Wednesday 17 February 1668/69

Up, and with W. Hewer with me to Lincoln’s Inn, by appointment, to have spoke with Mr. Pedley about Mr. Goldsborough’s business and Mr. Weaver’s, but he was gone out, and so I with Mr. Castle, the son-in-law of Weaver, to White Hall to look for him, but did not find him, but here I did meet with several and talked, and do hear only that the King dining yesterday at the Dutch Embassador’s, after dinner they drank, and were pretty merry; and, among the rest of the King’s company, there was that worthy fellow my lord of Rochester, and Tom Killigrew, whose mirth and raillery offended the former so much, that he did give Tom Killigrew a box on the ear in the King’s presence, which do much give offence to the people here at Court, to see how cheap the King makes himself, and the more, for that the King hath not only passed by the thing, and pardoned it to Rochester already, but this very morning the King did publickly walk up and down, and Rochester I saw with him as free as ever, to the King’s everlasting shame, to have so idle a rogue his companion. How Tom Killigrew takes it, I do not hear.

I do also this day hear that my Lord Privy Seale do accept to go Lieutenant into Ireland; but whether it be true or no, I cannot tell. So calling at my shoemaker’s, and paying him to this day, I home to dinner, and in the afternoon to Colonel Middleton’s house, to the burial of his wife, where we are all invited, and much more company, and had each of us a ring: and so towards evening to our church, where there was a sermon preached by Mills, and so home. At church there was my Lord Brouncker and Mrs. Williams in our pew, the first time they were ever there or that I knew that either of them would go to church. At home comes Castle to me, to desire me to go to Mr. Pedly, this night, he being to go out of town to-morrow morning, which I, therefore, did, by hackney-coach, first going to White Hall to meet with Sir W. Coventry, but missed him. But here I had a pleasant rencontre of a lady in mourning, that, by the little light I had, seemed handsome. I passing by her, I did observe she looked back again and again upon me, I suffering her to go before, and it being now duske. I observed she went into the little passage towards the Privy Water-Gate, and I followed, but missed her; but coming back again, I observed she returned, and went to go out of the Court. I followed her, and took occasion, in the new passage now built, where the walke is to be, to take her by the hand, to lead her through, which she willingly accepted, and I led her to the Great Gate, and there left her, she telling me, of her own accord, that she was going as far as, Charing Cross; but my boy was at the gate, and so je durst not go out con her, which vexed me, and my mind (God forgive me) did run apres her toute that night, though I have reason to thank God, and so I do now, that I was not tempted to go further. So to Lincoln’s Inn, where to Mr. Pedly, with whom I spoke, and did my business presently: and I find him a man of very good language, and mighty civil, and I believe very upright: and so home, where W. Batelier was, and supped with us, and I did reckon this night what I owed him; and I do find that the things my wife, of her own head, hath taken (together with my own, which comes not to above 5l.), comes to above 22l.. But it is the last, and so I am the better contented; and they are things that are not trifles, but clothes, gloves, shoes, hoods, &c. So after supper, to bed.


22 Annotations

Terry Foreman  •  Link

"to have spoke with Mr. Pedley about Mr. Goldsborough’s business and Mr. Weaver’s"

L&M note this was about Pepys's Brampton property. Pedley was a lawyer who handled several matters of this kind for him.

Terry Foreman  •  Link

Rochester, Killigrew and the King

L&M note Lord Sandwich's Journal says that Killigrew had railed at Rochester for keeping his wife in the country; Rochester, forbidden the court, went off to France.

Terry Foreman  •  Link

"I do also this day hear that my Lord Privy Seale do accept to go Lieutenant into Ireland; but whether it be true or no, I cannot tell."

This time the rumor is true: 14 February Lord Robartes had accepted the appointment while remaining Lord Privy-Seal and will be formally appointed Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland May 3. (L&M)

Robert Gertz  •  Link

I'd guess a dollop of guilt over his encounter with the woman in black helped eased Sam's annoyance with the French goods Bess purchased.

***
Tom Killigrew has taken a whack or two at Charles...I wonder if his pardon of Lord Rochester had something to do with that.

Dorothy Willis  •  Link

Today's little adventure with the pretty woman in mourning shows Sam still needs his "keeper." Or maybe a leash. And as for the things Bess bought, she surely needs them more than Sam needs another picture of the King of France!

Terry Foreman  •  Link

"in the afternoon to Colonel Middleton’s house, to the burial of his wife, where we are all invited, and much more company"

Would the body of the late Mrs. Middleton have been on view, as in what is called a "lying in"? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lying_in_repose

Mary  •  Link

Mrs. Middleton's funeral.

I haven't been able to find any references to the practice of "lying in repose" in 17th century England.

NB "lying-in" (without the 'repose') is different. That is what women do during and after childbirth. There used to be specifically named lying-in hospitals. In unfortunate cases lying-in may, of course, eventually lead to lying in repose.

languagehat  •  Link

"among the rest of the King’s company, there was that worthy fellow my lord of Rochester, and Tom Killigrew, whose mirth and raillery offended the former so much, that he did give Tom Killigrew a box on the ear in the King’s presence"

It's pretty funny that Rochester, of all people, would be offended by somebody else's mirth and raillery!

Australian Susan  •  Link

Sometimes, Sam you are a complete and utter prat

Andrew Hamilton  •  Link

"worthy fellow"-- nice touch of sarcasm.

Lying-in: reminds me of that rather indelicate undergraduate song, "Every day is labor day at the Boston Lying-in."

Terry Foreman  •  Link

" W. Batelier...supped with us, and I did reckon this night what I owed him;"

For the goods he had brought back from France. (L&M)

Mary Scrivener  •  Link

OH SAM! You know that dallying with this lady will only lead to headaches with your wife. Don’t do it!

Eric the Bish  •  Link

“I have reason to thank God, and so I do now, that I was not tempted to go further.” Slight difference of language between then and now: in modern usage he certainly was “tempted to go further”! He means something like “I was not successfully tempted”. The temptation is seen as extraneous to the man himself, not coming from within but from without. Samuel does not say who is tempting him: there is no hint that the woman, the occasion of temptation, is seen as the agent of it, but nor does he name, for example, the devil as his tempter.

Eric the Bish  •  Link

We “had each of us a ring”. Does anyone know what you did with the ring when you had it? I assume that over time there would be too many to continue wearing them all.

Tonyel  •  Link

Can't help visualising Sam as played by Buster Keaton:

'Business, business, off to see Pedley - oh!' Sharp left turn into alley, but empty, 180 degree turn, back to Court - 'ah, there she is!' another 180 degree turn, 'Madam, allow me .......'
'Blast! there's the boy! another 180 degree turn..... And so on.

Stephane Chenard  •  Link

May we point out, in hope of perswadding this Assembly to suspend the customary One Hundred Lashes, that the weather last night was most inclement, and the Lady whose hand Mr. Pepys did hold, may have indeed welcomed this help from a local resident in navigating, in the dark, a construction area likely less familiar than her distant home in Charing Cross. Mr. Gadbury reports "Wind, rain, snow, hail" in London. From the Channel ports, the Letters (at https://play.google.com/books/reader?id=vik5AQAAM…) contain nothing but Newes of Aeolian disasters and woe, viz. six shipwrecks with casualties and ships dragging their anchors for as much as 2 miles in Yarmouth, and three shipwrecks (one "to pieces") in Deal. We pray that the Lady herself was not broken to pieces in her long journey.

'nother thing. Mr. Bullstrode in his Journall (at https://archive.org/details/bulstrodepapers00buls…) notes already (though he seems to write with up to a week's delay, and so benefits from the gossip) that "his Majesty was much offended" by my Lord Rochester's conduct, so the King having "pardoned it to Rochester already" seems a hasty Interpolation. We surmise that Sam saw, from a distance, the King nod at the rake's embarrassed salute this morning. Perhaps at Versailles, the dismissal would have been harsher.

But on this matter, Terry's note "L&M note Lord Sandwich's Journal" led us to chase my Lord's journal, post the one ending in 1665 that is most readily found and oftentimes quoted. Las! The chase ends at https://discovery.nationalarchives.gov.uk/details…, with a catalog reference to a journal indeed ending in 1671, but "held privately (...) not available". We still rejoice that my Lord's not so deeply buried in the Audit of his Ambassadorial accounts (which aren't going so well for him, actually) as to miss Court dinners.

JB  •  Link

"...had each of us a ring"

I wondered if this might refer to the ringing of bells instead of the piece of jewelry I initially assumed, and there is some evidence for that (http://hoydensandfirebrands.blogspot.com/2009/07/…):
"In the 17th Century, a passing bell was rung for the dead or dying: Nine rings for a man, six rings for a woman and three rings for a child - followed by one ring for each year of the deceased life."

Though in this case I am sure the first assumption was correct:
"Wealthier families distributed mourning rings among friends and family, bearing the name of the deceased and the date of death engraved on them. Worn for up to a year after the death, these were usually fashioned from black enamel for the men and gold with a black band for the ladies.

On a mourning ring crafted as a memento of the Martyr King, Charles I, the inscription says, ’prepared be to follow me’."

Mourning rings had been around since at least the 14th century, but came into their own in the 17th: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mourning_ring

An example:
https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/350-yea…

Gerald Berg  •  Link

Lay with my wife with much content...

This sort of comment has been missing from his journal for awhile. A sort of heads up?

San Diego Sarah  •  Link

"... the King dining yesterday at the Dutch Embassador’s, ..."

Incredibly, L&M do not say who this was.
Senior Librarian Google does not have a list of 17th century Dutch ambassadors to the Court of St. James.
Terry Foreman hasn't puzzled it out.
No portraits suggest a suspect.
John Evelyn seems not to have known him.
My Graham Greene biography of Rochester only quotes Pepys' take on this event.
No Dutch correspondence is available that I have come across.
Ideas, anyone? With such a story, someone, somewhere, must have puzzled out a name for this Embassador.

San Diego Sarah  •  Link

"... and in the afternoon to Colonel Middleton’s house, to the burial of his wife, ..."

L&M say that records indicate Elizabeth Middleton was buried on the 16th, but don't say where. I suppose Pepys wrote the entry later and got his days mixed up again.

San Diego Sarah  •  Link

Talking about Graham Greene's biography of "Lord Rochester's Monkey" ... and since Pepys doesn't appear to follow up for us on this story ... GG says Rochester was apparently drunk, because Lady Sunderland later wrote that, "He was in a case not to know what he did, but he is forbid the Court."

Fighting with Tom Killigrew wasn't smart: He was a favorite wit of Charles II from their days in exile; he was a highly acclaimed playwrite, particularly for Parson's Wedding; and he had a reputation for being very high minded and moral.

By March 11, 1668/9, Rochester's reputation was in the gutter, and if he had been smart, he would have retired to the country to the care of his long-suffering pregnant wife, Elizabeth Mallet. But no, he gets involved with a dispute between the Duke of Richmond and James Hamilton on March 9 which involved Buckingham, Savile, William Coventry, and who knows who else. Some were sent to the Tower to cool off, and to avoid a duel.

It was widely reported that Rochester would go to France, in disgrace with Charles II (a story Charles encouraged), having apologized to Henry Killigrew for insulting his father.

But that wasn't quite what happened: Charles wrote to Minette from Newmarket on March 12 saying "This bearer, My Lord Rochester, has a mind to make a little journey to Paris, and would not kiss your hand without a letter from me; pray use him as one I have a very good opinion of; ..."

GG doesn't know when Rochester returned, but reports his first daughter, Anne, was baptized on August 30, so it's reasonable to assume he was home for the event.

Log in to post an annotation.

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