Todd Bernhardt

Encyclopedia topics

Todd Bernhardt has written a summary for this topic:

Annotations and comments

Todd Bernhardt has posted 946 annotations/comments since 8 January 2003.

Comments

First Reading

About Thursday 7 February 1660/61

Todd Bernhardt  •  Link

re: Did Buckingham cheat?

I think the real issue here, which has so far been overlooked, is that Buckingham essentially calls Montagu a liar ("The Duke did, to my Lord's dishonour, often say that he [Montagu, I presume] did in his conscience know the contrary to what he then said, about the difference at cards”), and then, to add injury to insult, takes what should have been Montagu’s winnings (or, at least, takes back his portion of the pot).

I really don’t think it’s the money that’s the problem here; it’s honor. This is why Montagu calls Buckingham out by asking “whether he did remember what he said last night, and whether he would own it with his sword and a second.”

About Wednesday 6 February 1660/61

Todd Bernhardt  •  Link

re: "Goodenough the plasterer"

Now *there's* some honesty in branding, eh? "When it's got to be good enough, call Goodenough. When it's got to be the best, well ... call us anyway, and we'll try."

Love the remark about Mr. Jessop and the shift in social strata.

About Thursday 31 January 1660/61

Todd Bernhardt  •  Link

re: children with the same name

Lest we forget (I know, you were probably *trying* to), pugilist and pitchman George Foreman has five sons who share the same name ... their father's. Yes, they are George Jr., George III, George IV, George V, and George VI. I'll leave it up to you lot to make jokes about the madness of George III, the wanton ways of George IV, etc., etc.

He even has a daughter named Frieda George Foreman. I ain't lyin.

About Sunday 3 February 1660/61

Todd Bernhardt  •  Link

re: ...but he [Pedro] is now hid at my Lord's till night…

Kevin, it certainly looks to me that *someone* in Montagu’s household is an accessory … it’s a bit unclear from the text how much the master and mistress of the house know, but it seems as if Pedro (who “belongs” to the brother of Lady M) intends to hide out there and escape under cover of darkness. I think it’s unlikely that Lady M would not know what’s going on, given that Sam goes to see her right after hearing about the murder.

About Sunday 27 January 1660/61

Todd Bernhardt  •  Link

I guess this solves the mystery of the cook! (Hint: It was Slater.)

I trust someone w/access to L&M will fill us in on the bowdlerization of Elizabeth's sickness...

About Wednesday 23 January 1660/61

Todd Bernhardt  •  Link

Good point, vincent, and one that relates to your annotation for January 26th about the value of money. As I've read the diary, I've noted how often he eats and drinks out, and have been surprised at how casually he mentions it, knowing how conscious he is of money. So, either it was simply an accepted cost of living, or eating and drinking in pubs/taverns/restaurants back then was a helluva lot less expensive than it is today. (And, given the freshness of the cooking and possibly food, maybe safer than eating at home!) Thoughts?

About Monday 21 January 1660/61

Todd Bernhardt  •  Link

re: will much displease the poor seaman

True enough, TC, but I can't help wondering if the common Jack Tars will know enough about the situation *not* to blame the Navy Office, which is usually the source of their blessings, right? Sam has the right instincts, but I wonder if they'll do any good...

About Monday 14 January 1660/61

Todd Bernhardt  •  Link

re: SP and Lambert

Laura, you're correct to say that we discussed this issue before and that no one really knows for sure whether or not Sam showed Lambert his diary (see http://www.pepysdiary.com/diary/1… for more info), but FWIW, Tomalin thinks Lambert was one of two people to whom Sam revealed at least the existence (if not physical proof) of his diary. (Coventry was the other.)

About Wednesday 16 January 1660/61

Todd Bernhardt  •  Link

Again, no mention of luggage!

Sam goes home to put on his boots, but makes no mention of gathering up clothing and/or carrying luggage. Again, does anyone have info about how people handled trips like this back then? Did they carry "necessaries" with them, or did innkeepers/hosts provide the essentials, and clothes just got worn and worn and worn and worn...

(FWIW, I just asked about this at http://www.pepysdiary.com/diary/1… )

Nice to see that Sam has his priorities straight, and takes care of her who helps take care of him who helps take care of him. :-)

Love the use of "forsooth"! I'm going to try to use that in conversation over the weekend...

About Tuesday 15 January 1660/61

Todd Bernhardt  •  Link

Sam's luggage?

I just realized, reading this entry, that (if I recall correctly) Sam never mentions luggage when he talks about these short trips. He leaves Sunday, returns Tuesday, and so one would think that as he "walked to Dick-Shore, and thence to the Towre and so home," he would be carrying a pack of some sort, containing a change of under- and outer-garments (and perhaps other items).

True? Does anyone know what the practice was back then when people would go on short trips?

Also, Rex -- you hope Elizabeth doesn't have Lyin' Eyes, but isn't sauce for the gander sauce for the goose? :-)

About Sunday 13 January 1660/61

Todd Bernhardt  •  Link

re: Sleeping arrangements

I don't think Sam and Mr. Davis are sharing a bed ... see yesterday's entry, which shows that Sam is *lodging* "most prince-like" at Mr. Davis's.

To answer Emilio's question about the pew, I had assumed in reading the entry that "the pew belonging to us" is owned by, or was given to, the Navy Office and its representatives, a necessary arrangement given their power and influence in the town. If Sam had bought a pew there, surely he would have mentioned it earlier?

About Saturday 12 January 1660/61

Todd Bernhardt  •  Link

re: Sam's future readers.

I agree, Mary. Sam's directness of approach comes from the fact that this was an "internal dialogue," which strips away all artifice and lets the man -- warts and all! -- shine through.

Tomalin theorizes that there was a period late in Sam's life when he went back and read the diaries, and implies that this was when he realized their value as historical documents and decided to preserve them. So (and I know others may disagree with this), I believe that during the time he was writing the diary, he was writing purely for himself. And 300+ years later, we're the beneficiaries.

About Saturday 12 January 1660/61

Todd Bernhardt  •  Link

Exactly, David!

This entry is an excellent demonstration of two things. First, it's a testament to Sam's absolute honesty in the diary, a quality that is a rare wonder unto itself. How many of us are truly honest with ourselves? I'd venture to say that not many of us are, and that if we started a project like this we'd be sorely tempted in it to justify our actions, filter them through a variety of prejudices, etc. In the last several days, Sam has (among other things) written about his own cowardice, about his peevishness, about his schemes to inflate others' opinions of him, and about his own astonishment at his rising fortunes and how others treat him. Nix was entirely correct yesterday in pointing out that we are getting a glimpse into a person's life that few others get -- *plus* we're getting it with the benefit of hindsight and the knowledge of history, and (IMO) with the burden of our own prejudices and perspectives! We should simply observe Sam, and be thankful for this wonderous gift he left us. If we choose to judge anyone, we should judge ourselves in relation to Sam, not Sam himself. He doesn't care anymore, after all.

Secondly, this entry demonstrates Sam's expert ability to concisely and colorfully describe a scene. Arthur claimed yesterday that "anyone could have written these" entries, but IMO it just ain't true. Consider the context -- the vast majority of the writing of Sam's time was not nearly as clear and "modern" as this. Even Sam's own letters, when he was writing "formally," lose the charm and directness of his diary entries. Today's journalists train for many years to be able to combine these skills (clarity and color), and most of them still can't do it. Sam was one of the first, and because his diaries eventually became famous, his power and influence as a writer extend far beyond whether or not a single day's entry is particularly moving; the diaries are unparalleled, and his writing, even on the most mundane of days, never fails to inspire me.

About Tuesday 8 January 1660/61

Todd Bernhardt  •  Link

David, you're not alone.

The same "vulgar-minded" thought occured to me, but given Sam's absolute honesty elsewhere in the diary, I moved on to other vulgar thoughts.

About Tuesday 8 January 1660/61

Todd Bernhardt  •  Link

re: "head of Fanatiques"

It looks to me, from the context of the sentence, as if he's using the word "head" in the sense of a group of something ... yet I've been unable to find that meaning for the word in my contemporary resources. Can anyone with access to the OED elaborate on this?

Also, anyone care to elaborate on "but wronged by the women being to seek in their parts"? I don't quite understand that.

I love the first sentence of today's entry. It's a wonderful little glimpse into Sam and Elizabeth's love life ... they obviously enjoy each other's company, on many levels. Oh, how I wish my job allowed for that kind of flexibility in its scheduling! (He seems to blow off work completely today.)

About Monday 31 December 1660

Todd Bernhardt  •  Link

"but my expectation being too great, it did not please me, as otherwise I believe it would; and my having a book, I believe did spoil it a little."

Ah, how often are we prisoners of our expectations! Sam learns a valuable lesson ... better to just sit back, suspend disbelief (and expectations) and enjoy the show.

David, I can see both Kline (who's a fantastic actor ... he did the best Hamlet I've ever seen) and Hawke in those roles ... yeah, EH is a bit more of a surprise, but he's done quite a bit of stage work, so I would bet he's up for this role.

Finally, as this first year of Sam's life with us draws to a close, I'd like to thank Phil -- you RAWK, dude -- and all of you amazing annotators for much enlightenment and enjoyment throughout 2003. I'm really looking forward to the next nine years ... lots of exciting stuff ahead.

Best wishes for a happy, healthy and prosperous New Year, everyone!

About Wednesday 26 December 1660

Todd Bernhardt  •  Link

re: "for the death of the Princess!"

Can someone with access to L&M confirm whether or not this exclamation point belongs? As Paul Brewster has pointed out in the past, Sam rarely uses them, and they're mostly the result of scanning errors or Wheatley's editorial enthusiasm.