Annotations and comments

Louise Hudson has posted 502 annotations/comments since 9 November 2013.

Comments

Second Reading

About Friday 7 December 1666

Louise Hudson  •  Link

and there I sat with my cloak about my face, ...I was in mighty pain lest I should be seen by any body to be at a play.

He probably means anyone who knew he had promised to not to go to the theatre and might publicize it, or that he might be seen by someone who would mention it to his wife.

“and mighty good friends with my poor wife”

I think he meant she wasn’t giving him the cold shoulder after their recent contretemps.

About Sunday 2 December 1666

Louise Hudson  •  Link

CGS: who be we????????????????

Sam and Bess, no doubt. His behavior is outrageous, but not so outrageous as to bring a paramour into his house with his wife there.

I also suspect that Sam engages in a lot of fantasy regarding women and that many of his “activities” are all in his mind.

About Wednesday 21 November 1666

Louise Hudson  •  Link

“Here was Betty Michell with her mother. I would have carried her home, but her father intends to go with her, so I lost my hopes. . . . and after supper an hour reading to my wife and brother something in Chaucer with great pleasure, and so to bed.”

What, pray tell, would he have done with Betty Mitchell if he had been able to “carry her home” without her father going with her? His wife was home (he writes that she was home in the evening and he didn’t say she’d been out earlier). Would he have suggested a Ménage à Troi? And what about her brother? For all his supposed management abilities, Sam doesn’t seem to think ahead very well.

About Monday 29 October 1666

Louise Hudson  •  Link

“Sam today answers the question we were tossing around back when he bought the guineas. He bought 2,000 of them and paid the discount as a surcharge.“

Many thanks Paul Chapin for mentioning guineas. I couldn’t for the life of me figure out what ginnys were.

About Thursday 20 September 1666

Louise Hudson  •  Link

“. . . but am mightily troubled for my great books that I miss, and I am troubled the more for fear there should be more missing than what I find, though by the room they take on the shelves I do not find any reason to think it.“

It’s strange that Sam, with his proclivity for paperwork, hadn’t kept a catalog of all his books, especially since he’s so attached to them. If he had, he wouldn’t have had to wonder if any were missing.

About Friday 7 September 1666

Louise Hudson  •  Link

CGS wondered if Sam’s “drawers” were like today’s Boxers.

You won’t see men today wearing anything like the voluminous drawers worn in the 1600s. No elastic, either.

“Underneath their shirt or tunic they clothed their legs in braies or breeches. Braies were a loose fitting drawer-like garment which was attached at the waist with a drawstring and varied in length from upper-thigh to below the knee.”

See photos and more text here. http://www.fashionintime.org/hist…

From what I hear, they were laundered once a year, whether they needed it or not.

About Tuesday 17 July 1666

Louise Hudson  •  Link

Sam’s physical problems brings it home how it was to live with almost no effective diagnosis or medicine at all, not even aspirin or Pepto Bismol. You just suffered until it passed—or you got worse and sometimes died. But there were plenty of old wives takes, then as now. We’re supposed to know better now, but it turns out we don’t know much better.

About Sunday 15 July 1666

Louise Hudson  •  Link

Michael Robinson:

" ... to my washing my feet the night before."

It's the unnecessary bathing that will get you every time!

—-
I’ll bet Sam washed his feet once a month whether they needed it or not.

As for pasteurized milk, as we all know, nobody in 1666 could have known what pasteurization was, since it wasn’t to be discovered until nearly 200 years later. But before then plenty if people drank unpasteurized milk throughout their lives and lived to tell about it, just as plenty if people did even after pasteurization was discovered to the present day.

About Tuesday 19 June 1666

Louise Hudson  •  Link

At one time it was the fashion for women to tightly bind their breasts. Now I see why. Maybe Mercer will get smart.

About Tuesday 12 June 1666

Louise Hudson  •  Link

“. . . Whereof the Dutch annotators, as several fathers did long before them, on 1 Cor. 11:14, make men’s nourishing and wearing of long hair to be some degree, it being given to women, not only for an ornament and covering, but also in part for distinction of the female sex from the male."

Who is it who’s having a problem with the “distinction of the female sex from the male”? Certainly not the women! Isn’t this is one more example of the “superior” sex, expecting the world to conform to male needs and desires—then as now. Plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose.