Re Josselin's vs Pepys' weather reports. It's true, Pepys may have been in an area where it wasn't raining. I find that many English people will call it a "a fine day" as long as it isn't raining at the moment.
How many of us reading this will now double (or perhaps triple) check the locks before going to sleep next time you're away from home! Wouldn't this be freaky to wake up to!
For us, yes, but not so much for Pepys and his cohorts, seeing how they flop in any bed that's available and even share it with one of a very odd assortment of people. Not sure they had locks on the doors--or even doors. Sam probably wasn't as suprised or shocked by clerk standing at his bed as any of us would be, though he was apparently taken aback by his words. If the clerk had just crawled in beside him, Sam might not have thought twice about it.
Terry F: "Does anyone else wonder whether there was a 17th-century remedy for menses besides bedrest - for the well-off."
You may have hit the nail on the head. Only well-off women could afford to stay in bed during menstruation, cramps or no, endometriosis or no. Working women got up and went to work, often walking long distances, running up and down stairs and doing heavy lifting. It helped the blood flow and may be the reason they were healthier all around. They couldnt afford to give in to their "monthlies."
Perhaps Sam is driven to distraction by the thought that his wife could be doing with Pembleton what he has done with more than one of the "pretty women" he has noticed. A double standard he is likely to accept without question.
NJ Lois--Sam may know right from wrong but as we know, he gives into wrong more often than not.
As for Liz being a feminist--it's true that she would not be one by 20th or even 19th century standards, but even then, not all women who considered themselves feminists wanted to earn her own living or acquire skills that would give them comparable status to their husbands, nor did they treat women of the "lower classes" with much respect, but I think Liz did exhibit the seeds of later feminism. She wanted to have her say and would probably have said so, at least for the women of her own class. It took a long time for today's widespread feminism to develop from those tiny seeds (and we still have a long way to go). Meanwhile, there was a tremendous amount of resistance from both men and women through its years of development.
Liz would have made a wonderful 20th Century feminist. She doesn't let Sam push her around and she gives as good as she gets. I wanted to cheer when she told him about the pretty woman at church and Sam immediately trots off to see. She knows him far better than he knows her. And how "convenient" that Mr. Pembleton was in attendance, too. I can just see her smirking behind her glove. Sam, you don't have a chance. You've met your match. I love it!
The diary is quoted regarding women wearing "drawers"
As Australian Susan points out, women wearing drawers was roundly criticized by men for the usual reasons.
"Paintings, woodcuts and book illustrations both of sacral and secular themes show only men wearing this type of underpants . . . . When women are shown wearing pants it’s always in the context of ‘a world turned upside down’. Trousers and underpants were considered a symbol of male power and women wearing them were pugnacious wives trying to usurp the authority of their husbands, or women of low morality."
Sam, Sam, you don't wear a wig instead of washing your hair! People have been washing their hair regularly for millennia, all over the world. Soap and water does just fine.
My husband, who was born and raised not all that far from where Pepys lived, said he never heard the term "pricklouse," so it probably didn't survive into the 20th century. I wish I could ask my father-in-law, though.
Women were always blamed then for being 'barren". In fact, it was more likely Pepys' problem. He sired no child during his long life and we know he slept with many women. More likely Bess was a victim of his infertility. She may have been perfectly capable of bearing children with a fertile man.
Pricklouse! I love it. Bess apparently has a backbone! Unfortinately she was unfamiliar with the more appropriate word, "shithead".
Re: all thise ungrammatical and confusing sentences-- they are ungrammatical and confusing only from our point of view 400-500 years after they were written. But keep in mind, we are reading diary entries Sam never intended for public view. Presumably he knew what the sentences meant and he intended to be the only reader of them when he wrote them. We are the underhanded snoops and voyeurs and have no moral right to complain about his sentences or to speculate on the validity of his thoughts. (I admit I'm as guilty of snooping as anyone, but I try not to be overly critical.)
I wonder if Sam realizes the importance of a lady's partner on the dance floor to make her look good. Once the dance instructor has gone how well will she dance with Sam's two left feet?
On Sunday, 22 April Pepys wrote, "and after walking with my wife in the garden late, to supper and to bed, being somewhat troubled at Ashwell’s desiring and insisting over eagerly upon her going to a ball to meet some of her old companions at a dancing school here in town next Friday, but I am resolved she shall not go" and here it is Friday, and not a word is written about the dancing school or whether he stopped Ashwell from going (or was he talking about his wife? It isn't clear.) Nevertheless, nothing has been said. Now he writes that Ashwell "danced above in my upper best chamber" so she's not at the ball. Anyone know what's going on?
Comments
Second Reading
About Sunday 12 July 1663
Louise Hudson • Link
Re Josselin's vs Pepys' weather reports. It's true, Pepys may have been in an area where it wasn't raining. I find that many English people will call it a "a fine day" as long as it isn't raining at the moment.
About Saturday 11 July 1663
Louise Hudson • Link
Jeannine wrote:
How many of us reading this will now double (or perhaps triple) check the locks before going to sleep next time you're away from home! Wouldn't this be freaky to wake up to!
For us, yes, but not so much for Pepys and his cohorts, seeing how they flop in any bed that's available and even share it with one of a very odd assortment of people. Not sure they had locks on the doors--or even doors. Sam probably wasn't as suprised or shocked by clerk standing at his bed as any of us would be, though he was apparently taken aback by his words. If the clerk had just crawled in beside him, Sam might not have thought twice about it.
About Martha Castle (b. Batten)
Louise Hudson • Link
Aqua scripto, she wasn't a spinster, she was a widow.
About Monday 29 June 1663
Louise Hudson • Link
Although he would have sung the praises of "doing it" I don't think Sam would have added anything about falling in love.
About Monday 1 June 1663
Louise Hudson • Link
Todd Bernhardt: "Another indication of what Sam considers "betimes" (though I'd thought 5:00 was betimes, and 4:00 "very betimes")."
According to http://www.biblestudytools.com/di…
It means "early" or "earlier than usual" so it could be any time before Sam's usual rising time.
Presumably he took the word from the KJV Bible, where it appears frequently.
in Genesis 26:31 "they rose up betimes in the morning," also in 2 Chronicles 36:15
About Monday 1 June 1663
Louise Hudson • Link
Terry F: "Does anyone else wonder whether there was a 17th-century remedy for menses besides bedrest - for the well-off."
You may have hit the nail on the head. Only well-off women could afford to stay in bed during menstruation, cramps or no, endometriosis or no. Working women got up and went to work, often walking long distances, running up and down stairs and doing heavy lifting. It helped the blood flow and may be the reason they were healthier all around. They couldnt afford to give in to their "monthlies."
About Friday 29 May 1663
Louise Hudson • Link
According to the website below, women started appearing on stage in England around 1629, and caused great furore.
http://www.theatredatabase.com/17…
It was rare until the 1660s for women to appear on stage. The name actor and actress were used interchangeably for female performers.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/A…
About Tuesday 26 May 1663
Louise Hudson • Link
Perhaps Sam is driven to distraction by the thought that his wife could be doing with Pembleton what he has done with more than one of the "pretty women" he has noticed. A double standard he is likely to accept without question.
About Sunday 24 May 1663
Louise Hudson • Link
NJ Lois--Sam may know right from wrong but as we know, he gives into wrong more often than not.
As for Liz being a feminist--it's true that she would not be one by 20th or even 19th century standards, but even then, not all women who considered themselves feminists wanted to earn her own living or acquire skills that would give them comparable status to their husbands, nor did they treat women of the "lower classes" with much respect, but I think Liz did exhibit the seeds of later feminism. She wanted to have her say and would probably have said so, at least for the women of her own class. It took a long time for today's widespread feminism to develop from those tiny seeds (and we still have a long way to go). Meanwhile, there was a tremendous amount of resistance from both men and women through its years of development.
About Monday 25 May 1663
Louise Hudson • Link
Spotted fever: epidemic typhus, a louse-borne disease, which reached epidemic proportions in the 17th-19th centuries, especially following wars.
About Sunday 24 May 1663
Louise Hudson • Link
Liz would have made a wonderful 20th Century feminist. She doesn't let Sam push her around and she gives as good as she gets. I wanted to cheer when she told him about the pretty woman at church and Sam immediately trots off to see. She knows him far better than he knows her. And how "convenient" that Mr. Pembleton was in attendance, too. I can just see her smirking behind her glove. Sam, you don't have a chance. You've met your match. I love it!
About Friday 15 May 1663
Louise Hudson • Link
There is a good history of woman's undergarments, including during Pepys time here.http://www.historyextra.com/…
The diary is quoted regarding women wearing "drawers"
As Australian Susan points out, women wearing drawers was roundly criticized by men for the usual reasons.
"Paintings, woodcuts and book illustrations both of sacral and secular themes show only men wearing this type of underpants . . . . When women are shown wearing pants it’s always in the context of ‘a world turned upside down’. Trousers and underpants were considered a symbol of male power and women wearing them were pugnacious wives trying to usurp the authority of their husbands, or women of low morality."
About Saturday 9 May 1663
Louise Hudson • Link
Sam, Sam, you don't wear a wig instead of washing your hair! People have been washing their hair regularly for millennia, all over the world. Soap and water does just fine.
About Saturday 2 May 1663
Louise Hudson • Link
My husband, who was born and raised not all that far from where Pepys lived, said he never heard the term "pricklouse," so it probably didn't survive into the 20th century. I wish I could ask my father-in-law, though.
About Saturday 2 May 1663
Louise Hudson • Link
Women were always blamed then for being 'barren". In fact, it was more likely Pepys' problem. He sired no child during his long life and we know he slept with many women. More likely Bess was a victim of his infertility. She may have been perfectly capable of bearing children with a fertile man.
Pricklouse! I love it. Bess apparently has a backbone! Unfortinately she was unfamiliar with the more appropriate word, "shithead".
About Thursday 30 April 1663
Louise Hudson • Link
gave rise to a new English word, was not abolished until the early part of the present century.
I thought it was Lyons.
About Wednesday 29 April 1663
Louise Hudson • Link
Re: all thise ungrammatical and confusing sentences-- they are ungrammatical and confusing only from our point of view 400-500 years after they were written. But keep in mind, we are reading diary entries Sam never intended for public view. Presumably he knew what the sentences meant and he intended to be the only reader of them when he wrote them. We are the underhanded snoops and voyeurs and have no moral right to complain about his sentences or to speculate on the validity of his thoughts. (I admit I'm as guilty of snooping as anyone, but I try not to be overly critical.)
About Tuesday 28 April 1663
Louise Hudson • Link
I wonder if Sam realizes the importance of a lady's partner on the dance floor to make her look good. Once the dance instructor has gone how well will she dance with Sam's two left feet?
About Friday 24 April 1663
Louise Hudson • Link
". . . and is a boy that I and my wife love very well."
I shudder to think what he would do to him if they didn't "love" him. Would he kill him?
and
". . being the first day that I have spent so much to my pleasure a great while."
Was it the beating he gave the boy that gave him so much pleasure?
About Friday 24 April 1663
Louise Hudson • Link
On Sunday, 22 April Pepys wrote, "and after walking with my wife in the garden late, to supper and to bed, being somewhat troubled at Ashwell’s desiring and insisting over eagerly upon her going to a ball to meet some of her old companions at a dancing school here in town next Friday, but I am resolved she shall not go" and here it is Friday, and not a word is written about the dancing school or whether he stopped Ashwell from going (or was he talking about his wife? It isn't clear.) Nevertheless, nothing has been said. Now he writes that Ashwell "danced above in my upper best chamber" so she's not at the ball. Anyone know what's going on?