[COMPLETE] [1700s memoir] The Journal of Nicholas Cresswell - kaz

[mattm]

Recording section 5 (page 60 in the archive text) and cannot figure out the abbreviation B.O.B. Normally, I like to read abbreviations out (to make it easier for the listener) but can't in this case. Any ideas?

Text: Left Leesburg. Crossed the Blue Ridge at Snicker’s Gap. B.O.B. Dined at Mr. Snickers but he is not at home, but his Son-in-law gave me a letter to a certain George Rice,

I think it is some kind of cryptic note to himself. There is another abbreviation "C.T.M.P." like this at the top of page 127:
"Friday October 20th 1775...and subdue them soon they will declare Independence C.T.M.P. Saturday, October 21st, 1775..."

And another "D.G." at the bottom of page 136:
"Wednesday, Jan. 24th, 1776. Left Alexandria. Dined at Mosses. Got to Leesburg in the evening. D.G."

I found a book (https://www.google.com/books/edition/Pillar_to_Post/j5AumOIN8w4C?hl=en&gbpv=0) that includes some excerpts from Cresswell, and includes this footnote that Google Books gave me as a free preview:

"C.T.M.P." The editor is unable to decipher the meaning. It might mean "Concerning the Matter of Parole," or "Concerning the Mason Promise." To plumb this more deeply, see Cresswell's journal entry for June 1, 1777, when several matters are at last made clear.

Reading that entry, it seems the date of April 3, 1775 for "B.O.B." could be the day some of his letters home were intercepted on a Boat, which was Boarded in the Bay...maybe. He wouldn't have known about that until some later day when he might have gone back and added that note.

All of which to say, I'm reading these as they are.

[mattm]

I hunted a bit more and found this edition. He used many more codes which have been omitted from the edition we are reading, which I think further confirms that these are notes to self and not standard abbreviations.
https://books.google.com/books?id=erg0xyiRccAC&pg=PA88&lpg=PA88#v=onepage&q&f=false

For example:
0 K. F. (Nov 9th 1775, Jan 17th 1776)
0 P. B. (Nov 27th 1775)
0 (Nov 28th 1775)
! M. 0 K. (Jan 21 1776)
S. (Jan 28 1776)
0 D. P. (Feb 13 1776)
0 C. G. (July 21 1776, July 27 1776)
0. P. E. (Sep 3 1776)

The editors say:
"Beginning on November 7, 1776, Cresswell occasionally inserted some initials such as "O K. F." "O P. E." and others at the end of journal entries. We have not been able to decipher his meaning.

[Piotrek81]

Recording section 5 (page 60 in the archive text) and cannot figure out the abbreviation B.O.B. Normally, I like to read abbreviations out (to make it easier for the listener) but can't in this case. Any ideas?

All of which to say, I'm reading these as they are.

I think Matt's suggestion of reading the abbreviations as they are is the most commonsensical, given that, as the editor said himself, we don't really know what Cresswell meant. I'll add the line to the project description in the first post so people know how to proceed in such a case.

[mattm]

I think Matt's suggestion of reading the abbreviations as they are is the most commonsensical, given that, as the editor said himself, we don't really know what Cresswell meant. I'll add the line to the project description in the first post so people know how to proceed in such a case.

Alternately, given that our edition has already dropped a bunch of these abbreviations, what do you think of dropping the rest?

Different topic:
Starting in Section 12, Cresswell starts to obfuscate by writing some words backwards.

"Kings friends" - "sgnik sdneirf"
"Rebels" - "sleber"

How should we read these?
- spell them out?
- try to pronounce them?
- flip them back around and read them forwards?
- ...

[Piotrek81]

Alternately, given that our edition has already dropped a bunch of these abbreviations, what do you think of dropping the rest?

That will save the readers the headscratching. And as you say many of them have been dropped already. Let's do it this way. I can always add a line in the project description for those reading along from a scan

Different topic:
Starting in Section 12, Cresswell starts to obfuscate by writing some words backwards.

"Kings friends" - "sgnik sdneirf"
"Rebels" - "sleber"

How should we read these?
- spell them out?
- try to pronounce them?
- flip them back around and read them forwards?
- ...

I'd say read them as they are, i.e do your best to spell them out. Again, for the curious who download the file I can add a line in the project description.

[ColleenMc]

I lean toward either reading them as their meaning, or trying to pronounce them as written and add the translation afterwards, either directly or set off with “note….end of note” with the explanation that it’s written backwards in the original text. This is what I would do if I were doing this as a solo.

I also say that we should read the text as written in regards to the abbreviations. Again, if this were my project and I was just deciding for myself, I would read the full term for any abbreviation I can figure out, and read the abbreviation as it stands if I can’t figure it out. For any I can’t, I would add something like “note: personal abbreviation of the author; uncertain what it stands for…end of note” after each one.

A lot of people don’t read the descriptions carefully and it would be very confusing to hear backwards words with no explanation. My goal is always to balance the need for reading the text in full as it stands and making it comprehensible for someone who just wants to listen without consulting the printed text. I think there are more “just listeners” than people who listen with the text.

That said, Piotrek81 is the BC so the final call is up to him!

Colleen

[Piotrek81]

I lean toward either reading them as their meaning, or trying to pronounce them as written and add the translation afterwards, either directly or set off with “note….end of note” with the explanation that it’s written backwards in the original text. This is what I would do if I were doing this as a solo.

I also say that we should read the text as written in regards to the abbreviations. Again, if this were my project and I was just deciding for myself, I would read the full term for any abbreviation I can figure out, and read the abbreviation as it stands if I can’t figure it out. For any I can’t, I would add something like “note: personal abbreviation of the author; uncertain what it stands for…end of note” after each one.

A lot of people don’t read the descriptions carefully and it would be very confusing to hear backwards words with no explanation. My goal is always to balance the need for reading the text in full as it stands and making it comprehensible for someone who just wants to listen without consulting the printed text. I think there are more “just listeners” than people who listen with the text.

That said, Piotrek81 is the BC so the final call is up to him!

Colleen

Adding the "note..end note" to the words spelled backwards is a good idea.
As for the abbreviations, as Matt said many of them have already been dropped from this edition anyway, so I don't think that keeping just the remainder, unclear as they are, adds anything.

[JenniferFour]

Such an interesting discussion I unwittingly provoked

Today is my due date. Sections 3 and 4 are done and ready for upload but…sorry…I am heading out of town until Fri evening and didn’t get them up. Section 5 is recorded, not edited yet. I will get 3 and 4 up on Sat (internet gods willing) and 5 early the next week.

[Piotrek81]

Such an interesting discussion I unwittingly provoked

Today is my due date. Sections 3 and 4 are done and ready for upload but…sorry…I am heading out of town until Fri evening and didn’t get them up. Section 5 is recorded, not edited yet. I will get 3 and 4 up on Sat (internet gods willing) and 5 early the next week.

Thanks for notifying us No problem, we're not going anywhere yet. As for the internet gods, I heard they like a good meme as a sacrifice to ensure their benevolence

[Kazbek]

As for the abbreviations, as Matt said many of them have already been dropped from this edition anyway, so I don't think that keeping just the remainder, unclear as they are, adds anything.

That may very well be true, but we do have a policy of reading texts as they are. There are a couple of exceptions to this, but I'm afraid secret abbreviations and not among them. The editor of this edition decided to drop some of them and keep others, and omitting the abbreviations he kept would cross the line between reading out loud and editorial work.

Michael

[Piotrek81]

I don't see much point in this, tbh, especially as these abbreviations are undecipherable.
In any case it would be a good idea to finally have one policy for this project

[Kazbek]

We do have one policy, which is not to skip any parts of the main text except bibliographical references. Texts may contain a number of things some of us may wish to omit from our reading, but the best we can do (as BCs) is to find a PD edition that best corresponds to our preferences and then (as readers) read whatever happens to be there.

Michael

[Piotrek81]

Allright, then.

We read the abbreviations as they are.

[AimingUp]

Hello,

Hope you are well! I would like to read sections 12-15 (15 included).

Thank you.

[Piotrek81]

Hello,

Hope you are well! I would like to read sections 12-15 (15 included).

Thank you.

Thank you for your interest in this project. Please, let me know under what name you'd like to be credited in the catalogue. It can be your forum name, or anything else you can think of. Also, please notice the points we've established in the recent posts. (that is, 1. if you encounter words written backwards by the author, you should read them as they are written and then we're asking you to insert "note...[actual word]...end note" 2. if you enocounter unfamiliar two-or-three letter abbreviations like those mentioned a few posts above, please read them as letters. We don't know what they mean.