Wednesday 22 February 1659/60

In the morning intended to have gone to Mr. Crew’s to borrow some money, but it raining I forbore, and went to my Lord’s lodging and look that all things were well there. Then home and sang a song to my viall, so to my office and to Will’s, where Mr. Pierce found me out, and told me that he would go with me to Cambridge, where Colonel Ayre’s regiment, to which he was surgeon, lieth. Walking in the Hall, I saw Major-General Brown, who had a long time been banished by the Rump, but now with his beard overgrown, he comes abroad and sat in the House.

To my father’s to dinner, where nothing but a small dish of powdered beef and dish of carrots; they being all busy to get things ready for my brother John to go to-morrow.

After dinner, my wife staying there, I went to Mr. Crew’s, and got; 5l. of Mr. Andrews, and so to Mrs. Jemimah, who now hath her instrument about her neck, and indeed is infinitely, altered, and holds her head upright. I paid her maid 40s. of the money that I have received of Mr. Andrews.

Hence home to my study, where I only wrote thus much of this day’s passages to this * and so out again. To White Hall, where I met with Will. Simons and Mr. Mabbot at Marsh’s, who told me how the House had this day voted that the gates of the City should be set up at the cost of the State. And that Major-General Brown’s being proclaimed a traitor be made void, and several other things of that nature.

Home for my lanthorn and so to my father’s, where I directed John what books to put for Cambridge.

After that to supper, where my Uncle Fenner and my Aunt, The. Turner, and Joyce, at a brave leg of veal roasted, and were very merry against John’s going to Cambridge. I observed this day how abominably Barebone’s windows are broke again last night. At past 9 o’clock my wife and I went home.

32 Annotations

First Reading

Keith Wright  •  Link

Praise-God Barebone, who first appeared on 11 February, had his windows broken on the 12th, where Rita provided this ID link:…

Glyn  •  Link

I met with Will. Simons and Mr. Mabbot

William Simons seems to be a clerk or casual acquaintance whom Pepys meets quite often. But this is a question for Language Hat or other experts on the English language.

In modern British-English you usually say that you "meet a person" but I think that in North American-English you usually say that you "meet with a person". I had assumed that the American version was the newer development, but Pepys always seems to write meet with rather than meet - so is that the correct version?

Keith Wright  •  Link

On Glyn's question, from the American viewpoint:
Today, if you said "I met with Will. Simons and Mr. Mabbot at Marsh's" it would sound as if you had arranged beforehand to meet them there.
Meanwhile, "To White Hall, where I met up with Will. Simons and Mr. Mabbot" would seem to indicate "where I happened to encounter" them.
The simple "I met Will. Simons and Mr. Mabbot at Marsh's" might mean either by intent or by chance.
But here I pass off to Language Hat or another language historian as to the status of the usage in Pepys's time.

language hat  •  Link

Afraid I don't know enough about 17th-century usage to be of use. But my feeling is that "met with" here is the equivalent of the modern "met" or "ran into" (do you use the latter in the UK?). We'll just have to see how he uses the phrase as we go along (and try to notice if he also says simply "met," and what the difference seems to be).

Roger Miller  •  Link

Is this the first time Pepys has mentioned a vegetable?

For some reason, I'm put in mind of the following:

Boiled Beef and Carrots,
Boiled Beef and Carrots,
That's the stuff for your Derby Kell
Keeps you fit and keeps you well
Don't eat like vegetarians
On stuff they give to parrots
From morn till night
Blow out your kite
On Boiled Beef and Carrots
London Music Hall Song, 1870

Orginally sung by Harry Champion but reprised by Peter Sellers.

language hat  •  Link

On vegetables (and similar questions) see the "Food and Drink" section of "Background info"; here's the direct link to the veggies (I've just added an annotation quoting the Latham Companion volume):…

Peter  •  Link

I notice that Pepys uses "hath" and "lieth", but also "comes" and "holds" for the 3rd person singular.
Are there rules for when he uses the "old" and "new" forms?

Martin K. Foys  •  Link

. . . where I met with Will. Simons and Mr. Mabbot at Marsh’s

Both “meet” and “meet with” appear to be used interchangably in early Modern English to indicate coming into the company of somebody. However, there is a slight distinction which might help: “with” in Old English usually carried a connotation of opposition, either in conflict or motion (as in “We met with the enemy” or “Running down the street, I met with the police”). Using “with” in conjunction with “met” to indicate either opposite motion or conflict was very much still in use in Pepys’ time. In fact, modern English may have well done away with “met with” to avoid the confusion between fighting and simply meeting socially, but kept the “with” for arranged meetings to indicate the planned nature of the “coming together.”

For Pepys’s use, I would guess he employs “met with” to indicate that he ran into Will. Simons and Mr. Mabbot as they happened to be coming towards him from the opposite direction at Marshes — a subtle distinction, but one that makes sense.

That’s only a guess; though I hope it meets with everyone’s approval (Sorry!).

Martin K. Foys  •  Link

"-th" vs. "-s" in the third person singular

By the times Pepys wrote, most of the Middle English (ME) "-th" endings for third person singular had died out. The "-s" endings spread from northern dialects during the late ME period, and the beginning of early ModE. However, very common words, such as "hath," "doth," and "saith" stuck around for a lot longer.

Some of the shift to "-s" was for the sake of efficiency or economy: changing "rideth" to "rides" got rid of an extra syllable. So the "-th" ending additionally lingered for verb forms for which changing to "-es" would constitute another syllable anyway, like in "judgeth" ("judges" didn't save any effort).

Martin K. Foys  •  Link

went to my Lord’s lodging . . .

BTW, I’m still trying to figure out where Montague lives in London!! Sam certainly goes over there enough, but I’m going nuts trying to figure out where he would be going! Does anyone have any idea?

Pauline  •  Link

Martin, all guesses are approved
Modern American English seems to have taken the sense of opposition or conflict in "meet with" into a (neutral) sense of engagement or agenda. "Meet" is a face-to-face encounter (or introduction), "meet with" a head-to-head for some purpose (usually prearranged).
In meeting "with" Simons and Mabbot, Sam may be foreshadowing this distinction: Chance meeting or not, these men are among the men he seeks out every day to hear what is going on (Sam has a purpose)and which way the winds are ablowin'.

Pauline  •  Link

Montagu's London Lodgings
In 1655 Sam was living in the attic of Montagu's Whitehall lodgings. He recently went there to go through his books for his brother John use at Cambridge (2/18-"my turret"), so it sounds like Montagu retains some right to those apartments. But he is very much living in the country at Hichingbrooke while the current situation sorts itself out. Montagu's father-in-law, Mr. Crew, maintains a house in London and that seems to be Montagu's "headquarters" in town now. I would guess that this means that there is no or minimal staff at the Whitehall lodgings for now. Meanwhile Montagu's daughter, Jem, and her maid are living with the doctor who has put the brace on her neck.

The Whitehall lodgings thing is unclear to me. Montagu is one of the purged members of the House, but may retain an entitlment to these lodgings? I don't understand how this works, but remember the suit Sam was following on behalf of Downing that was settled on February 10? "Squib proved clearly by his patent that the house and office did now belong to him." Lodgings appear to be connected with various positions.

Anyone out there know more about this?

Susanna  •  Link

Montague's Lodgings

Montague may simply have been a formidable enough character that no one wanted to dispute his continuing rights to possess rooms at Whitehall (which I believe he had acquired legitimately in the Cromwell years) badly enough to put up a challenge to dislodge him.

j. simmons  •  Link

Montague was given his large suite of rooms at Whitehall by Cromwell when he took up residence there as Lord Protector, some wanted him King. Stephen Coote notes: "the changing tone of Whitehall...Cromwell had taken on monarchical powers and these were now suggested by the increasing pomp with which he was surrounded. The palace was no longer a chaotic scrimmage, unregulated and swarming with people."
There was now ceremony which was usually associated with a king, Sir Gilbert Pickering was Lord Chamberlain, and Colonel Jones, Controller, with his white staff of office. Montague was a favored member of this new "court" and remained so under Cromwell's son Richard ("Tumbledown Dick"), until he retired to the country. Montague followed suit and the rooms were never lost as there was no central personality to take them away. One of Sam's jobs was to look after these rooms, he had his own in the attic.
An interesting note in Coote's book refers to Sam looking after the sons of the Spainish Govenor of Peru. The boys had been captured by Montague when their father's ship was taken on its way back to Spain (he killed in the fight). It shows a particular trust in young Sam and might explain Montague's reliance on him when his daughter needed special attention in London.

Phil  •  Link

I may be flogging a dead horse here, and I agree that sometimes it's hard to tell, but the above annotation would probably be ideal for Montague's page.…

Having added an annotation to a Background Info page you can then link to it here if the annotation is particularly relevant to today.

john  •  Link

Phil: would never presume to poach on your Background Ifo. pages...that's too delicate a matter for this amateur.j.

Paul Dyson  •  Link

meet with

Is this just a very early example of the insertion of unnecessary and meaningless prepositions, such as the more modern "head up" meaning "lead", "fill out" instead of "complete"? (Ok "fill in" is about as bad!)

webster  •  Link

Those aren't 'meaningless prepositions'. Prepositions which alter the meaning of a verb are an essential part of germanic languages. In Modern German they are sometimes attached to the front of the verb (in the infinitive, for example) but in English they always remain separated.

Second Reading

ELeeming  •  Link

I tend to use "met" to be accidental, whereas "met with" and "met up with" imply pre-arranged. "Bump into" or "ran into" are used a lot for accidental meetings as well, but I tend not to use them personally as I do a lot of motorsport, where they have a completely different meaning!

Dave Bonta  •  Link

"...with his beard overgrown..."
Wondering what that might imply in the 17th century, I did a bit of searching and found this:
"Until at least the late seventeenth century it was widely believed that facial hair was actually a form of excreta – a waste material generated by the body as a result of heat in the testicles! But this also provides the link with masculinity. Since the beard was linked to the genitals, it was an outward sign of virility and masculinity."…

Irishyankee  •  Link

What is powdered beef? I wonder if it is akin to creamed chipped beef on toast (A dish known to countless American GI's as "S--- on a Shingle"?

Todd Bernhardt  •  Link

Irishyankee, click on the link for "powdered beef," and you'll see the description of it (it's not the GI version). The site has a very extensive encyclopedia section that was built up during its "first run." Hope this helps.

Chris Squire UK  •  Link

OED offers 10 distinct meanings for ‘to meet with’, 7 marked ‘Obs’ = obsolete but all, I think, current in Pepy’s day:

1. To come across, come upon by chance, find, encounter (a thing or person). Now rare with a personal or physical object.
2. To go to see, come together with (a person) intentionally; to have a meeting with. Now chiefly N. Amer.
3. To confront (an enemy); = sense 6a. Obs.
4. To come into or be in physical contact with; to reach; to strike. Also of a river: to merge with (another river). Obs.
5. To have sexual intercourse with. Cf. sense 8. Obs.
6. To experience, undergo (a particular fortune or treatment); to receive (a particular reaction); = sense 2.
7. To oppose, contend with (an error, objection, or malpractice), take precautions against (a danger); to provide for (an emergency). Also: to cope with (a person). Obs.
8. To agree or be in accord with. Obs.
9. To exact requital; to get even with, pay back, settle with. Obs.
10. Sc. To pay (a creditor). Obs. rare.’

The current meanings are 2. in N America and 6. in Britain.

Terry Foreman  •  Link

"the House had this day voted that the gates of the City should be set up at the cost of the State. And that Major-General Brown’s being proclaimed a traitor be made void, and several other things of that nature."

Commons Journal:…

Terry Foreman  •  Link

" the House had this day voted that the gates of the City should be set up at the cost of the State. "

The 'gates' that once guarded the entrances to the City of London through the City Wall were multi-storey buildings that had one or two archways through the middle for traffic, protected by gates and portcullises. They were often used as prisons, or used to display executed criminals to passers-by. Beheaded traitors often had their head stuck on a spike on London Bridge, then their body quartered and spread among the gates.
After the curfew, rung by the bells of St Mary le Bow and other churches at nine o'clock, or dusk, (whichever came earlier) the gates were shut. They reopened at sunrise, or six o'clock the next morning, whichever came later. Entry was forbidden during these times, and citizens inside the gates were required to remain in their homes. The gates were also used as checkpoints, to check people entering the City, and to collect any tolls that were being charged for the upkeep of the wall, or any other purpose that might require money. It is possible that the wall was maintained for the sole purpose of collecting taxes, and not for defence at all.…

Terry Foreman  •  Link

"Walking in the Hall, I saw Major-General Brown, who had a long time been banished by the Rump, but now with his beard overgrown, he comes abroad and sat in the House."

L&M: Ald. and Maj.-Gen. Richard Browne, probably the most important of the city Presbyterians, had been proclaimed against for his royalism in June 1659, and had lain in hiding in the Stationers' Hall in London since Booth's rising of that summer: CSPD 1659-60, p. 52; James Heath, Brief Chronicle (1663), p. 753. The proclamation was annulled on this day and he was re-admitted to the House: CJ, vii. 848. He became Lord Mayor in October 1660.

Third Reading

Carol D  •  Link

Re: the gates of the City of London - another famous literary Londoner (some 300 years before our Sam) lived in a (very modest) room over Aldgate. Geoffrey Chaucer wasn't such an active participant in London life as Pepys was, but he could certainly observe everything and everyone from his home. (I remember reading something about the decapitated heads of executed criminals mounted on spikes more or less outside his window!)

This description is from
"For the twelve years prior to his departure for Kent in October 1386, Chaucer had lived over Aldgate, the easternmost and busiest of the city’s seven gates. There, literally under his feet, passed royal and religious processions, spectacles of public humiliation, expelled convicts and sanctuary seekers, provisioners and trash haulers with iron-wheeled carts and vans, drovers, water and wood sellers, traders with Baltic and northern European luxuries, runaway serfs, Essex rebels flowing in on their way to burn Gaunt’s Savoy Palace in 1381, and all the rest of a busy city’s shifting populace. . . . Surely no residence more fitting could be imagined for a poet whose subject was soon to become, as Dryden would put it, “God’s plenty.”

"Departing, he almost certainly knew that he wouldn’t return. On October 4, the city’s common council would act to repossess his gatehouse. By October 5 Chaucer was out, and a new tenant had been named. When Parliament ended seven weeks later he would withdraw to Kent, a move that had been a year in the making. He would never again live continuously in the city of his birth. Preparing to leave the city with which we identify him, he would have had good reason to wonder whether he had ever well and truly been a Londoner at all. Yet his twelve years at Aldgate had immersed him intensively in London affairs. Nothing tags him as an unusually ardent participant in city life; some evidence suggests the reverse. But he was an inevitable sharer and beneficiary of the complex and enveloping experience a metropole offers to each of its residents."

Mountain Man  •  Link

Carol D's comment brings up the question of how we use the term "Londoner." If we mean "official citizen of London," i.e. taxpayer, able to hold a civic office, "freedom of the city," etc., then until comparatively recently it's always been only a minority of residents who were "Londoners." Many of the most famous "Londoners," like Chaucer and Shakespeare and Pepys, weren't London citizens but London residents. Or at least I don't think Sam ever became a citizen, did he?

JayW  •  Link

As someone born in London, I would still call myself a Londoner even though now living in Hertfordshire.

Ensign Tom  •  Link

"I saw Major-General Brown ... with his beard overgrown ..."

The fashion for European men in the late 15th and early 16th centuries was to be beardless, at least insofar as the shaving instruments of the time made that possible. There is a famous Holbein portrait of Sir Thomas More showing him with visible stubble on his cheeks and chin, and I recall reading once that More's appearance would have been about as clean-shaven as a man could get in his time.

I also recall reading once that the fashion for men to have facial hair returned when King Francis I of France decided to grow a beard, and King Henry VIII of England decided to grow his own in competition. As can be seen in Elizabethan and early Stuart portraiture, the fashion for beards continued up until the time of the Restoration, when the clean-shaven look became preferred again. I wonder if it was Louis XIV and the French court who set the new trend. In any case, Pepys thought it worth noting that General Browne had let his beard grow in. Could this have been an attempt at a disguise while Browne assessed the state of affairs in London? If so it failed, as Pepys clearly recognized him.

San Diego Sarah  •  Link

I agree that Major General Browne's full beard was probably an attempt at a disguise -- and also an economy for someone in hiding, probably without a valet to shave him.

However, Charles II's coronation portrait next year shows him with a very healthy moustache.

This article says Louis XIV kept his moustache until 1683, at which time he made the aristocratic transition to the clean-shaven era of wigs, stockings and knee-breeches.…

My guess is Pepys had a whispy, patchy growth, and chose to be clean shaven in order to not advertise his lack of sturdy whiskers. People speculated about your masculinity by such things.

Ensign Tom  •  Link

Re: Shaving habits for men in Pepys' time.

Historian Richard Holmes describing the death of Charles II in his 2008 work, "Marlborough: England's Fragile Genius", writes: "On the morning of 2 February 1685 he [the King] rose after a restless night, and sat down to the barber. 'it being shaving day' -- even monarchs were shaved only two or three times a week."

Holmes' quoted source was the two volume "Memoirs of Thomas, Earl of Ailesbury" published in 1890.

Log in to post an annotation.

If you don't have an account, then register here.