Not P but Moby-Dick (73)

[Mike Jing]

OK. Apparently MEL is of the same opinion in its annotation. Thanks, Ian
and Mark.


On Fri, Feb 16, 2024 at 7:03 PM Ian Livingston <igrlivingston at gmail.com>
wrote:

> That's the way it appears in the phrasing.
>
> On Fri, Feb 16, 2024 at 12:36 PM Mike Jing <gravitys.rainbow.cn at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> As actual counsel in that crim. con. case?
>>
>>
>>
>> On Fri, Feb 16, 2024 at 3:01 PM Ian Livingston <igrlivingston at gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Seems to me the intention is to say that Mr Erskine argued that the
>>> woman mr. A abandoned due to her meanness was free to any taker who took
>>> her, if you take my meaning, indicating mr A had no claim to her. So, yes,
>>> Erskine was defending the lady and gentleman B.
>>>
>>> On Fri, Feb 16, 2024 at 1:48 AM Mark Kohut <mark.kohut at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> I would suggest that it means only that he agreed with the other side.
>>>> Seems
>>>> that Melville would have made it more exact in description if he was
>>>> actually counsel...
>>>>
>>>> On Fri, Feb 16, 2024 at 3:22 AM Mike Jing <
>>>> gravitys.rainbow.cn at gmail.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> > From Chapter 89:
>>>> >
>>>> > Mr. Erskine was counsel for the defendants; Lord Ellenborough was the
>>>> > judge. In the course of the defence, the witty Erskine went on to
>>>> > illustrate his position, by alluding to a recent crim. con. case,
>>>> wherein a
>>>> > gentleman, after in vain trying to bridle his wife’s viciousness, had
>>>> at
>>>> > last abandoned her upon the seas of life; but in the course of years,
>>>> > repenting of that step, he instituted an action to recover possession
>>>> of
>>>> > her. Erskine was on the other side; and he then supported it by
>>>> saying,
>>>> > that though the gentleman had originally harpooned the lady, and had
>>>> once
>>>> > had her fast, and only by reason of the great stress of her plunging
>>>> > viciousness, had at last abandoned her; yet abandon her he did, so
>>>> that she
>>>> > became a loose-fish; and therefore when a subsequent gentleman
>>>> re-harpooned
>>>> > her, the lady then became that subsequent gentleman’s property, along
>>>> with
>>>> > whatever harpoon might have been found sticking in her.
>>>> >
>>>> > In saying "Erskine was on the other side", does it mean Erskine was
>>>> > actually the defending lawyer in that other case, or only that he
>>>> supported
>>>> > the position of the other side?
>>>> > --
>>>> > Pynchon-L: https://waste.org/mailman/listinfo/pynchon-l
>>>> >
>>>> --
>>>> Pynchon-L: https://waste.org/mailman/listinfo/pynchon-l
>>>>
>>>