In the gospels Jesus made numerous claims of deity. Indeed those words might have been added later by His own disciples, but in order for that have actually happened without anyone crying foul, the whole mass of common man living in those times would have to have been very very stupid and gullable. These were people who were willing to be fed to lions before renouncing their faith, and that kind of zeal may seem odd to us today, but it would pay close attention to what exactly it is that it believed don't you think?
I'm no biblical scholar, but my understanding is that there was plenty of "crying foul" going on when it came to claims of what Jesus said and didn't. And "the whole mass of common man" had no uniform understanding. They were either oblivious or were deeply divided on what was said/meant and wasn't said/meant. And there was not anything like a uniform view until a long, long time later, if there ever was. But this is probably not the place for a discussion of Jesus.
If I changed the names on the Declaration of Independance, do think no one would notice? I just think it is astonishing how so much of modern scholarship is predicated on the assumption that people before us were stupid. So I place a lot of stock in oral tradition.
I think we disagree that "oral traditions" are always consistent with what really happened, and with whether they are always as coherent or widely accepted as you apparently think they are. This is true of Jesus, the Declaration of Independence, and Merion. Most of the time, supposed revisionist "historians" are not treating the those that were there as stupid, but have rather studied them and find that those who were there held views much different than the current accepted understanding of what happened.
Merion is a terrific example.
-- The accepted version is that Wilson traveled abroad before he designed and built Merion East, and that he learned what he needed on this trip. Didn't happen.
-- In the accepted version M&W's two visits to Merion have either been ignored or discounted to the point that they might as well have been ignored. This is entirely inaccurate.
-- The accepted veriosn is that all M&W did at the NGLA meeting was give some general thoughts on the principles of the great holes and help Wilson with his itinerary. This is not at all the way Hugh Wilson described it.
-- The accepted version is that there is no support for recognizing M&W's involvement in designing the course. Yet
all the parties who were actually there, plus Alan Wilson, credit their involvement.
-- The accepted version is that all the parties who were there considered Hugh Wilson THE designer at the time the course was built. This was not the case.
-- The accepted version is that the holes on the course were not explicitly based on principles from the holes abroad. When the course opened it was reported that MOST EVERY HOLE WAS BASED ON PRINCIPLES FROM HOLES ABROAD, and extremely reputable sources give specific examples.
-- Whigham was there and wrote that Macdonald designed the course. The accepted version ignores this.
So I ask you, who here is disrespecting those that were there? Certainly not me. I hold the views of Lesley, Francis, Alan Wilson, Hugh Wilson, H.J. Whigham, and C.B. Macdonald as much more compelling than the words of some self-described experts on Merion, no matter their affiliations or lineages.
And really David, am I bound to invest 100 hours of reading into every time some scholar comes along and says that my hero Abe Lincoln was gay?
Again, is this your way of again not answering whether you dismissed the Shakespeare scholars without ever reading and considering their analysis?
You are not bound to invest any hours in reading anything anyone says. In fact, as I tried to explain to you when you asked me whether you should read the second half of my essay, you should not read anything if you already have decided what it means beforehand. But do not expect your objections or broad critique to be taken seriously unless you are willing to actually consider the analysis presented.
____________________________________________________________________
If we're willing to believe this about those who have taken issue with some of the contentions in your essay, I think that you have to admit that you've fallen into this trap as well. I think there's been a lot of "reasonable analysis" on these threads, but there's been a lot of personal invective as well. I guess all I'm suggesting is that this shouldn't be too surprising given the history between you guys (I read that old thread on Merion #10 again, and it existed then, prior to your essay) and given the personal nature of all of your connections to Merion and its history.
I disagree. While I am certainly no Angel, I have tried to treat with respect all those who behaved civilly in these discussions, whether or not I agreed with their positions. When I have failed to do so, I have acknowledged as much as much and have tried to set the record straight.
As for TEPaul and Cirba, surely I am entitled to defend myself, and to challenge their obnoxious behavior. I accused Mike Cirba as having engaged in a witch hunt to malign my reputation, but he did do that and even admits it. I accused TEPaul and Wayne of repeatedly misrepresenting, misunderstanding, concealing, and/or ignoring important information, but all this is well documented, and is pertinent considering that they expect us to take their word for it when it comes to the new source material. I have also accused them of playing games with the source material, selectively offering it without allowing proper review, because this is exactly what they have done. Surely I can try to hold them to accepted standards of review, and to the same standard to which they held me.
But even with all this, I think that any reasonable review of the record will show that the vast majority the rudeness, hostility, name-calling, mischaracterization, exaggeration, and disruptiveness comes from one side. More has come from me than I would like, but I am human after all, and a person can only take so much abuse before that person hits back.
Was there anything rude, obnoxious or disrespectful in my essay? I don't think so.
It's easier for me to be reasonable on this subject - my interest is more academic and my perspective is more distant.
I know it is impossible to believe, after the treatment I have received, that this could be my perspective, but it is. My paper conveys this I think. It was written away from this nonsense and after extensive research. I didn't start believing anything near what I now believe, but rather came to believe it as I uncovered more and more evidence.
My reading of the Francis document is a perfect example of this. I always assumed that the "swap" happened much later, but a careful reading of his statement indicates otherwise. Now maybe he was mistaken or unclear or inaccurate, or maybe Merion's Board was, but I have no reason to believe either yet.
Tom MacWood - interesting take on Alan Wilson's report. A couple questions. You say that his account is second-hand because he was not on the committee, and that it may be prone to errors. Has anyone who WAS on the committee written anything that differs substantially from Alan Wilson's account?
Whigham was not on either Committee, but he worked with both the Site Committee and with the Construction Committee, and was with Macdonald every step of the way, including when they returned to the site to finalize the routing. I don't think his account necessarily differs with Alan Wilson's, but it sure differs with the way Alan Wilson's is being (mis)read.
Robert Lesley was on the Site Committee and the President of the MCC Golf Association, and his account does not mention any European trip, does not credit Wilson with being primarily responsible for the design. Credits the committee with laying the course out upon the ground, and notes that they had as advisors M&W.
Hugh Wilson's account is inconsistent with Alan Wilson's, in that it is clear from Hugh Wilson's account that the overseas trip abroad occurred later, after the NGLA trip (and therefor after the course was designed and built)[/quote]
David's essay has made it pretty clear that there was no trip to Britain in 1910. In your opinion, does the fact that Alan Wilson got this wrong make the entire work suspect?
It certainly raises the issue of just how much Alan Wilson was involved with what was going on. There is no evidence he was involved, and his "report" is a bit jumbled as to the details and timing of things.
Some claim that A Wilson did not say that Hugh went abroad in 1910. It does not specifically say this but it does say that he was sent abroad as "a first step." As I pointed out in my essay this was by no means the case.
Also, Alan Wilson wrote that the plan evolved after Wilson returned. Maybe the plan for the second course, or the plan for the finishing touches or changes on the East, but the course was already built so the plan for the course course was in the past when he returned!
TEPaul now wants to embrase the view that this must have been referring to changes over the years, which is something I have presented as an alternative reading in the past and he has vehemently disputed this.. The problem with his current position is that he then goes on to claim that the second half of the same sentence applies to the initial plan, not the later changes. This does not make sense.
Also, in context with the rest of the paragraph, it appears that the plan he was referring to was the initial plan.
You mention that the recent death of his brother might have affected A. Wilson's judgement. As a counterpoint, what effect did the death of Charles Blair Macdonald have on the judgement of his son-in-law and longtime confidant H.J. Whigham? Should we be suspicious of his eulogy?
That is precisely why most dismiss Whigham's Eulogy, yet those same individuals become extremely agitated at the mere suggestion that Alan Wilson may have been moved similarly.
Whether or not grief played a part in his letter, I don't think that Alan Wilson was intentionally misstating anything. I just do not think he knew much
first-hand about the origins of the East. Yes, he is definitely making a case that,
among the committee-members, HWilson deserved the lion's share of the credit, but it seems the committee members told him this, so this was certainly a fair case to make. It was even more true by the time HWilson died because he apparently continued to be very active with the course and I am not sure the others did.
It is
possible that Whigham was overcome by grief and therefore somehow mis-credited Macdonald, but do not think it a fair conclusion without any support. There are a number of facts that cut against this concluding he was mistaken. Among them:
--
WHIGHAM WAS THERE. HE KNEW FIRST HAND WHAT MACDONALD CONTRIBUTED TO THE DESIGN PROCESS. So there no chance of an inadvertent misunderstanding about what went on.
-- Whigham was an experienced and accomplished reporter and editor, and knew better than to include items in a published work that were blatantly factually incorrect.
-- Macdonald did not need Merion to bolster his resume. He was extremely accomplished whether or not Merion was on the list.
-- At the time M&W were involved in Merion, Whigham was one of the foremost experts on golf courses (and golf) in the United States, and been involved in the designs of a few courses (including NGLA) and knew what it meant to design a golf course, so there is little chance he could have misunderstood what Macdonald's Contribution was.
-- Whigham's eulogy seems to be balanced and very consistent with the historical record.
-- Whigham acknowledged that Macdonald's direct involvement dropped off pretty sharply pretty early on.
-- Whigham also acknowledged that Raynor was doing most the groundwork with many of the courses.
-- Whigham also acknowledged that Macdonald was extremely protective of NGLA, to the point of criticizing other great courses like Pine Valley and even his own Lido.
-- Whigham knew the difference between inspecting a property and offering a few suggestions, and designing a course. He notes that Macdonald inspected Pine Valley and offers a few suggestions, but DOES NOT credit Macdonald with designing Pine Valley, but rather noted that it "was a George Crump creation and a noble work of golf course architecture."
-- The eulogy does not contain any other errors of the magnitude suggested for the Merion error (Some suggest that Whigham said that Raynor and Macdonald designed Merion. Reading the section in context, it seems more likely that Whigham was listing courses designed by Macdonald and/or Raynor.)
Lastly, what was the intended purpose of this essay? I just can't seem to remember where this piece was found. Was it distributed to the membership of Merion, or to the Board ? If it was a private communication, then one has to ask how many other private communications of a similar nature WERE published. If none were, then the fact that this wasn't published either shouldn't make it suspect.
It was written as an "article" for a member working on a club history. Wilson's accompanying letter:
Dear Mr. Philler:-
You asked me to write you up something about the beginnings of the East and West courses for use in the Club history, and I warned you that I did this sort of thing very badly. You insisted, however, so I have done the best I could and enclose the article herewith. If it is not what you want, please do not hesitate to destroy it and to ask someone else to write you something which will better suit your purpose.
I am very glad you are writing the club history. It ought to be done because unless put on paper these things which are interesting in themselves are apt to be forgotten,-- and I do not know of anyone who would do the work so well as you.
With regards, I am,
Sincerely,
Alan D. WilsonParts were used, but not the section dealing specifically with the creation of the courses. This may be because of the inaccuracies in the first part, or because of the praise of M&W.
It is interesting to note that these Merion conversations went on for months or years without Wayne or TEPaul ever producing the part of the report dealing with M&W and the creation of the courses. It was only after I had come close to establishing that there was a later trip no earlier trip that Wayne and TEPaul finally came forward with the letter. Even then they pretended that they had not been withholding it, but claimed they had just found it. In fact, earlier references indicate that they long had had the letter. They were not disclosing it because at the time they were refusing to fully acknowledge that M&W's involvement was even as extensive as it was.
Tom MacWood, you point to one fact presented by Wilson that was in error, that Hugh Wilson went abroad in 1910, and from there infer that the rest of his points are bogus. You refuted one point that he made, but not the entire piece.
What about, say, David's essay? He seemed to put a lot of weight on the letter that Macdonald wrote to Merion, going so far as to imply that it would contain a routing of the course, or specific design elements. The letter was produced, and it contained no such thing. Yet that same essay contained information regarding the fact that Hugh Wilson almost certainly did not travel to Britain in 1910 after the NGLA visit. Does the fact that one item in his essay was refuted then mean that the rest of the essay should be considered refuted as well?
I just don't get the logic of this.
As for my essay, the comparison is misleading. Everything in my essay is contingent upon
my understanding of the facts as currently known and upon my analysis. None of it should be treated as source material, because it was not meant as such. I
knew there was more information out there that I was not allowed to access that may change my essay. In other words my essay all stands or falls with the facts and intepretations.
In contrast, Alan Wilson's report is being treated as a first-hand account of what actually happened. Source material. It obviously was not. The error to something as important as the timing of the trip overseas, the general and second-hand nature of the description, and also the confused nature of the presentation all raise doubt as to the accuracy of the document as SOURCE MATERIAL. It should not be treated as first-hand source material. Parts may be accurate, but we ought not assume its accuracy.