I read that the Jameses were *not* Brahmins (For Grice, the implicature of
'not' is that someone thought the Jameses WERE Brahmins -- cfr. "I'm not
having an affair with Bradley Cooper" -- Jennifer Lawrence).
O. T. O. H., usually the right one, the Emersons were (along with -- from A
to Z, the Adamses, the Amorys, the Appletons, the Bacons, the Boylstons,
the Bradlees, the Cabots, the Chaffees, the Choates, the Codmans, the
Coffins, the Coolidges, the Coopers, the Crowninshields, the Cushings, the
Danas,
the Delanos, the Dudleys, the Dwights, the Eliots, the Endicotts, the
Forbeses, the Gardners, the Healeys, the Holmeses, the Jacksons, the
Lawrences,
the Lodges, the Lowells, the Lymans, the Minots, the Norcrosses, the
Otises, the Parkmans, the Peabodys, the Perkinses, the Phillipses, the
Putnams,
the Quincys, the Rices, the Saltonstalls, the Sargents, the Searses, the
Tarboxes, the Thorndikes, the Tudors, the Warrens, the Welds, the
Wigglesworths, and the Winthrops).
So it is very likely that this idea by Bloom (not a Brahmin) that the
Jameses and Emerson were linked by a 'family tradition' was fabricated by the
Jameses. They prided themselves on Emerson having been present at Henry
James's baptism, but a reverend tells me there is no record of THAT! (When I
said to the reverend, "Other than the Jameses's fabrication," he said, "You
and your implicatures never cease to bore me!").
Cheers,
Speranza
------------------------------------------------------------------
To change your Lit-Ideas settings (subscribe/unsub, vacation on/off,
digest on/off), visit www.andreas.com/faq-lit-ideas.html
