Annotations and comments

Louise Hudson has posted 171 annotations/comments since 9 November 2013.

The most recent…


Comments

About Tuesday 26 May 1663

Louise Hudson  •  Link

Perhaps Sam is driven to distraction by the thought that his wife could be doing with Pembleton what he has done with more than one of the "pretty women" he has noticed. A double standard he is likely to accept without question.

About Sunday 24 May 1663

Louise Hudson  •  Link

NJ Lois--Sam may know right from wrong but as we know, he gives into wrong more often than not.

As for Liz being a feminist--it's true that she would not be one by 20th or even 19th century standards, but even then, not all women who considered themselves feminists wanted to earn her own living or acquire skills that would give them comparable status to their husbands, nor did they treat women of the "lower classes" with much respect, but I think Liz did exhibit the seeds of later feminism. She wanted to have her say and would probably have said so, at least for the women of her own class. It took a long time for today's widespread feminism to develop from those tiny seeds (and we still have a long way to go). Meanwhile, there was a tremendous amount of resistance from both men and women through its years of development.

About Monday 25 May 1663

Louise Hudson  •  Link

Spotted fever: epidemic typhus, a louse-borne disease, which reached epidemic proportions in the 17th-19th centuries, especially following wars.

About Sunday 24 May 1663

Louise Hudson  •  Link

Liz would have made a wonderful 20th Century feminist. She doesn't let Sam push her around and she gives as good as she gets. I wanted to cheer when she told him about the pretty woman at church and Sam immediately trots off to see. She knows him far better than he knows her. And how "convenient" that Mr. Pembleton was in attendance, too. I can just see her smirking behind her glove. Sam, you don't have a chance. You've met your match. I love it!

About Friday 15 May 1663

Louise Hudson  •  Link

There is a good history of woman's undergarments, including during Pepys time here.http://www.historyextra.com/lingerie

The diary is quoted regarding women wearing "drawers"

As Australian Susan points out, women wearing drawers was roundly criticized by men for the usual reasons.

"Paintings, woodcuts and book illustrations both of sacral and secular themes show only men wearing this type of underpants . . . . When women are shown wearing pants it’s always in the context of ‘a world turned upside down’. Trousers and underpants were considered a symbol of male power and women wearing them were pugnacious wives trying to usurp the authority of their husbands, or women of low morality."

About Saturday 9 May 1663

Louise Hudson  •  Link

Sam, Sam, you don't wear a wig instead of washing your hair! People have been washing their hair regularly for millennia, all over the world. Soap and water does just fine.

About Saturday 2 May 1663

Louise Hudson  •  Link

My husband, who was born and raised not all that far from where Pepys lived, said he never heard the term "pricklouse," so it probably didn't survive into the 20th century. I wish I could ask my father-in-law, though.

About Saturday 2 May 1663

Louise Hudson  •  Link

Women were always blamed then for being 'barren". In fact, it was more likely Pepys' problem. He sired no child during his long life and we know he slept with many women. More likely Bess was a victim of his infertility. She may have been perfectly capable of bearing children with a fertile man.

Pricklouse! I love it. Bess apparently has a backbone! Unfortinately she was unfamiliar with the more appropriate word, "shithead".

About Thursday 30 April 1663

Louise Hudson  •  Link

gave rise to a new English word, was not abolished until the early part of the present century.

I thought it was Lyons.

About Wednesday 29 April 1663

Louise Hudson  •  Link

Re: all thise ungrammatical and confusing sentences-- they are ungrammatical and confusing only from our point of view 400-500 years after they were written. But keep in mind, we are reading diary entries Sam never intended for public view. Presumably he knew what the sentences meant and he intended to be the only reader of them when he wrote them. We are the underhanded snoops and voyeurs and have no moral right to complain about his sentences or to speculate on the validity of his thoughts. (I admit I'm as guilty of snooping as anyone, but I try not to be overly critical.)