Wednesday 6 June 1660

Annotations

• N Glyn on Fri 6 Jun 2003, 11:44pm

  the two Dukes do haunt the Park much,

  This would be a reference to St James Park: http://www.pepysdiary.com/p/248.php

• N Nix on Fri 6 Jun 2003, 11:46pm

  “and that they were at a play, Madam Epicene, the other day” —

  Does this mean the theaters have reopened? Or would it have been a private, clandestine performance?

• N Paul Brewster on Sat 7 Jun 2003, 02:17am

• N Mike Hudak on Sat 7 Jun 2003, 03:24am

  “When, in the summer of 1660, General Monk occupied London for the restored King, Charles II, three of the old theatres were still standing empty. These were soon put into repair, and applied anew to theatrical uses, although only two of them seem to have been open at any one time. The three were the Red Bull, dating from Elizabeth’s reign, in St. John’s Street, Clerkenwell, where Pepys saw Marlowe’s “Faustus”; Salisbury Court, Whitefriars, off Fleet Street; and the Old Cockpit in Drury Lane, both of which were of more recent origin.” - Pepys Club - “Occasional Papers Published For Members Of The Samuel Pepys Club 1917-1923” - Edited by Philip Norman, taken from “Pepys And Shakespeare” by Sir Sidney Lee (read 30 Nov. 1905) - Chiswick Press, London 1925

• N chip on Sat 7 Jun 2003, 05:33am

  Page 29 of Tomalin’s unequalled biography (a must for anyone hooked on this site) mentions that the Globe had been destroyed in 1644. When the puritan ordinance was due to run out 4 years later, actor-managers quickly mounted plays for New Year’s Day (1648). “At once the streets were jammed with the carriages of eager theatregoers.” Parliament of course promptly clamped down, “but the persecution was never entirely effective.”
  

• N Vince on Sat 7 Jun 2003, 05:33am

  Mr. Calamy had preached before the King in a surplice (this I heard afterwards to be false); is this another indication of SP backwards editing - anyone any idea of when he would have found this ‘to be false’ and why was it important am I missing something about Mr Calamy or should a nonconformist not appear before the King in a surplice?

• N Mary on Sat 7 Jun 2003, 07:36am

  The surplice

  was originally a vestment used in the Roman Catholic church and would have been seen as provocatively ‘high’ at the time of the Restoration. As late as the mid-nineteenth century its use in the anglican church was still a matter of considerable controversy. The years 1844-45 saw hot debate over ‘the surplice question’ and as late as 2nd November 1848 an Exeter newspaper, ‘The Exeter Flying Post’, was reporting a riot at St. Olave’s Church when the incumbent insisted on wearing a surplice.

• N Arbor on Sat 7 Jun 2003, 08:25am

  The Surplice question. Whilst at Theological college (‘95-‘98) many of my fellow theologs felt obliged to ‘conform’ to the still current Anglican practice of wearing a surplice when leading/preaching… dismissed by many as ‘stupid dresses’… so the controversy is still alive 340-odd years later!

• N steve on Sat 7 Jun 2003, 08:50am

  There’s information on the state of the theatres on the plays background page.

• N Paul Brewster on Sat 7 Jun 2003, 01:27pm

  The surplice issue
  L&M weigh in on this one: “Edmund Calamy, sen., was one of the first of twelve or so Presbyterians made royal chaplains at this time as a reward for their party’s services at the Restoration. They were not required to use the Payer Book or to wear surplices, to which they objected. Henry Townshend’s diary … has the story that Calamy asked to be excused from wearing the surplice, only to be told that the King would not in this case bother him to preach at all.”
  

• N helena murphy on Sat 7 Jun 2003, 06:18pm

  The wearing of the surplice would have more correctly smacked of Arminianism, that movement within Protestanism which Charles I unwisely sought to impose on Calvinist Scotland in the 1630’s and which led to the outbreak of the Bishop’s War, the prologue to the Civil War. Arminianism was theologically close to Roman Catholicism as Jacobus Arminius, the Dutch theologian taught that salvation was not necessarily predetermined , but could be achieved by the good works of the sinner. William Laud, Archbishop of Canterbury, propagated Arminianism in England, fell foul of the extreme puritan faction and was executed for his beliefs in January 1645. Therefore the wearing of the surplice would recall the religious divisions of the past which rent Britain asunder.

• N language hat on Sat 7 Jun 2003, 08:32pm

  surplice:
  I’d like to thank Mary and Helena for providing the background necessary for grasping what’s going on here — and Arbor for confirming that it’s still going on!

• N Glyn on Mon 9 Jun 2003, 04:58pm

  Presumably these were genuine female actresses in the women’s roles, rather than boys - very shocking. And would they have come across from Europe with the Royalists.

• N Russ on Mon 9 Jun 2003, 08:35pm

  Not true. Females began performing on the English stage in the 1650s while Cromwell was in power.