Either you all are cynics, or I'm a naif. I'm inclined to give Sam the benefit of the doubt here, and allow the possibility of an honest clerical error. I doubt that Sam engrossed this document himself, that was probably some GS-2 [US Government-speak for a low-level clerical employee] doing a stack of such work and dating all with the present date. Then Sam signed it without reading it carefully, which is what he's sorry about, and which allows him honestly to tell Coventry he had no "design in it."
And thus ends this year ... for our small but ubiquitous band of Pepysians, our third. Good health and happiness to all in 2006 (or 1663), and three cheers and a tiger to Phil for making it happen.
Pepys vs. Evelyn Rsponding to Australian Susan: Sam is certainly the better, more engaging writer of the two (which is why we had all heard of him before starting to read the diary, but not of Evelyn, or at least I hadn't).
Still, I really enjoy it when some annotator provides us a look at Evelyn's take on the same event that Sam has written about, for a couple of reasons.
First, different people notice different things. Sam didn't tell us about the horses, or the wind music, or the "crimson-taffaty scarfe" at the Russian Ambassador's audience. (Although it is strange that Evelyn didn't mention the Ambassador's prostrating himself, which as Dirk says must have been an extraordinary spectacle to Londoners.)
Second, Evelyn was more highly placed in his society than Sam was at this stage in his life, he had personal dealings with important people that Sam saw only from afar, or not at all (his frequent reports on the demonstrations and discussions at the Royal Society are a good example, but not the only one). So his diary sometimes gives us an insider's view that Sam can't provide.
"bought a bake-pan ... it cost me 16s" That's some expensive bake-pan - more than 3 times the weekly wages of the recently departed Sarah, an experienced maid; more than 6 times the cost of a new book. I googled a bit to see if I could find a picture of one, or why it cost so much, but no luck. Anybody have any ideas?
Christmas It's only the second Christmas since the Restoration. During the Commonwealth, as I understand it, Christmas celebrations were forbidden or strongly discouraged. It may be taking people a while to get back into the swing of it.
"the absurd nature of Englishmen ..." Here Sam shows himself both cosmopolitan and parochial in a single sentence. Cosmopolitan in finding the ways of foreigners worthy of interest and even admiration, rather than ridicule; parochial in believing that only Englishmen behave this way. There can be no doubt that the common folk of Moscow would have exactly the same reaction to a cadre of English nobility in full regalia.
" I can’t see how a poulterer could get rich unless he had some other business" I dunno. Frank Perdue left quite a few shekels behind when he passed on.
The pitiful sermon Australian Susan's comment about the sermon reminds me of an old story about an Professor of Old Testament who gave his class the same final exam question every year: give a chronological list of the kings of Israel. So the students prepared well for that question. One year, though, the prof changed the test to: name the major and minor prophets. Most students struggled as best they could, but one enterprising student wrote, "I am unable to respond properly to your query at this time, but for your information, here is a chronological list of the kings of Israel." Sounds like our Smyrna-bound preacher.
"Only the French Revolution (1789) would put an end to this" Well, a dozen or so years earlier, there were a few guys on the west side of the Pond who also had a different idea.
The Homage Thanks to LH for that clarification. But it makes me wonder. How could Pepys pere be on a jury that was hearing a matter in which he had a direct interest? He declined on grounds of "not knowing the customs of the town,", not conflict of interest - a term which probably didn't exist then, but the concept surely had to.
The Margaret Pepys question I'm a little reluctant to prolong this discussion, since it seems to have become a Touchy Subject, but I will. Several annotators have quite correctly pointed out that we have no evidence of Margaret's mental state aside from what Sam says about it. But I don't see why we should be so quick to dismiss Sam's observations. We enjoy reading the diary in part because Sam is an astute observer of the people around him (though obviously not infallible). There are other people who annoy him mightily, but he does not suggest of them that their reason is impaired, as he does of his mother. Why is it out of the question that he could be right? People do, and did, lose their rational faculties for a variety of reasons. It puzzles me that some of our annotators are so passionately determined to defend Margaret against this suggestion, with no other evidence to go on. It seems to me that if anyone is projecting 21st century preoccupations onto the 17th century world, it is they.
Comments
First Reading
About Saturday 17 January 1662/63
Paul Chapin • Link
Either you all are cynics, or I'm a naif.
I'm inclined to give Sam the benefit of the doubt here, and allow the possibility of an honest clerical error. I doubt that Sam engrossed this document himself, that was probably some GS-2 [US Government-speak for a low-level clerical employee] doing a stack of such work and dating all with the present date. Then Sam signed it without reading it carefully, which is what he's sorry about, and which allows him honestly to tell Coventry he had no "design in it."
About Elizabeth Pepys (wife, b. St Michel)
Paul Chapin • Link
That's beautiful, Jeannine. Do you suppose Sam wrote it?
About Friday 26 December 1662
Paul Chapin • Link
Thanks, Jenny. That makes good sense.
About Wednesday 31 December 1662
Paul Chapin • Link
And thus ends this year ...
for our small but ubiquitous band of Pepysians, our third. Good health and happiness to all in 2006 (or 1663), and three cheers and a tiger to Phil for making it happen.
About Monday 29 December 1662
Paul Chapin • Link
Pepys vs. Evelyn
Rsponding to Australian Susan: Sam is certainly the better, more engaging writer of the two (which is why we had all heard of him before starting to read the diary, but not of Evelyn, or at least I hadn't).
Still, I really enjoy it when some annotator provides us a look at Evelyn's take on the same event that Sam has written about, for a couple of reasons.
First, different people notice different things. Sam didn't tell us about the horses, or the wind music, or the "crimson-taffaty scarfe" at the Russian Ambassador's audience. (Although it is strange that Evelyn didn't mention the Ambassador's prostrating himself, which as Dirk says must have been an extraordinary spectacle to Londoners.)
Second, Evelyn was more highly placed in his society than Sam was at this stage in his life, he had personal dealings with important people that Sam saw only from afar, or not at all (his frequent reports on the demonstrations and discussions at the Royal Society are a good example, but not the only one). So his diary sometimes gives us an insider's view that Sam can't provide.
About Friday 26 December 1662
Paul Chapin • Link
"bought a bake-pan ... it cost me 16s"
That's some expensive bake-pan - more than 3 times the weekly wages of the recently departed Sarah, an experienced maid; more than 6 times the cost of a new book. I googled a bit to see if I could find a picture of one, or why it cost so much, but no luck. Anybody have any ideas?
About Thursday 18 December 1662
Paul Chapin • Link
What was wrong with dinner
Sam thought the meat was undercooked.
About Tuesday 16 December 1662
Paul Chapin • Link
Christmas
It's only the second Christmas since the Restoration. During the Commonwealth, as I understand it, Christmas celebrations were forbidden or strongly discouraged. It may be taking people a while to get back into the swing of it.
About Sunday 7 December 1662
Paul Chapin • Link
Sir William P. had the gout.
See http://www.pepysdiary.com/diary/1…
About Thursday 27 November 1662
Paul Chapin • Link
"the absurd nature of Englishmen ..."
Here Sam shows himself both cosmopolitan and parochial in a single sentence. Cosmopolitan in finding the ways of foreigners worthy of interest and even admiration, rather than ridicule; parochial in believing that only Englishmen behave this way. There can be no doubt that the common folk of Moscow would have exactly the same reaction to a cadre of English nobility in full regalia.
About Wednesday 26 November 1662
Paul Chapin • Link
OCD?
No, just the normal aftermath of remodeling. I just went through it myself.
About Sunday 23 November 1662
Paul Chapin • Link
" I can’t see how a poulterer could get rich unless he had some other business"
I dunno. Frank Perdue left quite a few shekels behind when he passed on.
About Sunday 16 November 1662
Paul Chapin • Link
The pitiful sermon
Australian Susan's comment about the sermon reminds me of an old story about an Professor of Old Testament who gave his class the same final exam question every year: give a chronological list of the kings of Israel. So the students prepared well for that question. One year, though, the prof changed the test to: name the major and minor prophets. Most students struggled as best they could, but one enterprising student wrote, "I am unable to respond properly to your query at this time, but for your information, here is a chronological list of the kings of Israel." Sounds like our Smyrna-bound preacher.
About Tuesday 11 November 1662
Paul Chapin • Link
“but that the trouble of my office do so cruelly hinder me”
No, I read this as saying he's too busy with his Navy work to go into trade.
About Monday 10 November 1662
Paul Chapin • Link
Would that be window jams you refer to, CGS?
About Thursday 30 October 1662
Paul Chapin • Link
"Only the French Revolution (1789) would put an end to this"
Well, a dozen or so years earlier, there were a few guys on the west side of the Pond who also had a different idea.
About Wednesday 22 October 1662
Paul Chapin • Link
Tom's speech impediment
Yes, we have heard before that Tom stutters (not from Sam, I believe, but from annotations).
About Sunday 19 October 1662
Paul Chapin • Link
"my aunt and them"
An interesting construction, still heard colloquially in parts of the U.S., as in "How's your mom and them?"
BTW, many intriguing and enlightening annotations today. I'm especially glad that Mary corrected "droning" to "drolling." Thanks to all.
About Tuesday 14 October 1662
Paul Chapin • Link
The Homage
Thanks to LH for that clarification. But it makes me wonder. How could Pepys pere be on a jury that was hearing a matter in which he had a direct interest? He declined on grounds of "not knowing the customs of the town,", not conflict of interest - a term which probably didn't exist then, but the concept surely had to.
About Sunday 28 September 1662
Paul Chapin • Link
The Margaret Pepys question
I'm a little reluctant to prolong this discussion, since it seems to have become a Touchy Subject, but I will. Several annotators have quite correctly pointed out that we have no evidence of Margaret's mental state aside from what Sam says about it. But I don't see why we should be so quick to dismiss Sam's observations. We enjoy reading the diary in part because Sam is an astute observer of the people around him (though obviously not infallible). There are other people who annoy him mightily, but he does not suggest of them that their reason is impaired, as he does of his mother. Why is it out of the question that he could be right? People do, and did, lose their rational faculties for a variety of reasons. It puzzles me that some of our annotators are so passionately determined to defend Margaret against this suggestion, with no other evidence to go on. It seems to me that if anyone is projecting 21st century preoccupations onto the 17th century world, it is they.