The Diary of Nathaniel Bryceson (Part 6)

[drykid]

So do you think that the Samuel Bishop inventory was actually part of the same book? If so it was dated 1797 so quite old when Nat began writing in it. Maybe Mongibello or Steven who have seen the original diary can tell us more.

That's how I read it, but it's ambiguous, and like you say those have seen it will know for sure.  But 1797 is sufficiently earlier for it to plausibly be something that had been disposed of as junk and then recycled.  I can't think how else two unrelated documents would come to share the same binding.

Maybe the old log book was half full, and he just turned it over so that the old back page became the new "front" page and reused it that way.  Having read his diary entries I can imagine that having such a large, impractical diary would probably have appealed to his sense of vanity.

[Siamese Girl]

Did Nat keep two books? Where did all the information go that he recorded about church  monuments? I was wondering if all his Notes and Queries type information went into the log book and that was the one he showed Ann and  Mrs Olive. It seems a bit odd for him to show them his diary

Carole

[drykid]

Did Nat keep two books? Where did all the information go that he recorded about church  monuments? I was wondering if all his Notes and Queries type information went into the log book and that was the one he showed Ann and  Mrs Olive. It seems a bit odd for him to show them his diary

But they wouldn't have understood the shorthand entries (they may not even have realised that it was coded at all; to me they look just like random scribbles on the extract shown on the web page.)  And most of the longhand stuff is just a record of his travels and events of the day; nothing that he would have reason to hide. (Other than maybe the bits about Mrs. Skirricker, but then maybe he just didn't realise how odd that might sound to someone else...)

[Ruskie]

Did Nat keep two books? Where did all the information go that he recorded about church  monuments? I was wondering if all his Notes and Queries type information went into the log book and that was the one he showed Ann and  Mrs Olive. It seems a bit odd for him to show them his diary

Carole

I can't recall him ever saying what he wrote his MI's in - presumably a book of some sort. I remember we all thought it was a bit weird that he should share his diary with Ann and Mrs Olive. I think he said that read from his log book "of the previous year" ... rather than letting them read it (they may have been illiterate anyway) Nat was probably very selective in which bits he read to them.  

[Ruskie]

So do you think that the Samuel Bishop inventory was actually part of the same book? If so it was dated 1797 so quite old when Nat began writing in it. Maybe Mongibello or Steven who have seen the original diary can tell us more.

That's how I read it, but it's ambiguous, and like you say those have seen it will know for sure.  But 1797 is sufficiently earlier for it to plausibly be something that had been disposed of as junk and then recycled.  I can't think how else two unrelated documents would come to share the same binding.

Maybe the old log book was half full, and he just turned it over so that the old back page became the new "front" page and reused it that way.  Having read his diary entries I can imagine that having such a large, impractical diary would probably have appealed to his sense of vanity.

This is certainly feasible. 

I hope Mongibello or Steven will be able to throw some light on this.

[Ruskie]

Regarding today's entry:

"Took shilling 1846 of Mr Lutman: the first I have seen this year."

I thought that the 'of' should perhaps be an 'off'.  I took it to mean that it was a newly minted coin dated 1846.

I wonder if Mr Lutman bought some coal and paid for it with a nice new shiny shilling?

[steve_gus]

I'm not totally sure I understand today's entry...it doesn't make much sense.
"Took shilling 1846 of Mr Lutman: the first I have seen this year."

The way I read it, perhaps wrongly, is that it was a tip or gratuity. "The first tip I have had this year". Guess the fact he noted the date of the coin blows my theory

On the notes and queries thing, being a bit like a bulletin board etc on the internet, here is a thought. One day, all the stuff we are posting on the net, which will be webcrawled and put on auto archives (like google groups) will still be around possibly 100 years into the future. And someone will be wondering (as we do of Nat and his inscriptions) how strage we are musing at stuff from 164 years ago.....

[Siamese Girl]

This might be interesting - my email correspondence with New York Medical College:

Your Question with ID 2691 was:
Hello. This is a query about alumni of the college. I'm researching a George Lea from England who claimed to be a M. D. and received his degree from the college. This would have been in the 1860s. Do you have any records of early students? Google Books came up with a Directory of Alumni dated 1902, but there are no Leas in it. In 1851 he was a coal merchant and in 1871 a doctor (both in England) which seems very odd.

Thank you
Carole 

Response from Health Sciences Library is:
Carole,

I have checked our list of matriculates and graduates from 1861 -- 1881 and found no one by that name listed as either a student or graduate. Sorry for the bad news. Let me know if you have any further questions.



Thanks for using Ask-A-Librarian Services.
shawn

It looks like George Lea was telling lies! 

Carole

[drykid]

Heh I can't say I'm surprised about George Lea

The way I read it, perhaps wrongly, is that it was a tip or gratuity. "The first tip I have had this year". Guess the fact he noted the date of the coin blows my theory

The only problem I have with that logic is that if that was the intended meaning then there's absolutely no reason to mention '1846' specficially, instead of just saying "this year."  On the other hand it makes sense if he's referring to the first sighting of an 1846 coin, since that's what would be written on it.

EDIT: hah I just noticed you edited the post to say as much yourself; either that or I misread it originally.