1805.8: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
No edit summary |
No edit summary |
||
| (2 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{Chronology Entry | {{Chronology Entry | ||
|Year=1805 | |Year=1805 | ||
|Year Suffix= | |||
|Year Number=8 | |Year Number=8 | ||
|Headline=Yale Grad Compares | |Headline=Yale Grad Compares Certain English Ballgames to New England's | ||
|Salience=2 | |Salience=2 | ||
|Location=New England | |Location=New England | ||
|Game=Cricket | |Country= | ||
|Coordinates= | |||
|State= | |||
|City= | |||
|Modern Address= | |||
|Game=Cricket,Wicket | |||
|Immediacy of Report=Contemporary | |Immediacy of Report=Contemporary | ||
|Age of Players=Youth | |||
|Holiday= | |||
|Notables= | |||
|Text=<p>"July 9 [1805, we think] . . . . The mode of playing ball differs a little from that practiced in New-England. Instead of tossing up the ball out of one's own hand, and then striking it, as it descends, they lay is into the heel of a kind of wood shoe; and upon the instep a spring is fixed, which extends within the hollow to the hinder part of the shoe; the all is placed where the heel of the foot would commonly be, and a blow applied on the other end of the spring, raises the ball into the air, and, as it descends, it receives a blow from the bat.</p> | |Text=<p>"July 9 [1805, we think] . . . . The mode of playing ball differs a little from that practiced in New-England. Instead of tossing up the ball out of one's own hand, and then striking it, as it descends, they lay is into the heel of a kind of wood shoe; and upon the instep a spring is fixed, which extends within the hollow to the hinder part of the shoe; the all is placed where the heel of the foot would commonly be, and a blow applied on the other end of the spring, raises the ball into the air, and, as it descends, it receives a blow from the bat.</p> | ||
<p>"They were playing also at another game resembling our cricket, but differing from it in this particular, that he perpendicular pieces which support the horizontal one, are about eighteen inches high, and are three in number, whereas with us they are only two in number, and about three or four inches high."</p> | <p>"They were playing also at another game resembling our cricket, but differing from it in this particular, that he perpendicular pieces which support the horizontal one, are about eighteen inches high, and are three in number, whereas with us they are only two in number, and about three or four inches high."</p> | ||
<p> </p> | |||
|Sources=<p>Benjamin Silliman, <span style="text-decoration: underline;">Journal of Travels in England, Holland, and Scotland</span>, Volume 1 (Boston, 1812 - 1<sup>st</sup> edition 1810), page 245. Accessed via Google Books, 2/12/2014 via search of <Silliman "journal of travels">.</p> | |||
|Warning= | |||
|Comment=<p style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;"><span style="mso-fareast-font-family: 'Times New Roman';"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman; font-size: medium;"> </span></span></p> | |||
<p style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;"><span style="mso-fareast-font-family: 'Times New Roman';"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman; font-size: medium;">Protoball notes, circa 2010</span></span></p> | |||
<p style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;"><span style="mso-fareast-font-family: 'Times New Roman';"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman; font-size: medium;"> </span></span></p> | |||
<p style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;"> </p> | |||
<p>The writer, Benjamin Silliman, thus implies that an American [or at least Connecticut] analog to trap ball was played, using fungo-style batting [trap ball was not usually a running game, so the American game may have been a simple form of fungo].</p> | <p>The writer, Benjamin Silliman, thus implies that an American [or at least Connecticut] analog to trap ball was played, using fungo-style batting [trap ball was not usually a running game, so the American game may have been a simple form of fungo].</p> | ||
<p>His second comparison is consistent with our understanding or how English cricket and American wicket were played in about 1800. However, it seems odd that he would refer to "our cricket" and not "our wicket | <p style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;"> </p> | ||
<p>His second comparison is consistent with our understanding or how English cricket and American wicket were played in about 1800. However, it seems odd that he would refer to "our cricket" and not "our wicket" It is possible that a form of cricket - using, presumably, the smaller ball - was played in the US that retained the older long, low wickets known in 1700 English cricket.</p> | |||
<p>Note that if the US wicket was only 3 or 4 inches high, a rolling ball would most likely dislodge the bail.</p> | |||
<p> </p> | |||
<p style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;"> </p> | |||
<p style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;"><span style="mso-fareast-font-family: 'Times New Roman';"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman; font-size: medium;">From David Block, 2/12/2014:<br /></span></span></p> | |||
<p style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;"><span style="mso-fareast-font-family: 'Times New Roman';"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman; font-size: medium;"> </span></span></p> | <p style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;"><span style="mso-fareast-font-family: 'Times New Roman';"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman; font-size: medium;"> </span></span></p> | ||
<p style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;"><span style="mso-fareast-font-family: 'Times New Roman';"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman; font-size: medium;">"This reference raises some questions, which may not be answerable. Was he implying that striking a ball, fungo-style, was the general method of ball-play in New England, or was he only making a more narrow comparison to how a self-serve type of ball game was played at home. If the latter, might this have been 'bat-ball'?"</span></span></p> | <p style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;"><span style="mso-fareast-font-family: 'Times New Roman';"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman; font-size: medium;">"This reference raises some questions, which may not be answerable. Was he implying that striking a ball, fungo-style, was the general method of ball-play in New England, or was he only making a more narrow comparison to how a self-serve type of ball game was played at home. If the latter, might this have been 'bat-ball'?"</span></span></p> | ||
<p style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;"> </p> | <p style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;"> </p> | ||
<p style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;"><span style="mso-fareast-font-family: 'Times New Roman';"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman; font-size: medium;">"It appears that the author was previously unaware of English cricket. What he refers to as "our cricket" is obviously wicket. This was an educated man, but it was also apparently his first trip overseas. My first reaction was to be very surprised at his apparent ignorance of English cricket, but it may well be that things that seem like obvious knowledge to us today may not have been so in the America of two hundred years ago."</span></span></p> | <p style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;"><span style="mso-fareast-font-family: 'Times New Roman';"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman; font-size: medium;">"It appears that the author was previously unaware of English cricket. What he refers to as "our cricket" is obviously wicket. This was an educated man, but it was also apparently his first trip overseas. My first reaction was to be very surprised at his apparent ignorance of English cricket, but it may well be that things that seem like obvious knowledge to us today may not have been so in the America of two hundred years ago."</span></span></p> | ||
|Query=<p>Can we find out more about the long, low wicket reportedly used in earliest forms of English cricket, and when the higher and narrower wicket evolved there?</p> | |||
<p>Can we find out more about Silliman's life and his age when touring England? </p> | |||
|Source Image= | |||
|External Number= | |||
|Submitted by=David Block | |Submitted by=David Block | ||
|Submission Note=Emails of 1/17/2010 and 2/12/2014 | |Submission Note=Emails of 1/17/2010 and 2/12/2014 | ||
Latest revision as of 09:04, 8 January 2022
 |
| Prominent Milestones |
| Misc BB Firsts |
| Add a Misc BB First |
| About the Chronology |
| Tom Altherr Dedication |
| Add a Chronology Entry |
| Open Queries |
| Open Numbers |
| Most Aged |
Yale Grad Compares Certain English Ballgames to New England's
| Salience | Noteworthy |
|---|---|
| Tags | |
| Location | New EnglandNew England |
| City/State/Country: | [[]] |
| Modern Address | |
| Game | Cricket, WicketCricket, Wicket |
| Immediacy of Report | Contemporary |
| Age of Players | YouthYouth |
| Holiday | |
| Notables | |
| Text | "July 9 [1805, we think] . . . . The mode of playing ball differs a little from that practiced in New-England. Instead of tossing up the ball out of one's own hand, and then striking it, as it descends, they lay is into the heel of a kind of wood shoe; and upon the instep a spring is fixed, which extends within the hollow to the hinder part of the shoe; the all is placed where the heel of the foot would commonly be, and a blow applied on the other end of the spring, raises the ball into the air, and, as it descends, it receives a blow from the bat. "They were playing also at another game resembling our cricket, but differing from it in this particular, that he perpendicular pieces which support the horizontal one, are about eighteen inches high, and are three in number, whereas with us they are only two in number, and about three or four inches high."
|
| Sources | Benjamin Silliman, Journal of Travels in England, Holland, and Scotland, Volume 1 (Boston, 1812 - 1st edition 1810), page 245. Accessed via Google Books, 2/12/2014 via search of <Silliman "journal of travels">. |
| Warning | |
| Comment |
Protoball notes, circa 2010
The writer, Benjamin Silliman, thus implies that an American [or at least Connecticut] analog to trap ball was played, using fungo-style batting [trap ball was not usually a running game, so the American game may have been a simple form of fungo].
His second comparison is consistent with our understanding or how English cricket and American wicket were played in about 1800. However, it seems odd that he would refer to "our cricket" and not "our wicket" It is possible that a form of cricket - using, presumably, the smaller ball - was played in the US that retained the older long, low wickets known in 1700 English cricket. Note that if the US wicket was only 3 or 4 inches high, a rolling ball would most likely dislodge the bail.
From David Block, 2/12/2014:
"This reference raises some questions, which may not be answerable. Was he implying that striking a ball, fungo-style, was the general method of ball-play in New England, or was he only making a more narrow comparison to how a self-serve type of ball game was played at home. If the latter, might this have been 'bat-ball'?"
"It appears that the author was previously unaware of English cricket. What he refers to as "our cricket" is obviously wicket. This was an educated man, but it was also apparently his first trip overseas. My first reaction was to be very surprised at his apparent ignorance of English cricket, but it may well be that things that seem like obvious knowledge to us today may not have been so in the America of two hundred years ago." Edit with form to add a comment |
| Query | Can we find out more about the long, low wicket reportedly used in earliest forms of English cricket, and when the higher and narrower wicket evolved there? Can we find out more about Silliman's life and his age when touring England? Edit with form to add a query |
| Source Image | [[Image:|left|thumb]] |
| External Number | |
| Submitted by | David Block |
| Submission Note | Emails of 1/17/2010 and 2/12/2014 |
| Has Supplemental Text |
1805.8 Yale Grad Compares Certain English Ballgames to New England's"
Comments
<comments voting="Plus" />