Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Jeffrey Gibson · 07-15-2008, 07:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

Ross had the reputation of being a very good classical scholar

He did? Very curious since he wasn't exactly a classicist, was he? And what he did write on Classical subjects (i.e. Homer) was not accepted as good scholarship on the part of Classicists, was it?

Quote:

link

John Wilson ROSS was born 29 January 1818 in Belmont, St. Vincent. He was christened in Kingstown’s St. George’s Anglican Cathedral on 15 October 1819. He was a writer who was well published in England, most notably for the 1878 book “Tacitus and Bracciolini, The Annals Forged in the XVth Century” John Wilson ROSS died on 27 May 1887 in Holburn, England. His death was noted in the Times of London newspaper for 01 June 1887, which stated that “he was after he was educated at King’s College, London, he proceeded to the West Indies, and was for some time Secretary to the Vendue Master of Berbice, but he ultimately left British Guiana, and returned to England, where for many years before his death he had been engaged in literary pursuits. In the year 1871 he contributed to the Edinburgh Review an article on “The Doctrine of the Chorizontes,” in which he endeavoured to show that the “Odyssey” must have been written at least three centuries after the “Iliad.” Mr. ROSS was at one time a voluminous contributor to periodical literature, articles from his pen having appeared in Douglas Jerrold’s Shilling Magazine, the Monthly Magazine, Bentley’s Miscellany, London Journal, Sharpe’s Magazine, Eliza Cook’s Journal, &c. He also contributed novelettes to the Family Herald, and in Paper and Print published the lives of distinguished printers, especially French and Flemish, of the 15th and 16th centuries. While acting as editor of the Decorator he wrote the memoirs of eminent decorative artists in that journal. In his most important work, “Tacitus and Bracciolini,” deceased brought forward evidence tending to prove that Poggio Bracciolini wrote the Annals of Tacitus. While only in his 20th year Mr. ROSS wrote a poem in three cantos entitled “Ninian,” which was published in Edinburgh in 1839, and more than 40 years later he was the author of a drama, The Earl’s Revenge, founded on the tragedy of Lady Jane Grey.”

Can you cite the sources, please, in which his reputation is set out (especially among Classicists) as what you say it was?

Jeffrey

mountainman · 07-15-2008, 08:26 PM

Why do you tangentiate via the capitalisation from classical to Classical? Ross understood (ie: read and wrote) greek and latin. That's a good start. Is'nt it? The question of the level of his scholarship is open for discussion.

Best wishes

Pete

Jeffrey Gibson · 07-15-2008, 10:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

Why do you tangentiate via the capitalisation from classical to Classical?

Why do you mangle contractions, let alone come up with very off constructions ("tangentiate via"?) and format your messages in such a blocky style?

Quote:

Ross understood (ie: read and wrote) greek and latin. That's a good start. Is'nt it?

It's one of the the minimum requirements (which BTW you'd do well to follow) for becoming a Classicist. But it hardly makes one a Classcicist. And it certainly is not what makes one deserving of the particular reputation that you claim Ross had (presumably among Classicists).

Quote:

The question of the level of his scholarship is open for discussion.

Yes, it is, even though you (it must be said) are hardly qualified to evaluate it.

But right now the issue is the truth of your claim that "Ross had the reputation of being a very good classical scholar".

Did he or didn't he? You obviously have sources from which you derived your knowledge of this purported fact. Otherwise you are just making things up. So what are these sources?

Did you read reviews of his work? Have you seen it praised in other books on Tacitus? If so, where may these reviews and these praises be found?

(Any wagers on Pete's claim being something he cannot and will not support? Any guess on the particular tactic he'll use to dodging these questions?)

Jeffrey

mountainman · 07-16-2008, 12:26 AM

Have you read Ross' work Jeffrey?
Here is Footnote 208:

Quote:

[Endnote 208] Father Hardouin, however, is outrageously extravagant.
He will admit that only two Greek authors and four Latin ones
--Cicero, Pliny the Elder, (a big part of) Horace (the Satires
and Epistles), and (a little bit of) Virgil (the Georgics),
have come down to us, along with the sacred writings of the
Old and New Testaments. Nothing else is genuine that we have
from antiquity,--not even the coins,--certainly, not the
productions of the Greek and Latin Fathers of the Church, nor the
Ecumenical Councils down to that held at Trent, and to cap the
climax of these appalling paradoxes, the parables and prophecies
of the Saviour and the Apostles first appeared in Latin. More
wondrous still! This wholesale fabrication all occurred in the
13th century, and the forgers were exclusively Benedictine monks.
Had the great Jesuit confined his playful erudition to profane
people all would have been well with him; but as he trenched upon
holy ground in the skittishness of his scepticism the
ecclesiastical authorities set over him were bound to interfere:
his superiors severely reprimanded him, his promotion in the
Church was for ever after stopped, and the supreme French law
court,--the Parlement de Paris,--suppressed the book containing
the novel raciness:--"Chronologiae ex Nummis Antiquis Restitutae
Prolusio de Nummis Herodiadum":--but wedded to his opinions, and
stubborn in the maintenance of them, Hardouin reproduced the least
reprehensible in his "Ad Censuram Scriptorum Veterum Prologomena."
From the manner in which he has been replied to by scholars all
over Europe, especially in Holland, France and Germany,
conspicuous among whom for pith of argument stand Basnage,
Leclerc, Lacroze, Ittig and Bierling, nobody at the present day
considers that what he said about the monuments of antiquity is
worthy of the slightest attention, though everybody acknowledges
his wonderful memory, sagacity, ingenuity, and mastery of all
kinds of literature, especially history and chronology, and, above
all, theology, of which he was a professor.

It appears he is citing the extant and scattered contemporary opinion at the time he was writing (c.1872 CE), and with a glance through the work, and a quick review of the substance of the footnotes one can gain a first hand impression of the primary consideration - the gauge of Ross' classical scholarship.

Ross may of course not measure up to the Jeffrey Gibson standard for a "Classicist" but I think that this issue is totally irrelevant to the first hand assessment of his work available ONLINE. Have you read it? Why dont you mark his effort as an X out of 100, and post it here so we can see how you rate people based on what other people, rightly or wrongly, have said about them in review.

Best wishes,

Pete

Jeffrey Gibson · 07-16-2008, 07:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

Have you read Ross' work Jeffrey?
Here is Footnote 208:

Seeing that this isn't in anyway an answer to the question I asked you, that's Dodge 1. Why? Because the issue isn't whether I have or have not read Ross' work. It's the truth of your claim that "Ross had the reputation (among others of his own time, presumably) of being a very good classical scholar" -- something BTW that my reading of him has little bearing on.

Are you going to support this claim (which presumably you adduced in order to note that Ross should be listened to) or not?

Quote:

It appears he is citing the extant and scattered contemporary opinion at the time he was writing (c.1872 CE), and with a glance through the work, and a quick review of the substance of the footnotes one can gain a first hand impression of the primary consideration - the gauge of Ross' classical scholarship.

Once again, Pete. But again the issue is not what his footnote shows, but the truth of your claim that Ross was regarded by others (presumably Classicists of his time, yes?) as a very of his time as a very good classical scholar. So that's Dodge 2.

Quote:

Ross may of course not measure up to the Jeffrey Gibson standard for a "Classicist" but I think that this issue is totally irrelevant to the first hand assessment of his work available ONLINE. Have you read it?

Since the issue is not how he might come across to anyone who now reads him, let alone whether he measures up to a purported "Jeffrey Gibson standard" of anything, that's Dodge 3.

Quote:

Why dont you mark his effort as an X out of 100, and post it here so we can see how you rate people based on what other people, rightly or wrongly, have said about them in review.

Back to square one. And these people are? And their reviews can be found where?

Jeffrey

mountainman · 07-16-2008, 06:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jeffrey Gibson

Quote:

Why dont you mark his effort as an X out of 100, and post it here so we can see how you rate people based on what other people, rightly or wrongly, have said about them in review.

Back to square one. And these people are? And their reviews can be found where?

An infinite regress since what are the qualifications of the reviewers?

Back to square one?

Square one is the question "Is the Forgery of Tacitus’ Annals in the Renaissance an Untenable Position?". I have contributed to this thread Jeffrey in identify the work of Ross - since the OP had not yet read the work.

It is IMO that Ross was a good classical scholar.
Whatever assumptions you make are your own.
Am I permitted to have an opinion?

Best wishes,

Pete

Jeffrey Gibson · 07-16-2008, 07:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jeffrey Gibson

Back to square one. And these people are? And their reviews can be found where?

An infinite regress since what are the qualifications of the reviewers?

You tell me (assuming there actually are any). You are the one who claims to know who they are and what they said.

So dodge five.

Quote:

Back to square one?

Square one is the question "Is the Forgery of Tacitus’ Annals in the Renaissance an Untenable Position?". I have contributed to this thread Jeffrey in identify the work of Ross - since the OP had not yet read the work.

Irrelevant to the matter at hand. So Dodge six.

Quote:

It is IMO that Ross was a good classical scholar.

That's nice. But leaving aside the facts that your opinion is worthless since you lack any and all the skills necessary to evaluate his -- or any acknowledged classicist's --, your criteria for detremining what is good is (as has been demonstrated time and again, that which confirms your predijudices and says what you want to hear, and that you've shown yourself absolutely incapable of determining what a good source is from a bad one when you've posted other material that you claimed was good, the above is a different claim entirely from the one you previously made. The issue isn't your opinion of Ross, but the truth of something you asserted as a fact: that at one point in time (presumably in the late 1800s), Ross was regarded (presumably by actual Classicists) as a very good classical scholar.

So dodge number seven.

Quote:

Whatever assumptions you make are your own.

True by definition.

Quote:

Am I permitted to have an opinion?

Yes, of course. But in addition to the fact that no one has said you weren't so entitled, the issue isn't your opinion, but the truth or falsity of something you claimed to be a fact (and have yet to produce a whiff of evidence to back up.

So ... dodge eight.

Atta boy, Pete! You're playing absolutely true to form and exactly as I noted you would do.

Jeffrey

Roger Pearse · 07-17-2008, 12:42 AM

Ross was no scholar. He didn't understand the basis of paleography, as a reading of his chapter on the Medici mss. shows.

Jeffrey Gibson · 07-17-2008, 06:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Roger Pearse

Ross was no scholar. He didn't understand the basis of paleography, as a reading of his chapter on the Medici mss. shows.

And I'll note that Pete's claim that "Ross had the reputation of being a very good classical scholar" is, if not an outright lie on Pete's part, something for which Pete has no supporting evidence whatsoever. No one in Ross' time, and certainly no classicist or group thereof then or now, regarded Ross as a very good clasical scholar.

If Pete has any actual evidence to the contrary, let him produce it.

Jeffrey

Roger Pearse · 07-17-2008, 07:06 AM

The Dictionary of National Biography article includes the following:

Quote:

Ross was something of a controversial writer. ... In 1871 an article from his pen, under the title ‘The doctrine of the Chorizontes’ (those who ‘separate’ the authorship of the Iliad and Odyssey), appeared in the Edinburgh Review. Its object was to show that the Odyssey was composed at least three centuries later than the Iliad.

Ross's chief work, Tacitus and Bracciolini: the Annals Forged in the Fifteenth Century (1878), displays a characteristic combination of great acumen with somewhat defective scholarship. Dedicated to the author's brother Sir Robert Dalrymple Ross (1828–1887), the book endeavours to show that Poggio Bracciolini forged the Annales of Tacitus for Cosmo de' Medici on the suggestion of Piero Lamberteschi. The theory is based mainly on forced interpretations of somewhat mysterious episodes in the life of Poggio.

... Ross, who also wrote for many popular magazines, including Bentley's Miscellany, died at his house in High Holborn on 27 May 1887.

Sources The Times (1 June 1887), 10 · The Athenaeum (4 June 1887), 739 · Men of the time (1884), 943–4 · Allibone, Dict. · BL cat.,

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

07-15-2008, 08:26 PM	#2
mountainman Contributor Join Date: Mar 2006 Location: Falls Creek, Oz. Posts: 11,192	Why do you tangentiate via the capitalisation from classical to Classical? Ross understood (ie: read and wrote) greek and latin. That's a good start. Is'nt it? The question of the level of his scholarship is open for discussion. Best wishes Pete

07-17-2008, 12:42 AM	#8
Roger Pearse Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2002 Location: N/A Posts: 4,370	Ross was no scholar. He didn't understand the basis of paleography, as a reading of his chapter on the Medici mss. shows.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.