Terry seems to be describing a dart or a gathering of material. I doubt that's what Pepys meant by poynte, because he said he he bought it for her. He wouldn't be buying a dressmaker's technique. I expect it was some kind of lace or other decoration.
I don't think Sam will ever get over Pembleton. I suppose it keeps things interesting, for us, at least.
The obsession with bowel function and dysfunction did not dissipate until the late 20th Century. My own parents were also obsessed by it and thought that all ailments--even headaches--could be traced to the bowels. There is some indication of that attitude even today.
As the Encyclopedia entry here on the "clyster" warns, bowel irrigation could be dangerous and could rupture an appendix or damage the intestinal lining and introduce infections, something Pepys and his cohorts couldn't have known.
Also, Nick Hedley, Thanks for the information about Rawlinson being a tavern keeper and that Sam and Mr. Deane had to pay for their dinner--Mr, Deane, anyway, since Sam was invited.
". . . there we dined very well at his own dinner, only no invitation, but here I sat with little pleasure"
Like Bradford, I'm also confused as to what that means. Does Pepys mean that Rawlinson did not issue an invitaion to Mr. Deane, but reluctantly allowed him to eat with them, seeing as how he was already there? Did someone say "awkward"?
Four things occur to me as a result of reading the comments here.
1. Sam is 36 years old and a married man. He should be past his youthful indiscretions by now.
2. Sam claims to be a practicing Christian. At least he tries mightily to show the world he is a fine upstanding one, though that seems to have meant no more in the 17th Century than it does now.
3. Betty Lane may know what adultery is, but she has neither made nor broken any vows to Elizabeth. Sam, through his marriage vows, however, owes fidelity to Elizabeth, though no one would guess it knowing how he carries on.
4. A little guilt about his "poor wretch" doesn't change anything. In addition, what Sam has done for the Navy means nothing when it comes to how he has conducted himself as a husband and a presumed Christian.
Why shouldn't he be judged by what he wrote in his diary? It's all we know of him. Without the diary no one would be able to judge him on any level.
Hasn't anyone here ever used the phrase, "My [spouse] and I dined alone last night? It makes perfect sense to me and I've heard that sort of thing said many times with no one suggesting it's an oxymoron. If two people are in the habit of dining with guests, it seems perfectly correct to say they sometimes dine alone [together].
In the annotations it talks about Phil Gyford becoming more sensitive about copyright. Like most digital enthusiasts he evidently didn't start out thinking about it.
What does "L&M" mean? L&M is an abbreviation of Latham & Matthews, the editors of the most complete published version of the diaries. While the text used on the Pepys Diary website is from the 1890s, and is occasionally inaccurate and incomplete (but free of copyright), Latham & Matthews' edition from the 1970s is complete, accurate and extremely well annotated (but under copyright). It is often referred to here to resolve confusions in the 1890s text, or provide further information. You can find links to the L&M volumes for purchase on the Further Reading page of the Encyclopedia.
"I am told this morning of strange dotages of his upon the slut at Chelsea, even in the presence of his daughter, my Lady Jem, and Mrs. Ferrers, who took notice of it."
Funny how men, even up to today, naively think women and young girls will be shocked to know how men carry on, when surely they knew at least as much as the men did -- probably more. Who did they think they were protecting? They knew women might rat them out, that's why they "protected them". Nothing to do with protecting innocent women. They were protecting themselves.
People in Pepys' time believed a lot of old wives takes about food. They thought tomatoes were poisonous, too. There was good reason to be wary of acid foods on lead pewter plates. But having no knowledge of modern science, there were a lot of superstitions around, some reasonable, some not. If someone they know got sick and died after eating a particular food, they would reasonably blame the food. There were no reliable agencies to check the safety of food back then and few could read. It was every man, woman and child for him or herself--and people died like flies.
£3,000 in 1663 would have an approximate standard of living value of about £414,000 in 2016. What household today would have £414,000 worth of linens?
The way Jinny was treated was the normal "foster care" system in London then. Orphans were little more than pests and were expected to earn their "keep." The mortality rate would be shocking to anyone today. They were certainly worth less than a few linens.
If the girl was " a parish child of St. Bride's . . . Recommended by the church warden," surely she could be found. Sam could have at least complained to the warden about his poor "recommendation." Good help may have been hard to find back then but it's even worse here and now. We can't hire children, not even lice-ridden orphans, so the supply is thinner than ever.
"Black" wasn't used to mean African, necessarily, but Italian, Spanish, Greek or other dark-haired and olive-complected people. I've heard English people even today refer to olive-skinned people as "black." But the woman was described by Sam as "a daughter of Mr Brumfield", so I can't imagine what he actually meant by black. Did Mr Brumfield have a "black" wife?
I think that most married people in those days before birth control expected to have children. Not only would the couple expect them but so would the extended family. It was probably rare and disconcerting when a young, seemingly healthy, couple did not produce children on a regular basis. Their knowledge of biology would have been scant, and I can imagine both Sam and his wife wondering why babies had never appeared. Women of that time didn't have much else to do, childless women usually lending a hand to family members who had more than they could handle. Though it's true that Sam doesn't write much about it, most likely he assumed pregnancy and childbirth were women's business. It would be interesting to know how Liz felt about it. I expect she felt a great emptiness in her marriage and her life.
I can understand that Sam doesn't want to take on further responsibility for the boy, but he has a very hard heart, indeed. Surely he could have thought of something besides complete rejection of Wayneman and his sister who was trying her best to save him and threw herself on Sam's mercy.
Comments
Second Reading
About Sunday 18 October 1663
Louise Hudson • Link
Terry seems to be describing a dart or a gathering of material. I doubt that's what Pepys meant by poynte, because he said he he bought it for her. He wouldn't be buying a dressmaker's technique. I expect it was some kind of lace or other decoration.
I don't think Sam will ever get over Pembleton. I suppose it keeps things interesting, for us, at least.
About Monday 12 October 1663
Louise Hudson • Link
The obsession with bowel function and dysfunction did not dissipate until the late 20th Century. My own parents were also obsessed by it and thought that all ailments--even headaches--could be traced to the bowels. There is some indication of that attitude even today.
As the Encyclopedia entry here on the "clyster" warns, bowel irrigation could be dangerous and could rupture an appendix or damage the intestinal lining and introduce infections, something Pepys and his cohorts couldn't have known.
About Saturday 26 September 1663
Louise Hudson • Link
Also, Nick Hedley, Thanks for the information about Rawlinson being a tavern keeper and that Sam and Mr. Deane had to pay for their dinner--Mr, Deane, anyway, since Sam was invited.
About Saturday 26 September 1663
Louise Hudson • Link
Well, thank you for the compliment, Nick Hedley. I am also pleased to put in the same category as San Diego Sarah.
About Saturday 26 September 1663
Louise Hudson • Link
". . . there we dined very well at his own dinner, only no invitation, but here I sat with little pleasure"
Like Bradford, I'm also confused as to what that means. Does Pepys mean that Rawlinson did not issue an invitaion to Mr. Deane, but reluctantly allowed him to eat with them, seeing as how he was already there? Did someone say "awkward"?
About Thursday 24 September 1663
Louise Hudson • Link
Four things occur to me as a result of reading the comments here.
1. Sam is 36 years old and a married man. He should be past his youthful indiscretions by now.
2. Sam claims to be a practicing Christian. At least he tries mightily to show the world he is a fine upstanding one, though that seems to have meant no more in the 17th Century than it does now.
3. Betty Lane may know what adultery is, but she has neither made nor broken any vows to Elizabeth. Sam, through his marriage vows, however, owes fidelity to Elizabeth, though no one would guess it knowing how he carries on.
4. A little guilt about his "poor wretch" doesn't change anything. In addition, what Sam has done for the Navy means nothing when it comes to how he has conducted himself as a husband and a presumed Christian.
Why shouldn't he be judged by what he wrote in his diary? It's all we know of him. Without the diary no one would be able to judge him on any level.
About Tuesday 15 September 1663
Louise Hudson • Link
". . . and so my wife and I to bed, she very weary."
I should think so, too.
About Friday 4 September 1663
Louise Hudson • Link
"Mrs. Harper sent for a maid for me to come to live with my wife. I like the maid’s looks well enough, and I believe may do well,"
Glad to see she measures up to his exacting standard for a maid. I wonder if she has any other qualifications. Would it matter to Sam?
About Monday 31 August 1663
Louise Hudson • Link
Sasha Clarkson, do you really think Pepys never spoke the thoughts he recorded in his diary? They sound very gossipy to me.
About Sunday 30 August 1663
Louise Hudson • Link
Hasn't anyone here ever used the phrase, "My [spouse] and I dined alone last night? It makes perfect sense to me and I've heard that sort of thing said many times with no one suggesting it's an oxymoron. If two people are in the habit of dining with guests, it seems perfectly correct to say they sometimes dine alone [together].
About Sunday 30 August 1663
Louise Hudson • Link
In the annotations it talks about Phil Gyford becoming more sensitive about copyright. Like most digital enthusiasts he evidently didn't start out thinking about it.
What does "L&M" mean?
L&M is an abbreviation of Latham & Matthews, the editors of the most complete published version of the diaries. While the text used on the Pepys Diary website is from the 1890s, and is occasionally inaccurate and incomplete (but free of copyright), Latham & Matthews' edition from the 1970s is complete, accurate and extremely well annotated (but under copyright). It is often referred to here to resolve confusions in the 1890s text, or provide further information. You can find links to the L&M volumes for purchase on the Further Reading page of the Encyclopedia.
About Sunday 23 August 1663
Louise Hudson • Link
"Up and to church without my wife, she being all dirty, as my house is."
Interesting that Sam isn't "all dirty, as my house is" but Liz is. Aren't they living in the same house?
About Monday 24 August 1663
Louise Hudson • Link
"I am told this morning of strange dotages of his upon the slut at Chelsea, even in the presence of his daughter, my Lady Jem, and Mrs. Ferrers, who took notice of it."
Funny how men, even up to today, naively think women and young girls will be shocked to know how men carry on, when surely they knew at least as much as the men did -- probably more. Who did they think they were protecting? They knew women might rat them out, that's why they "protected them". Nothing to do with protecting innocent women. They were protecting themselves.
About Saturday 22 August 1663
Louise Hudson • Link
People in Pepys' time believed a lot of old wives takes about food. They thought tomatoes were poisonous, too. There was good reason to be wary of acid foods on lead pewter plates. But having no knowledge of modern science, there were a lot of superstitions around, some reasonable, some not. If someone they know got sick and died after eating a particular food, they would reasonably blame the food. There were no reliable agencies to check the safety of food back then and few could read. It was every man, woman and child for him or herself--and people died like flies.
About Friday 21 August 1663
Louise Hudson • Link
£3,000 in 1663 would have an approximate standard of living value of about £414,000 in 2016. What household today would have £414,000 worth of linens?
The way Jinny was treated was the normal "foster care" system in London then. Orphans were little more than pests and were expected to earn their "keep." The mortality rate would be shocking to anyone today. They were certainly worth less than a few linens.
About Thursday 20 August 1663
Louise Hudson • Link
If the girl was " a parish child of St. Bride's . . . Recommended by the church warden," surely she could be found. Sam could have at least complained to the warden about his poor "recommendation." Good help may have been hard to find back then but it's even worse here and now. We can't hire children, not even lice-ridden orphans, so the supply is thinner than ever.
About Thursday 6 August 1663
Louise Hudson • Link
"Black" wasn't used to mean African, necessarily, but Italian, Spanish, Greek or other dark-haired and olive-complected people. I've heard English people even today refer to olive-skinned people as "black." But the woman was described by Sam as "a daughter of Mr Brumfield", so I can't imagine what he actually meant by black. Did Mr Brumfield have a "black" wife?
About Tuesday 4 August 1663
Louise Hudson • Link
I think that most married people in those days before birth control expected to have children. Not only would the couple expect them but so would the extended family. It was probably rare and disconcerting when a young, seemingly healthy, couple did not produce children on a regular basis. Their knowledge of biology would have been scant, and I can imagine both Sam and his wife wondering why babies had never appeared. Women of that time didn't have much else to do, childless women usually lending a hand to family members who had more than they could handle. Though it's true that Sam doesn't write much about it, most likely he assumed pregnancy and childbirth were women's business. It would be interesting to know how Liz felt about it. I expect she felt a great emptiness in her marriage and her life.
About Tuesday 28 July 1663
Louise Hudson • Link
I can understand that Sam doesn't want to take on further responsibility for the boy, but he has a very hard heart, indeed. Surely he could have thought of something besides complete rejection of Wayneman and his sister who was trying her best to save him and threw herself on Sam's mercy.
About Thursday 23 July 1663
Louise Hudson • Link
Dirk wrote:
Interesting to note how much difference a comma can make too...
As in Eats, Shoots & Leaves: The Zero Tolerance Approach to Punctuation, by Lynne Truss