Sunday 10 May 1663

(Lord’s day). Up betimes, and put on a black cloth suit, with white lynings under all, as the fashion is to wear, to appear under the breeches. So being ready walked to St. James’s, where I sat talking with Mr. Coventry, while he made himself ready, about several businesses of the Navy, and afterwards, the Duke being gone out, he and I walked to White Hall together over the Park, I telling him what had happened to Tom Hater, at which he seems very sorry, but tells me that if it is not made very publique, it will not be necessary to put him away at present, but give him good caution for the time to come. However, he will speak to the Duke about it and know his pleasure.

Parted with him there, and I walked back to St. James’s, and was there at mass, and was forced in the crowd to kneel down; and mass being done, to the King’s Head ordinary, whither I sent for Mr. Creed and there we dined, where many Parliament-men; and most of their talk was about the news from Scotland, that the Bishop of Galloway was besieged in his house by some women, and had like to have been outraged, but I know not how he was secured; which is bad news, and looks just as it did in the beginning of the late troubles. From thence they talked of rebellion; and I perceive they make it their great maxime to be sure to master the City of London, whatever comes of it or from it. After that to some other discourse, and, among other things, talking of the way of ordinaries, that it is very convenient, because a man knows what he hath to pay: one did wish that, among many bad, we could learn two good things of France, which were that we would not think it below the gentleman, or person of honour at a tavern, to bargain for his meat before he eats it; and next, to take no servant without certificate from some friend or gentleman of his good behaviour and abilities.

Hence with Creed into St. James’s Park, and there walked all the afternoon, and thence on foot home, and after a little while at my office walked in the garden with my wife, and so home to supper, and after prayers to bed. My brother Tom supped with me, and should have brought my aunt Ellen with him; she was not free to go abroad.

14 Annotations

Stolzi  •  Link

I'd love to know how the Bishop of Galloway was besieged in his house and well-nigh outraged "by a woman." What sort of outrage are we talking about?

It made me think of this event of a generation before - part of what led to "the late troubles" -

"‘Daur ye say mass in my lug?’ or, according to another version, ‘Deil colic the wame o’ thee’, roared Jenny, as her stool, quickly followed by others, by Bibles and by anything else the congregation could lay their hands on, drove the dean of Edinburgh from the pulpit and church."

Behavior which Pepys did not imitate; no, good conformist that he was, he couldn't bear to remain standing, or to make his way out of the crowd, when the others at the mass knelt. Though we can see that it outraged his conscience.

Of course it wasn't the Mass that Jenny Geddes was objecting to, merely the Episcopalian services as prescribed by Bishop Laud, who like his unfortunate master Charles I, lost his head later, during the Commonwealth.

TerryF  •  Link

Résumé-building has begun: "to take no servant without certificate from some friend or gentleman of his good behaviour and abilities."

An L&M note refers us to 18 March 1662/63 where we find Pepys "talk[ed] a while with my wife about a wench that she has hired yesterday, which I would have enquired of before she comes, she having lived in great families," in re which L&M say that "requiring testimonials [letters of reference] was just coming in."

The tavern-talk by some Parliament-men shows that Pepys was ahead-of-the-curve in personnel practice in this respect. No surprise: it was about a cost-benefit analysis, a forté for him at work as well.

Bradford  •  Link

"put on a black cloth suit, with white lynings under all, as the fashion is to wear, to appear under the breeches."

Does this suggest the coat has tails, the lining of which would be visible when approaching the gentleman from the front, hanging down behind ["under"] his breeches? Or what?

Robert Gertz  •  Link

Coventry comes through...

Thank God for the luck of having a decent man in charge or very near it.


Mass at St. James? Ca-Ca-Ca-Catholic mass?

And "forced to kneel" owing to the crowd?

"Pepys?! How could you? The Hater thing with the Quakers was one thing but for you to be seen at Mass, kneeling?"

"But, Mr. Coventry...I was only curious. And our Queen...They say the Duke himself..."

"My friend, I cannot protect you."

Australian Susan  •  Link

James Hamilton (Bp of G) seems to have done nothing to deserve this. Real low point for the Scottish Episcopal Church was 1679, however, when the Archbishop of St Andrews was murdered.

Australian Susan  •  Link

Although Sam grudgingly allows the French two good practices, there are "many bad" - France is the traditional enemy and the traditional place of things dreadful. Reminds me of Sir Humphery in 'Yes, Minister' running verbal rings as usual around his hapless, hopeless master and finally saying "and that brings us back to the real enemy." "Well, who's that?" queries thoroughly confused Minister. Look of great astonishment from Sir H : "France, of course, Minister!"

Stolzi  •  Link

Bradford, tailcoats are not yet around.

I picture something like the suits shown here

Search down for the 1660's and the words "petticoat breeches."

If these were worn with a white pair underneath ("lyning" them), it would be
easy for a white frill to show at the bottom edge. (Note especially the
"satirical plate" in the right sidebar.)

It was Charles himself, I believe, who set the fashion for simple suits and
"Men in Black." He had a self-mocking knowledge that his swarthy saturnine
features would not look good in the gaudy trappings favored by (say) Louis
of France.

pjk  •  Link

Dirty knees
He tell us at length about his new clothes and then complains at having to kneel. Are the two related, I wonder.

Anyway, let's forget talk of rebellion, let's compare eating opportunities...

in Aqua Scripto  •  Link

Was it not the fact, that Females be thought lesser by the high and mighty Bishops, only good for scrubbbing the aisles, and other menial tasks, while the Presbyterian idea, that the people chose their preacher rather than have a man trained by those darstadly English from the Camoxes. That be Women wanted a voice in the affairs of the Bishopric. Hence the outrage of those He land lassies.

Australian Susan  •  Link

The outrage felt by Jenny Geddes had, alas, nothing to do with proto-feminism, but because she felt the congregation were being given the Mass, which the congregation perceived to be akin to magic, superstition and witchcraft: they were fanatically anti-Papal and anti-Catholic.

Sam's complaint about kneeling is in the same vein, but for different reasons. He is frightened that someone will think he's a closet Catholic if he was seen kneeling at a Mass, which could be thought to be worshipping the consecrated Host (idolatrous)and tending towards a belief in transubstantiation. This seems to be an example of Sam's curiosity getting the better of his cautious judgement: he could not be Catholic and keep his job and later on (post Diary) even being suspected of sympathy towards Catholics was dangerous. People who could, and did, cause trouble remembered Sam had had a French wife, and not the detail that she was not Catholic.

Terry Foreman  •  Link

"to St. James’s, and was there at mass" at the Queen's Chapel

This same mass was attended by Monconys (II, pp.21-2). For the Queen's Chapel at St James's see Pepys asserted in 1674 that he had never been to mass.
(Per L&M footnote)

Balthasar de Monconys (1611–1665) was a French traveller, diplomat, physicist and magistrate, who left a diary, which was published by his son as Journal des voyages de Monsieur de Monconys, Conseiller du Roy en ses Conseils d’Estat & Privé, & Lieutenant Criminel au Siège Presidial de Lyon, 2 vols., Lyon, 1665-1666.

For the text of Monconys' Journal vol. II and this visit to S. Gemes (sic) et la Chapelle de la Reyna & la Comtesse de Castelmene see pp. 21-2 in

Terry Foreman  •  Link

"news from Scotland, that the Bishop of Galloway was besieged in his house by some woman, and had like to have been outraged, but I know not how he was secured; which is bad news, and looks just as it did in the beginning of the late troubles"

These disorders were provoked by the restoration of the bishops to full powers in Scotland by an act of May 1662. Galloway and Kircudbright were in the heart of the Covenanting country, and Pepys was now reminded of similar problems which had led to the national rising of 1637. The Bishop of Galloway was placed under the protection of the magistrates, and many of the 'amazons' who attacked him were pilloried and imprisoned. (Per L&M footnote)

Ivan  •  Link

L&M read that " the Bishop of Galloway was besieged in his house by some women"

So there were a number of "amazons" who were intent on outraging the bishop not just one! Makes more sense.

Log in to post an annotation.

If you don't have an account, then register here.