Methinks a improper accounting to his superiors could be more damaging than simply to his ego. Pepys's position is always precarious and he has his enemies all too happy to use Tanger against him.
What we today call "bribes" and "kickbacks" were not regarded as unethical in Pepys's day but the usual way of securing positions -- a sort of direct monetary lobbying.
"to think to dine at my table with me always, being desirous to have my house to myself without a stranger and a mechanique to be privy to all my concernments."
Methinks Terry's criticism is a bit harsh and Michael's comment is on the mark. Anyone's welcome is outstayed and neither of these two are close to the family.
"but were contrary to expectation driven down again with a stinke"
Surely done on purpose by the friendly Pen. (I can relate in that one of our neighbours used to fertilize his fields with pig manure, which is very similar in odour to the human sort.)
This entry raises again, to me anyways, the question about how involved Elizabeth was in the family finances. She did not appear to be chatelaine, and at times, seemed clueless, yet is sometimes recorded as discussing financial matters with Samuel. Today, with the comment about Pepys pere and raising the dowry, she appears both informed and with spending authority.
As a note to Louise of 2009, one finds alterations made nowadays, especially to rural properties, without involving pesky inspectors (and we have found a few that should have involved them). The Navy Office was made of rubble-filled stone walls, I recall, so enlarging a window would not have required moving the jack and king studs. Remove a few stones, square up the hole, put in a larger frame, and plaster it over. It is not entirely clear how they handled the lintel, though.
Wonderful summary of court, as Todd wrote. Pepys almost overwhelmed by information: "He tells me [...], and some others I cannot presently remember, are friends that I may rely on for him." But if he only trusts the ones he remembers, then things should be well.
"and by comes Mrs. Pierce, with my name in her bosom for her Valentine, which will cost me money." Here is the Pepys we have come to know and love/hate.
L&M note that the painting in the entry has not survived. The family rumour is that it was destroyed by a cook during the Victorian era (due to the hypocritical sensitivities of the time, no doubt).
Phil C., methinks the point is: "and to be kept from my fellows in the office longer than was fit". He made his boss look bad in public and so his ears were boxed. Being made to look bad in public by a servant was not desirable.
Though rat fleas are commonly thought to be the vector, recent research suggests that inter-personal contact was the main plague vector. (Chapt. 8 "Plagues in London in the 17th century" in Scott and Duncan, "Biology of Plagues: Evidence from Historical Populations", CUP 2001.)
Comments
Second Reading
About Monday 21 May 1666
john • Link
Methinks a improper accounting to his superiors could be more damaging than simply to his ego. Pepys's position is always precarious and he has his enemies all too happy to use Tanger against him.
About Wednesday 9 May 1666
john • Link
Indeed a most poignant entry.
I would guess that an insect bite was the cause of the painful cheek. Tooth infections do not subside (even with asparagus).
About Tuesday 8 May 1666
john • Link
Further to the above, Pepys probably saw this as refunding Downing's fee because services were not forthcoming to the King.
About Tuesday 8 May 1666
john • Link
What we today call "bribes" and "kickbacks" were not regarded as unethical in Pepys's day but the usual way of securing positions -- a sort of direct monetary lobbying.
About Thursday 3 May 1666
john • Link
"to think to dine at my table with me always, being desirous to have my house to myself without a stranger and a mechanique to be privy to all my concernments."
Methinks Terry's criticism is a bit harsh and Michael's comment is on the mark. Anyone's welcome is outstayed and neither of these two are close to the family.
About Monday 30 April 1666
john • Link
"but were contrary to expectation driven down again with a stinke"
Surely done on purpose by the friendly Pen. (I can relate in that one of our neighbours used to fertilize his fields with pig manure, which is very similar in odour to the human sort.)
About Thursday 19 April 1666
john • Link
This entry raises again, to me anyways, the question about how involved Elizabeth was in the family finances. She did not appear to be chatelaine, and at times, seemed clueless, yet is sometimes recorded as discussing financial matters with Samuel. Today, with the comment about Pepys pere and raising the dowry, she appears both informed and with spending authority.
About Friday 13 April 1666
john • Link
San Diego Sarah, the L&M large glossary states that "black" as an adjective meant of dark hair or complexion.
We never did find out what Bess and Mercer were paid to draw ledger lines nor why they were not engaged again.
About Monday 9 April 1666
john • Link
As a note to Louise of 2009, one finds alterations made nowadays, especially to rural properties, without involving pesky inspectors (and we have found a few that should have involved them). The Navy Office was made of rubble-filled stone walls, I recall, so enlarging a window would not have required moving the jack and king studs. Remove a few stones, square up the hole, put in a larger frame, and plaster it over. It is not entirely clear how they handled the lintel, though.
About Friday 6 April 1666
john • Link
"I could not go to the coach with her, but W. Hewer did and hath leave from me to go the whole day’s journey with her."
Was Will paid for this, I wonder, or simply regarded as part of his duties (as Pepys was the boss)?
About Monday 2 April 1666
john • Link
Pepys is clearly proud of his wife to be seen with him at Whitehall, possibly a first.
About Friday 9 March 1665/66
john • Link
As so common with such events. one so dearly wishes to hear the Bagwells' side. Yet Pepys's marriage was not arranged.
About Thursday 8 March 1665/66
john • Link
And we arrive at today, when the SAS is accepting women.
About Sunday 25 February 1665/66
john • Link
Wonderful summary of court, as Todd wrote. Pepys almost overwhelmed by information: "He tells me [...], and some others I cannot presently remember, are friends that I may rely on for him." But if he only trusts the ones he remembers, then things should be well.
About Thursday 15 February 1665/66
john • Link
"and by comes Mrs. Pierce, with my name in her bosom for her Valentine, which will cost me money." Here is the Pepys we have come to know and love/hate.
L&M note that the painting in the entry has not survived. The family rumour is that it was destroyed by a cook during the Victorian era (due to the hypocritical sensitivities of the time, no doubt).
About Monday 12 February 1665/66
john • Link
I miss the days of signature-sewn books. Almost all publishers nowadays glue them.
About Tuesday 30 January 1665/66
john • Link
As a late response to San Diego Sarah, Prussion heraldry often had "Gott mit uns" and this was on Wehrmacht belt buckles.
About Tuesday 30 January 1665/66
john • Link
According to David Chrystal, "Spell it out" -- delightful book, by the way -- we can blame Flemish typesetters for changing Þ (thorn) to ye.
About Saturday 20 January 1665/66
john • Link
Phil C., methinks the point is: "and to be kept from my fellows in the office longer than was fit". He made his boss look bad in public and so his ears were boxed. Being made to look bad in public by a servant was not desirable.
About Friday 5 January 1665/66
john • Link
Though rat fleas are commonly thought to be the vector, recent research suggests that inter-personal contact was the main plague vector. (Chapt. 8 "Plagues in London in the 17th century" in Scott and Duncan, "Biology of Plagues: Evidence from Historical Populations", CUP 2001.)