Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Jeffrey Gibson · 07-17-2008, 07:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Roger Pearse

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.,

Now why didn't Pete produce this, do you suppose?

In any case, and leaving aside the hints within the notice that Ross is being labeled a crank, I'm not sure how this is relevant to the question of what Ross' reputation was in his own time (recall Pete's use of the past tense), let alone how his works were received/reviewed by Classicists contemporary with him. It would be interesting to see what's in The Athenaeum note.

Jeffrey

Roger Pearse · 07-17-2008, 07:43 AM

Better yet, perhaps we might search Google books for some reviews of the book? In the Edinburgh Review, No. 304 (Oct.1878) p.437-468. P.438:

"Its extraordinary blunders show that the author’s classical education cannot have been very complete."

It's a long review, but this is the conclusion. Ross published anonymously. Note how the biography indicates no scholarly post held.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

Jeffrey Gibson · 07-17-2008, 07:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Roger Pearse

I'm afraid that I cannot stomach the kind of man who asserts, without even searching, that Ross -- who published anonymously -- was a scholar. What kind of debauched wretch wags his tongue without troubling to obtain the first information on the subject?

Sad to say, as is quite demonstrable, many on this board including some who among MJ proponents are regarded as their luminaries. Do we need to name names?

andrewcriddle · 07-17-2008, 12:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Roger Pearse

Better yet, perhaps we might search Google books for some reviews of the book? In the Edinburgh Review, No. 304 (Oct.1878) p.437-468. P.438:

"Its extraordinary blunders show that the author’s classical education cannot have been very complete."

It's a long review, but this is the conclusion. Ross published anonymously. Note how the biography indicates no scholarly post held.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

The review can also be consulted at the Internet Archive http://www.archive.org/details/edinb...iew147londuoft

Andrew Criddle

mountainman · 07-17-2008, 06:14 PM

Who wrote the review in 18???

Here are its concluding proclamations ....

Quote:

We have examined this curious volume
in considerable detail, not because we are
at all convinced by it, or that we doubt the
authenticity of the ' Annals ' of Tacitus, but
because it exemplifies in a striking manner
the sceptical tendency of the age to attack
the authenticity of ancient writers.

In our judgment, the argument of Mr. Koss against
the proper authorship of Tacitus is at least
as plausible and ingenious as any of the
recent attempts which have been made to
shake the authority of the Fourth Gospel ;

and if a similar catena of objections could
be urged against any of the books of the
canon of Scripture, we should probably be
told that criticism had achieved a signal
triumph over theological traditions. The
truth is, that in such questions the proba-
bility lies on the side of long tradition, and
it requires stronger evidence than this vol-
ume contains to shake it.

Best wishes,

Pete

mountainman · 07-17-2008, 07:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Roger Pearse

Better yet, perhaps we might search Google books for some reviews of the book? In the Edinburgh Review, No. 304 (Oct.1878) p.437-468. P.438:

"Its extraordinary blunders show that the author’s classical education cannot have been very complete."

It's a long review, but this is the conclusion. Ross published anonymously. Note how the biography indicates no scholarly post held.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

Ross would not have wanted to have published his ideas at the city of Edinburgh any earlier than he did. Look what the authorities were doing less than 200 years earlier. Nice bunch of academics, were'nt they Jeffrey? (I wonder if there were many very good Classicists amongst the bystanders?) Thomas Aikenhead (c. 1678 - 8 January 1697) was a Scottish student from Edinburgh, who was prosecuted and executed on a charge of blasphemy. Aikenhead was indicted in December 1696. The indictment read:

Quote:

"That ... the prisoner had repeatedly maintained, in conversation, that theology was a rhapsody of ill-invented nonsense, patched up partly of the moral doctrines of philosophers, and partly of poetical fictions and extravagant chimeras: That he ridiculed the holy scriptures, calling the Old Testament Ezra's fables, in profane allusion to Esop's Fables; That he railed on Christ, saying, he had learned magick in Egypt, which enabled him to perform those pranks which were called miracles: That he called the New Testament the history of the imposter Christ; That he said Moses was the better artist and the better politician; and he preferred Mahomet to Christ: That the Holy Scriptures were stuffed with such madness, nonsense, and contradictions, that he admired the stupidity of the world in being so long deluded by them: That he rejected the mystery of the Trinity as unworthy of refutation; and scoffed at the incarnation of Christ".[1]

He further predicted that Christianity would be "utterly extirpated" by 1800.

The case was prosecuted by the Lord Advocate, Sir James Stewart (grandfather of the future Jacobite economist Steuart) who demanded the death penalty to set an example to others who might otherwise express such opinions in the future. Aikenhead was in fact the last person hanged for blasphemy in Britain.

Aikenhead pleaded for mercy during the hearing and attempted to recant his views but was sentenced to death by hanging. On the gallows, he stated his belief that moral laws were devised by humans rather than divine.

On the morning of January 8, 1697, Thomas wrote to his 'friends' that "it is a principle innate and co-natural to every man to have an insatiable inclination to the truth, and to seek for it as for hid treasure. . . So I proceeded until the more I thought thereon, the further I was from finding the verity I desired. . ." Aikenhead may have read this letter outside the Tolbooth, before making the long walk, under guard, to the gallows. He was said to have died Bible in hand, "with all the Marks of a true Penitent".

Aikenhead’s story has been told many times. Thomas Macaulay mistold it to illustrate the dictatorial powers of Scottish clergy. He wrote that "the preachers who were the poor boy's murderers crowded round him at the gallows, and. . . insulted heaven with prayers more blasphemous than anything he had uttered." More recently, George Rosie wrote in the newspaper The Scotsman, "The killing of Thomas Aikenhead, like the hounding of Salman Rushdie for the same ‘offence,’ was a disgrace. . . a prime example of a God-fixated state killing a man in an attempt to stop the spread of an idea."[1]

Best wishes,

Pete

Jeffrey Gibson · 07-17-2008, 08:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

Quote:

Originally Posted by Roger Pearse

Better yet, perhaps we might search Google books for some reviews of the book? In the Edinburgh Review, No. 304 (Oct.1878) p.437-468. P.438:

"Its extraordinary blunders show that the author’s classical education cannot have been very complete."

It's a long review, but this is the conclusion. Ross published anonymously. Note how the biography indicates no scholarly post held.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

Ross would not have wanted to have published his ideas at the city of Edinburgh any earlier than he did.

Than he did?? As you have apparently failed to notice, Ross published his (vanity press?) book on Tacitus in London, not Edinburgh.

Quote:

Look what the authorities were doing less than 200 years earlier. Nice bunch of academics, were'nt they Jeffrey?

What's with you and mangled contractions?

Quote:

(I wonder if there were many very good Classicists amongst the bystanders?)

I doubt if you'd be able to recognize them if you saw them.

Quote:

Thomas Aikenhead (c. 1678 - 8 January 1697) was a Scottish student from Edinburgh, who was prosecuted and executed on a charge of blasphemy. Aikenhead was indicted in December 1696. The indictment read:

Quote:

"That ... the prisoner had repeatedly maintained, in conversation, that theology was a rhapsody of ill-invented nonsense, patched up partly of the moral doctrines of philosophers, and partly of poetical fictions and extravagant chimeras: That he ridiculed the holy scriptures, calling the Old Testament Ezra's fables, in profane allusion to Esop's Fables; That he railed on Christ, saying, he had learned magick in Egypt, which enabled him to perform those pranks which were called miracles: That he called the New Testament the history of the imposter Christ; That he said Moses was the better artist and the better politician; and he preferred Mahomet to Christ: That the Holy Scriptures were stuffed with such madness, nonsense, and contradictions, that he admired the stupidity of the world in being so long deluded by them: That he rejected the mystery of the Trinity as unworthy of refutation; and scoffed at the incarnation of Christ".[1]

[snip]

And this shows that your claim that "Ross had the reputation as a very good Classical scholar" is true (and well researched) how?:huh:

Jeffrey

mountainman · 07-17-2008, 09:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jeffrey Gibson

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

(I wonder if there were many very good Classicists amongst the bystanders?)

I doubt if you'd be able to recognize them if you saw them.

I'd hazard a guess that they would be the ones who are making the appeal to some form of authority on behalf of that authority.

Best wishes,

Pete

mountainman · 07-17-2008, 09:37 PM

Jeffrey,

Which academic wrote the following?
And what was his post in academia?

And if Ross was not indeed some form of good classical scholar then why was he reviewed at all by the Oxford Review in the late 1800's?

And you have still failed to face the implications of the then.

Who were the peers to whom the reviewer compares the work of Ross? Who were the authors of "recent attempts which have been made to shake the authority of the Fourth Gospel", and what are these works? Do you know the answers to these questions Mr Gibson?

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

Quote:

We have examined this curious volume
in considerable detail, not because we are
at all convinced by it, or that we doubt the
authenticity of the ' Annals ' of Tacitus, but
because it exemplifies in a striking manner
the sceptical tendency of the age to attack
the authenticity of ancient writers.

In our judgment, the argument of Mr. Koss against
the proper authorship of Tacitus is at least
as plausible and ingenious as any of the
recent attempts which have been made to
shake the authority of the Fourth Gospel ;

and if a similar catena of objections could
be urged against any of the books of the
canon of Scripture, we should probably be
told that criticism had achieved a signal
triumph over theological traditions. The
truth is, that in such questions the proba-
bility lies on the side of long tradition, and
it requires stronger evidence than this vol-
ume contains to shake it.

Best wishes,

Pete

Jeffrey Gibson · 07-18-2008, 08:04 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jeffrey Gibson

I doubt if you'd be able to recognize them if you saw them.

I'd hazard a guess that they would be the ones who are making the appeal to some form of authority on behalf of that authority.

You mean like you did when, in order to note that Ross should be taken seriously, you appealed to the "fact" that he had the reputation (presumably within academia) of being a very good classical scholar?

Jeffrey

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

07-17-2008, 07:43 AM	#12
Roger Pearse Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2002 Location: N/A Posts: 4,370	Better yet, perhaps we might search Google books for some reviews of the book? In the Edinburgh Review, No. 304 (Oct.1878) p.437-468. P.438: "Its extraordinary blunders show that the author’s classical education cannot have been very complete." It's a long review, but this is the conclusion. Ross published anonymously. Note how the biography indicates no scholarly post held. All the best, Roger Pearse

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.