The Diary of Nathaniel Bryceson Revisited

[Ruskie]

Fascinating!

What I wouldn't give to have a rummage through Nathaniel Bryceson's room!!!!!! A painting from 1442! A bible from 1579!  The things he has collected are amazing, but it's exactly what I would expect of him having read the words he wrote as a 19/20 year old.

Jo A, it may well be that the room he describes is the one in his daughter's house in Stepney if he refers to being in Stepney in the article.

Thank you Jo A for sharing this with us. 

[Ruskie]

Walmer Castle - The Duke of Wellington's bedroom and the chair in which he died:
http://historicalmovies.wordpress.com/tag/the-duke-of-wellington/
I wonder if this is the 'Dook' Nathaniel refers to, and if this is the room in which he died. I suppose this room is 'plain' (as Nathaniel says), but it's also very nice. 

[Ruskie]

I'm wondering if the little back room was 'his' room in his daughter's house.  The article locates him in Stepney which is where they lived. 

Looking at the census, most of the houses on Dempsey Street when Nathaniel was living there look to have been about 7 rooms, so quite large. Nearly all of those I looked at appear to have two families living at the same address, so for example, a family with 5 rooms and a family with 2 rooms, making a total of 7 rooms. There are various combinations such as 6 and 1, so it looks like the householders perhaps rented out a basement or attic room. I am wondering if Nathaniel did this too when living at his daughter's house at 107 Dempsey Street.

The Stangrooms appear to have rented out two rooms in their house after Nathaniel's death. This is pure assumption of course, as we have no idea if he ever lived with his daughter even though he died there.

Dempsey Street is no longer there, but it used to be the next street to the right parallel with Jubilee St (there are flats built in the area and you can see a line of flats along where Dempsey Street used to be  )

[In 1901 the Stangrooms were living at 102 Dempsey St and had a boarder]

[Jo A]

I have to say I'm a tad sceptical about the 1442 oil painting.  It was quite a new technique then and there can't have been many paintings from that era that could be dated that precisely.  Nathaniel may have sincerely thought that's when it was painted though.  I found out that the Scottish edition of the Geneva Bible was printed in 1579 so maybe more feasible.

Anyway here's some more books ...

LATIN SELF TAUGHT

'Ive something older than that - a Latin collection of Petrarch's poems dated 1490.  I can read it, rather slowly'

'Education wasn't to be got easily in old London, but I bought 'Riddles Latin Dictionary' in 1848 and I taught myself Latin.

'I practised by copying the language from old tombstones and memorial inscriptions from old churches and giving them a free rendering.

'When I was young the usual library in a house was the Bible. Fox's 'Book of Martyrs,' and one or two more.'

'My copy of 'Fox's Martyrs' now - I don't know the weight, but it's a huge book and a good many pounds.'

'The type isn't quite the size of loaves of bread, but nearly as big as three penny bits.'

He seems very interested in what things weigh, doesn't he?

[Ruskie]

You may be right that the dates of some of Nathaniel's possessions could be inaccurate. 1442 seems very precise though, which makes me wonder if it was dated in some way. (He doesn't say it is an oil painting though.) I suppose it is possible that it was a Victorian fake as we know the Victorians were very keen on times past so may have liked the idea of a 1442 painting. However Nathaniel was no fool and had a knack of seeking these things out, so I think he may have had a painting from 1442 - I'm sure he had ways and means of obtaining these things.

Regarding the Latin Self Taught.
Yes, this is something that Nathaniel talks about in his diary. He did copy tombstones and we know he was trying to teach himself Latin while writing the diary in 1846. Maybe after his purchase of the Latin Dictionary, the task became easier.

I'm really enjoying the article Jo A. How many more installments can we expect?

[avm228]

I'm fascinated too

This looks likely to be the same edition of Petrarch that Nathaniel had:

http://rmc.library.cornell.edu/collector/petrarch/petrarch_6.html

[Jo A]

Think we're just under half way now.  I'm quite impressed with the journalistic skills of the writer.  It's one of the liveliest pieces that are kept in the book. And yes, I guess it's quite possible that he had such an old painting.  I read recently that an unknown miniature of Queen Elizabeth I turned up in a house clearance.

[Ruskie]

Beautiful book avm. 

I have started thinking about what happened to Nathaniel's possessions when he died. I hope that family members treasured them as much as he did. I hate to think of any other scenarios .... 

Looking forward to a couple more days of transcriptions Jo A. 

[Jo A]

Another  book to think about..

'One of the most popular books with serious old Londoners about 1850 was Peter Cunningham's 'Handbook of London' and I saved and saved and searched all the old shops until I found this copy was for auction.

A West End clergyman bid against me, and he was quite savage with me when I got it.

But he'd made me pay a nice old price for it!  All the booksellers knew me when I went round on  my searches.

I first met Mr Westall in 1839 when he had a place in Bozier's court, off Tottenham Court road.'