Daily entries from the 17th century London diary
Sasha Clarkson has posted 110 annotations/comments since 16 February 2013.
The most recent…
About Tuesday 30 July 1661
I'm sure that the spelling of "Mr Whore" is a running joke by Sam to himself for his own amusement, like describing his friend Mr Butler as "Mons. l’Impertinent"
About Friday 26 July 1661
If Mr Hill's protegés were indeed "no better than they ought to be", the I'm sure Sam would have at least remarked upon it, especially as Mr Hill was a Puritan divine! Au contraire, I suspect that they were too frumpish and respectable to arouse Sam's interest! :D
About Sunday 21 July 1661
What is truly terrible about this, is that, without taking sides, the misundersanding/disagreement about the £200 bond must have poisoned decades of Robert and Anne's marriage: but in those days divorce would have been out of the question.
About Sunday 14th July 1661
Glyn is wrong about the borders of Scotland. In the North-East, the borders of "Alba" did not move south of the Forth until 950 or so. Berwick and East Lothian were part of Bernicia, the Angle rump of Northumbria, which was ruled from Bamburgh and stretched from the Forth to the Tees. Hence the origin of Scots English. Indeed, as everything South of the Tees was by now Saxon or Danish, one could argue that Scots and Geordie are the only "true" English! ;)
Viking influence is evident in parts of West Wales too. Swansea, "Sweyn's Eye" is allegedly named after Sweyn Forkbeard, father of Cnut. Here in Pembrokeshire we have "holm"s like Skokholm, and even a village called Freystrop, which seems to be a corruption of Freyrstorp - Freyr's village, named after the Norse god.
About Saturday 6 July 1661
I don't think you can necessarily interpret "made me sick" in the modern sense as implying disgust. I interpreted it as his Aunt being in a terrible mess, and he being very disturbed at the sight of it, perhaps more like "sick to one's stomach" today.
About Friday 21 June 1661
The etymology of 'parlour' becomes obvious:
a room for talking - from the French verb parler (“to speak”).
About Friday 14 June 1661
Having "read forward" a bit, I'm sure that "Mr Edward Montagu" is Ned: It's clear from several future diary entries* that, whilst in Lisbon, Sandwich has entrusted Ned with certain duties on his behalf. It was the normal practice to give younger relatives a chance to show what they're worth. Unfortunately, Ned will prove less trustworthy than Sandwich hoped.
*eg this one: http://www.pepysdiary.com/diary/1661/09/27/
About Monday 10 June 1661
Which Edward Montagu?
I am convinced that this is "Ned", son of Baron Montagu of Boughton, not Manchester. See my annotation for June 14th.
This is a mystery, and I am far from convinced that this is Manchester. Manchester would be 60 by now, and as Lord Chamberlain was certainly senior to Sandwich. Why would not Pepys refer to "My Lord Of Manchester", or "Lord Chamberlain" as he does elsewhere? I am sure that as Chamberlain, Manchester would have had his own official lodgings and would have no reason to camp at the Wardrobe "with his family", who would now likely be all grown up.
My favoured candidate would be Mr Edward (Ned) Montagu, son of the second Baron Montagu of Boughton. who would have been about 25 and would soon become Queen Catherine's Master of Horse. The only problem with this is that he was unmarried, and therefore did not have a "family" in the sense of wife and children. I suppose that a couple of servants might have counted as "family", too uninteresting to be described by Pepys?
None of this quite makes sense, but I would place a small bet on this being Ned, especially as on 3rd July Pepys records "To Westminster to Mr. Edward Montagu about business of my Lord’s" and has various other business and social interactions with him later in the year.
About Tuesday 11 June 1661
The term "human rights" is just a modern synonym for justice, or perhaps "natural justice". If ideas about the norms of justice have changed, both word and concept were there in the seventeenth century.
Under the Protectorate, capital punishment was restricted to murder and treason. In 1656, Cromwell told the Protectorate Parliament:
" ... the truth of it is, there are wicked and abominable laws, that will be in your power to alter. To hang a man for 6s8d and I know not what; to hang for a trifle and acquit murder, - is in the ministration* of the Law, through the ill framing of it. ... And to see men lose their lives for petty matters - this is a thing God will reckon for, and I wish it may not lie upon this nation a day longer than you have the opportunity to give it remedy ..."
* presumably "administration"?
Antonia Fraser (Cromwell Our Chief of Men) and G M Trevellyan (History Of England Under The Stuarts) both give only part of this quotation. There are various other sources with slight variations in the wording.
For more, Google "Cromwell wicked and abominable laws God will reckon" and look at the following result: Charles Knight's Popular History of England, Volume 4 page 202.