Annotations and comments

Louise Hudson has posted 501 annotations/comments since 9 November 2013.

Comments

Second Reading

About Thursday 20 August 1663

Louise Hudson  •  Link

If the girl was " a parish child of St. Bride's . . . Recommended by the church warden," surely she could be found. Sam could have at least complained to the warden about his poor "recommendation." Good help may have been hard to find back then but it's even worse here and now. We can't hire children, not even lice-ridden orphans, so the supply is thinner than ever.

About Thursday 6 August 1663

Louise Hudson  •  Link

"Black" wasn't used to mean African, necessarily, but Italian, Spanish, Greek or other dark-haired and olive-complected people. I've heard English people even today refer to olive-skinned people as "black." But the woman was described by Sam as "a daughter of Mr Brumfield", so I can't imagine what he actually meant by black. Did Mr Brumfield have a "black" wife?

About Tuesday 4 August 1663

Louise Hudson  •  Link

I think that most married people in those days before birth control expected to have children. Not only would the couple expect them but so would the extended family. It was probably rare and disconcerting when a young, seemingly healthy, couple did not produce children on a regular basis. Their knowledge of biology would have been scant, and I can imagine both Sam and his wife wondering why babies had never appeared. Women of that time didn't have much else to do, childless women usually lending a hand to family members who had more than they could handle. Though it's true that Sam doesn't write much about it, most likely he assumed pregnancy and childbirth were women's business. It would be interesting to know how Liz felt about it. I expect she felt a great emptiness in her marriage and her life.

About Tuesday 28 July 1663

Louise Hudson  •  Link

I can understand that Sam doesn't want to take on further responsibility for the boy, but he has a very hard heart, indeed. Surely he could have thought of something besides complete rejection of Wayneman and his sister who was trying her best to save him and threw herself on Sam's mercy.

About Thursday 23 July 1663

Louise Hudson  •  Link

Dirk wrote:

Interesting to note how much difference a comma can make too...

As in Eats, Shoots & Leaves: The Zero Tolerance Approach to Punctuation, by Lynne Truss

About Sunday 12 July 1663

Louise Hudson  •  Link

Re Josselin's vs Pepys' weather reports. It's true, Pepys may have been in an area where it wasn't raining. I find that many English people will call it a "a fine day" as long as it isn't raining at the moment.

About Saturday 11 July 1663

Louise Hudson  •  Link

Jeannine wrote:

How many of us reading this will now double (or perhaps triple) check the locks before going to sleep next time you're away from home! Wouldn't this be freaky to wake up to!

For us, yes, but not so much for Pepys and his cohorts, seeing how they flop in any bed that's available and even share it with one of a very odd assortment of people. Not sure they had locks on the doors--or even doors. Sam probably wasn't as suprised or shocked by clerk standing at his bed as any of us would be, though he was apparently taken aback by his words. If the clerk had just crawled in beside him, Sam might not have thought twice about it.

About Monday 29 June 1663

Louise Hudson  •  Link

Although he would have sung the praises of "doing it" I don't think Sam would have added anything about falling in love.

About Monday 1 June 1663

Louise Hudson  •  Link

Todd Bernhardt: "Another indication of what Sam considers "betimes" (though I'd thought 5:00 was betimes, and 4:00 "very betimes")."

According to http://www.biblestudytools.com/di…

It means "early" or "earlier than usual" so it could be any time before Sam's usual rising time.

Presumably he took the word from the KJV Bible, where it appears frequently.

in Genesis 26:31 "they rose up betimes in the morning," also in 2 Chronicles 36:15

About Monday 1 June 1663

Louise Hudson  •  Link

Terry F: "Does anyone else wonder whether there was a 17th-century remedy for menses besides bedrest - for the well-off."

You may have hit the nail on the head. Only well-off women could afford to stay in bed during menstruation, cramps or no, endometriosis or no. Working women got up and went to work, often walking long distances, running up and down stairs and doing heavy lifting. It helped the blood flow and may be the reason they were healthier all around. They couldnt afford to give in to their "monthlies."

About Tuesday 26 May 1663

Louise Hudson  •  Link

Perhaps Sam is driven to distraction by the thought that his wife could be doing with Pembleton what he has done with more than one of the "pretty women" he has noticed. A double standard he is likely to accept without question.

About Sunday 24 May 1663

Louise Hudson  •  Link

NJ Lois--Sam may know right from wrong but as we know, he gives into wrong more often than not.

As for Liz being a feminist--it's true that she would not be one by 20th or even 19th century standards, but even then, not all women who considered themselves feminists wanted to earn her own living or acquire skills that would give them comparable status to their husbands, nor did they treat women of the "lower classes" with much respect, but I think Liz did exhibit the seeds of later feminism. She wanted to have her say and would probably have said so, at least for the women of her own class. It took a long time for today's widespread feminism to develop from those tiny seeds (and we still have a long way to go). Meanwhile, there was a tremendous amount of resistance from both men and women through its years of development.

About Monday 25 May 1663

Louise Hudson  •  Link

Spotted fever: epidemic typhus, a louse-borne disease, which reached epidemic proportions in the 17th-19th centuries, especially following wars.

About Sunday 24 May 1663

Louise Hudson  •  Link

Liz would have made a wonderful 20th Century feminist. She doesn't let Sam push her around and she gives as good as she gets. I wanted to cheer when she told him about the pretty woman at church and Sam immediately trots off to see. She knows him far better than he knows her. And how "convenient" that Mr. Pembleton was in attendance, too. I can just see her smirking behind her glove. Sam, you don't have a chance. You've met your match. I love it!

About Friday 15 May 1663

Louise Hudson  •  Link

There is a good history of woman's undergarments, including during Pepys time here.http://www.historyextra.com/…

The diary is quoted regarding women wearing "drawers"

As Australian Susan points out, women wearing drawers was roundly criticized by men for the usual reasons.

"Paintings, woodcuts and book illustrations both of sacral and secular themes show only men wearing this type of underpants . . . . When women are shown wearing pants it’s always in the context of ‘a world turned upside down’. Trousers and underpants were considered a symbol of male power and women wearing them were pugnacious wives trying to usurp the authority of their husbands, or women of low morality."

About Saturday 9 May 1663

Louise Hudson  •  Link

Sam, Sam, you don't wear a wig instead of washing your hair! People have been washing their hair regularly for millennia, all over the world. Soap and water does just fine.

About Saturday 2 May 1663

Louise Hudson  •  Link

My husband, who was born and raised not all that far from where Pepys lived, said he never heard the term "pricklouse," so it probably didn't survive into the 20th century. I wish I could ask my father-in-law, though.

About Saturday 2 May 1663

Louise Hudson  •  Link

Women were always blamed then for being 'barren". In fact, it was more likely Pepys' problem. He sired no child during his long life and we know he slept with many women. More likely Bess was a victim of his infertility. She may have been perfectly capable of bearing children with a fertile man.

Pricklouse! I love it. Bess apparently has a backbone! Unfortinately she was unfamiliar with the more appropriate word, "shithead".