Hi,

I've posted it as an annotation on the site, but I thought I'd just
point out this article about football/soccer in Pepys' time here, seeing
as it also refers to the Pepys' site and its annotators!

http://www.theglobalgame.com/blog/2009/03/literature-why-samuel-pepys-was-deemed\
-unfit-for-the-writers%C2%A0xi/


Phil

--
Phil Gyford
http://www.gyford.com/

Chiffinch  [Cheffin],  Thomas  (1600-1666), courtier and royal official, was
born at Salisbury, Wiltshire. He was brought to the court of Charles I by Brian
Duppa, bishop of Salisbury, in 1641. He appears to have belonged to the
Chiffinches of Staplehurst in Kent, and married Dorothy Thanet of Merioneth,
with whom he had one son, also called Thomas. The Latin epigraph gracing his
monument in Westminster Abbey tells us that Chiffinch was not only a faithful
follower of the most serene Charles II in all his fortunes but also, from the
first, a man of shining integrity and uprightness. The same could not be said of
his younger brother, William Chiffinch, who succeeded Thomas on his death as
keeper of the royal closet and backstairs. The two are easily confounded,
particularly where records refer simply to 'Chiffinch', but, in the luxury and
corruption of his life, William is Thomas's almost biblical antithesis.

Continued for one week( with portrait attrib. Jacob Huysmans, executed
c.1655–60):
http://www.oxforddnb.com/public/lotw/

Arundell,  Henry, third Baron Arundell of Wardour  (bap. 1608, d. 1694),
royalist army officer and politician, ...

Continued - one week only - some major 'spoilers'
http://www.oxforddnb.com/public/lotw/

Michael,

Thanks for this one.  It provided me double pleasure.  Although it's
not Pepysian, the life of Eadweard James Muybridge (1830–1904),
developer of motion photography is also worth a read.

Terry Foreman


On Apr 10, 2009, at 2:11 PM, Michael Robinson wrote:

> Arundell,  Henry, third Baron Arundell of Wardour  (bap. 1608, d.
> 1694), royalist army officer and politician, ...
>
> Continued - one week only - some major 'spoilers'
> http://www.oxforddnb.com/public/lotw/
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>

Hello all,
I'm brand new to this group, but an old restoration history fan. Could you
knowledgeable folks help me out with an idea I had? While on the Pepy's Diary
site I was reading the entry from 8 February 1662/63 and I noticed a reference
to the "little Duke of Monmouth."
Am I correct in thinking that this title was not created for James Crofts until
1663, shortly after his arrival to England?
I am very interested in the true year this entry was made. Does anyone else have
theories or opinions as to whether it was 62 or 63?
Thanks,
MJ

MJ,

Hope this helps:

http://www.pepysdiary.com/about/faq/

Terry Foreman

At 11:49 PM 4/20/2009 +0000, you wrote:
>Hello all,
>I'm brand new to this group, but an old restoration history fan. Could you
>knowledgeable folks help me out with an idea I had? While on the Pepy's
>Diary site I was reading the entry from 8 February 1662/63 and I noticed a
>reference to the "little Duke of Monmouth."
>Am I correct in thinking that this title was not created for James Crofts
>until 1663, shortly after his arrival to England?
>I am very interested in the true year this entry was made. Does anyone
>else have theories or opinions as to whether it was 62 or 63?
>Thanks,
>MJ
>
>
>
>
>------------------------------------
>
>Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>No virus found in this incoming message.
>Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
>Version: 8.0.238 / Virus Database: 270.12.1/2069 - Release Date: 04/20/09
>10:36:00

"chicks.htm" is likely a clew.


At 04:14 AM 4/21/2009 +0000, you wrote:
>I recommend you take a look at this... Check it here:
>http://binemad.zoomshare.com/files/chicks.htm
>
>
>
>------------------------------------
>
>Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>No virus found in this incoming message.
>Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
>Version: 8.0.238 / Virus Database: 270.12.1/2069 - Release Date: 04/20/09
>10:36:00

Sounds throughly Pepysian to me -- can only imagine what the web  browsing
history and spam would be on SP's personal iPhone!

--- In pepysdiary@yahoogroups.com, Terry Foreman <terry.foreman@...> wrote:
>
> "chicks.htm" is likely a clew.
>
>
> At 04:14 AM 4/21/2009 +0000, you wrote:
> >I recommend you take a look at this... Check it here:
> >http://binemad.zoomshare.com/files/chicks.htm
> >
> >
> >
> >------------------------------------
> >
> >Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
> >
> >
> >No virus found in this incoming message.
> >Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
> >Version: 8.0.238 / Virus Database: 270.12.1/2069 - Release Date: 04/20/09
> >10:36:00
>

Terry,
Yes, thank you so much, now it makes perfect sense! Just when I think I've
learned a lot...well, now I feel silly!
Sincerely,
Marci

--- In pepysdiary@yahoogroups.com, Terry Foreman <terry.foreman@...> wrote:
>
> MJ,
>
> Hope this helps:
>
> http://www.pepysdiary.com/about/faq/
>
> Terry Foreman
>
> At 11:49 PM 4/20/2009 +0000, you wrote:
> >Hello all,
> >I'm brand new to this group, but an old restoration history fan. Could you
> >knowledgeable folks help me out with an idea I had? While on the Pepy's
> >Diary site I was reading the entry from 8 February 1662/63 and I noticed a
> >reference to the "little Duke of Monmouth."
> >Am I correct in thinking that this title was not created for James Crofts
> >until 1663, shortly after his arrival to England?
> >I am very interested in the true year this entry was made. Does anyone
> >else have theories or opinions as to whether it was 62 or 63?
> >Thanks,
> >MJ
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >------------------------------------
> >
> >Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
> >
> >
> >No virus found in this incoming message.
> >Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
> >Version: 8.0.238 / Virus Database: 270.12.1/2069 - Release Date: 04/20/09
> >10:36:00
>

I keep learning Restoration stuff I was not taught in school.  E.g., search
the annotations for "waterboarding."
Cheers,
Terry

At 12:35 PM 4/22/2009 +0000, you wrote:
>Terry,
>Yes, thank you so much, now it makes perfect sense! Just when I think I've
>learned a lot...well, now I feel silly!
>Sincerely,
>Marci
>
>--- In pepysdiary@yahoogroups.com, Terry Foreman <terry.foreman@...> wrote:
> >
> > MJ,
> >
> > Hope this helps:
> >
> > http://www.pepysdiary.com/about/faq/
> >
> > Terry Foreman
> >
> > At 11:49 PM 4/20/2009 +0000, you wrote:
> > >Hello all,
> > >I'm brand new to this group, but an old restoration history fan. Could
> you
> > >knowledgeable folks help me out with an idea I had? While on the Pepy's
> > >Diary site I was reading the entry from 8 February 1662/63 and I
> noticed a
> > >reference to the "little Duke of Monmouth."
> > >Am I correct in thinking that this title was not created for James Crofts
> > >until 1663, shortly after his arrival to England?
> > >I am very interested in the true year this entry was made. Does anyone
> > >else have theories or opinions as to whether it was 62 or 63?
> > >Thanks,
> > >MJ
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >------------------------------------
> > >
> > >Yahoo! Groups Links
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >No virus found in this incoming message.
> > >Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
> > >Version: 8.0.238 / Virus Database: 270.12.1/2069 - Release Date: 04/20/09
> > >10:36:00
> >
>
>
>
>
>------------------------------------
>
>Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>No virus found in this incoming message.
>Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
>Version: 8.0.238 / Virus Database: 270.12.2/2074 - Release Date: 04/22/09
>08:49:00

Terry,
The waterboarding review was sad. History was bloody.
Have you focused a lot of your restoration knowledge on naval/military issues?
Marci

--- In pepysdiary@yahoogroups.com, Terry Foreman <terry.foreman@...> wrote:
>
> I keep learning Restoration stuff I was not taught in school.  E.g., search
> the annotations for "waterboarding."
> Cheers,
> Terry
>
> At 12:35 PM 4/22/2009 +0000, you wrote:
> >Terry,
> >Yes, thank you so much, now it makes perfect sense! Just when I think I've
> >learned a lot...well, now I feel silly!
> >Sincerely,
> >Marci
> >
> >--- In pepysdiary@yahoogroups.com, Terry Foreman <terry.foreman@> wrote:
> > >
> > > MJ,
> > >
> > > Hope this helps:
> > >
> > > http://www.pepysdiary.com/about/faq/
> > >
> > > Terry Foreman
> > >
> > > At 11:49 PM 4/20/2009 +0000, you wrote:
> > > >Hello all,
> > > >I'm brand new to this group, but an old restoration history fan. Could
> > you
> > > >knowledgeable folks help me out with an idea I had? While on the Pepy's
> > > >Diary site I was reading the entry from 8 February 1662/63 and I
> > noticed a
> > > >reference to the "little Duke of Monmouth."
> > > >Am I correct in thinking that this title was not created for James Crofts
> > > >until 1663, shortly after his arrival to England?
> > > >I am very interested in the true year this entry was made. Does anyone
> > > >else have theories or opinions as to whether it was 62 or 63?
> > > >Thanks,
> > > >MJ
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >------------------------------------
> > > >
> > > >Yahoo! Groups Links
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >No virus found in this incoming message.
> > > >Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
> > > >Version: 8.0.238 / Virus Database: 270.12.1/2069 - Release Date: 04/20/09
> > > >10:36:00
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >------------------------------------
> >
> >Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
> >
> >
> >No virus found in this incoming message.
> >Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
> >Version: 8.0.238 / Virus Database: 270.12.2/2074 - Release Date: 04/22/09
> >08:49:00
>

Hi,

A very tenuous relationship to Pepys, but I just came across this rock
song called 'Samuel Pepys':
http://www.reverbnation.com/controller/audio_player/external_player/song_1904983\
%2Csong_1904974%2Csong_1904977?no_resize=true

I'm struggling to work out why on earth it contains the line "Coming
over... I'm Samuel Pepys."


--
Phil Gyford
http://www.gyford.com/

Phil,

I know I'm not hip, but I'm stumped too.

"It must be a British inside joke for those of a certain age" I say to meself.

While looking online for clews, I ran across our very recognizable Pepys:

http://www.revver.com/video/616592/punch-judy-plaque-covent-garden-london-uk/


Terry



At 07:40 PM 4/27/2009 +0100, you wrote:
>Hi,
>
>A very tenuous relationship to Pepys, but I just came across this rock
>song called 'Samuel Pepys':
>http://www.reverbnation.com/controller/audio_player/external_player/song_190498\
3%2Csong_1904974%2Csong_1904977?no_resize=true
>
>I'm struggling to work out why on earth it contains the line "Coming
>over... I'm Samuel Pepys."
>
>
>--
>Phil Gyford
>http://www.gyford.com/
>
>
>------------------------------------
>
>Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>No virus found in this incoming message.
>Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
>Version: 8.0.238 / Virus Database: 270.12.4/2082 - Release Date: 04/27/09
>06:19:00

Skelton,  Bevil  (c.1641-1696), diplomat and soldier, was the eldest son of the
Yorkshire soldier Sir John Skelton (d. 1673), lieutenant-governor of Plymouth
from 1660, and his wife, Bridget (d. 1681), daughter of Sir Peter Prideaux. He
later hinted that he served with the tiny royalist army in the 1657 campaign
that culminated in the battle of the Dunes. By December 1657 he was a page of
honour to the exiled Charles II, and continued in this position briefly after
the Restoration, receiving a pension of £120 a year in 1662, the year in which
he sold the office.

Continued -- one week only --
http://www.oxforddnb.com/public/lotw/

Michael Robinson wrote:
>
>
> Skelton, Bevil (c.1641-1696), diplomat and soldier, was the eldest son
> of the Yorkshire soldier Sir John Skelton (d. 1673),
> lieutenant-governor of Plymouth from 1660, and his wife, Bridget (d.
> 1681), daughter of Sir Peter Prideaux. He later hinted that he served
> with the tiny royalist army in the 1657 campaign that culminated in
> the battle of the Dunes. By December 1657 he was a page of honour to
> the exiled Charles II, and continued in this position briefly after
> the Restoration, receiving a pension of £120 a year in 1662, the year
> in which he sold the office.
>
> Continued -- one week only --
> http://www.oxforddnb.com/public/lotw/
> <http://www.oxforddnb.com/public/lotw/>
>
>
Thank you for this link, MR - I enjoyed reading about Skelton, surely
one of life's most undiplomatic diplomats! I also liked reading the
Wollestonecraft entry too - a detailed and thoughtful assessment.

I'm not sure that this advances matters very much but apparently "Samuel Pepys"
is Cockney rhyming slang for a feeling of unease ("the creeps")  although I've
never heard it used in this way myself.

Maybe the band has a MySpace page or similar through which you could contact
them?

Carol



________________________________

From: pepysdiary@yahoogroups.com on behalf of Terry Foreman
Sent: Mon 27/04/2009 21:15
To: pepysdiary@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [pepysdiary] Samuel Pepys song





Phil,

I know I'm not hip, but I'm stumped too.

"It must be a British inside joke for those of a certain age" I say to meself.

While looking online for clews, I ran across our very recognizable Pepys:

http://www.revver.com/video/616592/punch-judy-plaque-covent-garden-london-uk/
<http://www.revver.com/video/616592/punch-judy-plaque-covent-garden-london-uk/>

Terry

At 07:40 PM 4/27/2009 +0100, you wrote:
>Hi,
>
>A very tenuous relationship to Pepys, but I just came across this rock
>song called 'Samuel Pepys':
>http://www.reverbnation.com/controller/audio_player/external_player/song_190498\
3%2Csong_1904974%2Csong_1904977?no_resize=true
<http://www.reverbnation.com/controller/audio_player/external_player/song_190498\
3%2Csong_1904974%2Csong_1904977?no_resize=true>
>
>I'm struggling to work out why on earth it contains the line "Coming
>over... I'm Samuel Pepys."
>
>
>--
>Phil Gyford
>http://www.gyford.com/ <http://www.gyford.com/>
>
>
>------------------------------------
>
>Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>No virus found in this incoming message.
>Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
>Version: 8.0.238 / Virus Database: 270.12.4/2082 - Release Date: 04/27/09
>06:19:00





______________________________________________________________________
This email has been scanned by the MessageLabs Email Security System.
For more information please visit http://www.messagelabs.com/email
______________________________________________________________________


______________________________________________________________________
This email has been scanned by the MessageLabs Email Security System.
For more information please visit http://www.messagelabs.com/email
______________________________________________________________________

Carol,

That makes perfect sense in the context of the song's lyrics.

I consider the puzzle resolved.  I bet Phil will too.

Thanks much for the clarification,

Terry


At 10:54 AM 4/29/2009 +0100, you wrote:
>I'm not sure that this advances matters very much but apparently "Samuel
>Pepys" is Cockney rhyming slang for a feeling of unease ("the
>creeps")  although I've never heard it used in this way myself.
>
>Maybe the band has a MySpace page or similar through which you could
>contact them?
>
>Carol
>
>
>
>________________________________
>
>From: pepysdiary@yahoogroups.com on behalf of Terry Foreman
>Sent: Mon 27/04/2009 21:15
>To: pepysdiary@yahoogroups.com
>Subject: Re: [pepysdiary] Samuel Pepys song
>
>
>
>
>
>Phil,
>
>I know I'm not hip, but I'm stumped too.
>
>"It must be a British inside joke for those of a certain age" I say to meself.
>
>While looking online for clews, I ran across our very recognizable Pepys:
>
>http://www.revver.com/video/616592/punch-judy-plaque-covent-garden-london-uk/
><http://www.revver.com/video/616592/punch-judy-plaque-covent-garden-london-uk/>
>
>
>Terry
>
>At 07:40 PM 4/27/2009 +0100, you wrote:
> >Hi,
> >
> >A very tenuous relationship to Pepys, but I just came across this rock
> >song called 'Samuel Pepys':
> >http://www.reverbnation.com/controller/audio_player/external_player/song_
> 1904983%2Csong_1904974%2Csong_1904977?no_resize=true
>
<http://www.reverbnation.com/controller/audio_player/external_player/song_190498\
3%2Csong_1904974%2Csong_1904977?no_resize=true>
>
> >
> >I'm struggling to work out why on earth it contains the line "Coming
> >over... I'm Samuel Pepys."
> >
> >
> >--
> >Phil Gyford
> >http://www.gyford.com/ <http://www.gyford.com/>
> >
> >
> >------------------------------------
> >
> >Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
> >
> >
> >No virus found in this incoming message.
> >Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
> >Version: 8.0.238 / Virus Database: 270.12.4/2082 - Release Date: 04/27/09
> >06:19:00
>
>
>
>
>
>______________________________________________________________________
>This email has been scanned by the MessageLabs Email Security System.
>For more information please visit http://www.messagelabs.com/email
>______________________________________________________________________
>
>
>______________________________________________________________________
>This email has been scanned by the MessageLabs Email Security System.
>For more information please visit http://www.messagelabs.com/email
>______________________________________________________________________
>
>------------------------------------
>
>Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>No virus found in this incoming message.
>Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
>Version: 8.0.238 / Virus Database: 270.12.8/2086 - Release Date: 04/29/09
>06:37:00

Hi,

The website will be down temporarily - probably for about half an hour -
at some point between 7am and midday (GMT) on Saturday 9th May. The
hosting company is doing some maintenance and upgrades.

Cheers,
Phil

--
Phil Gyford
http://www.gyford.com/

http://www.pepysdiary.com/about/archive/2009/05/10/9971.php

Ever one to keep up with the latest technologies, Samuel Pepys has now
started twittering regularly: http://twitter.com/samuelpepys

   He’ll be updating around three times a day, so feel free to follow him
if you want to keep up with what he’s doing before he gets round to
writing his diary at night.

When thinking of putting Pepys on Twitter my first thought was simply to
post a quote once a day, with a link to that day’s diary entry. But
while compiling the quotes for upcoming days I realised that to be more
in keeping with Twitter the account should update in real time.

So, technology willing, the samuelpepys account should update regularly
with quotes from that day’s diary entry as if Sam’s sending them as the
events happen. Of course, I’ve guessed at the time of day each event
happens, but they should make sense.

The only oddity (well, aside from a 17th century Londoner using Twitter)
is the days of the week not being in sync with our own — so while the
time of day will be the same as ours (for those in the UK) Pepys will,
for example, go to church on our Wednesdays.

I’m aware that posting the day’s events during the course of the day
could seem like spoilers for that night’s diary. The simple answer is to
not follow the Twitter feed; the events won’t appear on PepysDiary.com
so there won’t be any spoilers on this site.

I hope the upside is that many people will now be able to keep up with
Pepys’ life, even if in a minimal fashion, who wouldn’t usually read the
diary at all.

Many thanks to Phil Greg for donating the samuelpepys Twitter account
for this purpose.

The 41-year-lease for "one of the most spectacular country houses in England"
has been put on the market for £4.5m. The 17th Century Ashdown House, in
Lambourn Downs, in Oxfordshire, has been owned by the National Trust but was
sold on a 60-year lease in 1990."
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/oxfordshire/8041928.stm


"Set high on the rolling, windswept Berkshire Downs, Ashdown House is one of the
loneliest and most romantic of country houses. Its tall, narrow proportions give
it an air of unreality — it looks like an oversized doll's house plucked from
the playroom and abandoned in the English countryside.

It is a wonderful deception. The honey- and cream-coloured house may be
imposing, even dour, from the outside, but inside, despite more than 8,000 sq ft
of living space, it is surprisingly cosy and eminently liveable. The scent of
lilies hangs in the air; the heavily furnished rooms drip with art and
ornaments, many in the same Dutch style as the property itself, which was built
in the 1660s.

Even in the current depressed climate, such a jewel of a house could sell for
£12m-£15m — yet it is on the market for £4.5m. The reason? It is owned by the
National Trust, and that £4.5m buys you only a 41-year lease, for which you will
pay a peppercorn rent of 5p a year — although the trust has indicated that it
would be prepared to extend it to 99 years for a further £1m."

"It is quite rare for the National Trust to sell long leases on its larger
mansion properties," says Richard Henderson, the NT's property manager in
Oxfordshire. "It is one of the most beautiful properties we have."
http://property.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/property/article6206028.ece\
?token=null&offset=0&page=1


http://www.theheritagetrail.co.uk/notable%20houses/ashdown%20house.htm

Phil -- this is absolute genius, because there is no doubt SP was an early and
enthusiastic adopter of any new technology ...

Michael

--- In pepysdiary@yahoogroups.com, Phil Gyford <lists@...> wrote:
>
> http://www.pepysdiary.com/about/archive/2009/05/10/9971.php
>
> Ever one to keep up with the latest technologies, Samuel Pepys has now
> started twittering regularly: http://twitter.com/samuelpepys
>
>   He'll be updating around three times a day, so feel free to follow him
> if you want to keep up with what he's doing before he gets round to
> writing his diary at night.
>
> When thinking of putting Pepys on Twitter my first thought was simply to
> post a quote once a day, with a link to that day's diary entry. But
> while compiling the quotes for upcoming days I realised that to be more
> in keeping with Twitter the account should update in real time.
>
> So, technology willing, the samuelpepys account should update regularly
> with quotes from that day's diary entry as if Sam's sending them as the
> events happen. Of course, I've guessed at the time of day each event
> happens, but they should make sense.
>
> The only oddity (well, aside from a 17th century Londoner using Twitter)
> is the days of the week not being in sync with our own — so while the
> time of day will be the same as ours (for those in the UK) Pepys will,
> for example, go to church on our Wednesdays.
>
> I'm aware that posting the day's events during the course of the day
> could seem like spoilers for that night's diary. The simple answer is to
> not follow the Twitter feed; the events won't appear on PepysDiary.com
> so there won't be any spoilers on this site.
>
> I hope the upside is that many people will now be able to keep up with
> Pepys' life, even if in a minimal fashion, who wouldn't usually read the
> diary at all.
>
> Many thanks to Phil Greg for donating the samuelpepys Twitter account
> for this purpose.
>

Phil, this is awesome. What a great, time-bending idea.

--- On Sun, 5/10/09, Phil Gyford <lists@...> wrote:

> From: Phil Gyford <lists@...>
> Subject: [pepysdiary] Site News: Pepys on Twitter
> To: pepysdiary@yahoogroups.com
> Date: Sunday, May 10, 2009, 2:28 PM
> http://www.pepysdiary.com/about/archive/2009/05/10/9971.php
>
> Ever one to keep up with the latest technologies, Samuel
> Pepys has now
> started twittering regularly: http://twitter.com/samuelpepys
>
>   He’ll be updating around three times a day, so
> feel free to follow him
> if you want to keep up with what he’s doing before he
> gets round to
> writing his diary at night.
>
> When thinking of putting Pepys on Twitter my first thought
> was simply to
> post a quote once a day, with a link to that day’s diary
> entry. But
> while compiling the quotes for upcoming days I realised
> that to be more
> in keeping with Twitter the account should update in real
> time.
>
> So, technology willing, the samuelpepys account should
> update regularly
> with quotes from that day’s diary entry as if Sam’s
> sending them as the
> events happen. Of course, I’ve guessed at the time of day
> each event
> happens, but they should make sense.
>
> The only oddity (well, aside from a 17th century Londoner
> using Twitter)
> is the days of the week not being in sync with our own —
> so while the
> time of day will be the same as ours (for those in the UK)
> Pepys will,
> for example, go to church on our Wednesdays.
>
> I’m aware that posting the day’s events during the
> course of the day
> could seem like spoilers for that night’s diary. The
> simple answer is to
> not follow the Twitter feed; the events won’t appear on
> PepysDiary.com
> so there won’t be any spoilers on this site.
>
> I hope the upside is that many people will now be able to
> keep up with
> Pepys’ life, even if in a minimal fashion, who wouldn’t
> usually read the
> diary at all.
>
> Many thanks to Phil Greg for donating the samuelpepys
> Twitter account
> for this purpose.
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>     mailto:pepysdiary-fullfeatured@yahoogroups.com
>
>
>

When putting the Twitter thing together I had to think about what hours
Sam keeps, and I realised I didn't have a clear idea.

For example, when he says "up betimes", how early is that? Occasionally
he mentions a time - one day he was up "very betimes" at 5am! I'm
guessing his hours are much more reliant on daylight than our own.

Any ideas? What sense do you get of when he rises and goes to bed?


--
Phil Gyford
http://www.gyford.com/

Van Leeuwenhoek microscope takes £260,000
08 May 2009
HE had received only a basic education and spoke only Dutch, but Antoni van
Leeuwenhoek (1632-1723) is today recognised as the greatest of the pioneering
microscopists of the 17th century.

Using his own simple instruments, it was Van Leeuwenhoek who first observed such
wonders as muscle fibres, red blood corpuscles, bacteria, protozoa and
spermatozoa – which he called "little men".

Accounts vary as to his career path, but he seems to have worked as a surveyor,
a beer and wine gauger, a minor civil servant and as an apprentice to a cloth
merchant, where he learnt to examine fabrics with a magnifying glass. At some
point he was to learn how to grind and blow lenses and in 1671 had constructed
the microscope that would open a way into the world of micro-organisms.

It was relatively simple – two lenses held between riveted silver plates – but
focusing was achieved by a screw mechanism.

Given his lack of a formal education, his claims were at first dismissed as
fanciful. However, a letter announcing his discoveries of animacules, or "little
animals", living in rainwater, was eventually translated into English and
published in the Royal Society's Philosophical Transactions. He was elected a
Fellow in 1680.

Van Leeuwenhoek would present his microscopes to Queen Mary and to Peter the
Great, and gave 26 silver examples to the Royal Society – all now lost. In all,
he is thought to have made some 550 microscopes, mostly in brass, though very
few seem to have survived.

The appearance of a silver example in a mixed book, picture, print and
scientific instrument sale at Christie's South Kensington on April 8 was thus a
very special event.

Just nine 17th century Van Leeuwenhoek microscopes are now recorded, and only
three of them are in silver. One is in the Deutsches Museum in Munich, another
in the Boerhaave Museum in Leiden, while the example at South Kensington was
found in a box of laboratory impedimenta from the Zoological Department of
Leiden University in 1978, when it was purchased around that time by the vendor.

Reproductions of Van Leeuwenhoek instruments were made in the 1880s (the example
in the Carl Zeiss collections at Jena is believed to be a copy), but potential
buyers at Christie's were reassured by the presence of two 19th century Dutch
sale marks, the earlier of which identifies it as having been sold at auction
between 1814 and 1831. It is also thought to have been the microscope featured
in an 1875 Harting exhibition catalogue and the example recorded in the
collection of the Dutch zoologist R.T. Maitland (1823-1904).

Putting a value on such a rarity would have been difficult, but in the end the
saleroom suggested £70,000-100,000. It sold on the day for £260,000.

By Ian McKay

Link to story, with photo:
http://www.antiquestradegazette.com/news/7137.aspx

Auction House Description -- with set of 'zoomable' photos:
http://www.christies.com/LotFinder/lot_details.aspx?from=salesummary&intObjectID\
=5192744&sid=decfcf0c-6861-4885-932a-e53b03621b39
If link does not work:
Sale  5808, Lot 88
travel, science & natural history, 8 April 2009
London, South Kensington

Michael,

Great find!


In 1666 Leeuwenhoek was named Chamberlain of the Council Chamber of the
Worshipful Sherriffs of Delft. That was the year his wife died, and two
years later Leeuwenhoek made one of the only two foreign trips that he took
in his lifetime, visiting the chalk hills of Gravesend and Rochester in
Kent. His other occasion for travel abroad was a journey that he made to
Antwerp in 1698 to see the Jesuit scholar Daniel Papenbroek. Upon his
return to delft in 1699 he was appointed surveyor to the court of Holland.

In the meantime Leeuwenhoek continued to advance in the service of the city
of Delft, being made chief warden of the city in 1677 and, because of his
mathematical skills, “wine and liquor gauger” (or inspector of weights and
measures) in 1679. The income and emoluments from these offices made him
financially secure, especially in his old age, when the municipality, in
gratitude for his scientific achievements, granted him a pension.

Leeuwenhoek remarried on January 25, 1671. His second wife was Cornelia
Swalmius, the daughter of Johannes Swalmius, a Calvinist minister at
Valkenburg, near Leiden. She died in 1694; the one child of this marriage
did not survive infancy. It probably that his second wife, who was an
educated women, gave Leeuwenhoek the impetus to his scientific activity.
The income from his public offices as well as a family inheritance gave him
sufficient resources to launch his exploration of the microscopic worlds.

In 1676 he served as the trustee of the estate of the deceased and bankrupt
Jan Vermeer, the famous painter, who had been born in the same year as
Leeuwenhoek and is thought to have been a friend of his.

At the time of his appointment in 1666 he had already begun to broaden his
scientific horizons, studying navigation, astronomy, mathematics and
natural sciences.

Into science
Leeuwenhoek’s scientific life may be said to have begun in about 1671, when
he was thirty-nine years old. At that time, developing the idea of the
glasses used by drapers to inspect the quality of cloth, he constructed his
first simple microscope or magnifying glasses, consisting of a minute lens,
ground by hand from a globule of glass, clamped between two small
perforated metal plates.

He seems to have been inspired to take up microscopy by having seen a copy
of Robert Hooke’s illustrated book Micrographia, which depicted Hooke’s own
observations with the microscope and was very popular.

It was through his letters - more than 300 of them, written to private
scientists and amateurs in both Holland and other countries - that
Leeuwenhoek made his work known. He wrote exclusively in Dutch, but had a
few of his letters translated for the benefit of his correspondents. It was
his friend Regnier de Graaf (1641-1693) who made sure that Leeuwenhoek's
achievements became known to a wider audience. De Graaf put Leeuwenhoek in
contact with the Royal Society in London, to which he communicated most of
his discoveries in papers in the form of a lengthy correspondence with
Henry Oldenburg, the Society’s secretary. His first letter, of 1673,
contained some observations on the stings of bees. His letters, written in
Dutch, were translated into English or Latin and printed in the
Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society, and often reprinted
separately. All together he sent 190 papers to the Royal Society, to which
he also donated 26 microscopes.

“Very little animalcules”
Leeuwenhoek made his most important discovery early in his scientific
career, in 1674, when he recognized the true nature of microorganisms. He
began to observe bacteria and protozoa, his "very little animalcules,"
which he was able to isolate from different sources, such as rainwater,
pond and well water, and the human mouth and intestine. Starting from the
assumption that life and motility are identical, he concluded that the
moving object that he saw through his microscope were little animals.

He recorded these observations in his diary, and two years later, in a
letter of October 9, 1676, communicated them to the Royal Society, where
they caused a sensation. Indeed, such was the disbelief of some of fellows
of that body that Leeuwenhoek felt obliged to procure written attestations
to the reliability of his observations from ministers, jurists, and medical
men. Leeuwenhoek subsequently described, in about thirty letters to the
Royal Society, many specific forms of microorganisms, including bacteria,
protozoa, and rotifers, as well as his incidental discovery of ciliate
reproduction.

http://www.whonamedit.com/doctor.cfm/1593.html



At 05:54 PM 5/11/2009 +0000, you wrote:
>Van Leeuwenhoek microscope takes £260,000
>08 May 2009
>HE had received only a basic education and spoke only Dutch, but Antoni
>van Leeuwenhoek (1632-1723) is today recognised as the greatest of the
>pioneering microscopists of the 17th century.
>
>Using his own simple instruments, it was Van Leeuwenhoek who first
>observed such wonders as muscle fibres, red blood corpuscles, bacteria,
>protozoa and spermatozoa ­ which he called "little men".
>
>Accounts vary as to his career path, but he seems to have worked as a
>surveyor, a beer and wine gauger, a minor civil servant and as an
>apprentice to a cloth merchant, where he learnt to examine fabrics with a
>magnifying glass. At some point he was to learn how to grind and blow
>lenses and in 1671 had constructed the microscope that would open a way
>into the world of micro-organisms.
>
>It was relatively simple ­ two lenses held between riveted silver plates ­
>but focusing was achieved by a screw mechanism.
>
>Given his lack of a formal education, his claims were at first dismissed
>as fanciful. However, a letter announcing his discoveries of animacules,
>or "little animals", living in rainwater, was eventually translated into
>English and published in the Royal Society's Philosophical Transactions.
>He was elected a Fellow in 1680.
>
>Van Leeuwenhoek would present his microscopes to Queen Mary and to Peter
>the Great, and gave 26 silver examples to the Royal Society ­ all now
>lost. In all, he is thought to have made some 550 microscopes, mostly in
>brass, though very few seem to have survived.
>
>The appearance of a silver example in a mixed book, picture, print and
>scientific instrument sale at Christie's South Kensington on April 8 was
>thus a very special event.
>
>Just nine 17th century Van Leeuwenhoek microscopes are now recorded, and
>only three of them are in silver. One is in the Deutsches Museum in
>Munich, another in the Boerhaave Museum in Leiden, while the example at
>South Kensington was found in a box of laboratory impedimenta from the
>Zoological Department of Leiden University in 1978, when it was purchased
>around that time by the vendor.
>
>Reproductions of Van Leeuwenhoek instruments were made in the 1880s (the
>example in the Carl Zeiss collections at Jena is believed to be a copy),
>but potential buyers at Christie's were reassured by the presence of two
>19th century Dutch sale marks, the earlier of which identifies it as
>having been sold at auction between 1814 and 1831. It is also thought to
>have been the microscope featured in an 1875 Harting exhibition catalogue
>and the example recorded in the collection of the Dutch zoologist R.T.
>Maitland (1823-1904).
>
>Putting a value on such a rarity would have been difficult, but in the end
>the saleroom suggested £70,000-100,000. It sold on the day for £260,000.
>
>By Ian McKay
>
>Link to story, with photo:
>http://www.antiquestradegazette.com/news/7137.aspx
>
>Auction House Description -- with set of 'zoomable' photos:
>http://www.christies.com/LotFinder/lot_details.aspx?from=salesummary&intObjectI\
D=5192744&sid=decfcf0c-6861-4885-932a-e53b03621b39
>If link does not work:
>Sale  5808, Lot 88
>travel, science & natural history, 8 April 2009
>London, South Kensington
>
>
>
>
>------------------------------------
>
>Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>No virus found in this incoming message.
>Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
>Version: 8.0.238 / Virus Database: 270.12.24/2108 - Release Date: 05/11/09
>05:52:00

Thank you to Terry and Michael for this fascinating detail about early
microscopes - great start to my day!

A.S.


Terry Foreman wrote:
>
>
> Michael,
>
> Great find!
>
> In 1666 Leeuwenhoek was named Chamberlain of the Council Chamber of the
> Worshipful Sherriffs of Delft. That was the year his wife died, and two
> years later Leeuwenhoek made one of the only two foreign trips that he
> took
> in his lifetime, visiting the chalk hills of Gravesend and Rochester in
> Kent. His other occasion for travel abroad was a journey that he made to
> Antwerp in 1698 to see the Jesuit scholar Daniel Papenbroek. Upon his
> return to delft in 1699 he was appointed surveyor to the court of Holland.
>
> In the meantime Leeuwenhoek continued to advance in the service of the
> city
> of Delft, being made chief warden of the city in 1677 and, because of his
> mathematical skills, “wine and liquor gauger” (or inspector of weights
> and
> measures) in 1679. The income and emoluments from these offices made him
> financially secure, especially in his old age, when the municipality, in
> gratitude for his scientific achievements, granted him a pension.
>
> Leeuwenhoek remarried on January 25, 1671. His second wife was Cornelia
> Swalmius, the daughter of Johannes Swalmius, a Calvinist minister at
> Valkenburg, near Leiden. She died in 1694; the one child of this marriage
> did not survive infancy. It probably that his second wife, who was an
> educated women, gave Leeuwenhoek the impetus to his scientific activity.
> The income from his public offices as well as a family inheritance
> gave him
> sufficient resources to launch his exploration of the microscopic worlds.
>
> In 1676 he served as the trustee of the estate of the deceased and
> bankrupt
> Jan Vermeer, the famous painter, who had been born in the same year as
> Leeuwenhoek and is thought to have been a friend of his.
>
> At the time of his appointment in 1666 he had already begun to broaden
> his
> scientific horizons, studying navigation, astronomy, mathematics and
> natural sciences.
>
> Into science
> Leeuwenhoek’s scientific life may be said to have begun in about 1671,
> when
> he was thirty-nine years old. At that time, developing the idea of the
> glasses used by drapers to inspect the quality of cloth, he
> constructed his
> first simple microscope or magnifying glasses, consisting of a minute
> lens,
> ground by hand from a globule of glass, clamped between two small
> perforated metal plates.
>
> He seems to have been inspired to take up microscopy by having seen a
> copy
> of Robert Hooke’s illustrated book Micrographia, which depicted
> Hooke’s own
> observations with the microscope and was very popular.
>
> It was through his letters - more than 300 of them, written to private
> scientists and amateurs in both Holland and other countries - that
> Leeuwenhoek made his work known. He wrote exclusively in Dutch, but had a
> few of his letters translated for the benefit of his correspondents.
> It was
> his friend Regnier de Graaf (1641-1693) who made sure that Leeuwenhoek's
> achievements became known to a wider audience. De Graaf put
> Leeuwenhoek in
> contact with the Royal Society in London, to which he communicated
> most of
> his discoveries in papers in the form of a lengthy correspondence with
> Henry Oldenburg, the Society’s secretary. His first letter, of 1673,
> contained some observations on the stings of bees. His letters,
> written in
> Dutch, were translated into English or Latin and printed in the
> Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society, and often reprinted
> separately. All together he sent 190 papers to the Royal Society, to
> which
> he also donated 26 microscopes.
>
> “Very little animalcules”
> Leeuwenhoek made his most important discovery early in his scientific
> career, in 1674, when he recognized the true nature of microorganisms. He
> began to observe bacteria and protozoa, his "very little animalcules,"
> which he was able to isolate from different sources, such as rainwater,
> pond and well water, and the human mouth and intestine. Starting from the
> assumption that life and motility are identical, he concluded that the
> moving object that he saw through his microscope were little animals.
>
> He recorded these observations in his diary, and two years later, in a
> letter of October 9, 1676, communicated them to the Royal Society, where
> they caused a sensation. Indeed, such was the disbelief of some of
> fellows
> of that body that Leeuwenhoek felt obliged to procure written
> attestations
> to the reliability of his observations from ministers, jurists, and
> medical
> men. Leeuwenhoek subsequently described, in about thirty letters to the
> Royal Society, many specific forms of microorganisms, including bacteria,
> protozoa, and rotifers, as well as his incidental discovery of ciliate
> reproduction.
>
> http://www.whonamedit.com/doctor.cfm/1593.html
> <http://www.whonamedit.com/doctor.cfm/1593.html>
>
> At 05:54 PM 5/11/2009 +0000, you wrote:
> >Van Leeuwenhoek microscope takes £260,000
> >08 May 2009
> >HE had received only a basic education and spoke only Dutch, but Antoni
> >van Leeuwenhoek (1632-1723) is today recognised as the greatest of the
> >pioneering microscopists of the 17th century.
> >
> >Using his own simple instruments, it was Van Leeuwenhoek who first
> >observed such wonders as muscle fibres, red blood corpuscles, bacteria,
> >protozoa and spermatozoa ­ which he called "little men".
> >
> >Accounts vary as to his career path, but he seems to have worked as a
> >surveyor, a beer and wine gauger, a minor civil servant and as an
> >apprentice to a cloth merchant, where he learnt to examine fabrics
> with a
> >magnifying glass. At some point he was to learn how to grind and blow
> >lenses and in 1671 had constructed the microscope that would open a way
> >into the world of micro-organisms.
> >
> >It was relatively simple ­ two lenses held between riveted silver
> plates ­
> >but focusing was achieved by a screw mechanism.
> >
> >Given his lack of a formal education, his claims were at first dismissed
> >as fanciful. However, a letter announcing his discoveries of animacules,
> >or "little animals", living in rainwater, was eventually translated into
> >English and published in the Royal Society's Philosophical Transactions.
> >He was elected a Fellow in 1680.
> >
> >Van Leeuwenhoek would present his microscopes to Queen Mary and to Peter
> >the Great, and gave 26 silver examples to the Royal Society ­ all now
> >lost. In all, he is thought to have made some 550 microscopes, mostly in
> >brass, though very few seem to have survived.
> >
> >The appearance of a silver example in a mixed book, picture, print and
> >scientific instrument sale at Christie's South Kensington on April 8 was
> >thus a very special event.
> >
> >Just nine 17th century Van Leeuwenhoek microscopes are now recorded, and
> >only three of them are in silver. One is in the Deutsches Museum in
> >Munich, another in the Boerhaave Museum in Leiden, while the example at
> >South Kensington was found in a box of laboratory impedimenta from the
> >Zoological Department of Leiden University in 1978, when it was
> purchased
> >around that time by the vendor.
> >
> >Reproductions of Van Leeuwenhoek instruments were made in the 1880s (the
> >example in the Carl Zeiss collections at Jena is believed to be a copy),
> >but potential buyers at Christie's were reassured by the presence of two
> >19th century Dutch sale marks, the earlier of which identifies it as
> >having been sold at auction between 1814 and 1831. It is also thought to
> >have been the microscope featured in an 1875 Harting exhibition
> catalogue
> >and the example recorded in the collection of the Dutch zoologist R.T.
> >Maitland (1823-1904).
> >
> >Putting a value on such a rarity would have been difficult, but in
> the end
> >the saleroom suggested £70,000-100,000. It sold on the day for £260,000.
> >
> >By Ian McKay
> >
> >Link to story, with photo:
> >http://www.antiquestradegazette.com/news/7137.aspx
> <http://www.antiquestradegazette.com/news/7137.aspx>
> >
> >Auction House Description -- with set of 'zoomable' photos:
>
>http://www.christies.com/LotFinder/lot_details.aspx?from=salesummary&intObjectI\
D=5192744&sid=decfcf0c-6861-4885-932a-e53b03621b39
>
<http://www.christies.com/LotFinder/lot_details.aspx?from=salesummary&intObjectI\
D=5192744&sid=decfcf0c-6861-4885-932a-e53b03621b39>
> >If link does not work:
> >Sale 5808, Lot 88
> >travel, science & natural history, 8 April 2009
> >London, South Kensington
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >------------------------------------
> >
> >Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
> >
> >
> >No virus found in this incoming message.
> >Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
> >Version: 8.0.238 / Virus Database: 270.12.24/2108 - Release Date:
> 05/11/09
> >05:52:00
>
>

Hi,

I don't know why I haven't thought of this before, but I was thinking of
making an RSS feed of annotations posted on the site.

For those of you who use RSS feeds, I have a question... Which of these
options would you prefer:

1) A single feed of annotations from ALL sections of the site.

2) A single feed of annotations on just the diary entries.

3) Number (2) plus separate feeds of annotations for the Encyclopedia,
In-Depth Articles and Site News?

Or any other suggestions?

Thanks,
Phil

Baroque, 1620 - 1800, Style in the Age of Magnificence
http://www.vam.ac.uk/microsites/baroque/

Time flows by in waves. Capturing its discrete moments is the work of art
or history. Once history’s waves were literal. They brought Europeans to
American shores. The English — dour and methodical Pilgrims and Puritans,
swaggering Virginia planters — long hogged our history books. But the waves
brought other Europeans as well. Precisely 400 years ago, in 1609, Henry
Hudson rounded Sandy Hook, a craggy arm of a peninsula reaching out from
what became New Jersey toward Long Island, and nosed his way into New York
Harbor. Hudson was English, too, but through an accident of history his
most momentous voyage would be for the Dutch East India Company. The Dutch
laid claim to the territory he charted and planted a colony — New
Netherland, with its capital of New Amsterdam — on the wilderness island of
Manhattan. The Dutch Republic was Europe’s melting pot: its mixed society
created a multiethnic population on Manhattan, and the Dutch invention
called tolerance came along as social glue. The Dutch also pioneered the
principles of capitalism, and those two seeds, tolerance and free trade,
flourished in the colony’s virgin soil. They formed the primary ingredients
of what would become, under the English, New York City.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/31/magazine/31ocean-t.html?ref=magazine