I suppose Sam never thought of getting something a little less grand than his "best black cloth suit, trimmed with scarlett ribbon . . . with my cloake lined with velvett, and a new beaver . . . with my black silk knit canons I bought a month ago," so he could afford something nice for his wife. "Self-centered fop" springs to mind. Elizabeth should have insisted on going to church with him, wearing a plain, patched homespun dress and a cheap unfashionable hat and shawl to show him up! She could have borrowed them from her maydes if she didn't have anything plain enough.
Bradford is right, Elizabeth probably did as much as the maydes did and she was responsible to get it done right. She also might have been complaining that Sam is seldom home and that she is stuck in the house all day. She's a "poor wife" indeed. I suppose Sam thought he was doing her a great favor by coming home to dinner once in a while.
". . . and I home to a speedy, though too good a dinner to eat alone, viz., a good goose and a rare piece of roast beef."
I wonder if he meant that it was rare to have a "piece roast beef" or that the beef was cooked rare? I'm guessing that they cooked beef to death in those days as I hear they did in England well into the 20th century. Unfortunately for Sam, et al, it was too early for Yorkshire Pudding, which wasn't invented until the 1740s, so Sam missed one of those perfect food combinations.
Rye bread: it was probably very dense and likely hard in those days. It would have been made with 100% rye flour, which would not rise very much. It could have been something like German Black Bread--certainly an acquired taste. Peasants probably ate it. Very unlikely to be anything like Rye-Krisp.
"I hear to-day that my boy Waynman has behaved himself so with Mr. Davis that they have got him put into a Barbadoes ship to be sent away, and though he sends to me to get a release for him I will not out of love to the boy . . ."
One can only wonder if Sam ever regretted ignoring Waynman's desperate pleas for help. What a horrible life and a death sentence for a poor boy, probably no more than 15 years old. As they say, with friends (or would-be protectors) like that, who needs enemies?
Robert Harneis, I think you are right, people of what we would deem "normal" intelligence who live in a society where calculations are done will be able to calculate at a basic level without having been formally taught. The itinerant farmers you mention surely had their own method of calculating and most likely they taught each other and passed down their knowledge to the next generation. They might not have known the standard words for numbers, but they apparently could calculate their own way--and do it correctly.
Pepys is to be commended for teaching his wife basic arithmetic, but you can be sure he wouldn't teach her higher mathematics or any academic subjects, such subjects being for men only. He would teach her what he deemed to be useful to her (or to himself) by his own reckoning and nothing more. I doubt he ever thught to criticize the system that denied women formal education.
Illiterate and innumerate women throughout history successfully ran households, helped on farms and other businesses and raised children. In the 17th Cntury, the majority of men were completely unschooled too. Only the upper and upper middle classes had access to formal education.
Is it possible that Pepys' "gown" was a dressing gown?
Thanks, Sarah. I didn't realize he was writing in shorthand. That might explain it, but as GrannieAnnie says he could have used an initial as so many diarists did. I now wonder if a translators was responsible for turning names or other references to Elizabeth into "my wife."
Pepys refers to his wife as "my wife" six times in this short entry. He seldom refers to her by her name. That seems odd to me. He is writing a diary presumably for his own use. Does he think he might forget their relationship? Maybe it was a convention then, but I can't imagine referring to my husband as "my husband" when writing in a private diary . I wouldn't even refer to him as "my husband" to close friends or family members who I know know him as "my husband."
Would anyone here refer to his or her spouse that way in private writings or within the family or with close acquamtences? How we tend to refer to people, depending on our relationship, is very interesting. For instance, when I speak to my brother about his wife or children I don't say, "your wife" or "your son" or "your daughter", I refer to them by their names.
I remember, years ago, seeing the phrase "I doubt" used in some old English novels--perhaps George Elliott's--to mean something like "I think" or "I know", instead of the modern definition of uncertainty. I assumed at the time that it was part of the dialect spoken by the characters. But I have been unable to find this usage noted in any dictionary. Since Pepys is using it in the same way, I wonder if the the word originally had a positive connotation in the English language of his day--which continued at least into the 19th century, but has gradually changed over the centuries.
Miss Ann wrote: "Like Patricia I was amazed that the maids were woken at 1:00 a.m. to start the washing - and I bet they were not paid overtime for that either."
I doubt "overtime" pay was even heard of in Pepys' time. I believe that started with the industrial revolution. In any case, from what I have learned of London maids of the 17th Century, they were pretty much "on call" 24 hours a day. There was little rest for the weary.
Whichever day washing was done on, it was a tremendous undertaking that took all day--10 hours or more--and the backbreaking labor of several people. It was nothing like throwing a few things in an automatic washing machine and dryer today.
At least Pepys wasn't blaming Liz's complaint on Pembleton.
Life was hard for everyone in those days, given the conditions of sanitation, disease, medicine and housing, especially for women. It was bad enough for Liz who was relatively well off, imagine what it was like for poor women living in shacks or in the streets.
Surely the tailor would have charged Sam a hefty deposit before he bought the goods and started work, which Sam would lose if he cancels the order. It would be immoral to let the tailor suffer the loss.
"This evening, at my Lord’s lodgings, Mrs. Sarah talking with my wife and I how the Queen do, and how the King tends her being so ill."
It looks as if "pronounitis" goes back as at least far as the 17th century, and it shows no sign of dissipating. I don't know whether to feel good or bad about it.
There were domestic clocks in Pepys' time. In addition there were sand timers (hour glasses). Doctors could have carried minute sand timers with them for the times when a clock was not available. Heartbeats could be felt at the wrist or heard by putting an ear to the chest of a patient. Sand timers were used from BCE.
Comments
Second Reading
About Sunday 29 November 1663
Louise Hudson • Link
I suppose Sam never thought of getting something a little less grand than his "best black cloth suit, trimmed with scarlett ribbon . . . with my cloake lined with velvett, and a new beaver . . . with my black silk knit canons I bought a month ago," so he could afford something nice for his wife. "Self-centered fop" springs to mind. Elizabeth should have insisted on going to church with him, wearing a plain, patched homespun dress and a cheap unfashionable hat and shawl to show him up! She could have borrowed them from her maydes if she didn't have anything plain enough.
About Saturday 28 November 1663
Louise Hudson • Link
No "poor wife" today. She is apparently over the moon with Sam's promise of a trip to Calais.
About Friday 27 November 1663
Louise Hudson • Link
Bradford is right, Elizabeth probably did as much as the maydes did and she was responsible to get it done right. She also might have been complaining that Sam is seldom home and that she is stuck in the house all day. She's a "poor wife" indeed. I suppose Sam thought he was doing her a great favor by coming home to dinner once in a while.
About Monday 23 November 1663
Louise Hudson • Link
". . . and I home to a speedy, though too good a dinner to eat alone, viz., a good goose and a rare piece of roast beef."
I wonder if he meant that it was rare to have a "piece roast beef" or that the beef was cooked rare? I'm guessing that they cooked beef to death in those days as I hear they did in England well into the 20th century. Unfortunately for Sam, et al, it was too early for Yorkshire Pudding, which wasn't invented until the 1740s, so Sam missed one of those perfect food combinations.
About Tuesday 17 November 1663
Louise Hudson • Link
Rye bread: it was probably very dense and likely hard in those days. It would have been made with 100% rye flour, which would not rise very much. It could have been something like German Black Bread--certainly an acquired taste. Peasants probably ate it. Very unlikely to be anything like Rye-Krisp.
About Saturday 14 November 1663
Louise Hudson • Link
"I hear to-day that my boy Waynman has behaved himself so with Mr. Davis that they have got him put into a Barbadoes ship to be sent away, and though he sends to me to get a release for him I will not out of love to the boy . . ."
One can only wonder if Sam ever regretted ignoring Waynman's desperate pleas for help. What a horrible life and a death sentence for a poor boy, probably no more than 15 years old. As they say, with friends (or would-be protectors) like that, who needs enemies?
About Thursday 12 November 1663
Louise Hudson • Link
". . . he being come to advise her about her hollow sore place."
Could be an ovarian cyst. Quite common, in women of child-bearing age, which produces pain low in the abdomen. Usually benign.
About Tuesday 10 November 1663
Louise Hudson • Link
SPOILER ALERT--SPOILER ALERT--SPOILER ALERT--SPOILER ALERT
The Queen, whose health Pepys is so concerned with, managed to outlive him.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/C…
About Sunday 1 November 1663
Louise Hudson • Link
Robert Harneis, I think you are right, people of what we would deem "normal" intelligence who live in a society where calculations are done will be able to calculate at a basic level without having been formally taught. The itinerant farmers you mention surely had their own method of calculating and most likely they taught each other and passed down their knowledge to the next generation. They might not have known the standard words for numbers, but they apparently could calculate their own way--and do it correctly.
About Sunday 1 November 1663
Louise Hudson • Link
Pepys is to be commended for teaching his wife basic arithmetic, but you can be sure he wouldn't teach her higher mathematics or any academic subjects, such subjects being for men only. He would teach her what he deemed to be useful to her (or to himself) by his own reckoning and nothing more. I doubt he ever thught to criticize the system that denied women formal education.
Illiterate and innumerate women throughout history successfully ran households, helped on farms and other businesses and raised children. In the 17th Cntury, the majority of men were completely unschooled too. Only the upper and upper middle classes had access to formal education.
Is it possible that Pepys' "gown" was a dressing gown?
About Friday 30 October 1663
Louise Hudson • Link
Thanks, Sarah. I didn't realize he was writing in shorthand. That might explain it, but as GrannieAnnie says he could have used an initial as so many diarists did. I now wonder if a translators was responsible for turning names or other references to Elizabeth into "my wife."
About Friday 30 October 1663
Louise Hudson • Link
Pepys refers to his wife as "my wife" six times in this short entry. He seldom refers to her by her name. That seems odd to me. He is writing a diary presumably for his own use. Does he think he might forget their relationship? Maybe it was a convention then, but I can't imagine referring to my husband as "my husband" when writing in a private diary . I wouldn't even refer to him as "my husband" to close friends or family members who I know know him as "my husband."
Would anyone here refer to his or her spouse that way in private writings or within the family or with close acquamtences? How we tend to refer to people, depending on our relationship, is very interesting. For instance, when I speak to my brother about his wife or children I don't say, "your wife" or "your son" or "your daughter", I refer to them by their names.
About Thursday 29 October 1663
Louise Hudson • Link
I remember, years ago, seeing the phrase "I doubt" used in some old English novels--perhaps George Elliott's--to mean something like "I think" or "I know", instead of the modern definition of uncertainty. I assumed at the time that it was part of the dialect spoken by the characters. But I have been unable to find this usage noted in any dictionary. Since Pepys is using it in the same way, I wonder if the the word originally had a positive connotation in the English language of his day--which continued at least into the 19th century, but has gradually changed over the centuries.
About Wednesday 28 October 1663
Louise Hudson • Link
Clothes press
closet, press, wardrobe
a tall piece of furniture that provides storage space for clothes; has a door and rails or hooks for hanging clothes.
https://www.vocabulary.com/dictio…
It has nothing to do with ironing or steaming. It's just a wardrobe, a piece of furniture for storing clothes, hanging or folded.
Photos at the website.
About Monday 26 October 1663
Louise Hudson • Link
Miss Ann wrote: "Like Patricia I was amazed that the maids were woken at 1:00 a.m. to start the washing - and I bet they were not paid overtime for that either."
I doubt "overtime" pay was even heard of in Pepys' time. I believe that started with the industrial revolution. In any case, from what I have learned of London maids of the 17th Century, they were pretty much "on call" 24 hours a day. There was little rest for the weary.
About Sunday 25th October 1663
Louise Hudson • Link
Whichever day washing was done on, it was a tremendous undertaking that took all day--10 hours or more--and the backbreaking labor of several people. It was nothing like throwing a few things in an automatic washing machine and dryer today.
About Saturday 24 October 1663
Louise Hudson • Link
At least Pepys wasn't blaming Liz's complaint on Pembleton.
Life was hard for everyone in those days, given the conditions of sanitation, disease, medicine and housing, especially for women. It was bad enough for Liz who was relatively well off, imagine what it was like for poor women living in shacks or in the streets.
About Thursday 22 October 1663
Louise Hudson • Link
Surely the tailor would have charged Sam a hefty deposit before he bought the goods and started work, which Sam would lose if he cancels the order. It would be immoral to let the tailor suffer the loss.
About Tuesday 20 October 1663
Louise Hudson • Link
"This evening, at my Lord’s lodgings, Mrs. Sarah talking with my wife and I how the Queen do, and how the King tends her being so ill."
It looks as if "pronounitis" goes back as at least far as the 17th century, and it shows no sign of dissipating. I don't know whether to feel good or bad about it.
About Monday 19 October 1663
Louise Hudson • Link
There were domestic clocks in Pepys' time. In addition there were sand timers (hour glasses). Doctors could have carried minute sand timers with them for the times when a clock was not available. Heartbeats could be felt at the wrist or heard by putting an ear to the chest of a patient. Sand timers were used from BCE.