(09-21-2015 06:17 AM)Eva Elisabeth Wrote:  John - re: "...and find it [German] to be all but devoid of Latin roots..."

??? My humble knowledge of English would comprehend "all but devoid" as to mean the same as "full of" ("alles andere als frei von" = "voll mit", or: minus minus = plus). In this case this would oppose your former statement that German has no Latin in it.

While of the non-Romance languages English certainly has the most Latin loanwords (and English has more words than German at all*, less extensive grammar instead - in a sum, all languages are equally difficult to acquire), the German language has "incorporated" plenty either. I just have to look out of the Fenster (from Latin "fenestra") to be reminded of my favorite example where the English term ("window"), unlike the German, roots in the old Scandinavian languages, i. e. in Old Norse "vindauga" ("wind eye"), as the chilly northern wind used to blow thorough the glassless holes.

As for German, I couldn't find reliable information on the exact %age of Latin derrivates, but here's a word list which I doubt to be complete:
https://de.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liste_la..._Deutschen
(I've already noticed a very essential one missing: "Schule" = "school", from Latin "schola"...)
* The OED currently estimates a total of 620,000 words in the English language, the Duden (German main dictionary) between 300,000 and 500,000 words in German. The French "Grand Robert" counts 100,000 French words - maybe an effort of the Toubon Law and the executive [next word misssing in the Wiki list: "Exekutive"] Académie Française:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toubon_Law

---

PS: One example for the common overall origin:

surgery = "Chirurgie" in German, = "chirurgia" in Latin.

All trace back to the Greek word "Chier" = hand [while
the Latin for "hand" = "manus"] as it describes a handicraft treatment: cutting, sewing etc.

Many medical expressions in both languages actually are Greek, and often the Latin term is used, too.

The chemical concept of chirality (German "Chiralität") has the same origin - actually a very illustrative term:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chirality_(chemistry)

Eva:

Well, here I am. Sorry it has taken me so long, but after the cocktail, newspapers and dinner, I konked out.

You are quite right: my statement that "Her (Germany's) language has no Latin in it" is entirely too categorical. I should have known that that statement wouldn't make it past a linguist. Of course it has some Latin in it, but it remains true that relative to the Romance languages and English, it doesn't have much. And it is also true that that fact is attributable to Arminius's defeat of Varus's legions in the Teutoburger Forest in AD 9, a defeat that caused Augustus to pound on the walls of his domus, on the Palatine Hill, demanding "Varus! Give me back my legions! Of course, his legions were quite dead, their bones bleaching in the sun in a valley that for many years, indeed centuries, became known as "The Valley of Bones".

Also, Ich wusste nicht dass Sie waren Deutsch and dass Sie wissen so viel uber die Deutschen Sprach. I habe etwas in Schule gelernt und auch bin Ich in Deutschland gewesen einmal ungevehr drei monaten und einmal nur eine Woch wann mein Frau und Ich nehmten eine Reise auf der Rhine Fluss von Basel nach Amsterdam, vor zwei Jahre. Deutschland is sehr schoen und gefaelt uns veil und wir haben gefunden dass die Deutsche sind sehr hilflich und freundlich.

John

Thanks, John - I still think I'm talking plenty of Latin every day, I don't feel it "not much". Of course not much compared to the Romance languages, but not really that much less than English compared to other languages again. I hope you understand that I found it very confusing to be told I don't know (of) what I'm talking every day!

Kudos to your German skills! And thank you for all your kind words - I'm glad you were treated likewise (kindly) and liked it here!

The Varus battle was a muddy carnage in the Teutoburg Forest:
   
In 1875, William I dedicated this monument, the Hermannsdenkmal, to the victor:
   

(09-22-2015 04:43 AM)Eva Elisabeth Wrote:  Thanks, John - I still think I'm talking plenty of Latin every day, I don't feel it "not much". Of course not much compared to the Romance languages, but not really that much less than English compared to other languages again. I hope you understand that I found it very confusing to be told I don't know (of) what I'm talking every day!

Kudos to your German skills! And thank you for all your kind words - I'm glad you were treated likewise (kindly) and liked it here!

The Varus battle was a muddy carnage in the Teutoburg Forest:

In 1875, William I dedicated this monument, the Hermannsdenkmal, to the victor:

Eva:

I have seen photos of that monument before. It is impressive. Arminius, of course, like so many others, accomplished his triumph by duplicity, i.e. by feigning friendship with Rome, and, more specifically, Varus. To his discredit, Varus fell for it. My understanding is that when Varus realized that all was lost, he ordered his slave to kill him, which he did.

As for the battle site, two or three years ago I read an article in a historical journal about a historian of the period who believed he had located the site. He explored it carefully and found artifacts which convinced him that in fact he had located the actual site.

John

Re: "...when Varus realized that all was lost, he ordered his slave to kill him, which he did" - yes, he deserted his men this way, left them alone without leader, a conduct for which he had been criticized additionally.

At regular intervals new finds and theories come up as for the battle and location, one of the ever-lasting mysteries.

Enjoyable as the travelogue and linguistics are, to return for a moment to the book... which I purchased at the Surratt Museum (100 points), I've just finished the first read-through and will shortly embark on the more leisurely and detailed examination. (I have to be careful here because John's an acquaintance and packs a mean punch! :-). Besides my mother always told me to say two positive things before saying anything else.

I'm glad I bought it. I'm glad I have it, although like Meade's new horse the price is pretty digging. It's also literally a heavy work to read in bed at night - my arms got tired. But there's lots of good stuff in there.

One of my peeves is John's technique of stating a thing as conjecture and later in the book stating the same thing as a virtual certainty and then later as an absolute (using terms such as, "As we have already learned in Ch. xx").

In this very thread we see a similar process but in reverse:

06-30-2015, 06:41 AM John Fazio
Herold most likely knew the truth. He too had been to Canada.

06-30-2015, 05:07 PM John Fazio
Herold in Canada? It is not stated with certainty, but the evidence comes from the testimony of James B. Merritt at the trial of the conspirators. He said "I think I saw the prisoner, D. E. Herold, in Canada." (See Pitman, p. 35)

In the course of one day, John moves from a certainty to a not-certainty but granted, it's a chat and not a considered essay. Nevertheless, the point if not queried would have remained as a certainty

Allied to that is the apparent cherry-picking of Merritt et al. They are, as John points out, horrendous liars but he avers that in order to make their story more believable they included some truth. Coincidentally, the true bits are all exactly the same truths as John needs for his thesis. Thus to protect the project, Herold's presence in Canada cannot be suspect because Merritt said it but because Merritt (honest man!), said "I think..." On the other hand, he's correct; "I think" is enough to make the identification weak.

But I have John to thank for my new nightmare - scores of Mosby's men surrounding Ford's Theatre whistling in the dark. The reasoning seems to be: I think Mosby was more involved; some people heard whistles; Mosby men often whistled; therefore they were all around Ford's Theatre to help Booth; QED!

The chief defect of the book is, I believe, the almost complete lack of any evidence (other than conjecture from unrelated particles) that Judah Benjamin had any role in the assassination and that pretty much goes for the Cabinet and Davis. "Because blankets" does not equal "therefore bullets" - perhaps in a civil case.

To a degree I was reminded of some of Theodore Roscoe's techniques in "The Web of Conspiracy" which I'm also having to read more carefully now to compare the two works.

A deeper reading of Decapitation may change my mind on this, but at present, anyone expecting a smoking gun will be disappointed (and John certainly promised no such thing).

I'll close with another positive. There is much meat in John's book and it's worth chewing over more than once.

In his book John maintains that an inscription on a windowpane at McHenry House Hotel in Meadville, PA. was made by none other than John Wilkes Booth himself. John is certainly not the only author who has written that Booth did this. But did he? For example, here is what Roy Chamlee writes in his book:



Is this really Booth's work? Opinions?

(10-03-2015 08:00 AM)RJNorton Wrote:  In his book John maintains that an inscription on a windowpane at McHenry House Hotel in Meadville, PA. was made by none other than John Wilkes Booth himself. John is certainly not the only author who has written that Booth did this. But did he? For example, here is what Roy Chamlee writes in his book:

Is this really Booth's work? Opinions?

Art Loux has Booth ill in New York with erysipelas of the arm on August 10, 1864, and still ill in New York on August 28, so he couldn't have gone to Pennsylvania to etch this on August 13. I don't see why he would have etched it later when Lincoln clearly wasn't dead by poison. That leaves only the possibility that he etched it some time before that, and that just doesn't strike me as likely.

(10-03-2015 08:29 AM)Susan Higginbotham Wrote:  

(10-03-2015 08:00 AM)RJNorton Wrote:  In his book John maintains that an inscription on a windowpane at McHenry House Hotel in Meadville, PA. was made by none other than John Wilkes Booth himself. John is certainly not the only author who has written that Booth did this. But did he? For example, here is what Roy Chamlee writes in his book:

Is this really Booth's work? Opinions?

Art Loux has Booth ill in New York with erysipelas of the arm on August 10, 1864, and still ill in New York on August 28, so he couldn't have gone to Pennsylvania to etch this on August 13. I don't see why he would have etched it later when Lincoln clearly wasn't dead by poison. That leaves only the possibility that he etched it some time before that, and that just doesn't strike me as likely.

Everyone:

I will address Major General Meade's comments later ("acquaintance", indeed!!), but for now I will repeat what Weichmann (a good source) has to say on the subject of the inscription:

In (August) Booth was playing a theatrical engagement at Meadville, Pennsylvania. He registered at the McHenry House...When (the performance) was over, Booth retired alone to his room. The following morning he left the city. When the servant...entered the room which had been occupied by the actor, an inscription was found on one of the windowpanes. It was written in a large, bold hand and was as follows: ABE LINCOLN departed...etc."...The signature of Booth entered August 13, 1864, was cut from the hotel register, and was pasted on the glass under the inscription...All the circumstances in relation to (the framed glass) and of the visit of Booth to Meadville at that time are certified to by Miss McHenry (the daughter of the proprietor) and other residents of Meadville...The handwriting on the windowpane when compared with the signature of Booth on the hotel register is found to be identically the same, and this fact is further verified and strengthened by a comparison with Booth's handwriting in his diary. There is not the slightest doubt that the writing on the pane of glass is that of Booth...

Sounds pretty good to me, especially when coupled with evidence of attempted poisoning of the President, probably with the complicity of the druggist's clerk whose name was Herold and whose place of employment was known to serve the Executive Mansion.

John

(10-03-2015 09:40 AM)John Fazio Wrote:  

(10-03-2015 08:29 AM)Susan Higginbotham Wrote:  

(10-03-2015 08:00 AM)RJNorton Wrote:  In his book John maintains that an inscription on a windowpane at McHenry House Hotel in Meadville, PA. was made by none other than John Wilkes Booth himself. John is certainly not the only author who has written that Booth did this. But did he? For example, here is what Roy Chamlee writes in his book:

Is this really Booth's work? Opinions?

Art Loux has Booth ill in New York with erysipelas of the arm on August 10, 1864, and still ill in New York on August 28, so he couldn't have gone to Pennsylvania to etch this on August 13. I don't see why he would have etched it later when Lincoln clearly wasn't dead by poison. That leaves only the possibility that he etched it some time before that, and that just doesn't strike me as likely.

Everyone:

I will address Major General Meade's comments later ("acquaintance", indeed!!), but for now I will repeat what Weichmann (a good source) has to say on the subject of the inscription:

In (August) Booth was playing a theatrical engagement at Meadville, Pennsylvania. He registered at the McHenry House...When (the performance) was over, Booth retired alone to his room. The following morning he left the city. When the servant...entered the room which had been occupied by the actor, an inscription was found on one of the windowpanes. It was written in a large, bold hand and was as follows: ABE LINCOLN departed...etc."...The signature of Booth entered August 13, 1864, was cut from the hotel register, and was pasted on the glass under the inscription...All the circumstances in relation to (the framed glass) and of the visit of Booth to Meadville at that time are certified to by Miss McHenry (the daughter of the proprietor) and other residents of Meadville...The handwriting on the windowpane when compared with the signature of Booth on the hotel register is found to be identically the same, and this fact is further verified and strengthened by a comparison with Booth's handwriting in his diary. There is not the slightest doubt that the writing on the pane of glass is that of Booth...

Sounds pretty good to me, especially when coupled with evidence of attempted poisoning of the President, probably with the complicity of the druggist's clerk whose name was Herold and whose place of employment was known to serve the Executive Mansion.

John

Booth's illness in New York in August 1864 is attested to by diary entries by Junius Booth (Aug. 28--"John Booth ill 3 weeks with erysepalas), a letter by Asia Booth Clarke on August 25 ("Wilkes is quite sick"), and letters by Booth himself to Isabel Sumner dated from New York on August 26 and August 28 in which he refers to his arm and thanks her for the flowers she sent him. Samuel Arnold also refers to Booth being laid up with erysipelas shortly after recruiting Arnold.

So all of this evidence of Booth being in New York, all of which except for Arnold's recollection predates the assassination, is to be set aside in favor of Weichmann's later claim? Weichmann, of course, had no access to Junius' diary, Asia's letter, and Booth's letters to Isabel.

Since Weichmann did not meet Booth until December 23, 1864, how would he know so much about Booth's "activities" four months earlier? Did he and JWB become good enough friends that Booth spilled the beans to him about his ongoing intentions? I don't think so...

Dare I say that Mr. Weichmann was just regurgitating stories that were circulating after the assassination. Where are the "certifications" that Miss McHenry and other citizens of Meadville supposedly signed? Do they still exist? Did they ever exist? Was it good publicity for the McHenry House?

I have never studied this windowpane issue because I thought it was just another hoax. When Dr. Chamlee gave his explanation, it seemed much more genuine and realistic. Coupled with Art Loux's impeccable research, I think we can take Booth's name off the list of suspects on this issue.

(10-03-2015 09:40 AM)John Fazio Wrote:  Everyone:

I will address Major General Meade's comments later ("acquaintance", indeed!!), but for now I will repeat what Weichmann (a good source) has to say on the subject of the inscription:

In (August) Booth was playing a theatrical engagement at Meadville, Pennsylvania. He registered at the McHenry House...When (the performance) was over, Booth retired alone to his room. The following morning he left the city. When the servant...entered the room which had been occupied by the actor, an inscription was found on one of the windowpanes. It was written in a large, bold hand and was as follows: ABE LINCOLN departed...etc."...The signature of Booth entered August 13, 1864, was cut from the hotel register, and was pasted on the glass under the inscription...All the circumstances in relation to (the framed glass) and of the visit of Booth to Meadville at that time are certified to by Miss McHenry (the daughter of the proprietor) and other residents of Meadville...The handwriting on the windowpane when compared with the signature of Booth on the hotel register is found to be identically the same, and this fact is further verified and strengthened by a comparison with Booth's handwriting in his diary. There is not the slightest doubt that the writing on the pane of glass is that of Booth...

Sounds pretty good to me, especially when coupled with evidence of attempted poisoning of the President, probably with the complicity of the druggist's clerk whose name was Herold and whose place of employment was known to serve the Executive Mansion.

John

I claimed too much??? :-)

The problem with Weichmann's story is of course that it is complete and utter hearsay, written at a considerable time after the event. He did not relate what he himself had seen and known at the time (August 1864) but repeats a story he heard at a later date. As such, it is no more valuable than any "interwebs" repetition of a story, spurious or not. The test perhaps is, does the "writing" using a diamond against glass, truly match the "hand" writing of JWB? If so, does it also match the "hand" of an unknown number of other people's writings?

Did JWB ever use the nickname Abe when referring to Abraham Lincoln? Would he have used this "darling name"?

(10-03-2015 11:36 AM)MajGenl.Meade Wrote:  

(10-03-2015 09:40 AM)John Fazio Wrote:  Everyone:

I will address Major General Meade's comments later ("acquaintance", indeed!!), but for now I will repeat what Weichmann (a good source) has to say on the subject of the inscription:

In (August) Booth was playing a theatrical engagement at Meadville, Pennsylvania. He registered at the McHenry House...When (the performance) was over, Booth retired alone to his room. The following morning he left the city. When the servant...entered the room which had been occupied by the actor, an inscription was found on one of the windowpanes. It was written in a large, bold hand and was as follows: ABE LINCOLN departed...etc."...The signature of Booth entered August 13, 1864, was cut from the hotel register, and was pasted on the glass under the inscription...All the circumstances in relation to (the framed glass) and of the visit of Booth to Meadville at that time are certified to by Miss McHenry (the daughter of the proprietor) and other residents of Meadville...The handwriting on the windowpane when compared with the signature of Booth on the hotel register is found to be identically the same, and this fact is further verified and strengthened by a comparison with Booth's handwriting in his diary. There is not the slightest doubt that the writing on the pane of glass is that of Booth...

Sounds pretty good to me, especially when coupled with evidence of attempted poisoning of the President, probably with the complicity of the druggist's clerk whose name was Herold and whose place of employment was known to serve the Executive Mansion.

John

I claimed too much??? :-)

The problem with Weichmann's story is of course that it is complete and utter hearsay, written at a considerable time after the event. He did not relate what he himself had seen and known at the time (August 1864) but repeats a story he heard at a later date. As such, it is no more valuable than any "interwebs" repetition of a story, spurious or not. The test perhaps is, does the "writing" using a diamond against glass, truly match the "hand" writing of JWB? If so, does it match the "hand" of an unknown number of other's writings?

Meade:

It is not advisable to dismiss "hearsay" evidence so blithely. In some degree, 99% of the evidence we have is hearsay. Only that from the horse's mouth, i.e. the perpetrator of the deed, is not, and even here we have problems, sometimes very serious problems, of credibility, as every historian knows.

Weichmann wrote more, but I left it out in the interest of brevity. I'll quote him now, especially because you appear to make comparisons of handwriting the "test". Please add this to the material previously quoted.

The glass was removed from the window and encased in a wooden frame. A piece of velvet was placed behind it and thus the handwriting was made more distinct....Miss Mary McHenry, daughter of the proprietor of the McHenry House, presented the framed glass to the War Department after the assassination...It is still in the possession of that bureau of the government. (Citing Century Magazine , April 1896)

Weichmann's account appears to be contradicted by the evidence that Booth was elsewhere on August 13. But that is not an absolute. It often happens that a person will make a quick trip here or there for any number of reasons, which digression goes largely unnoticed and unrecorded. It is common knowledge that Booth had oil interests in the Meadville area and in fact spent almost the entire month of September in nearby Franklin. It is quite reasonable to suppose, therefore, that he had an engagement in Meadville. There is substantial agreement that following his early August meeting with Arnold and O'Laughlen at Barnums' in Baltimore, Booth took off to settle his affairs elsewhere. Loux has him in New York for the rest of the month. Steers is in substantial agreement. Alford has him informing Arnold and O'Laughlen that he was going "north" to wind up his business and personal affairs, not exactly consistent with Loux and Steers. Arnold says that "a few days (after their meeting) (Booth) started for his home in the North for the purpose of settling and arranging all his claims, etc., and to dispose of his property and possessions satisfactorily to himself, thence intending visiting Canada..." The point is that none of this absolutely precludes a trip to Meadville on August 13 to discharge an obligation, i.e. a performance. Observe that he stayed only one night. Observe, further, that even Chamlee states that Booth "visited the region (i.e. Meadville) at that time". Observe, further, that once he hit the main line of the PRR from Pittsburgh to New York, he would be in the latter city in a matter of hours. My considered judgment is that the evidence re this issue does not allow us to make a definitive judgment, one that rises to at least the level of a probability, and that this issue, too, therefore, is and will remain one of the enduring mysteries of the period.

John

"The glass was removed from the window and encased in a wooden frame. A piece of velvet was placed behind it and thus the handwriting was made more distinct....Miss Mary McHenry, daughter of the proprietor of the McHenry House, presented the framed glass to the War Department after the assassination...It is still in the possession of that bureau of the government. (Citing Century Magazine , April 1896)"

So - is the image Roger posted above an original photography of this original corpus delicti? If so, has a graphologist ever commented on the question?
Just to compare:
       
(Quite different!)

All Weichmann is doing is paraphrasing the April 1896 Century Magazine article, which is here:

http://www.unz.org/Pub/Century-1896apr-00889

I'm having a hard time believing that Booth would have a theatrical engagement in Meadville, given that his other engagements in 1864, at the height of his success, were in major cities, much less that he would drag himself from a sickbed to keep it. Erysipelas was a serious illness (it killed John Stuart Mill in 1873). Even if he had only a mild case of it (and all the evidence suggests otherwise), the pain and swelling would have interfered with his ability to give the physical style of performance for which he was noted.

I noticed that the Century article also gives Lewis Powell a wife and baby in St. Louis.

---

This letter by F. T. Munson, dated May 8, 1865, sheds some additional light on the window story:

May 8/65

Hon. James B. Fry, Provost Mar.

Dear sir,

Allow me to call your attention to the enclosed copy of an inscription on a pane of window glass taken out of a window in the McHenry Hotel, Meadville, PA, after the assassination of our Pres. Abraham Lincoln & as I understand now framed or about to be & shown to travelers who stop at said hotel. I have some friends who are now visiting me to whom it was shown with the remark that one hundred dollars had been offered for it but it could not be had as the time might come when it would be worth $20,000. I see that our government are said to be suppressing the sale of the assassins photographs which is right. Would it not be proper for this memento in question to be put where no mortal eyes ever would behold it again. I need not say to you that loyal hearts feel not only hurt but indignant that such a memento should be thus shown & valued in our midst.

Yours Truly

E. T. Munson
Frankln, PA.



In The Lincoln Assassination: The Evidence, where this letter is reprinted, Steers et al write that the pane was removed from room 22, which Booth had not occupied when he stayed at the hotel on June 10 and June 29. There is a letter from the hotel cashier to that effect here:

https://archive.org/stream/johnwilkesboo.../Meadville