Tuesday 8 January 1660/61

Annotations

• N Emilio on Thu 8 Jan 2004, 11:35pm

  banquet

  “course of fruits, sweets and wine; slight repast” (L&M Glossary)

• N A. De Araujo on Thu 8 Jan 2004, 11:52pm

  “of a head of fanatiques that do appear about Barnett,but I do not believe it” somewhat confusing to me;is he talking about a leader of the Fanatiques? or is it a head stuck in a pole? or a ghost?

• N Todd Bernhardt on Fri 9 Jan 2004, 12:09am

  re: “head of Fanatiques”

  It looks to me, from the context of the sentence, as if he’s using the word “head” in the sense of a group of something … yet I’ve been unable to find that meaning for the word in my contemporary resources. Can anyone with access to the OED elaborate on this?

  Also, anyone care to elaborate on “but wronged by the women being to seek in their parts”? I don’t quite understand that.

  I love the first sentence of today’s entry. It’s a wonderful little glimpse into Sam and Elizabeth’s love life … they obviously enjoy each other’s company, on many levels. Oh, how I wish my job allowed for that kind of flexibility in its scheduling! (He seems to blow off work completely today.)

• N Alan Bedford on Fri 9 Jan 2004, 01:06am

  “…and there chose a small banquet and some other things against our entertainment on Thursday next.” But Stradwick is a confectioner, and purchasing a banquet fom him did not seem to make sense.

  So I looked on Dictionary.com and found this “obsolete” definition: “2. A dessert; a course of sweetmeats; a sweetmeat or sweetmeats.”

• N M.Stolzenbach on Fri 9 Jan 2004, 01:41am

  “head” = group, I think, doesn’t someone in Shakespeare talk of “making head against…”?

• N language hat on Fri 9 Jan 2004, 02:41am

  head of Fanatiques:
  Going through the OED entry for “head,” I at first thought this was an extension of:
  7 d An indefinite number or collection of animals, esp. of game.
  1601 Death Earl of Huntington iv. ii. in Hazl. Dodsley VIII. 292 This howling like a head of hungry wolves.

  But then I came to definition 30, which not only exactly fits the context but cites this very sentence:
  30 A body of people gathered; a force raised, esp. in insurrection. (See also to make a head, 57 b). Obs.
  1588 Shaks. Tit. A. iv. iv. 63 The Gothes have gather’d head. 1596 Shaks. 1 Hen. IV, i. iii. 284 To saue our heads, by raising of a Head. 1631 Gouge God’s Arrows i.

• N vincent on Fri 9 Jan 2004, 03:58am

  “head” was used in my time as a grouping of cattle or cabbages [ that was before ‘i herd’ of a dictionary].

• N ellen on Fri 9 Jan 2004, 04:24am

  How about a herd of Fanatiques?

• N Tim Aldrich on Fri 9 Jan 2004, 09:40am

  “My wife and I lay very long in bed to-day”

  Could anyone suggest what ‘very long’ might mean for Sam? As I’m not sure what would have been considered normal working hours for someone like him around this time.

• N Lily_Belle on Fri 9 Jan 2004, 10:01am

  Where was Caen Wood?
  Mentioned in yesterday’s notes. I’ve got a vague idea it was away to the NW (near Highgate?). Would that be the same head of fanatiques as emerged at Barnet one day later?

• N Mary on Fri 9 Jan 2004, 10:51am

  Caen Wood.

  I’ve found 18th and 19th Century references to Caen Wood and Caen Wood Towers in Highgate, which is indeed not very far from Barnet.

• N slowjoe on Fri 9 Jan 2004, 11:18am

  I think it’s possible that Kenwood (where the House now stands between Highgate & Hampstead, just off the Heath) is in fact a corruption of the original Caen Wood.

• N Captain Caveman on Fri 9 Jan 2004, 11:35am

  ‘The Widow’ is probably a play by Thomas Middleton. Middleton, however, had two plays with ‘the widow’ in the title: ‘The Widow’ (1616) featuring a leading lady named Martia; and ‘The Widow of Watling Street’, more commonly called ‘The Puritan’ and sometimes called ‘The Puritan Widow’(1606). The latter was a satire on the puritans.

  The 1616 play (which is probably what Pepys saw) is not online, but here’s the 1606 play:
  http://www.blackmask.com/books17c/puritanmid.htm

• N Emilio on Fri 9 Jan 2004, 12:56pm

  “wronged by the women being to seek in their parts”

  L&M have a note to explicate this phrase. Like the Captain above, they reason that Pepys saw the 1616 play:

  “The play was a comedy by Thomas Middleton, written c. 1616 and published in 1652. The faulty memorising of parts was not uncommon in the Restoration theatre because of its repertory system and the frequent changes of programme.”

  So the play was ruined for Sam because some of the women kept having to pull out scripts to read their lines. It doesn’t even sound like they were being prompted, which would have been bad enough.

  In a bit over a week Sam has seen five plays, all at the same venue, and that pace is taking a toll on the performers. Many of the women performers are no doubt new to the stage, and some don’t seem to be adapting well to the punishing schedule.
  

• N Emilio on Fri 9 Jan 2004, 01:31pm

  More on Fanatiques

  L&M confirm that the rumor of the Fifth Monarchists being in Barnet probably came about because of their retreat to Caen Wood.

  Also this about the meeting house that was pulled down: “Probably Venner’s meeting-house in Swan Alley, off Coleman St; but there appears to be no trace of this order in the city records.”

  The location is at the bottom left of this map from 1746:

  http://makeashorterlink.com/?L53226307

  Bedlam Hospital is just to the north, the Guildhall off to the west.
  

• N Aiptek on Fri 9 Jan 2004, 02:08pm

  I can’t imagine that they would allow people onstage to pull out scripts and read them. No audience would put up with that, especially one that probably included men who had seen the excellent condition of the theatre in France. They would have been hooted off the stage.

  Surely ‘seek in their parts’ meant they broke up the flow of the play by interjecting unseemly pauses as they tried to remember their lines; or mispoke lines and then corrected themselves. That’s what insufficiently trained actors do all the time.

• N David A. Smith on Fri 9 Jan 2004, 02:32pm

  “in bed to-day talking and pleasing one another in discourse”
  Am I the only vulgar-minded person who thinks that Sam is being euphemistic even with his diary?

• N Todd Bernhardt on Fri 9 Jan 2004, 04:54pm

  David, you’re not alone.

  The same “vulgar-minded” thought occured to me, but given Sam’s absolute honesty elsewhere in the diary, I moved on to other vulgar thoughts.

• N A. De Araujo on Fri 9 Jan 2004, 05:10pm

  “pleasing one another”I also think that he meant intercourse

• N language hat on Fri 9 Jan 2004, 06:27pm

  Caen Wood:
  Yes, this is an earlier form of Kenwood:
  http://www.dicamillocompanion.com/Houses_Images.asp?ID=1160&pic=1

  Nice old print here:
  http://www.londonancestor.com/views/vl-caen.htm

• N language hat on Fri 9 Jan 2004, 06:31pm

  discourse:
  Y’all are barking up the wrong tree. I know we like to think everything is about sex these days, and many now-innocuous words have meant ‘sexual intercourse’ in the past (eg “conversation”), but “discourse” is not one of them. (See the OED, which faithfully notes such meanings.) No, it simply means Sam and the missus enjoyed lazing in bed talking that morning, which (I can assure you from personal experience) is one of the joys of marriage.

• N helena murphy on Fri 9 Jan 2004, 07:20pm

  I find Sam’s developing platonic rapport with the impeccable Lady Sandwich very interesting. She obviously likes him as a man and like many a” trophy wife ” needs company and attention from some other male apart from her husband. It is altogether a safe flirtation for both,he quite a raconteur in her company and entirely overcome by her social graces,she also gossiping with him and happy with his interest in her,in Sandwich and their children.It is also delightful that neither of their partners evinces even the slightest jealousy.

• N David A. Smith on Fri 9 Jan 2004, 08:15pm

  “back to my Lady

• N Mary on Sat 10 Jan 2004, 08:06am

  Pepys and my Lady.

  Let’s not forget that there is a formal aspect to this relationship. Pepys is Sandwich’s man and undoubtedly feels a sense of responsibility towards Lady S. whilst Sandwich is still away on escort duty with the old queen. It’s a happy fact that this is an agreeable duty for Sam and pleasantly acceptable to her. There is no need for the question of jealousy to arise on either Elizabeth’s or Sandwich’s part, but Sam must be very glad that Lady Sandwich in no way resembles ‘Lady’ Davis.

• N Laura K on Sat 10 Jan 2004, 08:20pm

  Pepys and My Lady

  Re Helena Murphy’s comment above, we really have no idea if either Mrs Pepys or Sandwich was jealous of this friendship, as we don’t hear their points of view.

  If Elizabeth was overt in her jealousy, Sam might mention it - but depending on the business of the day, he might not. And that would be our only clue.

  I’m not implying there was jealousy. But I think it’s best not to make assumptions about anyone’s feelings that aren’t specifically mentioned in the diary.

• N jamie yeager on Sun 7 Mar 2004, 12:37am

  Seek and ye shall find…
  “‘To seek,’ needing to seek or search; hence, unprepared. ‘Unpracticed, unpreparated, and still to seek.’ —Milton. [Obs]”
  found at http://dictionary.reference.com/search?r=2&q=seek