooi hul besetting van die Griekse vasteland



› › Datumverskil van 7 April 1941 tot 10 Sep 2030

Die totale aantal dae tussen Maandag 7 April 1941 en Dinsdag 10 September 2030 is 32 663 dae.

Dit is gelyk aan 89 jaar, 5 maande en 3 dae.

Dit sluit nie die einddatum in nie, dus is dit akkuraat as u u ouderdom in dae of die totale dae tussen die begin- en einddatum meet. Maar as u die duur van 'n gebeurtenis wil hê wat beide die begindatum en die einddatum insluit, dan sou dit eintlik wees 32.664 dae.

As u werksdae of naweke tel, is daar 23 331 weeksdae en 9 322 naweke.

As u die einddatum van 10 September 2030, wat 'n Dinsdag is, insluit, sal daar wees 23.332 weeksdae en 9 322 naweke insluitend die begin Maandag en die einde Dinsdag.

32 663 dae is gelyk aan 4,666 weke en 1 dag.

Die totale tydsduur van 1941-04-07 tot 2030-09-10 is 783,912 uur.

U kan ook 32,663 dae omskakel na 2,822,083,200 sekondes.


14 Augustus 1941 is 'n Donderdag. Dit is die 226ste dag van die jaar en in die 33ste week van die jaar (as elke week op 'n Maandag begin), of die 3de kwartaal van die jaar. Daar is 31 dae in hierdie maand. 1941 is nie 'n skrikkeljaar nie, dus is daar 365 dae in hierdie jaar. Die kort vorm vir hierdie datum wat in die Verenigde State gebruik word, is 8/14/1941, en byna oral in die wêreld is dit 14/8/1941.

Hierdie webwerf bied 'n aanlyn -sakrekenaar om u te help om die verskil in die aantal dae tussen twee kalenderdatums te vind. Voer eenvoudig die begin- en einddatum in om die duur van enige gebeurtenis te bereken. U kan ook hierdie instrument gebruik om vas te stel hoeveel dae verloop het sedert u verjaardag, of om die tyd te meet tot u baba se vervaldatum is. Die berekeninge gebruik die Gregoriaanse kalender, wat in 1582 geskep is en later in 1752 deur Brittanje en die oostelike deel van die huidige Verenigde State aanvaar is. Vir die beste resultate, gebruik datums na 1752 of verifieer enige data as u genealogiese navorsing doen. Historiese kalenders het baie variasies, insluitend die antieke Romeinse kalender en die Juliaanse kalender. Skrikkeljare word gebruik om die kalenderjaar met die sterrekundige jaar te pas. Skakel oor na die as u die datum wat in X dae van vandag af plaasvind, wil uitvind Sakrekenaar vir dae van nou af in plaas daarvan.


Weergeskiedenis vir 29 April

  • Verlede waargeneem weer
  • Opsomming van 24 uur
  • CoCoRaHS
  • Historiese rekords
  • Verlede reënval
  • Sneeuvalrekords
  • Droogtevooruitsig
  • Klimaatvoorspelling
  • Lake Effect -bladsy
  • Opsommings van die winterseisoen
  • Koöperatiewe waarnemer data

Westelike New York Weergeskiedenis

'N Windstorm het oor die Niagara -grens voorgekom. Die storm het aansienlike skade aangerig. Tekens en skoorstene is afgewaai, dakke uitgevoer, water het in die Buffalo -hawe ongeveer 5 voet bo die gewone vlak gestyg. Verskeie bote het van hul vasmeerplekke losgebars en gebots. Brûe is weggedra en verskeie hysbakke is beskadig. Ys is in die rivier en die hawe gedryf en teen die breekwater en piere opgehoop. Drade van telegraafondernemings en brandalarms is afgeblaas. Geen lewensverlies is geleer nie.

Gedurende die vroeë oggendure het verspreide donderstorms ontstaan ​​in die omgewing van 'n warm front. Die donderstorms het groot hael oor die suidelike Jefferson-, Lewis- en Oswego -provinsies gelewer. Die meeste berigte was van sent tot sent, maar 'n berig van pingpongbalgrootte wat die grond bedek het, is deur die Sheriff van die Jefferson -distrik in die stad Henderson oorgedra.


29 April 1941 - Geskiedenis

en Dialektiese Hullabaloo ”

Die goeie woorde was hoe die ou onreëlmatige Robert G. Harris ("The Creeping Man", BSI) die gees beskryf van die BSI se jaarlikse etes in die Murray Hill Hotel en Cavanagh's in die 1930's tot die 1960's, voordat 'n groeiende getal dit tot 'n einde bring. deur die jaarlikse ete te dwing om sedertdien na groot ronde tafels te gaan (in plaas van nabyheid, soos op die foto van 1947 op die BSI -blad), in groot banketlokale in oorvol hotelle en klubs. Om die gees lewendig te hou, het ons hierdie afdeling vir af en toe items van onreëlmatige omstredenheid.

Die BSI -aandetefoto van 1940 en 'n sleutel

1. Earle Walbridge 19. Frederic Dorr Steele

2. Peter Greig 20. Peter Williams?

3. P. M. Stone 21. Christopher Morley

4. Howard Haycraft22. John T. Winterich

5. Basil Davenport 23. ongeïdentifiseer

6. Ronald Mansbridge 24. David A. Randall

7. Frank V. Morley25. Mitchell Kennerley

8. William S. Hall 26. Lawrence S. Williams?

9. John J. Connolly? 27. Dr Charles Goodman

10. Robert K. Leavitt28. ongeïdentifiseer

11. Henry James Forman29. Dr. Jack Goodman

12. Edgar W. Smith30. Dr. Harrison S. Martland

13. William C. Weber31. Pierson Underwood

14. James P. Keddie32. Allan M. Price

15. Harry Hazard, Jr. 33. Harvey -beampte

16. Denis P. S. Conan Doyle34. ongeïdentifiseer

17. J. W. Thomson? 35. N. V. Dimitrieff

Die beginpunt vir die voorbereiding van die oorspronklike weergawe van hierdie sleutel in my 1998 BSJ Christmas Annual "Entertainment and Fantasy": The 1940 Dinner, was gedeeltelik deur Harry Hazard Jr. (nr. 15), plus die handtekeninge in oorlewende eksemplare van 221B: Studies in Sherlock Holmes, onder redaksie van Vincent Starrett, wat die aand aan die deelnemers versprei is as die eerste versameling BSI -geskrifte oor die geskrifte. Die ete is opgeroep ter publikasie daarvan.

Dit was Edgar W. Smith se eerste BSI -ete. Sover bekend het hy voorheen slegs Christopher Morley en William S. Hall ontmoet, en was die aand nie persoonlik vertroud met die ander genooides nie. Smith se notule bevat 35 deelnemers en 35 op die foto, maar Morley het aan Vincent Starrett gesê dat 36 dit bygewoon het. Minstens twee op die foto is nie op die notuleslys van Smith nie, maar in oorblywende afskrifte van 221B: Studies in Sherlock Holmes wat die aand onderteken is deur etensgangers, William C. Weber (nr. 13) en dr. Jack Goodman (nr. 29) ), broer van Christopher Morley se tandarts Dr. Charles Goodman op nr. 27. Weber was direkteur van advertensies by Scribner's, en 'n raaiselresensent ("Judge Lynch") vir die Saturday Review of Literature. Hy het die BSI -ete van 1936 bygewoon, en sou ook by die etes van 1941, '42, '43, '46 en '47 wees, en die Trilogy Dinner van 1944.

Twee in die notule van Smith, Frank Henry en Malcolm Johnson, was ou metgeselle van Christopher Morley uit sy Doubleday -jare en vroeë Irregulars, maar is nie op die foto nie en ook nie in die afskrifte van 221B van daardie aand nie. Elmer Davis word in die notule gelys, maar is nie op die foto of in oorblywende afskrifte van 221B nie, want hy het die aand laat na 8:55 uur gekom. Volgens Basil Davenport het CBS News 'n paar dae later in 'n brief aan sy ma in sy koerante in die Yale's Beinecke -biblioteek uitgesaai.

Twee deelnemers in die notule van Smith, Charles W. (C. Warren) Force en Warren Jones, is vermoedelik op die foto, aangesien hul handtekeninge in oorblywende afskrifte van 221B van daardie aand is, maar dit kan nie eers voorlopig geïdentifiseer word nie.

Lawrence Williams van Tenafly, N.J., en seun Peter Williams, is in sowel Smith se notules as in afskrifte van 221B. No 20 teen die muur agter Steele en Morley is soms 'n kelner van die Murray Hill -hotel. Maar aangesien hy die enigste persoon op die foto is wat jonk genoeg was om Peter Williams te wees, wat vanaf die Amerikaanse sensus van 1920 in Januarie 1940 27 of 28 jaar oud was, is dit moontlik hy, indien wel, aangesien hy in swart das gekom het, wat sy pa waarskynlik gedoen het ook, maak nie. 26 'n kandidaat vir Lawrence Williams. Maar dit is bespiegeling wat skokkend naby raaiwerk is.

Nie in Smith se notules nie, maar in ten minste een eksemplaar van 221B wat oorleef het, is E [rnest] S. Colling, 'n teater- en uitsendingsvriend van Morley uit hul Hoboken -teaterdae in die laat 1920's.

Vir meer besonderhede, sien my 1998 BSJ Christmas Annual, "Vermaak en fantasie": Die BSI -aandete van 1940, wat in die BSI se boek "A Remarkable Mixture" bestel kan word by www.bakerstreetjournal.com/aremarkablemixture.html, en by my BSI -argief Geskiedeniswebwerf by www.bsiarchivalhistory.org/BSI_Archival_History/Ent_%26_Fan.html.

Is ons die ongerymdheid van Bakerstraat verskuldig aan Collier's Weekly van 1903?

Deur die hersiening van Russell McLauchin se 1946 -herinnering aan sy jeug, Alfredstraat, het ek berig dat hy in 'n hoofstuk geskryf het oor sy jeugdige belangstelling in Sherlock Holmes wat verder gaan as die lees van die verhale.

'Een daarvan was die Return -verhale wat destyds in Collier's Weekly verskyn het,' het hy gesê, 'wat daartoe gelei het dat hul ouers bonus volumes van A Study in Scarlet en The Sign of the Four gekoop het.

'Hierdie ekonomiese aanwins van 'n paar meesterwerke', het hy gesê, 'het ons ouer manne hierna deeglik laat insien en baie Sherlockiaanse gesprekke rondom elke kaggel op straat veroorsaak. Jeugdige ore het hierdie gesprekke gehoor en die naam van die speurder het bekend geword. ” - 'n Patroon wat ongetwyfeld herhaal word, het ek voorgestel, in baie Amerikaanse huise, toe vroeë onreëlmatiges kinders was. McLauchlin het voortgegaan: 'so iets het gebeur in elke huishouding waar Collier deur die posman afgelewer is.'

Hy is gebore in 1894, en was nege jaar oud toe die Return of Sherlock Holmes -verhale in Collier's Weekly in 1903 begin verskyn het. Christopher Morley is in 1890 gebore, en was dertien jaar oud en in sy groot essay "In Memoriam: Sherlock Holmes , ”1930, skryf hy:

Ek was te jonk om die golf van ontsteltenis wat in die Engelssprekende wêreld gegaan het, te ken toe Sherlock en professor Moriarty vermoedelik saam in die Reichenbach-val omgekom het, maar ek kan my goed onthou van die somber effek op my tienjarige geeste toe ek die eerste keer lees die slotparagrawe van die Memoirs. Die ondraaglike patos van die sigaretkas op die rotsagtige rand het die duidelike handskrif van die laaste stoïsynse boodskap! Ek het toe twee of drie jaar lank al die ander dinge van doktor Doyle gelees. . . . Maar al die tyd het ek diep in die een of ander instink geweet dat Holmes nie regtig dood is nie. . . . U kan u dus die opwindende opwinding voorstel - in 1903, nie waar nie? - toe The Return in Collier's begin druk.

Elmer Davis, gebore dieselfde jaar as Morley, skryf in sy inleiding tot The Return of Sherlock Holmes in hul 1952 Limited Editions Club -verskyning: 'Ons wat omstreeks 1890 gebore is, het baie dinge gesien wat ons net so gou sou kon sien . . . . Maar teen al ons ontnugtering en teleurstellings kan ons 'n groot en heerlike herinnering vergoed - ons het gesien hoe Sherlock Holmes terugkom.

Ek kan getuig van die huishoudelike opgewondenheid onder intekenaars van Collier's, en dankbaar erken dat ek my ouers laat ontneem het wat my die eerste keer laat kyk het na die probleem wat uiteindelik met The Return of Sherlock Holmes gekom het. . . . Ons het toe nie gevra: 'Is hy so goed soos altyd nie?' Dit was genoeg dat hy terug was. Maar dit blyk dat hy so goed soos altyd was. . . . In een opsig was hy inderdaad beter as ooit tevore, hier in Collier verskyn die eerste keer in druk op die klassieke, laaste en onveranderlike portret van Sherlock Holmes. Ek sê, die eerste in druk was dit al lank bekend op die verhoog.

Danksy William Gillette, die tweede bepalende faktor in Russell McLauchlin se rekening in Alfredstraat. En vir nog twaalf bladsye van sy inleiding het Elmer Davis uitgebrei oor die eksegetiese geleerdheid wat aanvanklik deur opgewonde jong lesers soos hy in 1903-04 toegepas is, ook op die Adventures and Memoirs-verhale in die lig van die onthullings van die Return-verhale in Collier's Weekly.

Edgar W. Smith is in 1894 gebore, net soos McLauchlin, dus nege jaar oud toe die Return -verhale in Collier's verskyn het. Ek ken geen eksplisiete verklaring deur hom oor die lees van die verhale op daardie tydstip in daardie tydskrif nie, maar dit is moeilik om daaraan te twyfel as ons dit lees in sy heel eerste brief aan Vincent Starrett, gedateer 15 Oktober 1936 (gevind in sy geheel op pp. 158-61 van Irregular Memories of the 'Thirties), sy woorde: "Ek lees u' Private Life of Sherlock Holmes 'met die ware entoesiasme van iemand wat van kleins af die bewonderende illusie gekoester het dat ons held werklik geleef het."

En ander? Ek sal destyds na die korrespondent van Edgar, Vincent Starrett, kyk, maar ek weet dat hy in sy outobiografie Born in a Bookshop vertel het dat hy geboei was deur die historiese romans van A. Conan Doyle voordat hy deur Sherlock Holmes was en gebore is in 1886. 'n ietwat minder indrukwekkende ouderdom bereik het as Morley, Davis, Smith en McLauchlin in 1903. Maar ek sal ondersoek instel en verslag doen, en ek sal bly wees vir enige ander voorbeelde wat lesers hiervan vir my kan stuur.

2010 se groot debat oor die oorsprong van onreëlmatige studiebeurse:

"Dr. Hill Barton ”vs“ Rodger Prescott of evil memory ”

'N Debat tussen die uwe en dr Richard Sveum van The Norwegian Explorers ("Dr. Hill Barton", BSI) tydens die Sherlock Holmes Collections -naweek in 2010 by die Andersen Library van die Universiteit van Minnesota.

By hierdie geleentheid was dr Sveum die kampvegter van die Baker Street Irregulars -partytjiereeks wat Ronald Knox vir Sherlockian -beurs geskep het, en Christopher Morley het dit na Amerika gebring en die evangelie versprei. U nederige onreëlmatige historikus het probeer aantoon dat dit 'n mite is - 'n mite van lang bestaan, maar nietemin 'n mite. Hierna volg Dr. Sveum se openingsverklaring, my openingsverklaring, sy weerlegging en my weerlegging.

openingsverklaring van dr. Sveum

In die nuusbrief van die Sherlock Holmes Collections, Junie 2009, het ek die rubriek '50 jaar gelede' geskryf oor Evelyn Waugh se biografie van Msgr. Ronald Knox. U kan sê dat ek haatpos ontvang het van Jon wat beswaar maak teen my stelling: "Ronald Knox (1888-1957) was die Engelse teoloog wat met literêre geleerdheid in Sherlockiana begin het."

Op 14 Januarie 2010, in New York, sit ek en luister na Jon wat Msgr. Knox, so ek het hom dwaas uitgedaag om na Minnesota te kom en, met behulp van die reëls van die Oxford Union, te debatteer oor die mosie dat Ronald Knox die Sherlockian Scholarship gestig het. Ek sal my saak vir Knox voorlê, dan sal Jon die mosie teenstaan. Ek sal dan reageer, dan Jon, en dan sal ons dit oopmaak vir vrae.

Ek het eintlik gehoor hoe John Bennett Shaw die kultus van Sherlock Holmes verduidelik en begin met my versamelmanie met die Shaw 100, en organiseer my boekrakke volgens die godsdienstige kategorieë: Canon, apokriewe en geskrifte oor die heilige geskrifte. Ek het gedink almal weet dat Sherlockian Higher Criticism en die noem van Holmes die Meester te wyte was aan Knox se godsdienstige invloed. Ek was geskok toe ek verneem dat Lellenberg daarteen beswaar maak.

2011 is die 100ste herdenking van die lesing "Studies in the Literature of Sherlock Holmes", en daardeur die stigting van die Sherlockian -beurs deur Ronald Knox. In die inleiding van Knox se boek Essays in Satire uit 1928 skryf hy: 'Die Sherlock Holmes -papier is, glo ek in 1911, vir die Gryphon Club in Trinity geskryf, dit is voor verskeie samelewings voorgelees, meen ek, bo 'n aantal kere, en twee keer gepubliseer, in The Blue Book en Blackfriars. ”

Vir die bibliograwe is "Studies in the Literature of Sherlock Holmes" ses keer gepubliseer, waarvan die eerste The Blue Book (gelei deur Oxford -studente) Vol. 1, nr. 2 (Julie 1912), 111-32, en is opgeneem in Edgar Smith se 1958 The Incunabular Sherlock Holmes en James Edward Holroyd se 1967 Seventeen Steps to 221B.

As 'n Rhodes -geleerde in Oxford in 1911, het Christopher Morley Knox se lesing "Studies in the Literature of Sherlock Holmes" gehoor en daaroor geskryf in Sherlock Holmes en Dr. Watson: A Textbook of Friendship (1944). Die lesing was 'n ernstige ondersoek na die teenstrydighede in die Sherlock Holmes-verhale en 'n satire oor Bybelse hoër kritiek. Ronald Knox in sy outobiografie 1918 A Spiritual Aeneid skryf dat 'n deel van 'n don se funksie die lees van artikels aan voorgraadse verenigings is. Hy was van plan om twee te skryf, een oor St Paul vir teologiese verenigings en een oor Sherlock Holmes vir sekulêre samelewings, maar het gevind dat die Sherlock Holmes -koerant dit vir beide sou doen, aangesien dit as 'n godsdienstige traktaat geïnterpreteer is. Hy neem die Sherlock Holmes -verhale as 'n vorm van literêre kuns en verdeel dit in elf kenmerkende afdelings met Griekse name. Knox het 'n kontroversie oor die egtheid van die verhale uitgevind met opmerkings van denkbeeldige Duitse geleerdes. Knox se koerant het ons kultus begin en Morley het dit na Amerika gebring.

Dit is veral opmerklik dat sir Arthur Conan Doyle 'n brief aan Knox van 5 Julie 1912 geskryf het, wat Waugh in sy boek aanhaal. 'Ek kan nie help om te skryf om u te vertel van die vermaak - en ook die verbasing - waarmee ek u artikel oor Sherlock Holmes gelees het nie. Dat iemand sulke pyne aan sulke materiaal moes bestee, het my verbaas. U weet beslis baie meer hieroor as ek, ”en hy het vier bladsye verder gegaan om die kritiek breedvoerig te bespreek. Steve Doyle sal binnekort die hele brief publiseer in 'n boek deur professor Michael Crowe, Notre Dame, met die titel Ronald Knox en Sherlock Holmes: The Origin of Sherlockian Studies.

In die brief speel Conan Doyle die spel en verwys hy na die kommentators as die geleerde en diepgaande Sauwosch en die nie minder geleerde Piff-Pouff, en eindig met 'hernieude verbasing-oor die moeilikheid wat u gemaak het'. Die Great Game en Sherlockian -studies is geseën deur die Literary Agent.

So wie was nou eintlik Ronald Knox? Msgr. Ronald Arbuthnott Knox was 'n Engelse teoloog, priester en misdaadskrywer, gebore op 17 Februarie 188, 122 jaar gelede. Hy was die sesde en laaste kind van 'n Anglikaanse biskop, het by die Eton College gegaan en in 1905 'n eerste klas in Balliol College in Oxford geneem. Katoliek in 1917.

'Studies in the Literature of Sherlock Holmes' is geskryf tydens sy bekering van die Protestantse Anglikaan tot Rooms -Katoliek. Die kerk het hom gestuur om in 1919-1926 skool te gee in Hertfordshire. Hy kon in 1926 na Oxford terugkeer as kapelaan vir Rooms -Katolieke studente.

Om sy geringe toelating as kapelaan aan te vul, begin hy met die skryf van klassieke speurverhale en publiseer hy ses in totaal, insluitend vyf romans en 'n kortverhaal met Miles Bredon, wat as 'n private ondersoeker by die onbeskryflike versekeringsmaatskappy werk. In 1930 was hy saam met Dorothy L. Sayers 'n stigterslid van The Detection Club. Hy het die inleiding tot The Best Detective Stories 1928-1929 geskryf, en daarin het hy die spelreëls gekodifiseer-en die goue eeu-raaisels word as speletjies beskou, anders as ons spel.

Volgens Knox moet 'n speurverhaal 'hoofsaaklik die ontknoping van 'n raaisel hê, 'n raaisel waarvan die elemente in 'n vroeë stadium van die verrigtinge duidelik aan die leser voorgehou word en waarvan die aard nuuskierigheid, nuuskierigheid wek wat uiteindelik bevredig is. ” Knox se "Tien Gebooie" (of dekaloog) is soos volg:

1. Die misdadiger moet in die vroeë deel van die verhaal genoem word, maar mag nie iemand wees wie se gedagtes die leser mag ken nie.

2. Alle bonatuurlike of voornatuurlike instansies word vanselfsprekend uitgesluit.

3. Nie meer as een geheime kamer of gang is toelaatbaar nie.

4. Geen tot dusver onontdekte gifstowwe mag gebruik word nie, en ook geen toestelle wat aan die einde 'n lang wetenskaplike verduideliking benodig nie.

5. Geen Chinese moet in die verhaal figureer nie.

6. Geen speurder mag die speurder ooit help nie, en mag ook nooit 'n onverantwoordelike intuïsie hê wat reg blyk te wees nie.

7. Die speurder self mag nie die misdaad pleeg nie.

8. Die speurder is verplig om enige leidrade wat hy mag ontdek, bekend te maak.

9. Die stomme vriend van die speurder, die Watson, moet geen gedagtes wat deur sy gedagtes gaan, vir die leser verberg nie: sy intelligensie moet effens, maar baie effens, onder dié van die gemiddelde leser wees.

10. Tweelingbroers en tweelinge in die algemeen mag nie verskyn nie, tensy ons behoorlik daarop voorbereid was.

Die biografie van Ronald Knox deur Evelyn Waugh is 'n interessante verhaal. Knox het Waugh gekies om sy biografie te skryf voordat hy sterf. Beide Knox en Waugh was bekeerlinge tot die Rooms -Katolieke Kerk. Hulle was briljant, kom uit gesinne uit die middelklas, is opgelei in Oxford, was tydelike skoolmeesters, skryf satire en geniet die geselskap van die Britse Katolieke aristokrasie. Knox het Waugh gehelp deur Brideshead Revisited te proeflees en het hom gevra om sy literêre eksekuteur te wees in 1950. Entoesiasme: A Chapter in the History of Religion (1950) deur Ronald Knox is opgedra aan Evelyn Waugh. Waugh het die Knox -biografie opgedra aan Katharine Asquith en Daphne Acton. Msgr. Ronald Knox het eers van 1933 tot 1947 in Lady Acton's Aldenham in Shropshire gewoon, en in die herehuis, Mells, Somerset, van 1947 tot sy dood in 1957, die tuiste van Katharine Asquith.

Knox verlaat Oxford in 1939 en word deur die kerk aangesê om op te hou om speurverhale te skryf. Omdat hy in Shropshire woon, kon hy sy tyd daaraan bestee om die Vulgaat -Bybel in Engels te vertaal, 'n projek wat nege jaar geneem het. Die Waugh -biografie was omstrede deur te impliseer dat kardinaal Bourne, aartsbiskop van Westminster, nie die talente van Knox verstandig gebruik het nie. Die boek is byna veroordeel deur die Rooms -Katolieke Kerk. Msgr. Barton, die senior sensor, bevestig die "misnoeë van die hiërargie" omdat dit die ongeskrewe wet oortree het dat biskoppe op geen openbare wyse gekritiseer word nie.

In sy testament het Ronald Knox sy manuskripte en outeursreg aan Evelyn Waugh en die tantieme aan die Asquith -familie oorgelaat. Waugh publiseer Literêre afleidings deur Ronald Knox in 1958. In hfst. XIV, speurverhale, die reëls wat hy die eerste keer in 1924 geskryf het, is herdruk met kommentaar. Die Opsporingsklub het sy reëls vir hul etiese kode aanvaar. Die Opsporingsklub het ook drie reeksromans uitgebring, met elke lid wat 'n hoofstuk vol leidrade geskryf het en dit aan Ronald Knox oorgedra het.

In 1932 skryf Knox 'n resensie oor H. W. Bell se Sherlock Holmes en dr Watson: The Chronology of Their Adventures en Thomas Blakeney se Sherlock Holmes: Feit of fiksie? getiteld “The Mathematics of Mrs. Watson”, wat in die New Statesman op 12 November gepubliseer is. Dit is later herdruk in Baker Street Miscellanea 2: 8-11, 1975. Knox skryf "The Mystery of Mycroft" vir HW Bell's Baker Street Studies in 1934. Sy laaste bydrae tot die Sherlockiaanse literatuur was "The Apocryphal Sherlock Holmes: The Adventure of the First Class Carriage, ''n pastiche wat in 1947 in The Strand Magazine verskyn het. Dorothy L. Sayers in die voorwoord van haar ongewilde opinies uit 1946 het geskryf:

Monsignor Ronald Knox het baie jare gelede begin met die spel om die metodes van die 'hoër kritiek' op die Sherlock Holmes -kanon toe te pas, met die doel om aan te toon dat 'n moderne klassieke met hierdie metodes so spesiaal as 'n sekere kritici het probeer om die Bybel te verbrokkel. Sedertdien het die ding 'n stokperdjie geword onder 'n geselekteerde stel narre hier en in Amerika. Die spelreël is dat dit so plegtig gespeel moet word soos 'n krieketwedstryd by Lord's: die geringste tikkie uitspattigheid of burleske verwoes die atmosfeer.

Waugh merk op dat dertig jaar nadat "Studies in the Literature of Sherlock Holmes" gepubliseer is, dit Knox 'n roemvorm gebring het wat hy vervelig gevind het. Knox skryf aan 'n redakteur wat 'n resensie vra: 'Ek kan nie boeke oor Sherlock Holmes dra nie. Dit is so neerdrukkend dat my enigste permanente prestasie is om 'n slegte grap te begin. As ek dit begin het. ”

Beide Christopher Morley en Ronald Knox sterf in 1957. Knox is weg, maar nie vergeet nie, en ons word veral onthou deur die begin van die Sherlockiaanse studie.

openingsverklaring van mnr LELLENBERG

Ek is geen kenner van vals geheueversteuring nie, maar ek moet daarop wys dat niemand van ons onthou dat Ronald Knox 'n Sherlockian-beurs begin het nie. Ons was nie in 1911 nie, en ook nie in die vroeë 30's toe die beurs begin het nie en die BSI en Sherlock Holmes Society gestig is. Wat u dink u onthou, is wat ander vir u gesê het - en die kans is goed dat hulle ook nie daar was nie.

Ons het gedink dat 'die Meester' en 'die Heilige Geskrifte' godsdienstige gevolge is wat afkomstig is van Knox se toespraak. Dit was soos jy 'n taamlik jeugdige praatjie sê met sy heer Piff-Pouffs en Herr Bilgemanns. Wanneer word dit beskou as die oorsprong van ons beurs? Edgar W. Smith het in 1958 opgemerk dat Knox se dood “bedroef is deur almal wat na hom kyk as die oorsprong van die Sherlockiaanse kritiek”. Die idee dat Knox die oorsprong was, was dus vyftig jaar gelede aan die gang - hoewel Smith, ons sal sien, anders voel.

Trouens, nie baie het toe Knox se koerant gelees nie. Dr Sveum het gesê waar dit oor dekades verskyn het, het die feit dat Holmes -toegewydes dit nie voorgekom het nie, eers in 1928 in Engeland en 1930 in Amerika, toe dit opgeneem is in Knox's Essays in Satire. En daarna, slegs 'n paar keer met gereelde tussenposes, die laaste 26 jaar gelede, en nooit in die Baker Street Journa l of Sherlock Holmes Journal nie.

Maar die mite sê Morley het Knox se toespraak in Oxford gehoor en die evangelie in Amerika versprei. Ek het self in daardie geloof grootgeword. Maar toe ek die geskiedenis van die BSI begin ondersoek, tientalle opstelle en honderde briewe deur ons stigters gelees het, het ek geleidelik besef dat hulle nie van Ronald Knox praat nie. Dit was iemand anders waarvan hulle gepraat het.

Knox was nie die eerste om na die Canon te kyk nie. Ander het dit 'n dekade vroeër gedoen, Arthur Bartlett Maurice in The Bookman in America en Frank Sidgwick in The Cambridge Review in Engeland, in Januarie 1902 toe Hound of the Baskervilles in serie verskyn. Smith het The Incunabular Sherlock Holmes geopen met hul werk, nie Knox s’n nie. Knox se koerant is in werklikheid slegs die sewende in die kronologies geordende inhoud van die bloemlesing. (En hulle laat Andrew Lang se opstel uit 1904 weg.)

Tog hoef ons nie te argumenteer dat hulle meer as Knox ons geleerdheid gevorm het nie. Iemand anders het dit gedoen, en het in 1934 gedink aan die geleerdes en stigters van die BSI's en Sherlock Holmes Society.

En ten minste een van hulle het Christopher Morley se voorbeeld van Knox nodig. Morley het sy broers Felix en Frank lank voor 1911 ondersoeke in die Canon afgedwing en in die begin van die eeu Baltimore saam met ander jongmense 'n Sherlock Holmes-klub gevorm. Die evangelistiese Morley het van die begin af alles van 'n kultusleier gehad, sonder dat Knox hom sou inspireer.

Wat Morley aanbring om Knox se koerant Amerika toe te bring, weet ons nie eers of hy dit in 1911 gehoor het nie. Geen dagboeke of afspraakboeke bestaan ​​nie, geen briewe dui aan dat hy dit gedoen het nie. By die enigste geleentheid het hy daarna verwys dat dit in Oxford gegee is terwyl hy daar was, in 1944 in Sherlock Holmes en dr Watson, het Morley nie eintlik gesê dat hy dit gehoor het nie. As u die verwysing nie net sien nie, maar ook sien, vind u die stigter van die BSI vaag en onbepaald daaroor. *

Maar laat ons aanvaar Morley het dit gedoen - want dit versterk my punt dat hy dit nie na Amerika gebring en die evangelie versprei het nie. Teen die tyd dat Morley in 1910 op 20 -jarige ouderdom in Oxford aankom, nadat hy meisies, drank en ambisie ontdek het, het sy jeugdige Sherlock Holmes -entoesiasme dormant geraak - en volgens sy eie erkenning was dit nog steeds dormant toe hy in 1913 huis toe kom om sy loopbaan te begin. as skrywer.

Eers in 1926, het Morley in die Saturday Review of Literature daardie jaar gesê, is sy entoesiasme weer opgewek. Nie deur Knox nie, maar 'n naamlose drukker wat hy in New York ontmoet het, en wat dit weer laat opvlam, was 'n geïmproviseerde trivia -speletjie van die soort wat Morley gereeld as 'n seuntjie saam met broers en tjommies gespeel het. 'Ons het onsself', het hy berig, 'begin met 'n onderlinge vraelys van beroemde voorvalle in die lewe van Sherlock Holmes' - die 'heerlike details' wat Morley in 'In Memoriam Sherlock Holmes', die eerste volledige voorwoord van Sherlock Holmes, in 1930, uitgebring het , waarin Morley nooit Knox noem nie.

Dit was 'n speletjie wat Morley oorgedra het na 'n middagete -klub van hom waarin die BSI op sy gunsteling Manhattan speakeasy (of miskien gemarineer) beduie het. Robert K. Leavitt se onontbeerlike "Origin of 221B Worship", 'n eerstehandse weergawe van ons oorsprong, vertel hoe mededingende ondersoeke in die Canon tydens die middagete in die laat 20's en vroeë 30's die BSI gebaar het.

In 1930 verskyn "Studies in the Literature" in Amerika, maar dit was nie die soort spel van Morley nie, en hy het sy eie gang gegaan. Dit was Dorothy Sayers wat gesê het dat "die reël van die spel is dat dit so plegtig soos 'n krieketwedstryd in die land gespeel moet word by Lord's die geringste tikkie uitspattigheid of burleske die atmosfeer verwoes." En Morley speel volgens dieselfde reël: geen Bilgemanns of Piff-Poufs vir hom nie.

Verskeie dinge het Morley laat in 1933 aangespoor om die BSI te stig. Die verbod het geëindig, en Amerikaners hoef nie meer in die agterkamer te drink nie. 'N Ander in Oktober was Vincent Starrett's Private Life van Sherlock Holmes - 'n verruklike huldeblyk wat Knox skaars noem. En die deurslaggewende faktor was 'n ander ontwikkeling waarvan Starrett en Morley deeglik bewus was en ook tot die Engelse samelewing gelei het: 'n monografie uit 1931 wat Holmes -aanhangers ontroer, soos Knox se koerant nie gehad het nie.

Laat ons dit ondersoek. In 1932 het T. S. Blakeney se Sherlock Holmes: Feit of fiksie? het gesê: ''n Paar kritiese geskrifte het reeds gegroei, en dit sal in hierdie hele werk duidelik blyk in watter mate ons hulle daarvoor verskuldig is. Wat Blakeney van Knox opgemerk het, was sy beperkings: dat sy artikel slegs op 'n gedeelte van die Canon was. Die CC Roberts van Cambridge was eerder 'n bron en strooijonker vir kanonieke geleerdheid. Blakeney verklaar: "Roberts het vir Watson bereik wat hy en ander geleerdes vir Boswell vermag het."

Roberts het hierdie toekenning verwerf deur twee kritiese werke, invloedryk waar Knox nie was nie, behalwe in terme van weerlegbare foute wat Roberts in die geringste daarvan blootgelê het, 'n pamflet uit 1929 genaamd A Note on the Watson Problem. Om sy konteks te gee, het Edgar Smith in die voorwoord van die 1955 -uitgawe van HW Bell se bundel Baker Street Studies gesê: 'Dit is waar dat 'n jong priester met die naam Ronald Knox in 1912 'n artikel bygedra het tot die Oxford Blue Book in wat 'n tong-in-die-kies ondersoek van 'n paar esoterika in die Saga voorlopig onderneem is "-woorde wat min steun verleen aan die idee dat Knox die bron van ons beurs is.

Smith vervolg: 'as ons kan oordeel uit die toevallige tenoor van baie wat [hy] geskryf het (insluitend 'n blatante verkeerde aanhaling van die beroemdste enkele gedeelte in die Canon), is sy opstel nie so geïnspireer deur 'n diepgaande nuuskierigheid oor die lewe van die meester nie en soms as 'n begeerte om om eie onthalwe pret te maak met [Duitse Bybelse] hoër kritiek, dan 'n Europese mode. "

Smith het verduidelik dat die referaat van Knox, wat in Essays in Satire verskyn het, ''n herhaling in 1929 van SC Roberts in 'n opmerking oor die Watson -probleem ontlok het, en die grondslag vir wat sou volg, kan gesê word dat die aksie gelê is.' Die belangrikheid van hierdie waarneming deur 'n student, bydraer en redakteur van Holmesiaanse wetenskap soos Edgar W. Smith kan nie oorbeklemtoon word nie. Volgens Roberts is Roberts die grondslag van die Holmesiese studie.

Hy het dit gesê as gevolg van die biografiese behandeling van Watson wat Roberts in 1930 moes skryf. Dokter Watson, wat vroeg in 1931 deur Faber & amp. Dit het nie net betower nie, dit het ook gewys wat gedoen kan word, en ander inspanning - nie die minste nie, Christopher Morley. Dit was vinnig in Morley se hande, en hy het dit uitbundig geprys in die Saturday Review van 7 Maart 1931. Ons ken geen vroeër voorbeeld van Morley as om Knox te noem nie.

In 1932 gee Bell's Sherlock Holmes en dr Watson: A Chronology of Their Adventures Roberts ook die eerste plek onder die studente van die Canon, terwyl hy maar een keer na Knox verwys. - Starrett's Private Life bespreek Roberts se verhandeling in detail, terwyl Knox skaars genoem word. — And the BSI’s founders paid even less attention to Knox. Elmer Davis, reviewing Starrett’s Private Life in December 1933, discussed Roberts almost more than he did Starrett’s book, without once mentioning Knox. Morley, for his 1933 collection of essays I nternal Revenue , added to In Memoriam’s 1930 text a lengthy discussion of Roberts’ Doctor Watson Knox went unmentioned once again. And with the BSI launched in 1934, Knox might not have existed to tell from what Morley wrote that year. “Was Sherlock Holmes an American?” and “Doctor Watson’s Secret,” a jewel of chronological exegesis, built upon Roberts’ Doctor Watson without mentioning Knox.

Davis was also at Oxford in 1911, and his Constitution refers “the study of the Sacred Writings.” But Davis was a devotee long before, and in any event the term “Sacred Writings” does not appear in Knox’s talk. There was little religious terminology in Knox’s paper, which satirized German scholarship, not religious rites. Leavitt called the study of the Sacred Writings “pure Davis-ese.” Not until 1941, in an unpublished memoir about the BSI’s beginnings, did Morley allude to it: “since the Irregulars refer to [Doyle’s] works as ‘The Sacred Writings,’ perhaps he may be nominated ‘The Sacred Writer’”— but as a nod to his old chum Elmer, saluted by name immediately afterwards.

There is no hint of Knox in that 1941 memoir about the BSI’s beginnings, nor in Morley’s rewriting of it in 1946 for the Baker Street Journal . What Morley identified specifically as the BSI’s inspirations were William Gillette’s Farewell Tour of 1928-32, Roberts’ Doctor Watson , Starrett’s Private Life , and Davis’s Roberts-besotted review of Starrett in the Saturday Review .

Let’s look at England’s Sherlock Holmes Society next. Its founding in 1934 was reported at length by R. Ivar Gunn, who had been at Oxford at the same time as Morley. He named all present, and Knox was not. Messages from absent friends were read that night, from Blakeney, Starrett, Morley, and Desmond MacCarthy, but not from Knox. Attendees discussed the impetus behind their new club: of mention of Knox there was none, nor in connection with the BSI whose recent founding was discussed. But: “A genial note of welcome was struck by placing in front of each member a copy of Mr. Roberts’ masterly study of Dr. Watson.” And was S. C. Roberts present? As Governor Palin would say, you betcha.

By now you may have recalled the curious incident of the dog in the night-time. Knox’s talk cracked up Oxford lads compelled to read nineteenth-century biblical criticism, but in our scholarship and movement, Knox is only a latter-day saint: no evidence of having been in Morley’s mind when his zest for Holmesiana was revived in 1926, nor when he turned his luncheon club into a Baker Street club, nor when he founded the BSI. Only much later was Knox grafted onto our movement retroactively, assigned a place he had not occupied in the 1920s and ’30s.

It was a knoxious thing to do. Our scholarship’s starting point is Frank Sidgwick’s examination of Watsonian chronology in 1902, and our movement was triggered by S. C. Roberts’ brilliant study of Watsonian biography in 1931. We should be conscious and appreciative of that. Not only did Roberts’ Doctor Watson instantly captivate Blakeney and Bell, Starrett and Davis, and others when they read it, it did Morley too—

And earlier than anyone else in America, earlier than even most in England, for Morley had an “in”: the Faber & Faber editor who commissioned Roberts to write Doctor Watson was Christopher Morley’s brother Frank.

* Later this same year (2010), we learned from Nicholas Utechin’s BSJ Christmas Annual From Piff-Pouff to Backnecke: Ronald Knox and 100 Years of “Studies in the Literature of Sherlock Holmes” that Morley (and Elmer Davis) did not hear Knox’s talk at Oxford in 1911.

The Baker Street Journal for December 1992 has an article by Jon Lellenberg entitled “Logan Clendening: Canonizing an Irregular Saint” which starts out:

We Baker Street Irregulars possess more than a few religious parallels in our structure and lore. For example, Sherlockiana’s beginnings in a 1912 parody of contemporary biblical exegesis by Ronald A. (later Monsignor) Knox and in calling Sherlock Holmes the Master, one need not subscribe to the blasphemies of Samuel Rosenberg, or his heretical adherents, to admit that we refer not only to Holmes’s masterful accomplishments but also to the death-and-resurrection theme in the Sacred Writings.

Poor Jon, I’m sorry to hear that you lost your faith in Knox and no longer believe that Christopher Morley brought the gospel to America. Not who started the BSI, but who do we credit with founding Sherlockian Scholarship. So you propose S.C. Roberts as your cornerstone, propped up by Frank Morley?

S. C. Roberts in his 1966 book Adventure with Authors writes:

It was not until 1928 that I was led into the mock-solemnity of Holmesian scholarship. In that year the editor of the Cambridge Review invited me to review the omnibus edition of the short stories of Sherlock Holmes together with R. A. Knox’s Essays in Satire . I had often heard about the brilliant paper on “The Literature of Sherlock Holmes” which Knox had read to college societies and was delighted to find it included in the book. This essay was indeed germinal . . .

. . . As I read Knox’s essay and re-read some of the stories, it occurred to me that I might well carry on his own style of scholastic criticism. To his gallery of savants (Sauwosch, Backnecke, Piff-Pouff, etc.) I added one or two of my own (Keibosch, Pauvremutte) and expressed some doubts about the reliability of Knox’s textual scholarship. Finally, I urged that serious students should devote their energies to the elucidation of das Watsonischechronologieproblem .

Roberts goes on to say that it was Desmond MacCarthy who first printed his early life of Watson essay in Life and Letters . After he wrote about Watson’s later life the two essays were combined for the Criterion Miscellany series and there by association with Frank Morley. In the 1952 preface to Holmes and Watson: a Miscellany he recorded his debt to R. A. Knox’s famous essay. Roberts reports that, later reading Waugh’s biography, he sadly learned that Knox “was entirely out of sympathy with the later cult.”

Vincent Starrett’s The Private Life of Sherlock Holmes reprinted “A Final Examination Paper on the Life and Work of Sherlock Holmes” by E. V. (“Evoe”) Knox, editor of Punch and Ronald Knox’s oldest brother. Starrett includes a reference to Essays in Satire published in America by E. P. Dutton in 1928 with the comment: “An important critical study cast in the mould of a satire.” Thanks to Karen Murdock and George Vanderburgh we have Sherlock Alive: Sherlockian Excerpts from Vincent Starrett’s “Books Alive” Column in The Chicago Tribune 1942-1967 . (Starrett’s Private Life footnote quotes Father Knox, but it comes from his Trollope essay “A Ramble in Barsetshire” and not from “Studies in the Literature.”) From his column in 1957: “’Studies in the Literature of Sherlock Holmes,’ written in 1911, was the first important contribution to Holmesian scholarship, a critical ‘spoof’ that is today a Sherlockian classic.” And in the midst of the Cold War in 1960: “. . . Ronald Knox who inaugurated the Holmes cult with his “Studies in the Literature of Sherlock Holmes” (1911)—unless the Russians can prove an earlier date.”

The Knox brothers, much like the Morleys, had an early interest in Sherlock Holmes and wrote to Doyle in 1905 their “Sign of Four” letter. Knox also wrote the Decalogue Symposium , an early play with Sherlock Holmes along with sixteen named characters from history and literature along with New Women, Bimetallists, Flagellants, Seventh Day Baptists, and Choruses of Virtue and Vices.

I want you to hear Knox’s own words from the opening of “Studies in the Literature”:

If there is anything pleasant in life, it is doing what we aren’t meant to do. If there is anything pleasant in criticism, it is finding out what we aren’t meant to find out. It is the method by which we treat as significant what the author did not mean to be significant, by which we single out as essential what the author regarded as incidental.

There is, however, a special fascination in applying this method to Sherlock Holmes, because it is, in a sense, Holmes’s own method. “It has long been an axiom of mine,” he says, “that the little things are infinitely the most important.” And it is, is it not, as we clergymen say, by the little things, the apparently unimportant things, that we judge of a man’s character.

Ronald Knox founded Sherlockian Scholarship in 1911. The influence once germinated, gestated, and in 1928 was boosted by its reappearance which stimulated Christopher Morley and Elmer Davis. It also newly infected those primed by love of the Master like S. C. Roberts and Vincent Starrett. Even Edgar W. Smith in Baker Street Inventory has “Studies in the Literature” as “The first essay in the order of higher criticism.” It was not Knox’s intention to start a game or a cult. But his methodology is what endures. Those that followed who played the game so well must admit that Knox was the unintended founder.

rebuttal by Mr. LELLENBERG

I appreciate Dr. Sveum quoting an article of mine from the Baker Street Journal at me, but that was written in 1992, when my BSI history researches were still young. As I said in my opening statement, I was raised in the Knox faith myself it was only considerably later that I realized how little there is to it.

Much the same can be said for Dr. Sveum’s citation of Edgar W. Smith’s Baker Street Inventory . It was written in 1945. By the time Smith wrote his introduction for The Incunabular Sherlock Holmes in 1958, he had done his homework too, and learned differently.

And I too have read S. C. Roberts’ Adventures with Authors . But in 1966 he was writing about events nearly forty years earlier he was now seventy-nine years old and in the last year of his life. Just as Vincent Starrett in 1960 got the date of U.S. publication of Essays in Satire wrong, saying 1928 when it was actually 1930. But we should make too much of their lapses. We must rely instead on what they and others wrote about Knox’s paper around the time it appeared back then — to the extent that they wrote about it at all, which we’ve seen was very little.

I realize some Sherlockians are deeply invested in the Knox myth, even unto multiple revenue streams for the BSI over the next two years. Our Wiggins recently re-asserted the faith in an encyclical letter of sorts to Irregulars, though strangely it did not arrive in my in-box. But a kind Irregular forwarded it to me, and in it I saw quoted the same two authorities on behalf of the Knox myth. Said this letter,

One of the great Holmesians, Sir Sidney [sic] Roberts, wrote this homage to Knox in 1952: “It was Monsignor Knox’s famous essay that first beckoned me to Baker Street.”

Homage? If you read what Roberts wrote about Knox’s paper in A Note on the Watson Problem in 1929, what you actually find is scholarly scorn mingled with the irritation of Cambridge University Press’s head man confronted by something beneath its professional standards, as for example when Roberts wrote “It is a matter of some surprise that this article, first written in 1911, should now be issued unrevised and without reference, even by way of a footnote, to the investigations of later scholarship.” Instead of homage, Roberts took notice of Knox’s paper by publishing a demolition of its arguments, which he was able to do in fewer pages than Knox had taken, getting him commissioned to write something longer that got the Canon right: his monograph Doctor Watson , published in 1931 to universal acclaim.

And people at that time, when so much was suddenly stirring in canonical scholarship, did not believe Knox was its founder. The Cambridge Review , for example, opened an editorial entitled “A Plea for a More Liberal Spirit in the Criticism of the Sherlock Holmes Canon” in its November 11, 1932, issue with the following words:

The question of the Sherlock Holmes canon is once more before the public, and it will not be out of place to make some remarks on it in these columns, the place in which the Higher Criticism of the Holmes saga was first originated by Frank Sidgwick in 1902.

It is not unfair to say that the article then published by Sidgwick has determined the whole tendency of this branch of learning. He was mainly concerned with pointing out discrepancies — and very serious ones — in the dates of the “Hound of the Baskervilles” and since that time, critics have faithfully followed his method, have concentrated their attention on questions of chronology, of text, of the minutiae of the literary technique. It is true that they have now succeeded in doing a thing which Sidgwick himself hardly envisaged — they have directed this textual criticism to the solution of the difficult problems of the Holmes canon but this is hardly so much an innovation as a natural continuation of the work of Sidgwick. *

The recent BSI encyclical letter went on to say:

Vincent Starrett wrote in his “Books Alive” column in March 1945, “When Ronald Knox inaugurated the Holmesian higher criticism, in 1912, he did so on a note of solemn mischief that still sets the tone for all research students in the literature of Sherlock Holmes.”

Starrett the newspaperman knew his audience. His Chicago Tribune column was written not for us, but for the masses, “the great unobservant public, who can hardly tell a weaver by his tooth or a compositor by his left thumb.” He knew better. Knox’s paper did not set the tone for all subsequent students of the Canon, certainly not for Starrett himself whose 1933 Private Life of Sherlock Holmes did not echo the Knox tone in the slightest, which is why we still read it when we don’t bother to read Knox. In the early 1930s, Starrett paid very little attention to Knox, as we’ve seen — but great attention to S. C. Roberts instead.

“Who are we to argue with such giants?” the encyclical letter concludes.

Who are we? We are Sherlockians and Irregulars, and should adhere to what Christopher Morley called “the metal actuality of Baker Street doctrine.” Like Sherlock Holmes, we do not take things on faith. We do not form theories in advance of the facts. We do not see Rache on a wall and conclude that Miss Rachel has done this dreadful thing. That’s for Lestrade and Gregson. We are not dogmatists, we are independent thinkers. We investigate. We search out and examine clues. We follow the trail. And the trail leads us not to Ronald Knox, but S.C. Roberts –- and even his fellow Cantabrigian Frank Sidgwick, who first tackled Watsonian chronology in 1902.

"Dr. Ainstree” (Robert Katz) said (August 19, 2010, 2:46 p.m.) .

The always learned and erudite Dr. Hill Barton does a fine job delineating the history of Ronald Knox and his essay. However, he faces one basic problem in trying to prove that the Knox essay was the basis for Sherlockian scholarship. The essay is simply not scholarly. It is funny, in a silly way, for a few pages, and then becomes tedious. Finally, one comes away from the Knox paper not really learning new or insightful about Holmes. The meticulous Rodger Prescott comes nearer the point, but does not deliver the knockout blow. While it is true that Sidgwick and others wrote important papers, papers with real content, before Knox, it was Morley who put it all together. Between his work in Saturday Review and his founding of the BSI, this truly was the basis of the long-term study of the Canon, both institutionally and in print. But then, Dr. Ainstree is also a son of Haverford College. . . .

“The Trepoff Murder” (Russell Merritt) said (August 19, 2010, 11:35 p.m.) .

Thanks again for the goad to read S.C. Roberts. I discovered I had two books by him, the collection of Sherlock Holmes stories he edited for Oxford University Press, and the jumble he anthologized as Holmes and Watson: A Miscellany . When I started reading him on Watson, I immediately recognized why I stopped the first time around — he plunges into matters of Canonical chronology, which, unhappily, I was deeply uninterested in at the time. But even when he turned to his survey of Watson's career, I now think that the grace and subtle wit of his style would have escaped me. Oddly, I never connected him with the elegant S. C. Roberts who wrote on Samuel Johnson, a great hero of mine when I was in grad school.

I only wish you had told your audience more about Roberts in your talk. It seems to me telling that he is so less well-known than Knox. I think it may have been a master stroke that you stoked your reader's interest in Roberts and then let the reader do his own homework. You are never boring.

Time in the debate was scant, but even my detailed and documented paper that will appear in the Sherlock Holmes Journal next summer won’t have a huge amount to say about Roberts himself, for he’s already far better known to the SHJ ’s principal audience: British himself with a reputation as a scholar and academic publisher, and a co-founder of both the 1930s and 1950s Sherlock Holmes Societies there. But go to “Entertainment and Fantasy” in the Essays section of the website to read the last part (“Closing Memories”) by Ronald Mansbridge: Ronald had been one of his students at Cambridge in the mid 1920s, and then worked for him as the U.S. representative for Cambridge U. P. from about 1932 to Roberts’ death in 1966, and has lovely things to say about him there.

Tim Johnson said (August 20, 2010, 6:52 a.m.) .

Some more food for thought. While working on my Holmes/Doyle bibliography I came across an article in the Sunday Telegraph from April 28, 2002. It opens thus:

“All the Knoxes loved jokes and spoofs, as Penelope Fitzgerald shows in her wonderful joint biography of them, The Knox Brothers , just republished. As boys, for example, they wrote a letter to Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, denouncing inconsistencies in the Sherlock Holmes stories and including five dried orange pips, in allusion to the threatening letter in The Adventures of Sherlock Holmes . Later, Ronald Knox expanded the joke into an essay called ‘Studies in the Literature of Sherlock Holmes,’ a parody of Biblical scholarship in which he pretended to detect, from careful study of the text, that some of the stories must be fictitious inventions by a drunken Watson. Conan Doyle was delighted by the spoof and wrote to Ronald Knox to thank him.

“Nowadays we’re rather more sensitive. Or so it would seem from the first programme, called ‘Panic in the Streets,’ in a new series, The History of Fear (Radio 4, Monday), presented by the feminist historian, Joanna Bourke. On January 16, 1926, Father Ronald Knox (as he was by then) went into a studio in Edinburgh and delivered a talk over the air called ‘Broadcasting from the Barricades.’ An introductory statement explained that the talk was a work of humour and imagination and would be illustrated with ‘sound effects,’ then a novelty.

“Knox proceeded to describe a riot of the unemployed in central London as though it were happening in real time. Parliament and the Savoy Hotel were blown up and the Minister of Traffic was hanged from a lamp-post. Meanwhile, an assistant in the studio produced crashes and bangs and even the sound of breaking glass.

“The broadcast took in many listeners, and Father Knox was much reprimanded in the press. ”

My question: is the reprimand of Father Knox continuing?

And from the Editor’s Gas-Bag for September 8, 2011:

“Dear me, Father Knox, dear me!’

Re: the “Ronald Knox: Fact or Fiction” debate at the Disputations page, the French scholar Benoit Guilielmo points out to me something telling about Edgar W. Smith’s view: “I think [Smith] didn’t like very much Knox, as he described S. C. Roberts’ Note on the Watson Problem as a “gentle but well-merited attack on the atrocious Holmesian scholarship of that other ‘incunable’, Monsignor (then Father) Knox.” BSJ (OS), vol. 1 no.1 (January 1946), p. 34 n.1.

Smith was footnoting Christopher Morley’s very first “Clinical Notes by a Resident Patient” column in the BSJ , on this occasion taking the form of a letter from “my good friend Chief Inspector (Retired) Stanley Hopkins,” who toward the end said:

I am interested in what you wrote me in your last letter: you spoke of Monsignor Ronald Knox and Mr. S. C. Roberts as the two “incunables” (whatever that meant,) of your modern Baker Street studies, but I don’t think you knew that Mr. Roberts’ little biography of Watson (1931) was preceded by Mr. Roberts’ own trial version of the same, his A Note on the Watson Problem 1 of which only 100 copies were printed at the University Press, Camb., in 1929. Very few collectors indeed have this pamphlet, but naturally Mr. Roberts sent me one. I thought you would be interested to know about it.

Smith’s footnote in full said: “Mr. Hopkins is slightly in error. The piece in question is not, actually, a trial version of the classic biography it is, rather, a gentle but well-merited attack on the atrocious Holmesian scholarship of that other ‘incunable,’ Monsignor (then Father) Knox. As such, and since Hopkins is correct in saying that only a hundred copies were printed, the Note is reproduced in this issue of the Journal , so that all who may have missed it may see it now.”

Roberts’ Note appeared on pp. 29-32 of the BSJ . Smith did not bother to reprint Knox’s paper, then or later, nor has any other editor since. Perhaps Steve Rothman, reading this, will rush to do so in the so-called Year of Ronald Knox coming in 2011, in hopes I’ll stop pointing out this embarrassing fact.

Mr. Morley’s column in the Baker Street Journal ’s debut issue would have been a new opportunity to say he heard Father Knox give his talk at Oxford in 1911, or cite its supposed foundation of our scholarship, or the making of BSI. But he does neither: he calls our attention to S. C. Roberts instead.

From Benoit later the same day comes this:

In the last paragraph of your Editor’s Gas-Bag you stated:

"Mnr. Morley’s column in the Baker Street Journal ’s debut issue would have been a new opportunity to say he heard Father Knox give his talk at Oxford in 1911, or cite its supposed foundation of our scholarship, or the making of BSI. But he does neither: he calls our attention to S. C. Roberts instead.”

In fact there is another important “Clinical Note” from Morley that you omitted to mention in your debate. It is another letter from Stanley Hopkins, published in the BSJ (OS), vol. 2 no. 4, October 1947, p. 397:

“ During the horrible winter we had here I reread the best of all spuriosa , Rev. Knox’s Studies in the Literature of Sherlock Holmes I have a horrid notion that very few of your members ever saw it, and think they are having fresh new fun when they are only saying (less wittily?) what Rev. Knox wrote 35 years ago. I have a sad feeling that many of your members only read their own stuff? Tell me I am wrong? For instance Knox’s classical analysis of every Holmes-Watson story into its eleven canonical points: pro-oiminion, exegesis, ichneusis, etc. I was brutally drilled in all those severities at Bedford Grammar School, but I have a feeling they mean less to your vigorous young men.”

“The best of all spuriosa” dixit Morley. Of course this is not a declaration of Knox’s “supposed foundation of our scholarship, or the making of BSI,” as you say. But it’s an enthusiastic evaluation of Knox’s essay and certainly more than a call for attention to any student of the Corpus Watsonicum .

We shall also note that Christopher Morley concludes his review of S.C. Roberts’s pamphlet Doctor Watson (1931) -- “a delightful bit of serio-spoof” -- stating that “his essay, together with that of Father Ronald Knox in Studies in Satire [sic], is a necessary addition to the Holmes-Watson codex.” ( Saturday Review of Literature , March 7, 1931, p. 645). There is just a mention of Morley's review in your debate. I thought it would be interesting to quote here this Knox-Roberts Sherlockian Connection so dear to Morley.

Like in LADY, the coffin is maybe too large. Don’t you think so ?

Well, like Lady Frances Carfax, there’s still some fight in the corpse, but we shall see. I have to wonder why Morley put these references to Knox’s paper in Stanley Hopkins’ mouth, not his own. Why the separation? Perhaps one clue is found in the remark “I have a sad feeling that many of your members only read their own stuff” -- for by that time Morley was very tired of the BSI, in fact declaring that there would be no more BSI dinners (a draconian position from which Edgar Smith dislodged him only with great difficulty). Morley was happy to denigrate the Irregulars’ sense of scholarship at that point, and to do it here seized upon the one original aspect of Knox’s paper, what he describes above as “classical analysis.”

But if Morley/Hopkins is correct in suggesting that Irregulars were duplicating something earlier by Knox of which they were ignorant (and most were at the time), it doesn’t seem like he’s making out a case for Knox’s supposed vast influence, only for 1940s Irregulars not knowing their own humane science’s past literature. (Which is not surprising since very few had read it.)

1931’s Saturday Review comment nodded to Knox in the course of Morley lavishly praising S. C. Roberts’ Doctor Watson at length immediately upon its publication, in England. Never before, to my knowledge, had Morley mentioned Knox anywhere, let alone describe his 1911 paper. (And both this review of Roberts in 1931 and the BSJ column of 1947 were opportunities for Morley to mention hearing Knox’s paper in 1911 and the impression it had made on him, if such had happened, and he did not.)


On April 29, 1992, an all-white jury in California chose to acquit three of the four Los Angeles Police Department officers who beat Rodney King during a violent arrest in March of 1991, and could not agree on a verdict for the fourth officer, despite video evidence establishing their culpability.

On March 3, 1991, Mr. King was driving in downtown Los Angeles when the LAPD pulled him over and began beating him after he allegedly resisted arrest. Four LAPD officers kicked Mr. King, who was on the ground, and beat him with batons for nearly 15 minutes while more than a dozen law enforcement officers stood by. Mr. King sustained life-threatening injuries, including skull fractures and permanent brain damage.

A man standing on his balcony witnessed the violent arrest and captured it on tape. Video of the unrelenting assault was played at trial and broadcasted into homes across the nation and around the world.

Just months before the officers were acquitted, a federal court had concluded that Los Angeles sheriff’s deputies continued to use racially motivated “terrorist-type tactics” to violate the civil rights of Black people. Still, none of the officers involved in Mr. King’s assault faced punishment at trial.

The legal system’s refusal to hold these officers accountable was not unique—the Los Angeles Black community had already endured decades of racial discrimination, violence, and police brutality—but many community members found the outcome inexplicable given that the officers’ conduct had been caught on camera. The same month that Rodney King was beaten, a Korean store owner in South Central Los Angeles shot and killed a 15-year-old Black girl named Latasha Harlins after accusing her of trying to steal a bottle of orange juice. Latasha was clutching money when she was killed, but the store owner received only probation and a $500 fine.


German History Sources

EDITOR'S NOTE: I have compiled this list of documents for use in courses on modern German history (mainly nineteenth and twentieth century). I have tried to include a balanced selection of documents in English that are brief enough to assign for supplemental reading. I include not only textual materials, but some images, artwork, and architecture as well. Many of the documents I index are located at other sites on the WWW, since they serve my purposes well. A few I have posted to my own website. My choices have been constrained by what is already available on the WWW and by what is not copyrighted. If anyone knows of any documents not under copyright that I should include, please contact me and let me know (with full bibliographical information, please). If you could send an electronic copy of the document, that would be even better.

DISCLAIMER: I strive for accuracy, but I cannot ensure the accuracy of the documents, especially those not posted on my own website. If anyone discovers any errors on my website, please contact me and I will try to correct them. I have also tried only to post documents to my own website that are no longer under copyright. If I have inadvertently posted a document to my website that is still under copyright, I will remove it when notified.


29 April 1941 - History

Tweede Wêreldoorlog - Amerikaanse vloot in oorlog

UNITED STATES NAVY, COAST GUARD and MARINE CORPS CASUALTIES, 1941-1945

Service, States, in Support As this is a long term project, work is being uploaded as it is completed for use by naval history, family and other researchers.
UNITED STATES NAVY - compiled from ABMC, Bureau of Naval Personnel, POW/MIA Agency, States Lists and US Navy Memorial .

Bureau of Naval Personnel entries by NAME and by DATE

Naval-History.Net has been proud to host a definitive list of almost all 20th century Royal Navy casualties for some years. These were compiled by an American, Don Kindell from Ohio. This current project aims to do the same for the US Navy in World War 2 (Navy, Coast Guard and Marine Corps), the war in which my own father was killed at sea. It is in part an attempt to repay Don in some small way. It will also complement the World War 1 USN casualties we already have online.

The aim is to collect the information from the main online sources - listed below with their abbreviations - and present it by Name and by Date & Ship/Unit. Note: A variety of Officer and Enlisted Rates abbreviations are used in the different sources.

I would like to thank all the sources and their contributors for making this vast amount of information available on the Internet.



MAIN SOURCES
(links checked as of 11 March 2016)

Other Identified Sources
(links checked as of 11 March 2016)

The following are amongst those found on the internet:

USS Arizona Memorial Casualty List (az) - http://www.ussarizona.org/

US Submarines, On Eternal Patrol (ep), includes casualties not due to submarine sinkings - http://www.oneternalpatrol.com/

Chronology of the United States Marine Corps, 1935-1946, Volume II (mh) - http://ibiblio.org/hyperwar/USMC/USMC-Chron1935-1946/index.html

HyperWar, A Hypertext History of the Second World War (hw) by Patrick Clancey, a major collection of transcribed official documents - http://www.ibiblio.org/hyperwar/

Naval History and Heritage Command (nh) - www.history.navy.mil/

The Dictionary of American Naval Fighting Ships (da) - www.hazegray.org/danfs/

"The Official Chronology of the U.S. Navy in World War II" (oc) by Robert J Cressman - https://archive.org/details/TheOfficialChronologyOfTheUSNavyInWorldWarII

"The Two-Ocean War: A Short History of the United States in the Second World War" by Samuel Eliot Morison, 1963 as a prelude to his 15 volume "History of United States Naval Operations in World War II".


* The Manufacturer’s Suggested Retail Price excludes destination freight charge, tax, title, license, dealer fees and optional equipment. Click here to see all Buick vehicles’ destination freight charges.

* The Manufacturer’s Suggested Retail Price excludes destination freight charge, tax, title, license, dealer fees and optional equipment. Click here to see all Buick vehicles’ destination freight charges.

The Manufacturer’s Suggested Retail Price excludes destination freight charge, tax, title, license, dealer fees and optional equipment. Click here to see all Buick vehicles’ destination freight charges.

With cargo area floor lowered and seats folded. Cargo and load capacity limited by weight and distribution.

Buick Driver Confidence includes the following: Forward Collision Alert, Automatic Emergency Braking, Lane Keep Assist with Lane Departure Warning, Following Distance Indicator, IntelliBeam headlamps and Front Pedestrian Braking.

Vehicle user interface is a product of Google™ and its terms and privacy statements apply. Requires the Android Auto app on Google Play and an Android™-compatible smartphone running Android 5.0 or higher. Data plan rates apply. Android Auto is a trademark of Google LLC.

Apple iPhone®/iPod® devices support Bluetooth Audio streaming with limited functionality. Please connect through USB to use all features of the Buick Infotainment System.

Functionality varies by model. Full functionality requires compatible Bluetooth ® and smartphone, and USB connectivity for some devices.

Read the vehicle Owner’s Manual for important feature limitations and information.

EPA estimated MPG 25 city, 30 highway FWD.

Cargo and load capacity limited by weight and distribution.

EPA estimated MPG 30 city, 32 highway 1.3L engine FWD.

Buick Driver Confidence: Automatic Emergency Braking, Lane Keep Assist with Lane Departure Warning, Forward Collision Alert, Front Pedestrian Braking, Following Distance Indicator and IntelliBeam. Read the vehicle Owner’s Manual for more important feature limitations and information.

Vehicle user interface is a product of Google™ and its terms and privacy statements apply. Requires the Android Auto app on Google Play and a compatible Android™ smartphone. Data plan rates apply. You can check which smartphones are compatible at g.co/androidauto/requirements. Android Auto is a trademark of Google LLC.

Vehicle user interface is a product of Apple® and its terms and privacy statements apply. Requires compatible iPhone® and data plan rates apply. Apple CarPlay is a trademark of Apple Inc. Siri, iPhone and Apple Music are trademarks for Apple Inc, registered in the U.S. and other countries.

With rear seats folded. Cargo and load capacity limited by weight and distribution.

The system wirelessly charges one compatible mobile device. Some phones have built-in wireless charging technology and others require a special adapter/back cover. To check for phone or other device compatibility, click here or consult your carrier.

EPA estimated MPG 18 city/26 highway FWD.

Requires available Trailering Package. Before you buy a vehicle or use it for trailering, carefully review the trailering section of the Owner’s Manual. The weight of passengers, cargo and options or accessories may reduce the amount you can tow.

Bose® is a registered trademark of the Bose Corporation in the U.S. and other countries.

Before you buy a vehicle or use it for trailering, carefully review the trailering section of the Owner’s Manual. The weight of passengers, cargo and options or accessories may reduce the amount you can tow.

Preproduction model shown throughout. Actual Production model may vary.

Excludes 1SV models. MUST BE A CURRENT OWNER OF A 2007 MODEL YEAR OR NEWER BUICK OR GMC VEHICLE OR A CURRENT LESSEE OF A 2016 MODEL YEAR OR NEWER BUICK OR GMC VEHICLE THROUGH GM FINANCIAL FOR AT LEAST 30 DAYS PRIOR TO NEW VEHICLE SALE. Must finance through GM Financial. Some customers may not qualify. Not available with lease, special finance and some other offers. Take new retail delivery by 6/30/21.


Junie

Swipe your card at the kiosk game for your
chance to win free play and prizes.
Every swipe is a win!

Swipe your Club 29 card
at the Promotion Kiosk
to play the game and win.

$10,000 In drawings each day

Five winners will receive
$250 Free Slot Play every hour.

One lucky winner will receive $2,500 Cash
Receive one entry for every Club Point earned each Saturday.

Mondays &bull April 5 - June 28

Swipe your card at the kiosk game for your
chance to win free play and prizes.
Every swipe is a win!

Swipe your Club 29 card
at the Promotion Kiosk
to play the game and win.

$10,000 In drawings each day

Five winners will receive
$250 Free Slot Play every hour.

One lucky winner will receive $2,500 Cash
Receive one entry for every Club Point earned each Saturday.

Play your way!

Management reserves the right to alter or cancel a promotion at any time. Some restrictions appy. See Casino Services for details. Valid Photo ID Required. Problem Gambling? Call 1-800-Gambler.

Spotlight 29 Casino
46-200 Harrison Place
Coachella, CA 92236

©2021 Privacy Policy | Sitemap | Terms of Use Spotlight 29 Casino | Alle regte voorbehou