Back to Top

Category: Regency

As I close in on finishing The Next Historical, I’m also researching as much as I can about pugilism. As so often happens, one gets on a tangent … this one was fruitful but a bit macabre. In 1820, a Mr. Thurtell and confederates were involved in the murder of one William Weare. The events were, it would seem, fairly infamous. In 1824 there appeared The Fatal Effects of Gambling Exemplified in the Murder of Wm. Weare which relates, in a frustratingly circuitous manner, the events of that evening, the days leading up it and the aftermath.

Yes, it’s early True Crime. The title of the work should clue you in on any personal biases of the author.

At any rate, I have gained some new-to-me Regency vocabulary and a sense that some people are just … not … good.

Here’s the gist of what happened: A Mr. Thurtell was out with some compatriots (Weare and Hunt. One Probert appears to have at least known them) and in the wee hours of the morning one of them, William Weare, had been shot in the head and his body dumped in Probert’s pond. Probert (only Hunt and Thurtell were tried) objected to the body dumping and so the corpse was moved to a different pond. As an aside, at trial, Thurtell, who represented himself, expressly identified the property owner Mr. Probert as the likely murderer. The suspects were observed after the fact looking for items lost and when asked, claimed to have been in an carriage accident that did not result in the carriage tipping over or any injury to man or horse, but did result in the loss of personal effects. The clothing of Mr. Thurtell was found to be bloodstained.

And now, I’m going to pull out bits of some of the narrative.

Among other anecdotes which he [Thurtell] related of himself, were the two following : He was in the neighbourhood of Cheltenham some time ago with a noted boxer, and some of the visitants and inhabitants made a match between two men, and considerable bets were pending. He, himself, made bets to the amount of £200 on the worst man, and he and his boxing friend by acting, the one as second, and the other as time-keeper contrived to make the worst man win the battle; and so, as he said, the Cheltenham yokels were nick’d, and he carried off the £200.

He [Thurtell] was with the English at the storming of St. Sebastian, and when they entered the town, he saw a Polish officer in the French service, leaning against the wall, “seemingly done up with wounds and hard work. I thought by the look of him,” he continued, “that he was a nob, and must have some blunt about him–so I just stuck my sword in his rib; and settled him; and I found a hundred and forty doubloons in the pocket!–a good booty, wasn’t it, Joe?

Thurtell was known among his flash friends by the nick-name of “Old Flare.” He was always remarkably reserved and thoughtful in company. He would sit for hours and scarcely speak. When he did speak, his conversation was of the most hardened and disgusting kind, and his general conduct was such, that two of his worthy companions made a bet of a dozen of wine, that he would be hanged within three years.

In other research that branched off from here, the attendees of an infamous trial had trouble finding rooms. In the town where the trial was taking place. Two weeks before the trial, the going rate was “5 guineas for 2 bedchambers and a sitting room” and after that there were “… no rooms to be had.”

At the trial, a witness said:

I observed the chaise in which Thurtell was, merely because of its being on the wrong side of the road.

And this answers a point I’ve often wondered about. It seems OBVIOUS that traffic could not been unregulated enough that you could drive any which way. There just had to be formal or at least generally accepted traffic rules. So here, yes, that chaise was on the wrong side of the road.

Another interesting linguistic fact is the reference to distance in “poles” as in the gate was about thirty poles from Probert’s cottage. This measurement is referenced many times in this account. Wikipedia is of some assistance:

The rod or perch or pole is a surveyors tool and unit of length equal to 5½ yards, 16½ feet or 1/320th of a statute mile and one-fourth of a surveyors chain. The rod is useful as a unit of length because whole number multiples of it can equal one acre of square measure. […] Since the adoption of the international yard on 1 July 1959, the rod has been equal to exactly 5.0292 meters.

A rod is the same length as a perch also sometimes called a pole which measure using cordage or wood, slightly antedated the use of both rods and surveyors chains, made of more dimensionally regular materials. The measure also has a relationship to the military pike of about the same size and both measures date from the sixteenth century when that weapon was still utilized in national armies. Wikipedia

It is stated that a plan had been organized by a gang, at the head of which were Thurtell, Hunt, and Probert, by which the lives of all persons, who were either obnoxious to the parties, or whose deaths would lead to the possession of property, were to be sacrificed. Manchester-buildings, Cannon-row, Westminster, was chosen for the scene of those dreadful doings; and considering the vicinity of the river, and the facility thence afforded of floating the bodies of their victims downward to the ocean, the situation was but too well adapted for the purpose. A house in Manchester-buildings was taken under the pretence of Thurtell’s carrying on there his old occupation of a bombasin merchant, but it was wholly without furniture; and whoever considers the situation must be convinced that a wholesale warehouse there was entirely out of the question. It could be taken for no other purposes than those of robbery and murder; and there is little doubt that this more sequestered spot was selected for both. It does not, however, appear that any person has fallen a victim to this diabolical scheme, although a Mr. Woods has had a very narrow escape, as will appear from the following statement:

On the morning of Monday, October 7th, about a quarter before seven o’clock, a man, habited as a journeyman carpenter, about five feet eight or nine inches high, of dark complexion, and with large black whiskers, called at Mr. Woods’ residence, and stated that a lady of the name of Brew, with whom Mr. W. was well acquainted, was desirous of seeing him upon some important business, at a house in a street in Westminster, the name of which he did not know, but it was a street just beyond the Horse-Guards. Mr. Woods was not satisfied with the account, and questioned him as to the cause of Mrs. Brew being in Westminster, as she resided at Kensington. His answer was, that she was stopping at a friend’s house, and wished to see Mr. W. that morning as she was going out of town. Upon this, Mr. Woods accompanied him to Manchester Buildings, where he stopped at No. 10, which Mr. W. immediately saw was an uninhabited house. The door being ajar, his suspicions were awakened that all was not correct, and he desired the man to step in, and tell Mrs. Brew that he (Mr. W ) was there. The man entered, and having proceeded along the hall or passage as Jar as the back-parlour door, Mr. Woods saw John Thurtell spring from the back-parlour and strike the man a heavy blow, which knocked him with great violence against the opposite wall. The man hallooed out something which Mr. Woods did not distinctly understand, but to the effect that Thurtell had mistaken his man. Mr. W. immediately retired, and, on looking back from the end of the street, he saw the messenger at the door of the house gazing after him, but not attempting any pursuit. Upon this Mr. W. waited on the son of Mrs. Brew, and was informed by him that that lady had been for three weeks in the Isle of Man. What follows is very mysterious. On his return home, he found the following letter, which had been left at his residence by a man of shabby appearance, almost immediately on his quitting the house with the messenger.
An unknown friend informs you that there is a writ cut against you for £10. ; keep out of the way till after Friday next.

In the evening of the same day he received the following letter also:—
Sir, Monday Afternoon, Four o’Clock.
I am happy to inform you, that an unknown friend of yours [has?] settled the action, which you were about to be arrested for this morning for £10 and costs; therefore you have no aeration to make yourself uneasy about it. I understand – you are; indebted to a Mr. Cozens for his interference in this ungentlemanly act. I am, Sir, yours,
Clifford’s-Inn. Clarke.

The inference drawn from this statement was that the first note was for the purpose of preventing any inquiry after Mr. Wood, had his intended assassination been carried into effect, until sufficient time had elapsed for his body to have been effectually disposed of.

Some conclusionary Remarks

After spending considerable time relating how awful Thurtell was, the tone switches entirely. Thurtell was sentenced to death, with his body to be given afterwards to surgeons for dissection. And now, he’s a heroic soul meeting his fate as only a gentleman can.

Next week, if it seems fitting, I’ll post about some of the Evils of Gambling and the French. They seem to get blamed a lot.

I was thinking I would post more about my pugilism research but I when I wasn’t writing, I was prepping documentation for taxes.

Taxes. Boy. Record keeping. ::sob::

Anyway, here’s ten interesting facts about English Taxes during the Regency.

1. 1,308,254 5s 3 1/4d: Land tax gross receipts (England) in 1811

2. 12,358,673 2s 2 1/2d: Property Tax collected in 1811

3. 3,096 7s 11d: Income Tax collected in 1811

4. 11,322 19s 11d: Income tax collected in Scotland in 1811

5. 112,937 10s 0d: Monies Ireland received from Great Britain, representing 1/3 of the profit on the 1810 lottery

6. PROPERTY TAX.
This poor tax is now become as much the object of senseless abuse as were, in 1798, those who endeavoured to prevent it from being imposed. In 1812 an unfortunate man, named Carter, was imprisoned in jaol [sic], for a year, and lined, for having published a paragraph complaining of the operation of this tax. My Lord Folkestone, who made a motion upon this subject, described this paragraph as being moderate and inoffensive. Yet, for republishing the same paragraph, Mr. Lovell of the Statesman was imprisoned a year or 18. months in Newgate, and also fined,—The selfish and, unfeeling crowds, who are now clamouring against this tax; who are abusing it; who are applying to it all sorts of vile epithets and names, because they now feel the pinch of their pockets; these persons never meet to petition against the prosecutions of the press; no, and they never would have met for that purpose, if every press in England had been demolished and the types thrown into the street, as were those of the American printers at the City of Washington, by command of our military and naval commanders. Saturday, January 18, 1815, Cobbett’s Political Register

7. XVI. And Whereas Difficulties may arise in discovering Lodgers or Inmates in Houses liable to pay the said Rates, Duties and Taxes, in respect of Carriages, Male Servants and other Male Persons, Horses, Mares, Geldings and Dogs; Be it therefore enacted, That the Owner of any House letting the same, or Owners of any Part thereof, to any Lodger or Lodgers in which any Lodger or Inmate shall reside, who shall keep, retain, employ or use any Carriage, Male Servant or other Male Person, Horse, Mare, Gelding or Dog, shall &c. kept shall deliver to any such Officer or other Person authorized as aforesaid, on Demand, or within Ten Days after by their Lodgers. Notice served by such Officer or other Person authorized as aforesaid, by leaving or causing to be left the same at the House of such Person as aforesaid, a true List or Account in Writing under the Hand of such Owner expressing the Name and Surname of every such Lodger or Inmate, with an Account of every Carriage, Male Servant or other Male Person, Horse, Mare, Gelding or Dog kept, retained, employed or used by such Lodger or Inmate, to the best of the Knowledge and Information of such Owner j and if any such Owner (hall neglect or refuse to deliver such List or Account as aforesaid, or shall wilfully omit or misrepresent any Description which ought to be contained therein, or shall make or deliver any undue or false List or Account, every such Person so offending shall for every such Offence forfeit the Sum of Twenty Pounds. Penalty. The Statutes of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, Volume 24 (1816)

8. In Great Britain, the principal taxes upon the necessaries of life are those upon salt, leather, soap, and candles. Heavy taxes upon these commodities must somewhat increase the expence of the sober and industrious poor, and must, consesquently, more or less raise the wages of their labour. Such taxes, notwithstanding their immediate effect, afford a considerable revenue to government, and accordingly they are continued and multiplied.Consumable commodities, whether necessaries or luxuries, may be taxed in two different ways. The consumer may either pay an annual sum on account of his using or consuming goods of a certain kind ; or the goods may be taxed while they remain in the hands of the dealer, and before they are delivered to the consumer. The consumable goods which last a considerable time before they are consumed altogether, are most properly taxed in the one way. Those of which the consumption is either immediate or more speedy, in the other. The Cyclopædia: Or, Universal Dictionary of Arts, Sciences, and …, Volume 35

9. An Act to repeal the additional Duty on British made Wine or Sweets granted by an Act of this Session of Parliament. [25th May 1815.]

WHEREAS by an Act made in this Session of Parliament, intituled An Act for granting to His Majesty, until the Fifth Day of April One thousand eight hundred and nineteen, additional Duties of Excise in Great Britain, on Sweets, Tobacco, Snuff and Excise Licences, an additional Duty of Excise Is imposed for Liquor made in Great Britain for Sale, by Infusion, Fermentation or otherwise from Fruit or ‘Sugar, or from Fruit or Sugar mixed with any other Ingredients or Materials whatsoever, commonly called « Sweets, or called or distinguished by the Name of Made Wines: And Whereas it is expedient to repeal the ‘said additional Duty;’ Be it therefore enacted by The King’s Most Excellent Majesty, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Lords Spiritual and Temporal, and Commons, in this present Parliament assembled, and by the Authority of the same, That, from and aster the Eighteenth Day of February One thousand eight hundred and fifteen, the said additional Duty shall be and the same is hereby repealed. repealed.

II. And be it further enacted, That the Commissioners of Excise in England and Scotland respectively, or Entries of any Three or more of them respectively, shall and they respectively are hereby authorized and empowered to Duties to cause any Sum or Sums of Money which shall have been charged as any such additional Duty for or in respect charged of any such British-made Wine or Sweets to be discharged from and out of the Books and other Documents containing any Entry or Entries of or relating to any such Charge, or Sum or Sums of Money. The Statutes of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, Volume 24 (1816)

10. Examination of Lord Henry Petty’s Plan of Finance.

We have already given an account of Lord Henry Petty’s plan of finance. It was proposed to Parliament and the public, in the year 1807, accompanied with an elaborate set of tables. Being very complex, it was not generally understood. As it promised to raise the necessary loans with little or no increase of taxes, it was favourably received, and probably would have been continued for some years if the ministry who brought it forward had remained in office.
INQUIRY CONCERNING THE RISE AND PROGRESS, THE REDEMPTI0N AND PRESENT STATE, AND THE MANAGEMENT, OF THE NATIONAL DEBT GREAT BRITAIN. (1814)

Number 10 is my favorite.

Posted in Former Riskies, History, Regency | Tagged | 2 Replies

I have been working hard at what’s turning out to be a total rewrite of the WIP (Work In Progress). I hope to have it out for an outside read soon …. Nevertheless, the pages keep needing to be re-written.

It’s been fun learning about boxing in the Regency.  It’s not been so fun learning about how wagers work. It’s slightly more complicated than I wanted it to be.  Lay down money! Lose money/Win money! But now, I hope, I don’t have an egregiously wrong/hopelessly vague scene(s) involving money and betting and such.

My brain hurts. And no effing wonder some of these guys lost fortunes!

An Iniquitous Past

In a previous job, I ran the office football pool. I had all the games, the spread, the actual points scored by quarter etc. in a database and I used to slice and dice the results. This was long enough ago that Joe Montana was the 49ers new QB and it looked like maybe he was a better player than anyone expected… and here’s what I learned:

1. The 49ers ALWAYS beat the spread, even when they lost. There was no point EVER not taking the 49ers. Long before any of the papers were writing about the 49er defense, I could see from the mid-season numbers that there was no team even close to as good as the 49ers D. They were the #1 defense across all teams — that is, basically, almost no one scored against the 49ers D, and if they did, it usually didn’t happen in the 2nd half.

2. There were several teams that were consistently favored to win by large spreads and they almost never did. By mid-season, the numbers simply did not support ever picking those teams. The same was true of a couple of other teams, who were doing consistently better than the spreads would imply.

3. I issued a mid-season report to the office so that everyone had the same data I did. Despite the overwhelming numerical evidence, some people continued to pick teams based on their personal biases and gut feelings.

4. The people who were setting the spreads could not possibly have been looking at the same numbers I was. If they had been, they would have been setting different spreads.

5. I won the end of season pool that year. (There was a weekly pool, but a percentage went toward the end of season pool).

6. The 49ers won the Superbowl.

Yes, it’s true that on any given day, any team can win or lose, but the fact was that there was data in those numbers that predicted with a high degree of certainty the outcome of future games. There’s no question that Joe Montana was magic on the football field. But the 49er defense was completely underrated for three seasons, and the odds makers took a strangely long time to adjust to the facts/data.

The Bill Walsh era transformed football in ways that I think still aren’t entirely recognized. I could see from watching my data  and from watching the games that the West Coast Offense (led by one of the greatest quarterbacks ever to play the game) and what I will call the West Coast Defense (paid for by a very rich owner, Eddie DeBartelo) was essentially not beatable in the long run — until other teams got faster, bigger players (who were in better shape) and learned how to read offenses and defenses more quickly.

5 superbowls people. The 49ers won three superbowls pretty close together because it took about that long for other teams to understand they needed to play a different game and then acquire and train the coaching and athletic talent necessary to do that. The NFL made some rule changes that affected talent acquisition, so Walsh had to tweak his game, as it were. Boom. Two more superbowls.

Magic happens here.

Now watch me tie this into the Regency:

People gamble with their guts. And they do it in the face of mathematical evidence that their gut is wrong. Anyone who is at all interested in gathering information and looking at it over time will have an advantage, in a sport, in the long run, over someone who goes with their guts. You will take a few losses, but in the long run, you will be ahead of everyone who contaminates their picks with emotion.

The math is more like arithmetic, really. It’s not hard. You just assemble your numbers and let them tell the story. Even in the Regency, there just had to have been people who were geekish enough about some sport — like boxing –to do that sort of thing.

Interesting, no?

As I’m working on finishing up Lucy and Thrale’s story (Sinclair Sisters, Book 2) I’m researching boxing and the like. I came across this interesting article: Hazlitt’s Prizefight Revisted, Pierce Egan and Jon Bee’s Boxiana-Style Perspective by David Snowdon posted at Romantic Textualities. Make a note, because it’s a fascinating article.

Which is not what my post is about. My post is about this book by John Bee:

Sportsman’s Slang, a New Dictionary of Terms used in the Affairs of The Turf, The Ring, The Chase, and The Cock-Pit; with Those of the Bon-Ton and The Varieties of Life, Forming the Completest and Authentic Lexicon Balatronicum et Macaronicum, particularly Adapted to the use of The Sporting World for elucidating Words and Phrases that are Necessarily, or Purposely, Rendered cramp, mutative, and unintelligible, outside their respective Spheres. Interspersed with Anecdotes and Whimsies, With Tart Quotations, And Rum-Ones; With Examples, Proofs, And Monitory Precepts Useful and Proper for Novices, Flats, and Yokels. Editio altera.

Let’s call it Sportsman’s Slang for short, eh?

Here’s a definition that answered a long-held question of mine (In the text, this is all one paragraph, but that’s too visually dense so I have added paragraphs for readability:

Bon ton: highflier Cyprians and those who run after them; from Bon–good easy–and ton or tone; the degree of tact and tension to be employed by modish people; frequently called ‘the ton’ only. Persons taking up good portions of their hours in seeking pleasure are of the Bon-ton, as stage actors and frequenters of play houses, visitors at watering-places officers &c. &c. See Haut ton.

In Paris they are both called Le bon genre. The appellation is much oftener applied than assumed. High life, particularly of whoredom: he who does not keep a girl or part of one, cannot be of the Bon ton; when he ceases, let him cut. Bon ton is included in haut-ton, and is French for that part of society who live at their ease, as to income and pursuits, whose manners are tonish, and who, like other divisions of society, employ terms of their own, which rather sparingly they engraft on the best King’s English. Mascul. et Fem.

Terms which denote the ton: ‘The go, the mode, or pink of the mode; bang-up, the prime of life, or all prime; the thing, the dash, and a dasher; quite the Varment–a four-in-hand, a whip, a very jarvy; a swell, a diamond of the first water.’ None can expect to attain perfection in all these unless he could obtain the same assistance that Faustus had, viz. Leviathan; and then he could not begrudge to meet the same end.

OK, so the phrase I have often wondered about is “Diamond of the First Water” as applied to a person. This is the first time I’ve seen the phrase in period literature. Mind you, here it’s used with a definite note of, shall we say ironic contempt? But here, we do not see the term specifically applied to a woman, and if it were, we might be excused for thinking Bee meant to imply a whore.

At any rate, I’ve wondered if the phrase might be a Heyer-ism, but if it is, she had some period authority for it. In fact, as I’ve been scanning through this, there are so many phrases I recognize from Heyer and her successors that I began to think she must have had this book in her library.

Are there phrases you’ve often wondered about?

Edited to Add!

There are dozens of uses of “Diamond of the First Water” with respect to jewelry and many that, in the same breath, mention giving that jewelry to a mistress who expects such a gift, but also many that apply the term to things that are not diamonds– and from there it’s really not hard to imagine applying the phrase to a woman. And, there are some. In the one below, we see a rather racy application of the term from dialog in a play which I include here because it made me laugh.

From Dissipation: A Comedy in Five Acts. As it is Performed at the Theatre-Royal, by Miles Peter Andrews, 1781.

EPHRAIM: What ish impossible! There ish your friend Lady Rentless that I wash more intimate with than you are Maisher Alderman, for all you are my Lord’s captain.

ALDERMAN: You intimate with my Lady? Why she’s the very pink of the mode, makes fashions for the whole town, gives entertainments to the whole town, sits up all night. Why, drill me, but she’s a diamond of the first water.

EPHRAIM: Aye; I love the diamond of the first water and have got the possession of most of them.

My novella for the June historical romance anthology Dancing in the Duke’s Arms (with Grace Burrowes, Shana Galen, and Miranda Neville) is done and off to beta reading, editing, and copy-editing. My story is An Unsuitable Duchess. I posted last time about some research results. Most of that research survived in some form or another in the penultimate version. (Cue applause!!)

While I was madly fixing ::KoffKoff::  revising, I needed some additional research on what songs might have been sung in 1819. This turned out to be slightly harder than I wanted it to be, mainly because what seemed like the most likely on-point resource was a 1794 text that was a Google Books listing only. There was no text available.

I’ve seen this happen when someone, sorry, but often an academic press, has an annotated version of the text on sale, as with The Regency Epicure. There is no defensible reason, in my opinion, for the removal of a public domain title from Google Books just because there’s an annotated version available for purchase. To be clear, of course the annotated version is different and shouldn’t be freely available as to the copyrighted annotations. But the original remains in the public domain and should therefore remain available to the public.

But I digress. The 1794 songbook was not available and I did not have time to see if I could get it on Interlibrary loan. The book is listed in WorldCat, so there are libraries that have it.  Nevertheless, I found something that answered the need well enough, and that was The British Melodist or National Song Book, containing English, Scottish, and Irish songs With a Selection of More than Four Hundred Choice Posts and Sentiments. There are several versions, with the earliest available text dated 1822. A similar book from 1813 is not available because some [ expletive ] is selling a paper copy on Amazon. And that someone just grabbed the book from Google and claims to have cleaned up the OCR text. I hate this. It pisses me off. It should not be permitted. It’s selling for $18.00.  S0 eff you, dude. Right. HE got the benefit of a book in the public domain and now the actual public is screwed. You’re darn right I’m mad. We should all be angry!

I’m in danger of digressing again. Sorry.

The British Melodist of 1822 is recent enough for me to be confident that I’m not far off base in having my characters mention the titles of songs, and a few lines from one, in 1819.

Some of the songs and their titles surprised me. Here are a few examples.

Black-eyed Susan

All in the downs the fleet was moor’d,
The streamers waving in the wind,
when black-ey’d Susan came on board:
Oh! where shall I my true-love find?
Tell me ye jovial sailors, tell me true,
if my sweet William sails among the crew!
(first verse only)

Here’s another interesting one:

The Soldier’s Widow; or Return from Waterloo.

Sad was the plaint of the wand’ring stranger,
Hungry and pale was the infant she bore;
Return’d from the land of misfortune & danger,
She hop’d to find peace on her dear native shore.

O neat was her cottage, and great was her treasure,
A treasure to her more than diamonds or pearl
In the smiles of her William consisted her pleasure,
And the fond caresses of her little girl.

Duty commanded, her William attended,
And she could not bear with her soldier to part
She roam’d oe’r the field when the battle was ended,
She kiss’d his pale lip, & she pressed his cold heart.

They bore her away, of all comfort bereft her,
Affliction her dart at her bosom did hurl;
Oh no, little darling, one comfort is left her,
The sweet smiling kiss of her dear little girl.

Below is a song title I used in my story. I include the lyrics since they’re culturally significant. Talk about a message, eh? But there’s fascinating subtext there. The warning and moral wouldn’t be necessary if there weren’t young ladies who felt just that way.

No One Shall Govern Me.

When young and thoughtless, Laura said,
No one shall win my heart;
But little dreamt the simple maid,
Of love’s delusive art.
At ball or play,
She flirt away,
And ever giddy be;
But always said,
I ne’er will wed,
No one shall govern me.
No, no, no, no, no, no,
No one shall govern me.

But time on airy pinions flew,
And Laura’s charms decay’d;
Too soon alas! The damsel grew
A pettish pert old maid.
At ball or play,
No longer gay,
Poor Laura now you’ll see;
Nor does she cry,
For reasons why,
No one shall govern me.
No, no, no &c.

A lesson learned, ye ladies fair,
From Laura’s wretched fate;
Lest you, like her, should in despair
Repent alas! Back too late.

Let me advise –
While young, be wise,
Nor coy and silly be;
I’m certain I
Would never cry,
No one shall govern me.
No, no, no &c.
I’d gladly govern’d be.

Here’s another from the last few pages:

Drown it in the Bowl.

The glossy sparkle on the board,
The wine is ruby bright,
The reign of pleasure is restor’d,
Of ease and fond delight.
The day is gone, the night’s our own,
Then let us feast the soul;
If any care or pain remain,
Why drown it in the bowl.

This world they say’s a world of woe,
That I do deny;
Can sorrow from the goblet flow?
Or pain from beauty’s eye?
The wise are fools, with all their rules,
When they would joys controul:
If life’s a pain, I say again,
Let’s drown it in the bowl.

That time flies fast the poets sing;
Then surely it is wise,
In rosy wine to dip his wings,
And seize him as he flies.
This night is ours; then strew with flowers
The moments as they roll:
If any pain or care remain,
Why drown it in the bowl.

Possibly Interesting End Note

Normally, I would have done a copy and paste of the lyrics text or used an embedded image because, wow. LOTS OF TYPING!!!

But while I was doing my revisions and found myself behind because ::hand waving, a tissue, sobs omgwtf!:: I lost five chapters of revisions and had to completely redo them from paper edits. ::horrible flashbacks::

I became desperate to find a way to go faster where I had long chunks of new text. So, I hooked up my microphone and turned on the Mac dictation feature and dictated those sections. And danged if it didn’t work pretty damned well. And that includes the dictation working in my Windows 7 Parallels virtual machine. I honestly didn’t think Mac dictation would work across the virtual machine, but as long as I clicked in my WordPerfect document, my dictated words appeared.

And so, I dictated these lyrics into this post, and while there were a few hilarious interpretations, the dictation was remarkably accurate, all things considered. It was very quick to go a line at a time for these lyrics and fix the mostly minor issues.

I’m converted now to using dictation for work where I have longer blocks of text to transfer. I always do paper read throughs of my manuscripts so this is a regular occurrence for me. I redid my five chapters of edits in two days — working on my lunch hour (on the laptop) and then at home on the iMac, and let me represent to you that many of those chapters were a sea of ink and paragraphs written on the back of the pages.

A win, over all, I’d say because now there’s less of a barrier to posts like this one.