Saturday 18 August 1660

This morning I took my wife towards Westminster by water, and landed her at Whitefriars, with 5l. to buy her a petticoat, and I to the Privy Seal. By and by comes my wife to tell me that my father has persuaded her to buy a most fine cloth of 26s. a yard, and a rich lace, that the petticoat will come to 5l., at which I was somewhat troubled, but she doing it very innocently, I could not be angry. I did give her more money, and sent her away, and I and Creed and Captain Hayward (who is now unkindly put out of the Plymouth to make way for Captain Allen to go to Constantinople, and put into his ship the Dover, which I know will trouble my Lord) went and dined at the Leg in King Street, where Captain Ferrers, my Lord’s Cornet, comes to us, who after dinner took me and Creed to the Cockpitt play, the first that I have had time to see since my coming from sea, “The Loyall Subject,” where one Kinaston, a boy, acted the Duke’s sister, but made the loveliest lady that ever I saw in my life, only her voice not very good. After the play done, we three went to drink, and by Captain Ferrers’ means, Kinaston and another that acted Archas, the General, came and drank with us. Hence home by coach, and after being trimmed, leaving my wife to look after her little bitch, which was just now a-whelping, I to bed.

Sunday 19 August 1660Friday 17 August 1660

Also on this day

Temperature: 16°C / 61°F

(Average for August 1660)

In Parliament

House of Commons
House of Lords

In Earls Colne, Essex

Diary of Ralph Josselin

(About this data)

Annotations

N Paul Brewster on Mon 18 Aug 2003, 11:20pm

Kinaston
Wheatley: “Edward Kynaston, engaged by Sir W. Davenant, in 1660, to perform the principal female characters: he afterwards assumed the male ones in the first parts of tragedy, and continued on the stage till the end of King William’s reign. He died in 1712.”
L&M footnote: “Edward Kynaston, playing Olympia, and now nearly 20 [a boy ?] was one of the last actors to play feminine roles in the Elizabethan tradition.”
L&M Companion: “Kynaston [Edward] (?1640-1712). In his day perhaps the best-known boy actor playing female parts; a member of Rhodes company at the Cockpit Theatre 1659-60 and of the King’s Company and its successors 1662-99.”
N Paul Brewster on Mon 18 Aug 2003, 11:31pm

another that acted Archas, the General
Wheatley: “Who played Archas is unknown; but Betterton, … was early distinguished for playing in ‘The Loyal Subject’.”
L&M: “Probably Thomas Betterton.”
L&M Companion has a long entry on him which starts “Thomas [Betterton](1635-1710) was perhaps the greatest figure in contemporary theare.”
N Paul Brewster on Mon 18 Aug 2003, 11:38pm

Captain Hayward (who is now unkindly put out of the Plymouth to make way for Captain Allen
L&M: “John Hayward had served the Protectorate and had been with Sandwich on both the Baltic and the Dutch voyages of 1659 and 1660. Thomas Allin had been a consistent royalist.”
N Paul Brewster on Mon 18 Aug 2003, 11:43pm
N M.Stolzenbach on Tue 19 Aug 2003, 12:06am

I enjoyed the part where Pepys’ wife goes shopping and comes home having spent more than he anticipated.

Some things NEVER change.

But since he gave her 5 l. at the outset, shouldn’t the text read later “the petticoat will come to more than 5 l.”?
N Paul Brewster on Tue 19 Aug 2003, 01:10am

5l
L&M is in general agreement with Wheatley on the wording and on the monetary values in this entry. They however add a textual footnote to the effect that the manuscript actually had ‘50l’ as the amount SP gave EP before they revised it to ‘5l’. Admittedly, it is a bit confusing as it stands now but, if the value was left unedited, it certainly would have fouled things up.
L&M go on to say “Gowns were often worn so as to show the upper petticoat which was, therefore, very ornamental”
N Pauline on Tue 19 Aug 2003, 02:05am

“Gowns were often worn so as to show the upper petticoat…” L&M
This is odd, given that I think of the petticoat as a skirty thing from the waist down. Does this mean that “petticoat” included the bodice and that it is the bodice that is shown?
N Paul Brewster on Tue 19 Aug 2003, 02:16am

The Loyal Subject
The title says it all. This play had a interesting resonance in the political climate of the Restoration.

Here’s a longish summary from a web site that discusses the feminist implications of the play (“Both plays [The Woman
N G. Surrency on Tue 19 Aug 2003, 03:17am

“upper petticoat”

Petticoats are worn under the dress and make the skirt of the dress stand out from the body. Many petticoats can be worn at the same time. The dress can be shorter than the petticoat so that the petticoat trim can be seen.
N Alan Bedford on Tue 19 Aug 2003, 03:24am
N vincent on Tue 19 Aug 2003, 03:46am

petticoats there are: some interesting connections. Out of style dead as a dodo(1930’s half way down)
http://www.signmuseum.com/exhibits/histories/May1931.html
a street since when:(“…Back in 1603 there was a Petticoat Lane shown on maps …”
http://www.eastlondonmarkets.com/history%20of%20the%20markets.htm

discipline? http://www.petticoated.com/history01.htm
then their is modern fashion from (“…. Our striped petticoat is too pretty to hide …”)
http://www.pricegrabber.com/search_gen.php/topcat_id=16/topcat_search=1/form_keyword=petticoat/mode=google2/ut=d1b381dd5c5fe138

Then their is the tradition of Pantomine A left over from boy plays girl. (and was such fun) where the boy is better looking than the girl? and as for Auntie? well!
N chip on Tue 19 Aug 2003, 03:54am

I found it touching that Pepys’ father convinces his daughter-in-law to spend some of what he (the father) sees as ample funds that his son is earning. Obviously, the father likes his daughter-in-law, unlike the relationship between Pepys and Elizabeth’s family. Perhaps the father, not gaining anything in his Wardrobe endeavors, found this way to influence at least someone’s wardrobe.
N vincent on Tue 19 Aug 2003, 04:25am

The ladies delight shopping for another outfit: Yesterday she has Mr Unthanke over for a spot of eats ( her Tailor non the less) and now off to ***** My! my! (warning fellers never let on whats in the wallet? just kidding maybe?)
Papa P does seem to like our Eliza.
N Pauline on Tue 19 Aug 2003, 04:36am

“to influence at least someone
N Mary on Tue 19 Aug 2003, 05:43am

The
N Arbor on Tue 19 Aug 2003, 07:57am

The Petticoat…
N J A Gioia on Tue 19 Aug 2003, 01:32pm

a perfect entry

we have elizabeth’s shopping (and with the tailor over at the house yesterday one suspects a new wardrobe pending), family matters, navy business, theater going, pub crawling and, the best for last, my lady’s dog dropping a litter as sam, after a very long day, totters off to bed by himself.
N debra on Tue 19 Aug 2003, 02:01pm

Petticoat picture
After much searching for a picture showing a typical dress of the time, with the front of the skirt open to display the elaborate petticoat, this is the best I could find. It’s an engraving of Catherine of Braganza with Charles II, dating from about 1662, from the National Portrait Gallery in London.

http://www.npg.org.uk/live/search/portrait.asp?search=ss&sText=Catherine+of+Braganza&LinkID=mp00804&rNo=3&role=sit

I will keep looking for a better illustration (but not right now, as I should be working!)
N Glyn on Tue 19 Aug 2003, 04:16pm

Is Elizabeth a dog lover, and just how many dogs are there in the Pepys household?

Back on 18 February “At home my wife’s brother brought her a pretty black dog which I liked very well,”

So Balty brought the dog to her rather than to him, but wasn’t that a dog rather than a bitch and in any case was a puppy, so surely at under a year old would be too young to be this particular dog. And do they still also have pigeons in dovecotes as well?

And well done to Elizabeth for spending
N Mary on Tue 19 Aug 2003, 05:02pm

the little black dog
that Balty gave to Elizabeth on February 8th is referred to by Sam as ‘he’ on February 12th when it is causing trouble by pissing in the house, so the dog that is whelping today must be another one.
N Roger Miller on Tue 19 Aug 2003, 08:11pm

He hasn’t mentioned another dog.

A dog’s gestation period is 61 days which would mean that the puppies were conceived on about the 18th of June. Elizabeth brought the dog back from Huntsmore on the 19th.

The dog would have had to be at least 6 months old at that date to be capable of having puppies which would make it just under two months old on 8th February when Balty gave it to Elizabeth. That would be possible.

Perhaps Sam wasn’t paying attention back in February when he thought it was a he.
N Glyn on Tue 19 Aug 2003, 08:36pm

Outstanding detective work RM although a strange thing to be discussing. (But Chihuahuas and Great Danes are both 61 days?) In retrospect it’s curious that there haven’t been more references to dogs in his diary. For most of this period he has walked to the office or gone by boat - surely it would have been natural to occasionally take a dog with him, either for protection or to stop it being cooped up in a house with little room for exercise. But Pepys is obviously much more interested in people than in animals.
N Ed LeZotte on Tue 19 Aug 2003, 09:07pm

I keep thinking I heard Sam refer to a dog as “Towser” — ring any bells?
N Susanna on Tue 19 Aug 2003, 09:30pm

Petticoats

I found a pair of illustrations from the French court of the period, of ladies with their skirts arranged so as to show off their fancy petticoats:

http://www.costumes.org/history/greatwomen/10337_05.jpg

http://www.costumes.org/history/greatwomen/10337_06.jpg
N Paul Brewster on Tue 19 Aug 2003, 09:39pm

Towser
On the 17th of February 1663/64, SP will say “and by and by home and dined, where I found an excellent mastiffe, his name Towser, sent me by a chyrurgeon.”