The Buckler was an internationally influential book, written by Baron François Paul de Lisola, 1613-1674. It formed the philosophical basis of European politics for a generation.
"So his behaviour not completely acceptable for his times?"
I suspect Pepys' behavior was fairly normal for his position in London. Maybe not in the country where opportunities were fewer. How completely acceptable that made it, who knows.
The number of sermons and theological tracts focusing on infidelity, even before Charles II came home, makes me think it was normal behavior. If people were obeying that particular commandment, the sermons would move on to another subject.
Few biographies lead me to think I'm reading about a happy arranged marriage. Many couples have no or just a couple of children. Wives often lived in the country and the men mostly in town, especially if they were members of Parliament.
The Stuarts were passionate people who lived with the constant threat of death from one of many contagious diseases. Being around death makes you want to live for today -- but protect your daughter's virginity because it's valuable; however, she married at 13 in the upper classes, so how hard was that?
The Stuarts certainly were not Victorians in attitude, much as we might want them to be. (And Victorians were known for their extra curricular activities, hence all the restrictions.)
Even the Puritans actively liked their women, and at least in the North American plantations, a large percentage of the girls were pregnant when they got married. (The stats are posted in our annotations somewhere).
Over the years Pepys had mentioned the current and former mistresses of most of his colleagues. He doesn't want to take them home to meet Elizabeth, probably because he doesn't want to give her ideas, and make his life miserable. (But then, we don't know what she got up to last summer in Brampton, do we?)
Pepys is probably discrete because he doesn't want to cause gossip or be blackmailed/compromised; it was a small world, and everyone spied on everyone. But if he's discrete, that indicates his behavior wasn't completely acceptable. If you've ever lived in a village, you've experienced what I'm referring to.
Actually, I'm surprised by how indiscrete he is many times in the Diary, and that recklessness means he has grown to like the danger of exposure. Reckless, especially with their maids. Which was common in those times as well.
If it was common, was it also completely acceptable? Not if you read the law briefs, but most of the time these affairs didn't end up in the law courts.
In short, I'd say their morals were about as acceptable as ours. But we have birth control, hotels, and can hide in large cities -- but most of all, we have forgiving divorce laws, and battered women's shelters. Today both men and women have choices.
Dr. Samuel Johnson (1709-1784) is frequently quoted in Parliament. According to Hansard, one of his most famous sayings, expressing his attitude towards futile endeavor, has never been quoted at Westminster: “It has been a common saying of physicians in England, that a cucumber should be well sliced, and dressed with pepper and vinegar, and then thrown out, as good for nothing.” -- James Boswell, Journal of the Tour of the Hebrides (1785), entry for 5 Oct. 1773.
This pithy quotation has Parliamentary pedigree.
As Dr. Johnson indicated, his condemnation of cucumbers was not original. It seems the vegetable was universally despised in the late 17th century.
Thomas White, bishop of Peterborough, when writing to his fellow Member of the House of Lords, Daniel Finch, 2nd earl of Nottingham, in 1689, dismissed the oath he was expected to take to signify his allegiance to the newly-arrived William III and Mary II in similar terms: “I regard it like a plate of cucumbers dressed with oil and vinegar and yet fit for nothing but to throw out of the window.” -- Memoirs of Thomas, earl of Ailesbury (Roxburghe Club, 2 vols., 1890), i. 234
Although the vinaigrette was slightly different, and defenestration was now the approved method of disposal, this is clearly the same saying. And White was true to his aphorism, refusing what he believed to be an empty oath and as a result being deprived of his see in 1690, as a Non-Juror.
The view of the pointlessness of cucumbers was not confined to the Lords.
On 4 December 1656, when the Scottish Union Bill was discussed in the House of Commons during the second of Oliver Cromwell’s Protectorate Parliaments, the debate, which centered on the rights and privileges of the burghs, became increasingly arcane. In despair, Col. Philip Jones, MP for Glamorgan, said: “… compared this to the dressing of a cucumber. First pare, and order, and dress it, and throw it out of the window.”-- J.T. Rutt, Diary of Thomas Burton, Esq. (4 vols., 1828), i. 18
It seems unlikely that Col. Jones coined this calumny of the cucumber either, but its origins cannot be traced back further.
The Ostenders are being a pain in the tush, mostly on the south coast, these days -- to both English and French vessels, and in stormy weather (even if Pepys isn't complaining about it). They might be doing things mostly pleasing to Louis XIV??? Just a thought, but we do read of French people being left naked and needing clothing from their rescuers, and French soldiers needing rides back to Dieppe, none of which can be pleasing to him.
And Charles II -- after issuing the above call for peace and restraint -- now felt the need to mobilize Adm. Allin and his squadron to go after Captain Lois de la Roche. If that doesn't indicate his response to an attack, what does? (By the sound of it, Allin has all the warships still seaworthy, so this is a big gamble.) He doesn't call out the fleet after the Ostenders.
Anyways, we're getting ahead of the story here, Stephane.
People can make up their own minds, as the evidence for all the above is scattered through the official records: 'Charles II: February 1668', in Calendar of State Papers Domestic: Charles II, 1667-8, ed. Mary Anne Everett Green (London, 1893), pp. 204-261. British History Online http://www.british-history.ac.uk/…
Pepys' responses are to follow (I hope, because I haven't read this part of the Diary before).
John Taylor, the Water Poet, left us this Lenten fare:
“The cut-throats butchers, wanting throats to cut, At Lent's approach their bloody shambles shut: For forty days their tyranny doth cease. And men and beasts take truce and live in peace; The cow, the sow, the ewe may safely feed. And low, grunt, bleat, and fructify and breed, Cocks, hens, and capons, turkey, goose, and widgeon. Hares, conies, pheasant, partridge, plover, pigeon, All these are from the break-neck poulterer's paws Secured by Lent, and guarded by the laws, The goring spits are hanged for fleshly sticking, And then cook's fingers are not worth the licking.”
John Taylor (1578 – 1653). The Works of John Taylor, the Water Poet (1617, 1870).
Elizabeth's Poor Laws were kinder than her brother's:
Under Edward VI’s vagrancy law (1 Edw. VI., c. 3, 1547), vagabonds were to be apprehended by the local authorities and offered up in slavery for two years to anyone who had offered them employment and been refused.
Children were to be forced into service as apprentices or servants until the age of 24, if male, and 20, if female.
Parents who sought to rescue their children from forced servitude under Edward VI’s vagrancy law (1 Edw. VI., c. 3, 1547) were to be sentenced to slavery for life.
John Dee recorded in his diary “March 20th, [1594,] I did before Barthilmew Hikman pay Letice her full yere's wagis ending the 7th day of Aprill next; her wagis being four nobles, an apron, a payr of hose and shoes.”
There was more than one problem with tickets. Boston is a port and market town in Lincolnshire, on the east coast of England, about 100 miles (160 km) north of London.
Feb. 5. 1668 BOSTON Anth. Butler, Mayor of Boston, to [the Navy Commissioners]. According to your orders, I summoned all persons that might be concerned, but find none in town that have tickets; I send up the certificates, the truth of which you need not doubt; I have strictly examined them with another justice of the peace. Meantime the persons who subscribed the certificates hope to receive their just reward, which will be no small encouragement to them for the future. [S.P. Dom., Car. II. 234, No. 68.] Encloses,
Declaration, by Alex. Thompson, mariner, that he was pressed 20 Dec. 1664, out of the John and Thomas of Boston, at Ousley Bay, carried on board the Mermaid, and continued in that ship until 13 Dec. 1666; that he had his leg shot off in an engagement on 3 June, and that he has never received his ticket, nor made an assignment of it, but craves payment to himself, having never received a penny pay during his service. —Jan. 30, 1667.
Declaration by Matthew Wilson of Boston, mariner, that he was pressed at Quinborough out of the William of Boston, into the Portland frigate 10 March 1665, continued in the service till Sept. 1666, and received no more than 4 months’ pay all that time; that he was wounded in the second engagement, and the ship came into Harwich, where he was sent ashore, and afterwards to Boston, where he has continued sickly from what he underwent. —Jan. 30, 1667.
Declaration by William Kippes of Boston, mariner, to similar purport; he was taken by a Dutch man-of-war and carried into Rotterdam, where he remained a prisoner 26 weeks. —31 Jan. 1667.
Certificate by Rich. Cowell, master, that Rich. Burdall of Boston, mariner, was pressed out of his ship, the John and Thomas, Jan. 1664, by Capt. Lawson, commander of the Coast frigate, and continued in the service until 26 Mar. last, when he died; that his father, Rob. Burdall, knows not of any pay that he received, but a victualer near Wapping new stairs has a ticket of what is due to him. —4 Feb. 1667.
Susanna Mould to [the Mayor and others of Boston]. Hearing that they have given knowledge by the crier to all persons concerned to look after any money due for work done in his Majesty’s service, informs them that her son Thomas, her only stay after the death of her husband, Capt. Edw. Mould, was pressed in July 1665, and was slain while serving under Rear-Admiral Harman. Asks how to obtain the money due for the service in which her son lost his dear life.
All these declarations are certified by Anth. Butler, Mayor of Boston, and Dan. Rhodes, and Nos. III. and v. by Dan. Robinson.
Asks how much money may be had out of the prize ships for a good use.
Is told the Commissioners of Accounts are falling hard upon Mr. Carkass; if he be not re-admitted, it were good to suspend doing anything yet in it. [S.P. Dom., Car. II. 234, No. 48.] http://www.british-history.ac.uk/…
"... and it was to be informed of the practice heretofore, for all foreign nations, at enmity one with another, to forbear any acts of hostility to one another, in the presence of any of the King of England’s ships, of which several instances were given: and it is referred to their further enquiry, in order to the giving instructions accordingly to our ships now, during the war between Spain and France."
Maybe this has something to do with today's conversation:
Feb. 23. 1668 Whitehall. Charles II to the Duke of York. We are informed of great violence in several ports committed by French skippers under Sieur De la Roche. To prevent the like in the future, and obtain satisfaction for the past, you are to order Sir Thos. Allin to sail to the said ports, taking his own squadron and the Diamond, search for De la Roche in Cowes road, Torbay, Plymouth, and Falmouth, &c., and if Allin be the stronger, to require him to deliver all English subjects and seamen on board any of his ships; to demand restitution of any prisoners who are subjects of allies, especially 4 named, taken by him in February last, from Capt. Barron, from under Cowes castle; also restitution of all vessels taken by him out of English ports. In case De la Roche refuses, Allin is not to let him stir out of the port where he finds him. If he meets him at sea, he is to say nothing to him, if De la Roche be the stronger. If he do not find him, he is to return to Torbay, and not to act on these instructions if De la Roche is gone eastward, or to the coast of France. [pages. S.P. Dom., Car. II. 235, No. 55.]
Why Louis XIV is provoking the English at this time is beyond me. Previously we heard he was upset England was aligned with the Dutch over Flanders, and England is trying to be nice to Spain and Portugal at the same time so not to be dragged into that quagmire. So why poke the sleeping dog, Louis? You know Charles II is with you.
'Charles II: February 1668', in Calendar of State Papers Domestic: Charles II, 1667-8, ed. Mary Anne Everett Green (London, 1893), pp. 204-261. British History Online http://www.british-history.ac.uk/…
"Ultimately this all seems favorable to the French; ..."
Agreed, but I don't think Captain Lois de la Roche would be terrorizing the south coast without the permission of Louis XIV, do you? After all, in the end he hands everything back to Allin. They all shake hands and agree nothing really happened, so they should go home now.
The whole episode is very odd. Perhaps Louis wanted Charles to know that everyone knew England was toothless and defenseless in 1668?
There must be other documents I haven't found yet which would clarify.
'Neighborhood beadles and constables had gone through the streets at the end of June telling householders to kill “all their dogs of what sort or kind soever before Thursday next at ye furthest."'
Yes, they did kill dogs during outbreaks of plague. In the 17th century the "experts" still looked to classical philosophers and doctors as the most knowledgeable and reliable sources of medical information.
The Roman author Titus Lucretius Carus, in his account of the sources and effects of their pestilences, wrote in his poem "De Rerum Natura" that dogs caught the pestilences as well as people: "... above all faithful dogs would lie stretched in all the streets and yield up breath with a struggle; for the power of disease would wrench life from their frame."
The Greek historian Thucydides also said dogs perished besides humans during the great plague at Athens. A popular translation of the Thucydides “by Thomas Nicolls Citezeine and Goldesmyth of London” was published in 1550: "And aboue all othere beastes, the dogges gaue mooste knowlayge of thys infectyonne for that, that they mooste accustomedde to haunte the people."
That Thucydides’ original was as cryptic on the reasons as Nicholls translation only made the relationship between dogs and the plague more mysterious and therefore suspect.
In the accounts of the 1603 plague outbreak in Winchester, there is a payment to a professional dog-killer: "Item, paid to Robert Wells the 19th of June, 1603, for killing of fore-score dogs, 6s. 8d."
Sadly, in Early Modern plague times, human corpses ended up lying in the streets and being devoured by stray dogs. Also, weak and sickly frightened people probably emboldened packs of dogs to defend what they saw as their territory. Fangs were probably bared in bad times with much greater frequency than in good times so, unpleasant as it is to think about it, killing the dogs did marginally help break the chain of infection, and made the streets generally safer.
Experts today agree that the dogs did not catch the Early Modern plague. As to what ailed the Athenians and Romans, who knows.
Sources: De Rerum Natura Libri Sex. (H. A. J. Munro tr.) (1891), III.182.
The hystory writtone by Thucidides the Athenyan of the warre, whiche was betwene the Peloponesians and the Athenyans, translated oute of Frenche into the En∣glysh language by Thomas Nicolls Citezeine and Goldesmyth of London.
Simpson, W. J. A Treatise on Plague (1905), 342. The plague order of 35 Henry VIII (1543) reads: “That all persons having any dogs in their houses other than hounds, spaniels or mastiffs, necessary for the custody or safe keeping of their houses, should forthwith convey them out of the city, or cause them to be killed and carried out of the city and buried at the common laystall …”
“Churchwardens Accompts of St. Margaret’s, Winchester.” Nichols, John: Illustrations of the Manners and Expences of Antient Times in England.
I went to college and lived in and near Torquay for 8 years, and never heard this story before:
Feb. 19. 1668 DEVONSHIRE Account attested by several Ostend mariners before Thos. Newman, deputy vice-admiral of Devonshire, 14 Feb. 1668, and before Sir Giles Sweit, surrogate of the Admiralty Court, 19 Feb., of the seizure of their vessel, the St. Mary of Ostend, at Torquay, by Capt. De la Roche and 2 French men-of-war.
On his approach, being unable to defend their ship, they bored holes into her, and escaped to shore, carrying their sails, ammunition, &c., and gave them in charge to Dan. Luscombe, of Torquay; but De la Roche sent men to seize the ammunition, &c., stopped up the holes, and carried away the vessel. He also carried off a boat belonging to an Ostend vessel, near Cowes Castle. [2½ pages. S.P. Dom., Car. II. 235, No. 7.]
'Charles II: February 1668', in Calendar of State Papers Domestic: Charles II, 1667-8, ed. Mary Anne Everett Green (London, 1893), pp. 204-261. British History Online http://www.british-history.ac.uk/…
Being a tax collector was an unpleasant job, and got worse after the second Anglo-Dutch War when people heartily disliked Charles II and his entourage, and the Court Party.
This report from Dorset shows how information regularly got to London:
Feb. 10. 1668 Lyme Regis. Anth. Thorold to Hickes. The Lily Rose and Jane, arrived from Morlaix with linen, say that the French King is raising more soldiers to prosecute the war in Flanders, intending to gain it all except Ostend, this summer: that they are troubled at the close alliance between England and Holland, and do not express so much kindness for England as formerly; and that the Ostenders still take upon them, and hinder their trading.
The collectors of the hearth money at Bridport were followed about the town by men, women, and children, who threw stones at them; there was little appearance of the magistrates to quell the tumult. One Mr. Knight was hit on the head twice, and has since died of his wound. The plot is said to have been arranged beforehand. [S.P. Dom., Car. II. 234, No. 135.]
'Charles II: February 1668', in Calendar of State Papers Domestic: Charles II, 1667-8, ed. Mary Anne Everett Green (London, 1893), pp. 204-261. British History Online http://www.british-history.ac.uk/…
The Admiral of the fleet/Master of the ship writes the Navy Board requesting food. The Navy Board passes the information to Sir Dennis Gauden, as the franchise holder. Dennis Gauden tells his agents in different ports how to fill the order.
I found these examples which make it easy to track:
Feb. 8. 1668 The Monmouth, Downs. Sir Thos. Allin to the Navy Commissioners. They are still detained by contrary winds, and have expended 22 days' provision; asks whether they should not have a month's provision sent, the wind being likely to stand. [S.P. Dom., Car. II. 234, No. 107.]
Feb. 10. 1668 London. Sir Denis Gauden to Sam. Pepys. I shall direct my agent at Dover to supply Sir Thos. Allin's fleet with one month's provisions, and doubt not but he will be able to do so, except as to butter, cheese, and fish, in lieu of which I have directed the delivery of beef, pork, and peas. [S.P. Dom., Car. II. 234, No. 128.]
All done in two days. Well, the Downs are off the east Kent coast, so it's not that far from London, but this still speaks to a level of efficiency.
'Charles II: February 1668', in Calendar of State Papers Domestic: Charles II, 1667-8, ed. Mary Anne Everett Green (London, 1893), pp. 204-261. British History Online http://www.british-history.ac.uk/…
The following leads me to think that Charles II has concluded that neutrality will serve England best this summer. To that end this was finalized today:
Feb. 8. 1668 Whitehall. Proclamation of rules to be observed relative to English ports, &c. during this time of hostility between neighboring nations; viz., * That no violence or surprise between men-of-war or merchantmen be attempted within any tract at sea that can be reasonably construed to be an English port, on pain of proceedings in the Admiralty Court. * That men-of-war be prohibited from hovering so near the coast as to cause apprehension to merchantmen. * That any vessel in our ports likely to pursue one of the enemy in the same port shall not be allowed to sail within two tides of the adverse vessel. * That English ships be not allowed to go out on other than trading or fishing voyages. * That no prizes or prize goods be sold in our harbors, no traffic in pirates' goods allowed, and that no English officer or mariner enter the service of any foreign Prince or State; * if they be so entered, they are to leave the service, on pain of seizure on their return. [Printed. S.P. Dom., Proclamations, Vol. 3, p. 256.]
It can't be more clear than that: No local prize goods distributions; let the enemy go; don't harass merchantmen; only fishing and trading for now, boys.
'Charles II: February 1668', in Calendar of State Papers Domestic: Charles II, 1667-8, ed. Mary Anne Everett Green (London, 1893), pp. 204-261. British History Online http://www.british-history.ac.uk/…
Cornhill seems to have been laid out in medieval times to service the Weigh House with an alley and yard behind.
The Weigh House on Weigh House Yard was the building for the weighing of goods imported into London from overseas. The “King’s Beam” was used here as it was the official standard for weights at the time.
The King’s Beam later moved to Eastcheap.
Although still called Weigh House Yard in John Strype’s survey of 1720, it shows up as Sun Court in John Rocque’s map of 1762 – so evidently the name changed around this time.
The name change to Sun Alley is suggestive of a local pub, as many courts and alleys were named after local inns.
Sun Alley was almost destroyed on 7 November 1765 when a large fire destroyed much of the area and reached right to the very edge of the court, having burnt down all the buildings to the eastern side of Cornhill.
Can anyone explain to me how Clarendon’s sons, Henry, Viscount Cornbury, MP and Laurence Hyde MP –- respectively Lord Chamberlain to Queen Catherine, and Master of Robes to Charles II -- were dismissed the court, but, thanks to the Duke of York, did not lose their posts.
Does it mean that they were socially not welcome at Court events, but had to continue to go to work there?
When you took a carriage home at night, the way was lit by a linkboy. And in the poverty caused by the fire and the plague and the second Anglo-Dutch War, there were linkmen as well as linkboys:
"... it was pretty how the coachman by mistake drives us into the ruines from London-wall into Coleman Street, and would persuade me that I lived there. And the truth is, I did think that he and the linkman had contrived some roguery; but it proved only a mistake of the coachman; ..."
Coleman Street was part of "the ruines" after the devastation of the Great Fire.
Pepys has a hair-raising experienced there on February 6, 1668: "... and home round the town, not through the ruines; and it was pretty how the coachman by mistake drives us into the ruines from London-wall into Coleman Street, and would persuade me that I lived there. And the truth is, I did think that he and the linkman had contrived some roguery; but it proved only a mistake of the coachman; but it was a cunning place to have done us a mischief in, as any I know, to drive us out of the road into the ruines, and there stop, while nobody could be called to help us."
Comments
Second Reading
About Monday 10 February 1667/68
San Diego Sarah • Link
The Buckler was an internationally influential book, written by Baron François Paul de Lisola, 1613-1674. It formed the philosophical basis of European politics for a generation.
I found this essay helpful:
https://www.academia.edu/41661703…
About Friday 20 November 1668
San Diego Sarah • Link
"So his behaviour not completely acceptable for his times?"
I suspect Pepys' behavior was fairly normal for his position in London. Maybe not in the country where opportunities were fewer. How completely acceptable that made it, who knows.
The number of sermons and theological tracts focusing on infidelity, even before Charles II came home, makes me think it was normal behavior. If people were obeying that particular commandment, the sermons would move on to another subject.
Few biographies lead me to think I'm reading about a happy arranged marriage. Many couples have no or just a couple of children. Wives often lived in the country and the men mostly in town, especially if they were members of Parliament.
The Stuarts were passionate people who lived with the constant threat of death from one of many contagious diseases. Being around death makes you want to live for today -- but protect your daughter's virginity because it's valuable; however, she married at 13 in the upper classes, so how hard was that?
The Stuarts certainly were not Victorians in attitude, much as we might want them to be. (And Victorians were known for their extra curricular activities, hence all the restrictions.)
Even the Puritans actively liked their women, and at least in the North American plantations, a large percentage of the girls were pregnant when they got married. (The stats are posted in our annotations somewhere).
Over the years Pepys had mentioned the current and former mistresses of most of his colleagues. He doesn't want to take them home to meet Elizabeth, probably because he doesn't want to give her ideas, and make his life miserable. (But then, we don't know what she got up to last summer in Brampton, do we?)
Pepys is probably discrete because he doesn't want to cause gossip or be blackmailed/compromised; it was a small world, and everyone spied on everyone. But if he's discrete, that indicates his behavior wasn't completely acceptable. If you've ever lived in a village, you've experienced what I'm referring to.
Actually, I'm surprised by how indiscrete he is many times in the Diary, and that recklessness means he has grown to like the danger of exposure. Reckless, especially with their maids. Which was common in those times as well.
If it was common, was it also completely acceptable? Not if you read the law briefs, but most of the time these affairs didn't end up in the law courts.
In short, I'd say their morals were about as acceptable as ours. But we have birth control, hotels, and can hide in large cities -- but most of all, we have forgiving divorce laws, and battered women's shelters. Today both men and women have choices.
About About fruit and vegetables
San Diego Sarah • Link
I keep forgetting the Encyclopedia has an index ... for specific fruits and veggies, see https://www.pepysdiary.com/encycl…
About Cucumbers
San Diego Sarah • Link
Dr. Samuel Johnson (1709-1784) is frequently quoted in Parliament. According to Hansard, one of his most famous sayings, expressing his attitude towards futile endeavor, has never been quoted at Westminster:
“It has been a common saying of physicians in England, that a cucumber should be well sliced, and dressed with pepper and vinegar, and then thrown out, as good for nothing.” -- James Boswell, Journal of the Tour of the Hebrides (1785), entry for 5 Oct. 1773.
This pithy quotation has Parliamentary pedigree.
As Dr. Johnson indicated, his condemnation of cucumbers was not original. It seems the vegetable was universally despised in the late 17th century.
Thomas White, bishop of Peterborough, when writing to his fellow Member of the House of Lords, Daniel Finch, 2nd earl of Nottingham, in 1689, dismissed the oath he was expected to take to signify his allegiance to the newly-arrived William III and Mary II in similar terms:
“I regard it like a plate of cucumbers dressed with oil and vinegar and yet fit for nothing but to throw out of the window.” -- Memoirs of Thomas, earl of Ailesbury (Roxburghe Club, 2 vols., 1890), i. 234
Although the vinaigrette was slightly different, and defenestration was now the approved method of disposal, this is clearly the same saying. And White was true to his aphorism, refusing what he believed to be an empty oath and as a result being deprived of his see in 1690, as a Non-Juror.
The view of the pointlessness of cucumbers was not confined to the Lords.
On 4 December 1656, when the Scottish Union Bill was discussed in the House of Commons during the second of Oliver Cromwell’s Protectorate Parliaments, the debate, which centered on the rights and privileges of the burghs, became increasingly arcane. In despair, Col. Philip Jones, MP for Glamorgan, said:
“… compared this to the dressing of a cucumber. First pare, and order, and dress it, and throw it out of the window.”-- J.T. Rutt, Diary of Thomas Burton, Esq. (4 vols., 1828), i. 18
It seems unlikely that Col. Jones coined this calumny of the cucumber either, but its origins cannot be traced back further.
Abbreviated from:
https://thehistoryofparliament.wo…
About Saturday 8 February 1667/68
San Diego Sarah • Link
The Ostenders are being a pain in the tush, mostly on the south coast, these days -- to both English and French vessels, and in stormy weather (even if Pepys isn't complaining about it). They might be doing things mostly pleasing to Louis XIV??? Just a thought, but we do read of French people being left naked and needing clothing from their rescuers, and French soldiers needing rides back to Dieppe, none of which can be pleasing to him.
And Charles II -- after issuing the above call for peace and restraint -- now felt the need to mobilize Adm. Allin and his squadron to go after Captain Lois de la Roche. If that doesn't indicate his response to an attack, what does? (By the sound of it, Allin has all the warships still seaworthy, so this is a big gamble.)
He doesn't call out the fleet after the Ostenders.
Anyways, we're getting ahead of the story here, Stephane.
People can make up their own minds, as the evidence for all the above is scattered through the official records:
'Charles II: February 1668', in Calendar of State Papers Domestic: Charles II, 1667-8, ed. Mary Anne Everett Green (London, 1893), pp. 204-261. British History Online
http://www.british-history.ac.uk/…
Pepys' responses are to follow (I hope, because I haven't read this part of the Diary before).
About Lent
San Diego Sarah • Link
John Taylor, the Water Poet, left us this Lenten fare:
“The cut-throats butchers, wanting throats to cut,
At Lent's approach their bloody shambles shut:
For forty days their tyranny doth cease.
And men and beasts take truce and live in peace;
The cow, the sow, the ewe may safely feed.
And low, grunt, bleat, and fructify and breed,
Cocks, hens, and capons, turkey, goose, and widgeon.
Hares, conies, pheasant, partridge, plover, pigeon,
All these are from the break-neck poulterer's paws
Secured by Lent, and guarded by the laws,
The goring spits are hanged for fleshly sticking,
And then cook's fingers are not worth the licking.”
John Taylor (1578 – 1653).
The Works of John Taylor, the Water Poet (1617, 1870).
About Friday 24 March 1664/65
San Diego Sarah • Link
Elizabeth's Poor Laws were kinder than her brother's:
Under Edward VI’s vagrancy law (1 Edw. VI., c. 3, 1547), vagabonds were to be apprehended by the local authorities and offered up in slavery for two years to anyone who had offered them employment and been refused.
Children were to be forced into service as apprentices or servants until the age of 24, if male, and 20, if female.
Parents who sought to rescue their children from forced servitude under Edward VI’s vagrancy law (1 Edw. VI., c. 3, 1547) were to be sentenced to slavery for life.
John Dee recorded in his diary “March 20th, [1594,] I did before Barthilmew Hikman pay Letice her full yere's wagis ending the 7th day of Aprill next; her wagis being four nobles, an apron, a payr of hose and shoes.”
About Tuesday 11 February 1667/68
San Diego Sarah • Link
There was more than one problem with tickets. Boston is a port and market town in Lincolnshire, on the east coast of England, about 100 miles (160 km) north of London.
Feb. 5. 1668
BOSTON
Anth. Butler, Mayor of Boston, to [the Navy Commissioners].
According to your orders, I summoned all persons that might be concerned, but find none in town that have tickets;
I send up the certificates, the truth of which you need not doubt;
I have strictly examined them with another justice of the peace.
Meantime the persons who subscribed the certificates hope to receive their just reward, which will be no small encouragement to them for the future.
[S.P. Dom., Car. II. 234, No. 68.] Encloses,
Declaration, by Alex. Thompson, mariner,
that he was pressed 20 Dec. 1664, out of the John and Thomas of Boston, at Ousley Bay,
carried on board the Mermaid, and continued in that ship until 13 Dec. 1666;
that he had his leg shot off in an engagement on 3 June,
and that he has never received his ticket, nor made an assignment of it,
but craves payment to himself, having never received a penny pay during his service.
—Jan. 30, 1667.
Declaration by Matthew Wilson of Boston, mariner,
that he was pressed at Quinborough out of the William of Boston,
into the Portland frigate 10 March 1665,
continued in the service till Sept. 1666,
and received no more than 4 months’ pay all that time;
that he was wounded in the second engagement, and the ship came into Harwich, where he was sent ashore,
and afterwards to Boston, where he has continued sickly from what he underwent.
—Jan. 30, 1667.
Declaration by William Kippes of Boston, mariner,
to similar purport;
he was taken by a Dutch man-of-war and carried into Rotterdam,
where he remained a prisoner 26 weeks.
—31 Jan. 1667.
Certificate by Rich. Cowell, master,
that Rich. Burdall of Boston, mariner,
was pressed out of his ship, the John and Thomas, Jan. 1664, by Capt. Lawson, commander of the Coast frigate,
and continued in the service until 26 Mar. last, when he died;
that his father, Rob. Burdall, knows not of any pay that he received,
but a victualer near Wapping new stairs has a ticket of what is due to him.
—4 Feb. 1667.
Susanna Mould to [the Mayor and others of Boston].
Hearing that they have given knowledge by the crier to all persons concerned to look after any money due for work done in his Majesty’s service,
informs them that her son Thomas, her only stay after the death of her husband, Capt. Edw. Mould, was pressed in July 1665,
and was slain while serving under Rear-Admiral Harman.
Asks how to obtain the money due for the service in which her son lost his dear life.
All these declarations are certified by Anth. Butler, Mayor of Boston, and Dan. Rhodes, and Nos. III. and v. by Dan. Robinson.
http://www.british-history.ac.uk/…
About Monday 3 February 1667/68
San Diego Sarah • Link
News Pepys will be glad to see:
Feb. 4. 1668
Sir Wm. Coventry to Sam. Pepys.
Asks how much money may be had out of the prize ships for a good use.
Is told the Commissioners of Accounts are falling hard upon Mr. Carkass;
if he be not re-admitted, it were good to suspend doing anything yet in it.
[S.P. Dom., Car. II. 234, No. 48.]
http://www.british-history.ac.uk/…
Mr. Carkasse was employed at the Ticket Office.
About Sunday 23 February 1667/68
San Diego Sarah • Link
"... and it was to be informed of the practice heretofore, for all foreign nations, at enmity one with another, to forbear any acts of hostility to one another, in the presence of any of the King of England’s ships, of which several instances were given: and it is referred to their further enquiry, in order to the giving instructions accordingly to our ships now, during the war between Spain and France."
Maybe this has something to do with today's conversation:
Feb. 23. 1668
Whitehall.
Charles II to the Duke of York.
We are informed of great violence in several ports committed by French skippers under Sieur De la Roche.
To prevent the like in the future, and obtain satisfaction for the past, you are to order Sir Thos. Allin to sail to the said ports, taking his own squadron and the Diamond, search for De la Roche in Cowes road, Torbay, Plymouth, and Falmouth, &c.,
and if Allin be the stronger, to require him to deliver all English subjects and seamen on board any of his ships;
to demand restitution of any prisoners who are subjects of allies, especially 4 named, taken by him in February last, from Capt. Barron, from under Cowes castle;
also restitution of all vessels taken by him out of English ports.
In case De la Roche refuses, Allin is not to let him stir out of the port where he finds him.
If he meets him at sea, he is to say nothing to him, if De la Roche be the stronger.
If he do not find him, he is to return to Torbay, and not to act on these instructions if De la Roche is gone eastward, or to the coast of France.
[pages. S.P. Dom., Car. II. 235, No. 55.]
Why Louis XIV is provoking the English at this time is beyond me. Previously we heard he was upset England was aligned with the Dutch over Flanders, and England is trying to be nice to Spain and Portugal at the same time so not to be dragged into that quagmire. So why poke the sleeping dog, Louis? You know Charles II is with you.
'Charles II: February 1668', in Calendar of State Papers Domestic: Charles II, 1667-8, ed. Mary Anne Everett Green (London, 1893), pp. 204-261.
British History Online
http://www.british-history.ac.uk/…
About Saturday 8 February 1667/68
San Diego Sarah • Link
"Ultimately this all seems favorable to the French; ..."
Agreed, but I don't think Captain Lois de la Roche would be terrorizing the south coast without the permission of Louis XIV, do you? After all, in the end he hands everything back to Allin. They all shake hands and agree nothing really happened, so they should go home now.
The whole episode is very odd. Perhaps Louis wanted Charles to know that everyone knew England was toothless and defenseless in 1668?
There must be other documents I haven't found yet which would clarify.
About Saturday 21 October 1665
San Diego Sarah • Link
'Neighborhood beadles and constables had gone through the streets at the end of June telling householders to kill “all their dogs of what sort or kind soever before Thursday next at ye furthest."'
Yes, they did kill dogs during outbreaks of plague. In the 17th century the "experts" still looked to classical philosophers and doctors as the most knowledgeable and reliable sources of medical information.
The Roman author Titus Lucretius Carus, in his account of the sources and effects of their pestilences, wrote in his poem "De Rerum Natura" that dogs caught the pestilences as well as people:
"... above all faithful dogs would lie stretched in all the streets and yield up breath with a struggle; for the power of disease would wrench life from their frame."
The Greek historian Thucydides also said dogs perished besides humans during the great plague at Athens. A popular translation of the Thucydides “by Thomas Nicolls Citezeine and Goldesmyth of London” was published in 1550:
"And aboue all othere beastes, the dogges gaue mooste knowlayge of thys infectyonne for that, that they mooste accustomedde to haunte the people."
That Thucydides’ original was as cryptic on the reasons as Nicholls translation only made the relationship between dogs and the plague more mysterious and therefore suspect.
In the accounts of the 1603 plague outbreak in Winchester, there is a payment to a professional dog-killer:
"Item, paid to Robert Wells the 19th of June, 1603, for killing of fore-score dogs, 6s. 8d."
Sadly, in Early Modern plague times, human corpses ended up lying in the streets and being devoured by stray dogs. Also, weak and sickly frightened people probably emboldened packs of dogs to defend what they saw as their territory. Fangs were probably bared in bad times with much greater frequency than in good times so, unpleasant as it is to think about it, killing the dogs did marginally help break the chain of infection, and made the streets generally safer.
Experts today agree that the dogs did not catch the Early Modern plague. As to what ailed the Athenians and Romans, who knows.
Sources:
De Rerum Natura Libri Sex. (H. A. J. Munro tr.) (1891), III.182.
The hystory writtone by Thucidides the Athenyan of the warre, whiche was betwene the Peloponesians and the Athenyans, translated oute of Frenche into the En∣glysh language by Thomas Nicolls Citezeine and Goldesmyth of London.
Simpson, W. J. A Treatise on Plague (1905), 342. The plague order of 35 Henry VIII (1543) reads: “That all persons having any dogs in their houses other than hounds, spaniels or mastiffs, necessary for the custody or safe keeping of their houses, should forthwith convey them out of the city, or cause them to be killed and carried out of the city and buried at the common laystall …”
“Churchwardens Accompts of St. Margaret’s, Winchester.” Nichols, John: Illustrations of the Manners and Expences of Antient Times in England.
About Saturday 29 February 1667/68
San Diego Sarah • Link
I went to college and lived in and near Torquay for 8 years, and never heard this story before:
Feb. 19. 1668
DEVONSHIRE
Account attested by several Ostend mariners before Thos. Newman, deputy vice-admiral of Devonshire, 14 Feb. 1668,
and before Sir Giles Sweit, surrogate of the Admiralty Court, 19 Feb.,
of the seizure of their vessel, the St. Mary of Ostend,
at Torquay, by Capt. De la Roche and 2 French men-of-war.
On his approach, being unable to defend their ship, they bored holes into her, and escaped to shore, carrying their sails, ammunition, &c., and gave them in charge to Dan. Luscombe, of Torquay;
but De la Roche sent men to seize the ammunition, &c., stopped up the holes, and carried away the vessel.
He also carried off a boat belonging to an Ostend vessel, near Cowes Castle.
[2½ pages. S.P. Dom., Car. II. 235, No. 7.]
'Charles II: February 1668', in Calendar of State Papers Domestic: Charles II, 1667-8, ed. Mary Anne Everett Green (London, 1893), pp. 204-261.
British History Online
http://www.british-history.ac.uk/…
About Hearth Tax (1662)
San Diego Sarah • Link
Being a tax collector was an unpleasant job, and got worse after the second Anglo-Dutch War when people heartily disliked Charles II and his entourage, and the Court Party.
This report from Dorset shows how information regularly got to London:
Feb. 10. 1668
Lyme Regis.
Anth. Thorold to Hickes.
The Lily Rose and Jane, arrived from Morlaix with linen,
say that the French King is raising more soldiers to prosecute the war in Flanders, intending to gain it all except Ostend, this summer:
that they are troubled at the close alliance between England and Holland, and do not express so much kindness for England as formerly;
and that the Ostenders still take upon them, and hinder their trading.
The collectors of the hearth money at Bridport were followed about the town by men, women, and children, who threw stones at them;
there was little appearance of the magistrates to quell the tumult.
One Mr. Knight was hit on the head twice, and has since died of his wound.
The plot is said to have been arranged beforehand.
[S.P. Dom., Car. II. 234, No. 135.]
'Charles II: February 1668', in Calendar of State Papers Domestic: Charles II, 1667-8, ed. Mary Anne Everett Green (London, 1893), pp. 204-261. British History Online http://www.british-history.ac.uk/…
About Victualling
San Diego Sarah • Link
The victualling chain of command:
The Admiral of the fleet/Master of the ship writes the Navy Board requesting food.
The Navy Board passes the information to Sir Dennis Gauden, as the franchise holder.
Dennis Gauden tells his agents in different ports how to fill the order.
I found these examples which make it easy to track:
Feb. 8. 1668
The Monmouth,
Downs.
Sir Thos. Allin to the Navy Commissioners.
They are still detained by contrary winds,
and have expended 22 days' provision;
asks whether they should not have a month's provision sent, the wind being likely to stand.
[S.P. Dom., Car. II. 234, No. 107.]
Feb. 10. 1668
London.
Sir Denis Gauden to Sam. Pepys.
I shall direct my agent at Dover to supply Sir Thos. Allin's fleet with one month's provisions, and doubt not but he will be able to do so,
except as to butter, cheese, and fish, in lieu of which I have directed the delivery of beef, pork, and peas.
[S.P. Dom., Car. II. 234, No. 128.]
All done in two days. Well, the Downs are off the east Kent coast, so it's not that far from London, but this still speaks to a level of efficiency.
'Charles II: February 1668', in Calendar of State Papers Domestic: Charles II, 1667-8, ed. Mary Anne Everett Green (London, 1893), pp. 204-261.
British History Online http://www.british-history.ac.uk/…
About Saturday 8 February 1667/68
San Diego Sarah • Link
The following leads me to think that Charles II has concluded that neutrality will serve England best this summer.
To that end this was finalized today:
Feb. 8. 1668
Whitehall.
Proclamation of rules to be observed relative to English ports, &c. during this time of hostility between neighboring nations; viz.,
* That no violence or surprise between men-of-war or merchantmen be attempted within any tract at sea that can be reasonably construed to be an English port, on pain of proceedings in the Admiralty Court.
* That men-of-war be prohibited from hovering so near the coast as to cause apprehension to merchantmen.
* That any vessel in our ports likely to pursue one of the enemy in the same port shall not be allowed to sail within two tides of the adverse vessel.
* That English ships be not allowed to go out on other than trading or fishing voyages.
* That no prizes or prize goods be sold in our harbors, no traffic in pirates' goods allowed, and that no English officer or mariner enter the service of any foreign Prince or State;
* if they be so entered, they are to leave the service, on pain of seizure on their return.
[Printed. S.P. Dom., Proclamations, Vol. 3, p. 256.]
It can't be more clear than that: No local prize goods distributions; let the enemy go; don't harass merchantmen; only fishing and trading for now, boys.
'Charles II: February 1668', in Calendar of State Papers Domestic: Charles II, 1667-8, ed. Mary Anne Everett Green (London, 1893), pp. 204-261.
British History Online http://www.british-history.ac.uk/…
About Cornhill
San Diego Sarah • Link
Cornhill seems to have been laid out in medieval times to service the Weigh House with an alley and yard behind.
The Weigh House on Weigh House Yard was the building for the weighing of goods imported into London from overseas. The “King’s Beam” was used here as it was the official standard for weights at the time.
The King’s Beam later moved to Eastcheap.
Although still called Weigh House Yard in John Strype’s survey of 1720, it shows up as Sun Court in John Rocque’s map of 1762 – so evidently the name changed around this time.
The name change to Sun Alley is suggestive of a local pub, as many courts and alleys were named after local inns.
Sun Alley was almost destroyed on 7 November 1765 when a large fire destroyed much of the area and reached right to the very edge of the court, having burnt down all the buildings to the eastern side of Cornhill.
https://www.ianvisits.co.uk/blog/…
About Thursday 6 February 1667/68
San Diego Sarah • Link
Can anyone explain to me how Clarendon’s sons, Henry, Viscount Cornbury, MP and Laurence Hyde MP –- respectively Lord Chamberlain to Queen Catherine, and Master of Robes to Charles II -- were dismissed the court, but, thanks to the Duke of York, did not lose their posts.
Does it mean that they were socially not welcome at Court events, but had to continue to go to work there?
About Link boy
San Diego Sarah • Link
When you took a carriage home at night, the way was lit by a linkboy. And in the poverty caused by the fire and the plague and the second Anglo-Dutch War, there were linkmen as well as linkboys:
"... it was pretty how the coachman by mistake drives us into the ruines from London-wall into Coleman Street, and would persuade me that I lived there. And the truth is, I did think that he and the linkman had contrived some roguery; but it proved only a mistake of the coachman; ..."
https://www.pepysdiary.com/diary/…
About Coleman Street
San Diego Sarah • Link
Coleman Street was part of "the ruines" after the devastation of the Great Fire.
Pepys has a hair-raising experienced there on February 6, 1668:
"... and home round the town, not through the ruines; and it was pretty how the coachman by mistake drives us into the ruines from London-wall into Coleman Street, and would persuade me that I lived there. And the truth is, I did think that he and the linkman had contrived some roguery; but it proved only a mistake of the coachman; but it was a cunning place to have done us a mischief in, as any I know, to drive us out of the road into the ruines, and there stop, while nobody could be called to help us."
https://www.pepysdiary.com/diary/…