Tuesday 7 June 1664
Up and to the office (having by my going by water without any thing upon my legs yesterday got some pain upon me again), where all the morning. At noon a little to the ’Change, and thence home to dinner, my wife being ill still in bed. Thence to the office, where busy all the afternoon till 9 at night, and so home to my wife, to supper, and to bed.
21 Annotations
First Reading
Cumsalisgrano • Link
Oh! Oh! where be thy travel blanket, thy blud be kept mighty cool on that windy Tems.
Carl in Boston • Link
His Mousie is Ill
It is too bad that Elizabeth is ill these three days, and will be with us for only five more years. I see by the encyclopedia of this website that she will die in 1669, five years hence. First, I am staggered by the profundity of the encyclopedia dissertations on her tombstone. Swerving back to the present purpose, Elizabeth is much better off at home enduring gastroenteritis with Sam laying upon her bed, ready to share what she has got, and with her maids and household round about. She is much better off at home, with clean clothing and bedding, and fresh bedding supplied as soon as she needs it. Back then, hospitals were where you went to die, even until the 1960s. Now hospitals are where you go to get cured and live some more years. Believe me, I have 12 years on the clock that I wouldn't have had years ago, and life is good. Sam is somewhat like a fraternity boy among the wealthy, engaging in their amours and dissipations, but really faithful unto his wife underneath it all, even willing to get sick when she is sick.
Last time I wrote in this fashion and tenor, the ladies came out to speak a little. Now what have you got to say, this about that?
Terry F • Link
"where all the morning"
I realized that we have seen this phrase before! How many times? A search shows this is the 25th time, and all within the past 15 months. On Saturday 28 March 1663, Pepys first wrote what became a catchphrase. Surely there are other catchphrases besides this one and "and so to bed.". We all use them.
AussieRene • Link
"Never in all my life" used to be a favourite of Sam's.
Firenze • Link
On hospitals, you might recollect contemporaneous Sir Thos. Browne - 'For this world, I count it not an inn, but an hospital: I place not to live, but to die in'.
On Pepysian catchphrases: social occasions tended to be 'very merry'. Not so many of those lately.
Robert Gertz • Link
"...so home to my wife, to supper, and to bed."
A rather touching undercurrent of growing concern...I'm getting the impression Sam is getting very nervous for and focused on Bess' illness after thinking it was the equivalent of our 24 hour bug. Thankfully no pigeons at her feet yet...
Robert Gertz • Link
War events...
One subject I notice Sam doesn't mention despite the naval board's weekly meetings with York and Sam's own interest in New England mast supply is the grant of the New Netherlands colony in what will become New York to the Duke of York which occured in March 1664. It's rather a big deal as the colony had become a major Dutch success story and Cromwell had hoped but failed to capture it. An ambitious naval operation against the colony must soon be getting underway since the colony will actually be taken in September.
Of course another puzzle is that the Dutch took so few steps to secure the colony despite its value. Perhaps indicating their pretensions to global power are a mite overarching?
http://www.coins.nd.edu/ColCoin/C… for a little background.
Mary • Link
Hospital admission for Elizabeth? Never!
In order to obtain admission to a London hospital (e.g. St. Bartholomew's) one had to prove both sickness and poverty (written proof required of the latter). Most people were nursed at home, by friends or possibly in the home of a 'professional' nurse who would charge for her services.
Andrew Hamilton • Link
On the British acquisition of New Netherland, from Wikipedia, an article that throws some light on the question raised by Robert Gertz. It would appear that the Dutch weren't finding the New World colony very profitable:
"In March of 1664, Charles II of England resolved to annex New Netherland and to "bring all his Kingdoms under one form of government, both in church and state, and to install the Anglican government as in old England". In the face of this the Directors of the Dutch West India Company comforted themselves that the religious freedom of the colony rendered military defense against New England unnecessary. They wrote to Director-General Peter Stuyvesant, "we are in hopes that as the English at the north (in New Netherland) have removed mostly from old England for the causes aforesaid, they will not give us henceforth so much trouble, but prefer to live free under us at peace with their consciences than to risk getting rid of our authority and then falling again under a government from which they had formerly fled."
"On August 27, 1664, four English frigates sailed in New Amsterdam's harbor and demanded New Netherland's surrender. They met no resistance because previously, numerous citizens' requests for protection by a suitable garrison against "the deplorable and tragic massacres" by the natives had gone unheeded. That ongoing lack of sufficient garrisons, ammunition and gun powder, as well as the indifferent responses from the West India Company upon frequent and urgent requests for reinforcement of men and ships against "the continual troubles, threats, encroachments and invasions of the English neighbors and government of Hartford Colony" made New Amsterdam defenseless. Stuyvesant made the best of a bad situation and negotiated successfully for good terms from his "too powerful enemies." The capture of the city was one out of a series of attacks on Dutch colonies that resulted in the Second Anglo-Dutch War between England and the Dutch Republic.
"During the negotiations over the Articles of Transfer, Petrus Stuyvesant and his council secured the principle of tolerance in Article VIII, which assured New Netherlanders that they "shall keep and enjoy the liberty of their consciences in religion" under English rule. In the 1667 Treaty of Breda, the Dutch did not press their claims on New Netherland. The status quo, with the Dutch occupying Suriname and the nutmeg island of Run, was maintained; no definitive solution was decided on.
"Within six years, the nations were again at war, and in August of 1673 the Dutch recaptured New Netherland with a fleet of 21 ships, then the largest one seen in North America. It comprised a squadron under the command of Vice-Admiral Cornelis Evertsen de Jongste sent out by Pieter Huybert, raadspensionaris of the Zeeland Chamber of the Dutch West India Company, and a squadron of the Amsterdam Chamber under the command of Jacob Binckes. They installed Anthony Colve as "governor" and renamed the city "New Orange", reflecting the installation of William of Orange as Lord-Lieutenant (stadtholder) of Holland in 1672 (He became King William III of England in 1689). However, after the conclusion of the third Anglo-Dutch war, 1672-74, -- the historic "disaster years" in which The Dutch Republic was simultaneously attacked by the French (Louis XIV), the English and the Bishops of Munster and Cologne -- the republic was financially and morally broke. The States of Zeeland had tried to convince the States of Holland to take on the responsibility for the New Netherland province to no avail. In November 1674, the Treaty of Westminster concluded the Third Anglo-Dutch War and ceded New Netherland definitively to the English. The province of New Netherland and the city of New Orange were renamed New York."
Terry F • Link
Good narrative and source, Andrew. The English will take New Netherland first this coming 29 Aug - 9 Sept.
Bradford • Link
"without any thing upon my legs": "Oh Mr. Pepys," cried Mrs. Lane, "what dashing calves you have!"
Pedro • Link
New Amsterdam.
Sam's only source of future foreign policy would be through Coventry, who is also on the Committee of Trade and Plantations.
"Customs officers reckoned that £10 000 a year was lost by Dutch shipments of tobacco. New Amsterdam, so Clarendon heard, was in undesirable communication with the regicides refuge at New Haven...
In January I664 a Committee of Council, including William Coventry, recommended immediate action. In March the Duke of York was named proprietor of a huge belt between Conneticut and the Delaware, and in the middle of May the Royal Commissioners left Portsmouth empowered primarily to correct the administration of all the colonies, but incidentally to expel the Dutch encroachers."
(British Foreign Poicy 1660-1672 by Feiling)
Terry F • Link
£10 000 a year was lost by Dutch shipments of tobacco.
"In 2006, £10000 0s 0d from 1664 is worth £1,077,413.32 using the retail price index." http://measuringworth.com/calcula…
Pretty soon that begins to be real money.
Terry F • Link
£10 000 - another compt
"In 1660, £10,000 0s 0d would have the same spending worth of today's £767,700.00" http://www.nationalarchives.gov.u…
Robert Gertz • Link
Very real, Terry...Why didn't the Dutch send a small force to garrison? But I suppose that question is right up there with why did Napoleon sell off a huge territory in America that would have long outlasted his tinsel European empire? Hindsight's a wonderful thing.
Anyway, here's hoping 6/8/64 finds poor Bess in better health.
Terry Foreman • Link
"On the British acquisition of New Netherland,....It would appear that the Dutch weren’t finding the New World colony very profitable:"
And even observing article XL of The Charter of the Dutch West India Company (1621), they failed to defend their interests.
http://undergod.procon.org/source…
Second Reading
Terry Foreman • Link
"Hospital admission for Elizabeth? Never! / In order to obtain admission to a London hospital (e.g. St. Bartholomew's) one had to prove both sickness and poverty - "
For the charitable hospitals; there were others that catered to the wealthy: the Pepys's fell in between.
San Diego Sarah • Link
Sick care -- from: https://dralun.wordpress.com/2017…
Sick Servants in Early Modern Britain -- January 11, 2017 ~ by DR ALUN WITHEY
In early modern Britain the family provided both physical medicines and care. The burden usually fell on women, and involved extra washing, preparing medicines, etc. Men were the gatherers of remedies, but early modern medical literature didn’t prepare them when forced into a caring role when their wives fell sick.
What when servants fell sick? As Pepys says in his diary: “I lived in Axe Yard, having my wife and servant Jane, and no more family than us three”. Jane was fully part of the Pepys family.
It paid to treat sick servants, so they returned to work fast. In large houses an outbreak of sickness could be disastrous.
From work on early modern medicine in Wales:
William Davies of Clytha, Monmouthshire's accounts show he hired a boy, William Prosser in May 1718. Prosser received pocket money. Davies records giving Prosser 6 shillings to visit Usk Fair, and gave 2 shillings for the boy to play cards. Davies paid for new stockings and shoe repair, and allowed Prosser time off to visit his sick sister. Davies noted how long Prosser was sick, and like a modern employer, Davies provided sickpay: “June ye 15th I gave you one shilling when you were sick’. Was this the norm, or was Prosser lucky?
The probate inventory of Cardiff laborer William Cozens shows in his last illnes he lived in his employer's house, receiving care. Cozens was a laborer; he did not usually live with the family.
Gentry household accounts show the routine provision of medicines for sick servants. The accounts of Lord Herbert, 9th Earl of Pembroke, show the remedies ordered from London apothecary John Jackson -- from 1744 - 1747 there were 848 prescriptions, including ones for servants, the ‘coachman’ and a ‘housemaid’.
A Chirk Castle coachman received a ‘botle of physic from Dr. Puleston’, and when the ‘boy Thomas was swoll’n under the chin’ the accounts show payment for a man to fetch the Wrexham apothecary.
Employers who failed to care for their servants were denounced as ‘cursed and hard-hearted persons’ whose threshold the prospective servant should be wary to cross. Preachers like William Perkins said it was ‘Christian duty’ to care for a servant who ‘In time of his service be sick’.
Some were not so sympathetic. Thomas Ffoulkes of Holywell, Flintshire, kept tabs on his maid. In January 1724 he noted “she went rambling home several other times” suggesting Margaret was pulling a ‘sickie’.
Sick servants were often recipients of generous care. As part of the family, this might be expected. But they were employees, reliant on the goodwill of their masters and mistresses. If no one else was available, how did it feel for the mistress to tend her sick cook?
San Diego Sarah • Link
From http://www.freemason.com/library/…
In early modern England, the Operative Free Masons made certain Inns their headquarters.
When an Inn was selected as the Free Mason's center, the Arms of the Fraternity, carved and painted upon a board (4 ft. by 3 ft.) was placed over the door of the building.
It paid Innkeepers to cater to the Free Masons as by the regulations they were obliged to stay at a "Lodge Free Mason's Arms" if there was one in the district, so the Brethren and Fellows could "bear witness they were in an honest place and with civil company."
Free Masons were forbidden to haunt Taverns, Inns or Ale houses, or to play Cards, Dice, Tables or any other unlawful game, nor was he to absent himself from the service of his masters day or night.
The Innkeeper of every Free Mason's Arms was sworn as a Serving Brother, so he could enter the lodge. His wife was sworn as a "Mason's Dame" so she could serve in the lodge as a waitress when required.
At all the "Arms" Inns, the Free Masons required at least two bedrooms or wards be provided for the sole use of Fraternity members -- one ward for the seniors and one for the juniors, and the regulations made the Masons of highest rank in the respective wards responsible that the brethren kept order.
The "Mason's Dame" might enter the wards, whenever necessary, to act as a nurse to any Mason who was ill, or had met with an accident, and her conduct was specially provided for in her "oath."
Upon all the main roads of the country over which parties of Operative Masons journeyed to obtain work, a "Lodge Free Masons' Arms" existed about every 16 to 20 miles.
For instance, "The Free Mason's Arms" in Burley's Lane, Leicester, where for many years an important Lodge met every evening in the week and at noon every Saturday.
There were many others Mason's Arms nearby, e.g. "The Free Mason's Arms", Market Harborough, the "Mason's Arms," Donisthorpe, the Birch Tree, Bardon Hill, and the Red House, Coalville.
The Fosse Road was the main route from Lincoln to the West of England, and many parties of Free Masons journeyed from Barton-on-Humber to Bristol and the west for business.
Old prints show the eaves of the "Free Mason's Arms" projected nearly 3 feet over the walls. Above the porch, partly hiding one of the windows, was the Sign-board on which were the Arms of the Worshipful of the Free Masons of Westminster, and the words "Lodge 80."
The reason for mentioning Westminster is that the Operative Free Masons for the Division from the Thames to Barton-on-Humber, and South of the River Trent (except the city of London and a few Lodges in Leicestershire) were ruled by the Grand Lodge meeting at the Rummer and Grapes Tavern, Westminster.
An illustration of the Lodge on the Wolds, dated 1701, shows a wing had been added, indicating their increased level of business.
Bridget Carrie Davis • Link
Poor Elizabeth (and Sam, of course). Do we know what is wrong with our young Bess?
Mary K • Link
Elizabeth's ailments.
This is a subject that has been much discussed by annotators in previous years. Do look at the Encyclopaedia and In-Depth sections for relevant history.