Sasha Clarkson

Annotations and comments

Sasha Clarkson has posted 752 annotations/comments since 16 February 2013.

Comments

Second Reading

About Monday 5 November 1660

Sasha Clarkson  •  Link

Note: a big celebration in the City to mark the demise of Guy Fawkes et al, contrasted with, a couple of days ago, almost no celebration of the return of Henrietta Maria.

About Wednesday 31 October 1660

Sasha Clarkson  •  Link

Witches were not burned at the stake in England, where the penalty for witchcraft was hanging. Nor did juries always convict. Even in the Pendle Witch trial. one of the defendants was acquitted.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pen…

I have my own doubts about some historical judgements in the Wiki article, but Robert Neill's novel, 'Mist over Pendle' is excellently researched and gives a very plausible narrative about what might have happened.

The law in Scotland was different, and the persecutions were generally more frequent and ferocious.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wit…

About Monday 22 October 1660

Sasha Clarkson  •  Link

" ... what had passed he could not tell me." I wonder whether this was because the conversations were confidential, or esoteric and incomprehensible?

About Saturday 20 October 1660

Sasha Clarkson  •  Link

It was Vespasian actually Rob, and the quote is paraphrased from a reported conversation with his son Titus. (They were both Titus Flavius Vespasianus.) Vespasian was quite a wit. When he was dying, he referred to the Roman habit of "deifying" emperors and said "Væ, puto deus fio!" ("Oh! I think I'm becoming a god!")

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pecu…

About Friday 28 September 1660

Sasha Clarkson  •  Link

I agree with Wim. Pepys likes to get on with people. He CHOSE to get the booze out. A good employer treats the staff occasionally.

About Wednesday 19 September 1660

Sasha Clarkson  •  Link

Interesting that, every now and then, Pepys gets his gossip wrong. In this case, White, being still married, was in no position to pay court to the recently widowed Frances.

These mistakes don't reflect badly upon Pepys: it's just a reminder of how different the times were. These days, one can check almost any fact on the internet. When I was young, we had Chambers' Encyclopaedia at home, and had the yearbooks delivered annually: so, in our "upper working class" semi, we had access to huge amounts of accurate and up-to-date information. And there were newspaper archives in the major public libraries too. Pepys had none of this, so for most things he - and everyone else - had to rely on gossip and rumour.

About Wednesday 19 September 1660

Sasha Clarkson  •  Link

Richard Cromwell, poor old "Tumbledown Dick", who had never sought office, lived until 1712. After the restoration he lived in France, returning to England around 1680. By then, even as a figurehead, he posed no threat to the regime. (By then, Charles' illegitimate son, Monmouth, was already becoming a popular focus of opposition.)

Of course, had Cromwell's eldest son Henry, or his son-in-law Henry Ireton, survived him, there might well not have been a restoration at all. One might speculate that the office of Protector might have then become like the Dutch office of Stadtholder.

About Monday 17 September 1660

Sasha Clarkson  •  Link

"It's an ill wind that blows nobody any good"

It looks as though the unfortunate death of Prince Henry is going to give a "fiscal boost" to certain parts of the economy!

About Thursday 13 September 1660

Sasha Clarkson  •  Link

Thank-you Terry - just to let you know that your efforts are appreciated! :)

And also Bill, for that fascinating snippet about the dipsomaniac English! :D

About Wednesday 22 August 1660

Sasha Clarkson  •  Link

Actually, "doth" = "does", third person singular indicative. The present subjunctive is largely but not completely gone; I say that it BE true, rather than I say that it IS true is one example.

The imperfect subjunctive is clinging on, but under pressure; eg Rupert Brooke: "εἴθε γενοίμην, would I were in Grantchester ...." (Or I wish I were, not I wish I was). Again, it's used in hypothetical or conditional circumstances.

About Wednesday 22 August 1660

Sasha Clarkson  •  Link

As in German, the present subjunctive was used for a reported, hypothetical or conditional action. (Not as in French where conditional and subjunctive are different.)

Eg. "He does intend" becomes "I believe he DO intend" Although archaic, it still survives, mainly in legalese.

"If all BE true that I do think, there are five good reasons we should drink: good wine, good friends, or being dry; or lest we should be by and by; or any other reason why."

About Sunday 12 August 1660

Sasha Clarkson  •  Link

Can I just say a thank-you to Terry F, for his regular supplementary information? It is greatly appreciated and (at least by me) not taken for granted! :)

About Sunday 29 July 1660

Sasha Clarkson  •  Link

Sam was never a puritan, but the Anglican church in general had moved in a moderately puritan direction over the course of the previous century. Laud and his followers tried, with little success, to undo this. Overt symbols of Papism were unpopular amongst Anglicans as well as Presbyterians etc. It wasn't until the 19th century Oxford movement that Anglo-Catholicism made any significant headway.

About Wednesday 25 July 1660

Sasha Clarkson  •  Link

Good ... AND .... would be positive; good ... BUT ... is a negative qualifier.

There are similar terms to "welsh", meaning "foreigner, in several Indo-European languages. "Vlach" in Serbo-Croat means Romanian; "Włochy" is the Polish name for Italy.

The shorter OED (on historical principles) dates the pejorative "welsh" to 1857, and describes it as a racing term "to swindle out of money laid as a bet", and a "welsher" (1860) as a bookmaker at a race-meeting who does the same. Both terms of origin unknown.

About Thursday 19 July 1660

Sasha Clarkson  •  Link

The levellers had already disappeared Bill, after Cromwell suppressed them. The Independents disappeared off the political map, but were not suppressed: they were penalised until William III, and then merely disadvantaged.

Nonetheless, the Independents and other nonconformists continued to have a huge influence on English (and British) society; indeed they changed the world. They advanced education via the dissenter academies. (Look up Joseph Priestley for example.) Semi and self-educated dissenters like Thomas Newcomen, and Josiah Wedgwood helped create modern capitalism, (though they may well have been horrified at what it became.) The Quakers in particular had an influence far beyond their numbers: eg the Cadburys, Frys, Rowntrees, Barclays, and the Pease family, which (with George Stephenson), created the modern railway. Ever wondered why standard gauge throughout the world is 4 feet 8½ inches? That was George Stephenson's choice! :)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diss…
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jose…
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edwa…
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geor…

About Thursday 19 July 1660

Sasha Clarkson  •  Link

Quite right Bill, Presbyterians were politically radical in the Civil War, though not as radical as the Independents, Levellers and so on. Religiously too, their reformed religion, and its governance, was a radical departure from the norms of the previous one and a half millennia. So, in the context of the times, one could not call them conservative. But they were statists who wanted to capture the government to impose their norms upon everyone else, so they were most definitely NOT liberal either. Independents, especially Cromwell, were much more liberal in terms of religion, and, up to a point, politically too. Charles II was personally quite liberal, but his Cavalier Parliament most definitely was not, and indeed turned against him in the end.

Nowadays one might call Presbyterians of one flavour or another socially conservative, but that is a different matter completely.

About Sunday 15 July 1660

Sasha Clarkson  •  Link

Talking candidly about religion --

was never "safe" under any regime, but it was less unsafe in the Commonwealth and Protectorate than under either of the Charleses. Cromwell believed in private liberty of conscience, even for Catholics. Sacrilege was occasionally punished by death until at least the 1780s, but this was much more likely in the provinces than in London.

http://www.capitalpunishmentuk.or…