16 Annotations

First Reading

Jesse  •  Link

"was very kindly treated by her"

With their close relationship why would this merit note? A short entry for the day - perhaps a little filler?

Australian Susan  •  Link

"was very kindly treated by her"
I think Sam is still a bit insecure in his relations with the aristocracy (even the Montagus) and records instances of favour being shown, because he still can't quite believe his increase in status. This was a very status conscious society and Sam would have been anxious to behave correctly to avoid causing offence. However long he has known the Montagus, he always remembers that they are now aristocracy, and he is not.

vicente  •  Link

Status and correct procedures were taken very seriously by me lauds in the house of same, an example: the uppitty house of commons did upset the rightous lairds sitting in chambers:
"..Breach of Privilege in H. C. in naming the Time and Place for the Conference.
The Lords conceived, that the House of Commons by this Message, demanding a present Free Conference, and appointing the Place likewise to be in the Painted Chamber, is a Breach of the Privileges of this House; it appertaining of Right to the Lords, to appoint both the Time and the Place: Therefore it is ORDERED, To send to the House of Commons, to desire a present Conference, touching the Matter of the last Message from them; and the Lord Chancellor to assert the Right and Privilege of this House in this Particular, and to desire that Messages of this Nature may be prevented for the future. And, for the Saving of Time at this Conference, to give the House of Commons a Free Conference upon the Subject Matter of the late Free Conference...."

From: British History Online
Source: House of Lords Journal Volume 11: 8 June 1661. House of Lords Journal Volume 11, ().
--- Pecking order and protocol had to be understood and to be adhered, other wise the next time you may be totally ignored or even finding thyself to be garroted, the Revolution was over and now back to organised structured and ant colony following the orders of [queen ] king to the Tee.

Paul Chapin  •  Link

Status and correct procedures were taken very seriously

Another aspect of 17th century life that hasn't changed much in the 21st. In the U.S. Congress, the Senate and the House have their distinct prerogatives, and each body is quick to remind the other of that whenever a possible breach is perceived.

Ann  •  Link

"After dinner to the office, and there till late at night. . . . Here I staid till late, and so home and to bed."

What, exactly, constitutes "late"? There's no street lights, little home illumination. Surely, he didn't stay at the office 'til 9 or 10, then show up at the Battens, did he? I know we've been having discussions about what time "dinner" is at this time, which can influence what someone may consider as "late."

Here in Missouri, and when I lived in Alabama, some "country" folk refer to anytime after noon as "evening," something which confused me greatly at first. Could something like this be going on? Can "late" mean what we would consider late afternoon or early evening?

Any thoughts?

JWB  •  Link

My Lady(Jemima)
I don't think it's Sam's insecurity, but Jemima's. Montagu's sailing off, leaving her to fend for self for who knows how long. Sam's her right hand man. She's naturally keeping on his good side.

JWB  •  Link

Recall their relationship during Fith Monarchist putsch when Montagu absent.

Bob T  •  Link

After dinner to the office, and there till late at night

In Newfoundland too, evening is anytime after 12 noon, until about 5 or 6pm, when it becomes night. I heard from and English professor, that Newfoundland english was as close to Elizabethan english as you could get. So Sam may have been dividing up his day in the same way.

I'm inclined to think that in Sam's day, the main meal of the day, dinner, tea, or "suppah" as it is called in the Maritimes, was at about 5pm. In eastern Canada today, "suppah" is as close to five o'clock as you can make it; except on formal occassions. Then it is called "dinner", and people wear socks, use knives and forks, and all that fancy stuff :-)

Mary  •  Link

Dinner time.

In Pepys'time, the main meal of the day was the midday dinner. The evening meal was altogether lighter and quite often a cold collation. During the 18th century, dinner gradually moved to a later time, but it was not until the coming of efficient gas lighting in the 19th century and the 'invention' of afternoon tea that dinner, for the middle and upper classes, became an evening meal and the midday meal was called luncheon or lunch.

Amongst the working class, the midday dinner remained the main meal of the day for a very long time; the evening meal would be called supper or high tea. The question of the name applied to one's mid-day meal has remained a rough social indicator up to the present day.

Australian Susan  •  Link

To illustrate Mary's point:
In Jane Austen's uncompleted novel fragment, The Watsons, there is a scene where an up-to-the-minute young gentlemen calls on old-fashioned friends (the Watson family). There he finds them about to have their evening tea (having dined at 3pm) and he remarks that he is only just going home to his (fashionably late) dinner at 8 or 9pm. He stays until old Mr Watson's supper basin of gruel is brought in and "he had the pleasure of observing to Mr Watson that he should leave him at supper, while he went home to dinner". He stays talking, however, until forced to go for "if he stayed he must sit down to supper...which to a man whose heart had long been fixed on calling his next meal a dinner, was quite insupportable". JA is poking fun at fashionable, and to her mind, silly habits. The reader is encouraged to laugh at Tom Musgrave, but also to think him slightly unprincipled.

vicente  •  Link

Dinner was when one could get the mob of family to-gether. Then the time showed thems that care which of the the stratas one circled in.

john lauer  •  Link

Jane Austen's Musgrave sounds very ill-mannered,
rather than laughable and unprincipled.

Second Reading

Chris Squire UK  •  Link

OED has, not updated from 1896:

‘Dinner . . a. The chief meal of the day, eaten originally, and still by the majority of people, about the middle of the day (cf. German Mittagsessen), but now, by the professional and fashionable classes, usually in the evening; particularly, a formally arranged meal of various courses; a repast given publicly in honour of some one, or to celebrate some event.
. . 1620 T. Venner Via Recta viii. 173 Our vsuall time for dinner..is about eleuen of the clocke.
1712 T. Hearne Remarks & Coll. (1889) III. 372 At eleven Clock this Day, I being then at Dinner in Edmund Hall Buttery.
1718 Lady M. W. Montagu Let. 10 Mar. (1965) I. 382 She gave me a Dinner of 50 dishes of meat . . ‘

Nowadays (2014), ‘the professional and fashionable classes’ eat lunch c. 1 pm and supper in the evening; ‘dinner’ is only used in:

‘dinner-party n. a party of guests invited to dinner; the social gathering which they compose.
1816 J. Austen Emma II. xvi. 304 Out of humour at not being able to come..for forty-eight hours without falling in with a dinner-party.’

Everybody else has followed suit, virtually, except that they don’t go in for ‘dinner-parties’ so it seems that in another 100 years ‘lunch’ will have driven ‘dinner’ extinct in British English.

Third Reading

MartinVT  •  Link

Just another small data point on the sociolinguistic conversation around "dinner" — growing up in the Netherlands in the latter half of the 1950s, we generally ate the main meal (potatoes, vegetables and meat, in that order of consideration) mid-day, and secondary meals in the morning and early evening (usually just bread, butter, and something on the bread like cheese, ham, jam, etc.). At some point, maybe 1958, we switched to an evening dinner. I suspect that in my family's centuries-long farming roots, the main meal/dinner had always been mid-day and that this was the first time that transition (described in the OED as occurring in the 1890s) was made.

San Diego Sarah  •  Link

Today the Commons continues to grapple with the big kahuna: the reinstatement of the Church of England:

"Clergy's temporal Jurisdiction.
The Bill for the Repeal of an Act of Parliament, intituled, An Act for disenabling all Persons in Holy Orders to exercise any temporal Jurisdiction or Authority, was this Day read the Second time.

And the said Act for disabling all Persons in Holy Orders to exercise any temporal Jurisdiction or Authority, was also read.

And the Question being put, That the said Bill for Repeal thereof should be referred to a Committee of the whole House;

The same passed in the Negative."

I.E. the first step is to repeal the 1640 Act of Parliament entitled "An Act for disenabling all Persons in Holy Orders to exercise any temporal Jurisdiction or Authority".
In part it says, "Be it enacted that no Archbishop or Bishop or other person that now is or hereafter shall be in Holy Orders shall at any time after the fifteenth day of February in the yeare of our Lord One thousand six hundred forty one have any Seat or place suffrage or Voice or use or execute any power or authority in the Parliaments of this Realm nor shall be of the Privy Councell of his Majestie his heires or successours or Justice of the Peace of Oyer and Terminer or Goal Delivery or execute any temporall authoritie by vertue of any Commission but shall be wholly disabled and be uncapable to have receive use or execute any of the said Offices Places Powers Authorities and things aforesaid."

The Lords wants to include the Bishops in their number, as was customary -- but does this Act make the Archbishop and Bishops who just crowned Charles II also technically 'illegal'? Better clarify this before some bright non-conformist spreads some rumors!

Stephane Chenard  •  Link

In the State Papers today: A "Proclamation, on petition of Parliament" - no less - "appointing the 12th of June to be observed in London and Westminster, and the 19th in other places [go figure] as a day of fasting on account of the late immoderate rains (...)"

As Sam noted recently, the rotten spring has led to "begin to doubt a famine" [https://www.pepysdiary.com/diary/…]. The irony of a fast to prevent a famine may be lost on its usual sufferers.

Log in to post an annotation.

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