" ... my wife and I and her woman by coach to Westminster, ..." and " ... and led my wife and her to Captain Ferrers, ..." We all assume Ms. Ashwell accompanied the Pepys, but Sam doesn't say that. Both these comments seem dismissive, so maybe Sam was annoyed he had agreed to Ashwell's wish for him to go to the church event and look at the young women. He doesn't say how long he had to stand around waiting for the coach to come back. Probably more than an hour. The weather in Essex was "A healthful, dry season, somewhat cold with eastern winds." March easterly winds blowing down the Thames can be very chilly, and Sam always worries about his "delicate condition". He is already worried by Holmes' behavior, and this was a further irritation.
"Sir W. Batten and I to my Lord Mayor’s, where we found my Lord with Colonel Strangways and Sir Richard Floyd, ..." and "Sir R. Ford breaking to my Lord our business of our patent to be justices of the Peace in the City, ..." I had to read this entry twice, as I'm so used to "my Lord" being the Earl of Sandwich that I missed Sam's irony the first time; he's referring to the bufflehead Lord Mayor. I wonder who set up this dinner party.
Considering how often Sam chooses to attend other churches, I think he's being a bit snooty about there not being enough space in the Navy Pew. It's another opportunity for him to instigate a bureaucratic office sign-up list. I also wonder if Wayneman and Jane and Will and Sarah also had to attend this church? I'm sure they were banished to stand at the back.
I wonder who Mr. Wood was ... none of the Woods in the index seem appropriate, but he couldn't have been a lawyer because he was able to rescind Butler's orders. Wood must have been in the Navy somehow. If he had been "against" Pepys and the gang in the Field affair, he wouldn't have told them about the appointment while it was still possible to reverse it.
The narrative here says "1. Jane, wife of Lord Gerard (see ante, January 1st, 1662-6)." So this 6 is a typo ... should be 3.
The link is correct, and takes you to: Thursday 1 January 1662/63 ... Then to my wife again, and found Mrs. Sarah with us in the chamber we lay in. Among other discourse, Mrs. Sarah tells us how the King sups at least four or [five] times every week with my Lady Castlemaine; and most often stays till the morning with her, and goes home through the garden all alone privately, and that so as the very centrys take notice of it and speak of it.
She tells me, that about a month ago she [Lady Castlemaine] quickened at my Lord Gerard’s at dinner, and cried out that she was undone; and all the lords and men were fain to quit the room, and women called to help her. ...
So back again to Woolwich, and going aboard the Hulke to see the manner of the iron bridles ... The Hulke? Sounds as if it was a ship ... which makes me think of the floating prisons which I recall were also called Hulks. And that makes sense, no one would moor active warships to a chain across the Thames ... hulks would be better for defending the area and expendable if set upon by fire ships. Perhaps those friendly cheesy Dutchmen were taking a gander at the new defenses? Or do I not read this correctly?
Sandwich loan ... remember, we have heard twice now of Sam finding Sandwich gambling when he goes to visit ... and on one occasion with a servant. Can't find the dates now, but it wasn't long ago. My lord has grown weak living in this Court.
✹ in Aqua Scripto on 21 Feb 2006 • Link • Flag ”The Charles” 'Tis a reference to his fast boat [jatcht] that he and Jimmy [no 2] run around in sometimes, 'til they tire of playing games and go back chaseing hinds. Then the Navy use it for many jobs running errands. The Dutch had these fast boats to supply their Cod* fearing Busses or was it red herring fearing buss trade. To day it appears tired of running up and down the Tems winning his furlongs on sea.
Meetings: Who took the Minutes? Did everyone keep their own log of the discussion and their responsibilities? Pepys must have taken a trunk of documents to some of the Whitehall meetings with James, Duke of York. Or did he have a "cheat sheet" summary, and everyone took his word for details and money? The Queen still receives a daily red Dispatch Box of documents to read. I suppose boxes came before briefcases. How did they manage???? How we fought WWII with manual typewriters, carbon paper and the Gestetner still boggles my mind.
Charles II's conversion to Catholicism: According to http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/0… "In 1651 Father Huddleston was residing at Moseley Old Hall, Staffordshire, as chaplain to the Whitgreave family. After the defeat at Worcester on 3 September, 1651, Charles II was conducted by Colonel Gyfford to Whiteladies, where he was sheltered by the Penderell family, and it was while seeking for some safer hiding place for the King that John Penderell happened to meet Father John Huddleston. Accordingly Charles was disguised as a peasant and removed to Moseley Old Hall during the night of Sunday, 7 September. To guard against surprise, Father John Huddleston was constantly in attendance on Charles II; his three pupils were stationed as sentinels at upper windows and Thomas Whitgreave patrolled the garden. On Tuesday, 9 September, Cromwell's soldiers came to search the house. Charles II and Father John Huddleston were hurriedly shut away in the priest's hiding place, and the troops, after first seizing Thomas Whitgreave as a fugitive cavalier from Worcester, were eventually convinced that he had not left the house for some weeks and were persuaded to depart without searching the mansion. That night Charles II left for Bentley Hall, after promising to befriend Father John Huddleston when restored to his throne. At the Restoration in 1660, Father John Huddleston was invited to live at Somerset House, London, under the protection of the Queen Dowager, Henrietta Maria. ... Shortly after the Queen Dowager's death in 1669 Father John Huddleston was appointed Chaplain to Queen Catherine, with a salary of 100 pounds a year besides a pension of like amount. ... When Charles II lay dying "upon Thursday, 5 February, 1685, between 7 and 8 o'clock in the evening" James, Duke of York brought Father John Huddleston to his bedside, saying, "Sire, this good man once saved your life. He now comes to save your soul." Charles received him gladly, declaring that he wished to die in the faith and communion of the Holy Roman Catholic Church. Huddleston then heard the King's confession, reconciled him to the Church and absolved him, afterwards administering Extreme Unction and the Viaticum. On the accession of James II, Father John Huddleston continued to reside with the Queen Dowager at Somerset House.
According to http://www.english-heritage.org.u…, after the Battle of Worcester Charles II of Scotland hid at remote Boscobel House, also home of the Catholic Giffard family. And many of the places Charles sheltered during his exile were Catholic, and he was mostly treated kindly by them.
It's fair to think Charles was quite fond of Catholics, more so than most of his subjects.
"... he carried me beyond the Old Exchange, and there set down his fare, ..." The Old Exchange? The link is to the Royal Exchange, but that's not what Pepys says. Any other ideas anyone?
February 2, 1663: "This day at my Lord’s I sent for Mr. Ashwell, and his wife came to me, and by discourse I perceive their daughter is very fit for my turn if my family may be as much for hers, but I doubt it will be to her loss to come to me for so small wages, but that will be considered of." (Elizabeth is in need of a companion, and Jane left today -- it is unclear which position the daughter is being considered for.) http://www.pepysdiary.com/encyclo…
Candlemas is a Christian holiday celebrated annually on February 2. It celebrates three occasions according to Christian belief: 1. the presentation of the child Jesus; 2. Jesus’ first entry into the temple; and 3. the Virgin Mary’s purification (mainly in Catholic churches). So why was this one of three annual Collar Days? The linked annotation seems to refer to modern tradition, so more clarification would be appreciated if you know it. Were there other/more/fewer Collar Days back then? What dates were they, and what is the significance?
The Eikon Basilike and its portrait of King Charles' execution as a martyrdom were so successful that, at the Restoration, a special commemoration of the late King on 30 January was added to the Book of Common Prayer, directing that the day be observed as an occasion for fasting and repentance. On 19 May 1660, the Convocation of Canterbury and York cannoned King Charles at the urging of Charles II, and added his name to the prayer book. Charles I is the only saint formally canonized by the Church of England.
I'm surprised no-one picked up on Robert Gertz: "I dunno, Charlie. Every year for your people to be reminded that Cromwell defeated and executed God's Anointed ... "
The missing ending of this thought is that many expected a millennial catastrophe as punishment for the execution, which seems not to have struck. (If you lived in London, 1665 and 1666 could be interpreted as that, quite reasonably. But this is 1663, and the sky had not fallen when Charles I died 13 years before.)
Charles II and James, Duke of York spend much time quelling insurrections and conspiracies, so that conversation was being had in some homes. Of course, Cromwell had the same problem.
To me the message is that God didn't care either way, which is something Charles II wouldn't like.
" ... Lord Sandwich’s, whom I find missing his ague fit to-day, and is pretty well, playing at dice ... with Ned Pickering and his page Laud." Is anyone else surprised that Sandwich is gambling with a page? Young Laud wouldn't have enough money for a stake, would he? If this was a low stakes practice game to amuse his Lordship after his illness, I don't think Pepys would be upset like this. If my page had enough money to gamble with a Earl, I would suspect he was earning money on the side selling information.
GRAFT: a Pepys historian posted this today: I edited 1/3 to fit this format:
"Samuel Pepys Posted by J D Davies
It is a truth universally acknowledged that those who get outraged by things on Twitter are in need of a life.
Occasionally one sees something on Twitter which is so crass any pretense at possessing a life must be laid aside. So it was with the normally uncontentious Twitter feed of the National Maritime Museum, referring to Samuel Pepys. I quote: ‘How did a a tailor’s son turn a corrupt & inefficient Navy into a powerful fighting force?‘
The person who runs the NMM Twitter feed quotes from the museum’s website, linked to the current exhibition on Pepys and his times, reviewed generally positively in this blog. I’m not shooting the messenger. But whoever came up with the original message needs to go to the exhibition shop and look at the book called Pepys’s Navy: Ships, Men and Warfare 1649-89. It contains the author's 30 years of research, and the writings of others who independently came to the same conclusion, that ‘He didn’t, and it wasn’t corrupt and inefficient to begin with’.
It would take too long to prove those points here. I’ve written books to prove it (a paperback edition of Pepys’s Navy will be out this summer) and am working on a third, Kings of the Sea: Charles II, James II and the Navy, due out from Seaforth Publishing in 2017, which will produce more evidence. Besides, criticizing Samuel Pepys is like shooting Bambi’s mother: people brought up on Sir Arthur Bryant, or the various books and websites that essentially maintain the same tired line, can't be converted by one blog post or three books, and umpteen articles, but one has to try…
My point is: The idea Pepys ‘saved the navy’ is based on books published between 40 and 120 years ago, drawing on a narrow range of sources, shaped by schools of historical interpretation long fallen by the wayside.
To describe Pepys' navy as ‘corrupt and inefficient’ is wrong, an attempting to measure an earlier age by modern standards. These days I argue organisations, media outlets, etc., with wide reach – like the BBC, newspapers, national museums, and schools – have a responsibility to present historical stories that either reflect the best possible consensus of modern scholarship, or, at least, don’t recycle dated and discredited myths and theories. Wikipedia has a policy of not allowing articles to be based on original, primary research – and one can see why failsafes must be in place to prevent abuse, the alternative, and the current policy, as Wikipedia makes clear, is articles can only refer to published works, the implication being even if they are known to be wrong, and to other unimpeachably reliable sources such as ‘mainstream newspapers’.
That’s right, ‘mainstream newspapers’. Like the Daily Mail and The Sun.
Sorry, my shirt seems to be starting to stretch a bit…"
Comments
Second Reading
About Sunday 22 March 1662/63
San Diego Sarah • Link
" ... my wife and I and her woman by coach to Westminster, ..." and " ... and led my wife and her to Captain Ferrers, ..." We all assume Ms. Ashwell accompanied the Pepys, but Sam doesn't say that. Both these comments seem dismissive, so maybe Sam was annoyed he had agreed to Ashwell's wish for him to go to the church event and look at the young women. He doesn't say how long he had to stand around waiting for the coach to come back. Probably more than an hour. The weather in Essex was "A healthful, dry season, somewhat cold with eastern winds." March easterly winds blowing down the Thames can be very chilly, and Sam always worries about his "delicate condition". He is already worried by Holmes' behavior, and this was a further irritation.
About Thursday 19 March 1662/63
San Diego Sarah • Link
I deduce from this that "betimes" is an abbreviation for "before times" or earlier than usual.
About Tuesday 17 March 1662/63
San Diego Sarah • Link
"Sir W. Batten and I to my Lord Mayor’s, where we found my Lord with Colonel Strangways and Sir Richard Floyd, ..." and "Sir R. Ford breaking to my Lord our business of our patent to be justices of the Peace in the City, ..." I had to read this entry twice, as I'm so used to "my Lord" being the Earl of Sandwich that I missed Sam's irony the first time; he's referring to the bufflehead Lord Mayor. I wonder who set up this dinner party.
About Sunday 15 March 1662/63
San Diego Sarah • Link
Considering how often Sam chooses to attend other churches, I think he's being a bit snooty about there not being enough space in the Navy Pew. It's another opportunity for him to instigate a bureaucratic office sign-up list. I also wonder if Wayneman and Jane and Will and Sarah also had to attend this church? I'm sure they were banished to stand at the back.
About Friday 13 March 1662/63
San Diego Sarah • Link
Sam has recovered from his cold a lot faster than I have mine this spring.
About Thursday 12 March 1662/63
San Diego Sarah • Link
I wonder if Sam finally caught Sandwich's cold. It's been about 5 days since they saw each other ... about the right incubation time.
About Wednesday 11 March 1662/63
San Diego Sarah • Link
I wonder who Mr. Wood was ... none of the Woods in the index seem appropriate, but he couldn't have been a lawyer because he was able to rescind Butler's orders. Wood must have been in the Navy somehow. If he had been "against" Pepys and the gang in the Field affair, he wouldn't have told them about the appointment while it was still possible to reverse it.
About Saturday 7 March 1662/63
San Diego Sarah • Link
The narrative here says "1. Jane, wife of Lord Gerard (see ante, January 1st, 1662-6)." So this 6 is a typo ... should be 3.
The link is correct, and takes you to:
Thursday 1 January 1662/63
...
Then to my wife again, and found Mrs. Sarah with us in the chamber we lay in. Among other discourse, Mrs. Sarah tells us how the King sups at least four or [five] times every week with my Lady Castlemaine; and most often stays till the morning with her, and goes home through the garden all alone privately, and that so as the very centrys take notice of it and speak of it.
She tells me, that about a month ago she [Lady Castlemaine] quickened at my Lord Gerard’s at dinner, and cried out that she was undone; and all the lords and men were fain to quit the room, and women called to help her. ...
About Monday 2 March 1662/63
San Diego Sarah • Link
So back again to Woolwich, and going aboard the Hulke to see the manner of the iron bridles ... The Hulke? Sounds as if it was a ship ... which makes me think of the floating prisons which I recall were also called Hulks. And that makes sense, no one would moor active warships to a chain across the Thames ... hulks would be better for defending the area and expendable if set upon by fire ships. Perhaps those friendly cheesy Dutchmen were taking a gander at the new defenses? Or do I not read this correctly?
About Tuesday 24 February 1662/63
San Diego Sarah • Link
Sandwich loan ... remember, we have heard twice now of Sam finding Sandwich gambling when he goes to visit ... and on one occasion with a servant. Can't find the dates now, but it wasn't long ago. My lord has grown weak living in this Court.
About Charles
San Diego Sarah • Link
February 20, 1663: http://www.pepysdiary.com/diary/1…
✹ in Aqua Scripto on 21 Feb 2006 • Link • Flag
”The Charles” 'Tis a reference to his fast boat [jatcht] that he and Jimmy [no 2] run around in sometimes, 'til they tire of playing games and go back chaseing hinds. Then the Navy use it for many jobs running errands. The Dutch had these fast boats to supply their Cod* fearing Busses or was it red herring fearing buss trade. To day it appears tired of running up and down the Tems winning his furlongs on sea.
✹ in Aqua Scripto on 21 Feb 2006 • Link • Flag
Xref leads to Yacht
http://www.pepysdiary.com/encyclo…
http://www.pepysdiary.com/encyclo…
About Thursday 19 February 1662/63
San Diego Sarah • Link
Meetings: Who took the Minutes? Did everyone keep their own log of the discussion and their responsibilities? Pepys must have taken a trunk of documents to some of the Whitehall meetings with James, Duke of York. Or did he have a "cheat sheet" summary, and everyone took his word for details and money? The Queen still receives a daily red Dispatch Box of documents to read. I suppose boxes came before briefcases. How did they manage???? How we fought WWII with manual typewriters, carbon paper and the Gestetner still boggles my mind.
About Thursday 19 February 1662/63
San Diego Sarah • Link
Charles II's conversion to Catholicism:
According to http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/0…
"In 1651 Father Huddleston was residing at Moseley Old Hall, Staffordshire, as chaplain to the Whitgreave family. After the defeat at Worcester on 3 September, 1651, Charles II was conducted by Colonel Gyfford to Whiteladies, where he was sheltered by the Penderell family, and it was while seeking for some safer hiding place for the King that John Penderell happened to meet Father John Huddleston. Accordingly Charles was disguised as a peasant and removed to Moseley Old Hall during the night of Sunday, 7 September.
To guard against surprise, Father John Huddleston was constantly in attendance on Charles II; his three pupils were stationed as sentinels at upper windows and Thomas Whitgreave patrolled the garden.
On Tuesday, 9 September, Cromwell's soldiers came to search the house. Charles II and Father John Huddleston were hurriedly shut away in the priest's hiding place, and the troops, after first seizing Thomas Whitgreave as a fugitive cavalier from Worcester, were eventually convinced that he had not left the house for some weeks and were persuaded to depart without searching the mansion.
That night Charles II left for Bentley Hall, after promising to befriend Father John Huddleston when restored to his throne.
At the Restoration in 1660, Father John Huddleston was invited to live at Somerset House, London, under the protection of the Queen Dowager, Henrietta Maria. ...
Shortly after the Queen Dowager's death in 1669 Father John Huddleston was appointed Chaplain to Queen Catherine, with a salary of 100 pounds a year besides a pension of like amount. ...
When Charles II lay dying "upon Thursday, 5 February, 1685, between 7 and 8 o'clock in the evening" James, Duke of York brought Father John Huddleston to his bedside, saying, "Sire, this good man once saved your life. He now comes to save your soul." Charles received him gladly, declaring that he wished to die in the faith and communion of the Holy Roman Catholic Church. Huddleston then heard the King's confession, reconciled him to the Church and absolved him, afterwards administering Extreme Unction and the Viaticum.
On the accession of James II, Father John Huddleston continued to reside with the Queen Dowager at Somerset House.
According to http://www.english-heritage.org.u…, after the Battle of Worcester Charles II of Scotland hid at remote Boscobel House, also home of the Catholic Giffard family. And many of the places Charles sheltered during his exile were Catholic, and he was mostly treated kindly by them.
It's fair to think Charles was quite fond of Catholics, more so than most of his subjects.
About Friday 6 February 1662/63
San Diego Sarah • Link
"... he carried me beyond the Old Exchange, and there set down his fare, ..." The Old Exchange? The link is to the Royal Exchange, but that's not what Pepys says. Any other ideas anyone?
About Mr Ashwell
San Diego Sarah • Link
February 2, 1663: "This day at my Lord’s I sent for Mr. Ashwell, and his wife came to me, and by discourse I perceive their daughter is very fit for my turn if my family may be as much for hers, but I doubt it will be to her loss to come to me for so small wages, but that will be considered of." (Elizabeth is in need of a companion, and Jane left today -- it is unclear which position the daughter is being considered for.) http://www.pepysdiary.com/encyclo…
About Monday 2 February 1662/63
San Diego Sarah • Link
Candlemas is a Christian holiday celebrated annually on February 2.
It celebrates three occasions according to Christian belief:
1. the presentation of the child Jesus;
2. Jesus’ first entry into the temple; and
3. the Virgin Mary’s purification (mainly in Catholic churches).
So why was this one of three annual Collar Days? The linked annotation seems to refer to modern tradition, so more clarification would be appreciated if you know it. Were there other/more/fewer Collar Days back then? What dates were they, and what is the significance?
About Friday 30 January 1662/63
San Diego Sarah • Link
The Eikon Basilike and its portrait of King Charles' execution as a martyrdom were so successful that, at the Restoration, a special commemoration of the late King on 30 January was added to the Book of Common Prayer, directing that the day be observed as an occasion for fasting and repentance.
On 19 May 1660, the Convocation of Canterbury and York cannoned King Charles at the urging of Charles II, and added his name to the prayer book. Charles I is the only saint formally canonized by the Church of England.
About Friday 30 January 1662/63
San Diego Sarah • Link
I'm surprised no-one picked up on Robert Gertz:
"I dunno, Charlie. Every year for your people to be reminded that Cromwell defeated and executed God's Anointed ... "
The missing ending of this thought is that many expected a millennial catastrophe as punishment for the execution, which seems not to have struck. (If you lived in London, 1665 and 1666 could be interpreted as that, quite reasonably. But this is 1663, and the sky had not fallen when Charles I died 13 years before.)
Charles II and James, Duke of York spend much time quelling insurrections and conspiracies, so that conversation was being had in some homes. Of course, Cromwell had the same problem.
To me the message is that God didn't care either way, which is something Charles II wouldn't like.
Frequent elections make things so much easier.
About Wednesday 28 January 1662/63
San Diego Sarah • Link
" ... Lord Sandwich’s, whom I find missing his ague fit to-day, and is pretty well, playing at dice ... with Ned Pickering and his page Laud." Is anyone else surprised that Sandwich is gambling with a page? Young Laud wouldn't have enough money for a stake, would he? If this was a low stakes practice game to amuse his Lordship after his illness, I don't think Pepys would be upset like this. If my page had enough money to gamble with a Earl, I would suspect he was earning money on the side selling information.
About Financial transactions
San Diego Sarah • Link
GRAFT: a Pepys historian posted this today: I edited 1/3 to fit this format:
"Samuel Pepys
Posted by J D Davies
It is a truth universally acknowledged that those who get outraged by things on Twitter are in need of a life.
Occasionally one sees something on Twitter which is so crass any pretense at possessing a life must be laid aside. So it was with the normally uncontentious Twitter feed of the National Maritime Museum, referring to Samuel Pepys. I quote: ‘How did a a tailor’s son turn a corrupt & inefficient Navy into a powerful fighting force?‘
The person who runs the NMM Twitter feed quotes from the museum’s website, linked to the current exhibition on Pepys and his times, reviewed generally positively in this blog. I’m not shooting the messenger. But whoever came up with the original message needs to go to the exhibition shop and look at the book called Pepys’s Navy: Ships, Men and Warfare 1649-89. It contains the author's 30 years of research, and the writings of others who independently came to the same conclusion, that ‘He didn’t, and it wasn’t corrupt and inefficient to begin with’.
It would take too long to prove those points here. I’ve written books to prove it (a paperback edition of Pepys’s Navy will be out this summer) and am working on a third, Kings of the Sea: Charles II, James II and the Navy, due out from Seaforth Publishing in 2017, which will produce more evidence. Besides, criticizing Samuel Pepys is like shooting Bambi’s mother: people brought up on Sir Arthur Bryant, or the various books and websites that essentially maintain the same tired line, can't be converted by one blog post or three books, and umpteen articles, but one has to try…
My point is: The idea Pepys ‘saved the navy’ is based on books published between 40 and 120 years ago, drawing on a narrow range of sources, shaped by schools of historical interpretation long fallen by the wayside.
To describe Pepys' navy as ‘corrupt and inefficient’ is wrong, an attempting to measure an earlier age by modern standards. These days I argue organisations, media outlets, etc., with wide reach – like the BBC, newspapers, national museums, and schools – have a responsibility to present historical stories that either reflect the best possible consensus of modern scholarship, or, at least, don’t recycle dated and discredited myths and theories. Wikipedia has a policy of not allowing articles to be based on original, primary research – and one can see why failsafes must be in place to prevent abuse, the alternative, and the current policy, as Wikipedia makes clear, is articles can only refer to published works, the implication being even if they are known to be wrong, and to other unimpeachably reliable sources such as ‘mainstream newspapers’.
That’s right, ‘mainstream newspapers’. Like the Daily Mail and The Sun.
Sorry, my shirt seems to be starting to stretch a bit…"
http://jddavies.com/2016/01/25/sa…...