Tuesday 21 July 1668
Up, and to St. James’s, but lost labour, the Duke abroad. So home to the office, where all the morning, and so to dinner, and then all the afternoon at the office, only went to my plate-maker’s, and there spent an hour about contriving my little plates,1 for my books of the King’s four Yards. At night walked in the garden, and supped and to bed, my eyes bad.
"my little plates, for my books of the King’s four Yards" The plates in question were evidently intended to show the layouts of the dockyards @ Woolwich, Deptford, Chatham and Portsmouth. L&M say the plates are not in the Pepys Library; no comment (here) on the books.
"Two anchors and ropes entwined" Did these symbolize the Royal Navy or were they some sort of personal crest?
"Did these symbolize the Royal Navy or were they some sort of personal crest?" Samuel Pepys's bookplate and motto: "Mens cujusque is est Quisque" http://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Samuel_Pepys_bookplate_1.jpg Any thoughts?
"On the front of the [ Pepys Building at Magdelene College, Cambridge ] is the painted inscription Bibliotheca Pepysiana 1724 which records the date of arrival of the library; above it are painted Pepys's arms and his motto "Mens cujusque is est quisque" ("The mind's the man" taken from Cicero's De re publica)." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pepys_Library#Pepys_Building
Sort of like "Cogito, ergo sum"?
re: Samuel Pepys’s bookplate and motto - thoughts? Well, if you're asking. I think it's clear Pepys identified closely with his job which, in short, involved materiel administration. If you think about it, I suppose anchors and ropes are a good choice to represent the materiel while the moto represents the administrative aspect.
Pepys picks up the plates on the 27th: http://www.pepysdiary.com/diary/1668/07/27/
'Charles II: July 1668', in Calendar of State Papers Domestic: Charles II, 1667-8, ed. Mary Anne Everett Green (London, 1893), pp. 469-516. https://www.british-history.ac.uk/cal-state-papers/domestic/chas2/1667-8/pp469-516 @@@ July 21. 1668 Major Henry Nicoll to the Navy Commissioners. I am sorry you give no answer to my petition, wherein you have good and positive reasons why I am not in condition to complete my contract. I ask no new contracts, but satisfaction for non-performance of the old ones, or their cancel upon giving up my accounts and rendering the materials out of the wrecks, which will answer the money expended, and save the King victuals and wages of the 4 ships, which by this time would have amounted to 400/. I am willing to relinquish the advantages I might have had, if this necessary service be not neglected. I never proposed any advantage to myself, more than obtaining the Golden Hand flyboat, which his Majesty granted me at a reasonable price, for my early activeness and great expense in order to his restoration. I desire an answer to my petition without delay, as the spring [tide] draws on. Previous delay cost the King 300l. in wages and victuals, and made the bargain 200/. worse in point of time. [S.P. Dom., Car. II. 243, No. 88.] Annexing, Petition of ?Henry Nicoll to the Navy Commissioners. I covenanted with you on 14 May to clear the river Medway of wrecks within 6 months, you delivering me 4 ships supplied with all necessary requisites. Edward Moorcock, whom you enjoined me in a 500/. bond to take as partner, objected against the windlasses of 3 of the ships as unfit for the work, and desired new ones before he began the work, but could not obtain them; and as some of the bridles and other materials were defective, he refused to sign the storekeeper’s bill until the whole was perfected. These defects have so delayed the work, by the breaking of the windlasses, and so disheartened us, that we cannot proceed without better conditions, I beg you to recommend the Duke of York to accept of the shipping and materials, with my accounts and such things as I have got out of the wrecks –– which I hope will nearly answer the charge I put his Majesty to –– and to discharge me from further meddling in the work, or give me additional shipping, money, and materials. –– 18 July 1668. [S.P. Dom., Car. II. 243, No. 88i.] @@@ July 21. 1668 Chatham. Edw. Gregory, and 2 others, to the Navy Commissioners. We have communicated Major Nicoll’s petition to the shipwright, who affirms that when Mr. Moorcock took the ships there was no complaint; that when 2 of the windlasses gave way, he received orders to make 2 new ones, but the shipwright left the yard the day before the order, and did not return till the spring [tide] was over;
the bridles were not defective, and Capt. Moorcock went to Gillingham and viewed them, and thought the provisions enough for clearing the whole river. Nicoll’s complaints are most unreasonable, for he only uses one bridle in flyboat, and yet there are 4 bridles aboard the 4 flyboats, and not above 25 fathoms cut from the cable he had out of store. Had the Major been prudent in managing his work, and not cut 3 ships loose, the trial of the vessels’ strength or bridles’ goodness had not been made. Nicoll and Moorcock did not sign the indenture for the things received, because each refused to do it apart from the other. [S. P. Dom., Car. II. 243, No. 89.]
Does anyone know what Sam’s own coat of arms looks like? I remember he had some wine bottles made and had a version of his crest on them but I wonder what it looked like.
James, I searched the annotations for "coat-of-arms" using the SEARCH box (top right) and found this which seems comprehensive on the subject: https://www.pepysdiary.com/diary/1663/02/10/#c41828