Sunday 16 December 1660
In the morning to church, and then dined at home. In the afternoon I to White Hall, where I was surprised with the news of a plot against the King’s person and my Lord Monk’s; and that since last night there are about forty taken up on suspicion; and, amongst others, it was my lot to meet with Simon Beale, the Trumpeter, who took me and Tom Doling into the Guard in Scotland Yard, and showed us Major-General Overton, where I heard him deny that he is guilty of any such things; but that whereas it is said that he is found to have brought many arms to town, he says it is only to sell them, as he will prove by oath.
From thence with Tom Doling and Boston and D. Vines (whom we met by the way) to Price’s, and there we drank, and in discourse I learnt a pretty trick to try whether a woman be a maid or no, by a string going round her head to meet at the end of her nose, which if she be not will come a great way beyond.
Thence to my Lady’s and staid with her an hour or two talking of the Duke of York and his lady, the Chancellor’s daughter, between whom, she tells me, that all is agreed and he will marry her. But I know not how true yet.
It rained hard, and my Lady would have had me have the coach, but I would not, but to my father’s, where I met my wife, and there supped, and after supper by link home and to bed.
37 Annotations
First Reading
Bradford • Link
Any volunteers to verify the string round your head and nose test? Anyone who understands just what maneuvers these instructions denote?
Alan Bedford • Link
It's a long way from current events to history...
Sam (and the social crowd he runs with) continue to speculate on the intentions of the Duke of York vis a vis Anne Hyde. We know, historically, that they exchanged vows about three and a half months ago.
What do you suppose the Duke's purpose may be in suppressing news of the marriage?
dirk • Link
"as he will prove by oath"
Does this refer to a specific legal procedure: proof by oath (as I think existed under Roman law), at the time admitted as proof in commercial (and other?) disputes? Or is Overton just going to swear he "didn't do it"?
vincent • Link
Oath; I do believe Hand raised and hand on book and signing appropiate document[and having it sealed with the right wax and fee]; It should have My Liege, Dreaded Sire, and the rest of the niceties of faawning, Knees deep in the pile. Look into the eyes and no devious clance and voice tones strong and convincing [no lie detector test device needed].
PHE • Link
Scotland Yard
Interesting to note that 'Scotland Yard' is the current headquarters of the London police force (the Met)- albeit 'New' Scotland Yard. Thus, although there was no police force at the time, there is pressumably some continuous link with the 'Guard'.
By 'maid', Sam pressumably means virgin. I wonder if he ever tried it out.
A. De Araujo • Link
"and there we drank and in discourse I learnt a pretty trick to try wheather a woman be a maid or no" see, they were gossiping about Anne Hyde and that lead to this conversation; there were no taboid press at the time.
Christo • Link
The Duke''s marriage . . .
. . . dates from the contract (24/11/59) not the avowal (03/09/60). At that date James was an exile with no money and few prospects. Now he is the King's brother and requires his consent before he can marry. The lady, of course, is a commoner.
Michael T. • Link
What a great entry! A little bit of everything - treason, things to try with the ladies and some hot gossip to round out the day! Speaking of treason, was this a serious plot or just some "house cleaning"?
David A. Smith • Link
"... he will marry her. But I know not how true yet"
Answering Alan: The Duke of York is the kingdom's most eligible bachelor, and Anne Hyde is a lowely commoner, not only of no geopolitical significance but a social laughingstock. From the future James II to take himself out of eligibility in this way is a gaffe of the first order (spoiler alert: James is going to make many, many more such) that will infuriate his brother and complicate his life. James is hiding from his brother's future wrath ...
David A. Smith • Link
"since last night there are about forty taken up on suspicion"
Whew! One day we're puttering about the house supervising workmen, the next forty people are swept up by the secret police and bundled off to the Tower. That's the kind of chill wind that will make Our Sam trot ever more spaniel-close to Montagu, Montagu's favor, and Montagu's protection ....
hanne • Link
In re: Bradford's query about the measuring-with-string virginity test --
Yes, this was a fairly common type of virginity test. The notion that sexual experience would expand or dilate other parts of the body (as it was believed to do with the vagina and/or womb) dates back to Ancient Greece; Soranus of Ephesus's "Gynecology" notes the belief that the neck thickens as a direct result of losing virginity. There's thus a long history of virginity tests involving pieces of string or ribbon that were wound around a woman's neck or around her head. The salient point was, ostensibly, that a nonvirgin would "outgrow" a string/ribbon that had previously fit her perfectly.
Pepys doesn't describe the technique in such a way that I can tell you exactly what part of the head the string was to encompass, and I'm not entirely clear on the role of the nose, but it appears from this that there may have been a belief that the size of the nose changed as a result of losing virginity. It'd fall into line with some of the other beliefs I've come across.
Cheers,
Hanne Blank
author, Virgin: A History of Our Most Controversial Universal (Forthcoming, Bloomsbury, 2006)
helena murphy • Link
Had Anne Hyde been a grand English heiress with a huge dowry for James the marriage would have been acceptable.Although certainly an eligiable bachelor his marriage would pale in significance to that of his older brother Charles,as the king is expected to marry for dynastic,political, and sound financial reasons. At this stage nobody foresees that Charles'future marriage will be barren of children in the light of he having so many healthy if illegitimate children already.In hindsight James'marriage is of tremendous political,social, and religious significance as it will produce not only two future Protestant Queens of England,Mary(1688-94)and Anne(1702-1714)but in the course of whose reigns the monarchy itself undergoes radical change to become the constitutional monarchy which today we are familiar with.Little did James and Anne realise,or anyone else for that matter, that in their backstairs love they were indeed great future harbingers of change.
Wim van der Meij • Link
Dear Hanne,
I am sure we are all looking forward to your book; only a couple of years to wait!
Wim van der Meij • Link
Prove by oath.. Could it be that the proof would be by fire: that he would walk on burning coal and remain unhurt?
Peter • Link
Wim, what you are describing is trial by ordeal. I don't think it was used any more by this stage. I'm sure that this oath is exactly as vincent describes it: one hand on the Bible and looking everyone staright in the eye.
Andrew Hamilton • Link
Secret Police, James, Anne and Virgins
I am, once again, astounded by the knowledge and incisive comment that these comments draw forth. Thank you, David Smith, Hanne and Helena Murphy.
Glyn • Link
Would he use the string virginity test? Based on Pepys' character, I think that he very probably would have done so - he likes to try things out, and he also ikes to tease his female friends. I can see him in a tavern or elsewhere, casually asking some unsuspecting young woman just to put a string around her head, and then teasing her with his friends because it "proved" that she was - or wasn't - a maid.
Gar Foyer • Link
Helena, even some earlier passages in the diary allude to the fact that long before the marriage the chancellor was quite mindful of the likely historical significance of legitimizing his daughter's and the Duke's offspring...
Since both Stuart brothers were w'mongers (in both possible usages, ie. wh...and wa....), the court's licentiousness and scandals were routine...
Perhaps the Stuart brothers never countenanced another revolution but diary readers will recall Montegu's blunt skepticism that Charles would survive long on the throne. Charles, despite his flirtations with divine rights and popery, became an adept political pragmatist and dissembler.
James did not.
Sam's ultimate loyalty to the doomed and deluded younger brother is touching but foolish.
dirk • Link
"proof by oath"
I take it the oath would only be acceptable as proof in the absence of other more substantial forms of evidence to the contrary - which if these were produced, would mean the oathtaker would not only stand trial for what he had previously denied, but also for perjury. Anyone knows of a contemporary example of such proceedings?
dirk • Link
"proof by oath"
Apparently the proof by oath could have far reaching consequences - also in criminal cases. Cfr. example from newspaper clipping anno 1730:
"13 June 1730 Last Saturday one John Sheffield was committed to Newgate by Justice Lambert, on the oath of John Waller, for robbing him on the highway in Essex of eleven guineas, seven shillings, and several India handkerchiefs. It is remarkable that James Dalton was lately executed, having been convicted upon the evidence of the said Waller, for robbing, him on the highway; and four other persons were committed to Newgate upon his oath for robbing him, in order to take their trials last Sessions; but the Bills of Indictment against two were return'd Ignoramus, the other two were try'd and acquitted.” [Weekly Journal, or The British Gazetteer]
Source:
http://www.infopt.demon.co.uk/gru…
Nigel Pond • Link
What Wim described is indeed trial by ordeal, similarly holding a red/white hot iron bar, and the trial of witches by dunking. In fact such trials did allow for a fair degree of latitude for the accused -- it would be up to the judge to decide how hot the bar should be, how long the dunking etc, so there was some discretion.
Trial by ordeal and the even older trial by battle were long gone by Pepys' time.
dirk • Link
"Trial by ordeal"
"In 1215 the Church abolished **trial by ordeal**. Trial by combat survived until the 1300s but was rarely used. (...)[Instead] Henry II fashioned the jury system: A group of local men (twelve - in imitation of Christ's disciples) were selected to tell the judges on oath what crimes had been committed in the area and whom they suspected. (...) To handle lesser crimes for which the royal judges had no time, monarchs began to appoint local gentry (smaller noble landowners) to the office of Justice of the Peace."
Source:
http://www.thehistorychannel.co.u…
Hic retearivs • Link
Trial by Combat
One moment, please. We need a learned gentleman here. Did not trial by combat endure into the 19th century in England?
dirk • Link
Trial by combat
Trial by combat means that the two parties in a judicial case fight it out (usually until one of them is dead) in front of the judge(s). The winner proves that his stand in the case was right. The loser is condidered to have lied, and is not only dead, but also lost the case.
This is a medieval procedure, where God is supposed to make the true party win, and was no longer used in 19th century England.
melinda trapelo • Link
How is a "trial by combat" different from a "duel?" Is it that a trial by combat is done in front of a judge and a duel is done privately?
Mary • Link
Trial by combat.
Trial by combat was, as explained above, part of an ancient judicial process and was held to be a method of delivering a heavenly verdict and sentence, often fatal. A duel was a private matter, usually arising from what was perceived as a matter of honour and honour could well be satisfied by the infliction of wounds that might or might not be fatal, but which were certainly humiliating.
Jenny • Link
Oath
In England an "oath" is still a legal concept. If an individual has to give a statutory declaration (required for various reasons) it must be sworn (i.e. on a bible/religious text or confirmed if non-religous) in front of a solicitor (lawyer, for all you americans) or a "commissioner for oaths". Basically it would have added weight to the statement being made.
hanne • Link
Updated virginity-and-string info:
I tracked down the test to which I believe this entry may refer, in two separate sources (one French, one Italian) dating from 1560 and 1608, respectively.
The test was accomplished as follows.
A string or ribbon would be wrapped around the head vertically, not horizontally, from the bone crest at the base of the skull above the spine, wrapping up and over the top of the head, coming down the forehead and going to the tip of the nose.
A mark would be put on the string/ribbon at the point where it touched the tip of the nose.
Then -- and this was considered the critical bit -- the string/ribbon would be wound around the young woman's neck. If the ends just met, she was a virgin. If her neck was substantially wider than the string was long, on the other hand, she was not. There is a hint in the later source that some people erroneously thought the same to be true if the string proved substantially overlong, and overlapped itself on being wrapped around the neck, suggesting that depending on where you were and/or who you asked, any deviation from the desired result (the string being *exactly* the right length to go around the neck) would be interpreted as proof of non-virginity.
Cheers,
Hanne Blank
Bradford • Link
Bravo to Hanne, and best wishes for upcoming publication. Anyone game to furnish test results to complete the inquiry?
Second Reading
Bill • Link
"where I was surprised with the news of a plot against the King’s person and my Lord Monk’s"
Sam has had a kind of fantasy life this year. His competency and connections have started him on an interesting and lucrative career. It's been fun as a reader to see and to anticipate. But. This diary has stimulated many of us, I hope, to examine the time period before 1660. What a shock! That large army and navy we've seen being dismantled didn't just happen. Violence, disruption, crisis - it was a totally different world that seemed to change overnight to sweetness and light just as our diary opened. Sure, we've seen pesky Presbyterians (what do they want anyway?), a few regicides (who would defend them?) and Sam's problem with once being anti-monarchical (apparently a non-problem, as it was for many). All of little consequence.
The "Restoration" must have seemed to him, as to me, an amazing and sudden event. And amazingly peaceful. But there is an underbelly; there are some who would resort to violence to overturn the new civic order. Sam has seemed oblivious to this possibility and even now, after seeing Overton in the morning, he can continue his frivolous drinking in the afternoon.
I hope we can discover exactly what these "fanaticks" want to accomplish but I don't think we'll learn much about that from SP.
Fanatics / Nonconformists: http://www.pepysdiary.com/encyclo…
Gillian Bagwell • Link
According to my research, the Duke of York and Anne Hyde were secretly married in Breda in November 1659, and secretly married again in London on September 3, 1660. She was already pregnant by the time of the second marriage.
When they fell in love, the chances that Charles would be king seemed remote, much less that James would be king. By the time of the second marriage, Charles had been restored to the throne and they knew that he would be angry that James had married without his permission.
Rumors were getting out by the time Sam is writing, and it's all about to hit the fan!
The marriages and fallout are events in my novel "The September Queen" (UK title "The King's Mistress"), about Jane Lane, who helped Charles escape after the Battle of Worcester in 1651. I have her present at the first marriage (and, in fact, introducing the duke and Anne Hyde), and involved in the aftermath of the second. She could well have been involved in all of it--she and Anne Hyde were both ladies in waiting at the court of Charles's sister, Mary of Orange.
I wrote a series of articles on the events in London in each month of 1660, including the huge and rapid developments in the theatre, which became legal again during 1660. If you're interested, links to the articles are on my website, www.gillianbagwell.com.
Chris Squire UK • Link
Hanne Blank's book's Amazon page:
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Virgin-Un…
Terry Foreman • Link
"In the afternoon I to White Hall, where I was surprised with the news of a plot against the King’s person and my Lord Monk’s; and that since last night there are about forty taken up on suspicion"
L&M: Overton's Plot; hatched by discontented sectaries and disbanded soldiers, allegedly under the lead of Maj.-Gen. Lanbert, at the time a prisoner in the Tower. Its aims were said to include the burning of Whitehall Palace, and the killing of the King and Albemarle: CSPVen. 1659-61, pp. 228, 230-1; M. P. Ashley, John Wildman, pp. 161+. Some examinations of those arrested are summarized in CSPD 1660-1, pp. 413, 416+.
Third Reading
Stephane Chenard • Link
Holy masked potatoes, not another plot against H.M.! Not a week goes by without a report in our State Papers on how some shmuck was overheard in a tavern promising to sheath-his-sword-&c. We even stumbled over one last week (https://www.pepysdiary.com/diary/…) while discussing the weather in Holland.
And then we surmise that Shmuck gets a free ticket to sunny Barbados like the others. But aye, this one looks a bit serious, and in fact has been ticking awhile, somehow without registering on Sam's radar. At the end of his summary of Mercurius Politicus for November, Thomas Rugg had a longish report that "in this month on[e] Major White was commited prisoner to the Tower of London, as report said for endevouring' a plotts and make a disturbance against kingly power". There followed "great serches", "the Kings guards doubled and cannon mounted in Whit Hall, a regiment of trained bands and a company a night apointed to watch", an entire foot regiment "quartred in the subuarbs of Westminester", all of this lost to Sam in the London noise as far as the Diary shows. The King's secretary, Edward Nicholas, wrote today that he "had early notice of this plot, but suffered it on purpose to ripen till it burst out a few days ago". Venetian ambassador Mocenigo, on the ball as always, reported on December 12 (December 24, new style; handy converter at http://aulis.org/Calendar/Old_%26…) that "some of the accomplices were arrested and imprisoned yesterday (...) Meanwhile strong guards have been set at all the corners of London and the palace" [https://www.british-history.ac.uk…] Aye, shocking we know, but Sam is five days behind on the newes. Well, his entries were kinda short lately, so he must've been busy, and only now thought "I gotta mention the plot".
And yes, "Many persons committed, as Major Generall Overton, Colonel Zankey, one Babinton and Bagster and other collonells". The State Papers for December 15 include a flurry of reports on the great serches, notably the examination of "John Hall, of Beech Lane, St. Giles's", whom Maj. Thomas White told "he would have the blood of General Monk, and would have killed him and burnt the city before, had his colonel permitted". Discipline, discipline, but still "he will make the city a second Jerusalem, by setting it on fire, and pull the King from his throne". A bit worryingly, Hall "showed [White] a Parliament roll, with the names of all those engaged in the design". Add to the plotters' list, in particular, "Miller, Baxter's Lieut.-Col.", and Hall himself, if he wasn't there to entrap White. Now that's a lot of colonels.
Stephane Chenard • Link
The specific project of "burning Westminster" which L&M references, is echoed in Mocenigo's mention that the reinforced palace guards are "as likely to be the first to suffer, as it seems these villains meant to set fire to them and destroy them". "Burning Westminster" still seems easier said than done - where do you start? How do you trap the king in a building of that size, where somebody is probably always rushing with a water bucket to take out a bad candle? Just an idea: on December 13, Nicholas also got a report on the seizure of a barrel of gunpowder, "brought (...) to Sarum [Salisbury?] and claimed by Himphrey Ditton, a Commonwealth man", one of several with "plots in hand", who "hope to (...) see the Cavaliers beg their bread before Christmas".
And so, here we are: Westminster in full panic mode. "Great guards att the Tower, in the Citty, and other places", the Mercurius reports, "and for almost a fortnight togeather all the talke was a plot or what persons was taken prisoners". From the King himself, no less than "A proclamation, commanding all cashiered officers and soldiers, and other persons that cannot give a good account for their being here, to depart out of the cities of London and Westminster" (full text at https://ota.bodleian.ox.ac.uk/rep…) Good luck with enforcing that one, but it should get the attention of the most inattentive, and it's a chance for the Watch to test the new night-sticks on a few "other persons".
Expect reports of guards, arrests, searches and more rogues and under-plots for weeks and weeks. Those evil Fifth Monarchists could be anywhere! Viz., Gen. Albermarle (whose regiment it is, that moved into Westminster) writes to Nicholas today that Col. John Clerk "is upon the guard at Whitehall, but it is not fit that he should be there this night". Amazingly, another "John Clerk" - gotta be the same man - petitions the King on the same day to be released from the Gatehouse. And what of the "obnoxious person (...) concealed in Wm. Du Gard's house, Newington Butts", whom "gentleman pensioner" Edward Short went to arrest and, Short wrote two days ago, who disappeared with Mr. Obnoxious despite posting a bond for £5,000? (Hmm. Du Gard, a papist froggie for sure). Anywhere, I tell you! Bar the doors!
Stephane Chenard • Link
And, ah yes, that other thing about the Duke and his, er, woman Ann Hyde. Piero Mocenigo the Venetian ambassador stays very close to the story, and reported on December 12 (24, new style) that "the King (...) seems to have taken the lady's side, telling his brother that having lacked caution at first he could not draw back in conscience at this stage" or embroil her dad Chancellor Hyde, "so it looks as if everything will go smoothly". Nothing new there, and it only confirms what Sam heard from my Lady Jemima, down corridors of power that have been positively thrumming with the barely-contained scandal.
Charles meanwhile has tried to defuse opposition by elevating Hyde to the Lords, on whose honour no Commons-man may dare trespass and, Mocenigo adds, "it is said that at [Charles'] coronation", planned for February, "the chancellor will be raised to the rank of duke, and so the marriage will be rendered more compatible" [https://www.british-history.ac.uk…] Actually our palantir suggests Hyde will only be created Viscount Cornbury and Earl of Clarendon, already something, but a dukedom would be a bit much.
San Diego Sarah • Link
"... but a dukedom would be a bit much."
I believe it was Sir Edward who thought being a Duke would be a bit much -- he couldn't afford to live like a Duke, he thought. He also was worried that people would think he had set up Anne to do this.
He was right to worry.
Clarendon did as much as Monck to bring about the Restoration, Clarendon shared Charles II's exile and its attendant dangers, and coached him on how to be a king for more than a decade, If Monck deserved a dukedom for being obscure for a year and slow marching for three months, IMHO Clarendon did more.