Daily entries from the 17th century London diary
Autumnbreeze Movies has posted 15 annotations/comments since 22 April 2014.
The most recent…
About Tuesday 23 February 1668/69
In Italy, corpses of 'saints' are dressed in colourful robes and paraded around towns on feast days dedicated to them. I saw this in Gubbio, Paciano in Umbria), Bagnoreggio in Tuscany.
When an old nun died at my school (1961) all the girls were led to the chapel, where she lay in state; after prayers, they were led to her coffin to bow and kiss her foot (dressed in black stocking) - the kissing was optional. We had never seen this nun before. Some girls complied, other refused. I refused feeling disgusted.
About Saturday 18 August 1660
meech, Sam's father, the taylor, was retired. I'll say no more - it'll all come out in the diary.
'Take away' is Australian. I think the Brits say 'carry out'
About Tuesday 27 October 1668
Also in Australia people are legally and effectively protected against sexual harassment, and well aware of the very unpleasant consequences of such behaviour. On the other hand, in Italy, for example, law is one thing and machismo behaviours are often another. Could it be that in the 'old' countries, where attitudes continued for millennia in unbroken flow, it is more difficult to change behaviour, especially when custom is fused with natural inclination?
About Tuesday 31 March 1668
'took up my wife and Deb., and to the Park, where, being in a hackney, and they undressed, was ashamed to go into the tour, but went round the park, and so with pleasure home, ' - this is not Sam's fantasy but the embarrassment of having his wife and her maid not dressed elegantly but in house clothes and in a hired cab, in a place where the elegant crowd came to show off and be seen
About Tuesday 17 March 1667/68
"The House, I hear, have this day concluded upon raising 100,000l. of the 300,000l. by wine, and the rest by a poll-[tax], and have resolved to excuse the Church, in expectation that they will do the more of themselves at this juncture..."
Sure, sure... The Church will donate prayers.
About Friday 17 January 1667/68
It was Francis Talbot who killed William Jenkins (not John Talbot)
The story of the romance between Anna Talbot and George Villiers continues, retold after Pope: on the day of the duel, the Countess trembled all morning for her gallant, who afterwards 'slept' with her in his bloodied shirt. The romance lived on and much later on, when the Duke of Buckingham brought his mistress to live with him, his indignant wife, the Duchess, told him that she and Talbot couldn't live in the same house. "So I thought, Madam, and have therefore ordered the horses to convey you to your father", the Duke replied. But the Duchess appears to have stayed. Talbot and Villiers had an illegitimate son. Their affair was finally broken off in 1673 and the countess went to France to spent time in a convent. She afterwards returned to England and remarried.
Duels were fought not so much to kill the offending opponent, though that often happened, as to gain "satisfaction", that is, to restore one's honour by demonstrating a willingness to risk one's life for it. The person who felt offended could signal the demand to fight for honour with an obviously insulting gesture, such as throwing his glove before the offender (throw down the gauntlet).
Each party named trusted representatives ("seconds") who would determined a suitable "field of honour", an isolated secret place to avoid detection by authorities, check that the weapons were equal and that the duel was fair. In the 16th and early part of 17th centuries, it was normal for the seconds also to fight each other. Later, the seconds only made sure that rules were followed and tried to reconcile the duellers ... but not everywhere; the Irish code in 1777 still allowed the seconds an option to exchange shots. Lord Shrewsbury must have asked his kinsman, Sir John Talbot (of Lacock Abbey, Wiltshire, Long Acre, Westminster, and Salwarpe, Worcestershire, MP), to second in the duel. He probably also asked Bernard Howard, a son of the Earl of Arundel, or maybe Sir John asked him. Both seconds survived the fight and Sir John fought for James II in the Monmouth rebellion (1685), after which he had a military career and continued as MP; he died in 1714. However, one of Villiers's seconds, Capt. William Jenkins was killed on the spot ... perhaps by the soldierly Sir John?