Sasha Clarkson

Annotations and comments

Sasha Clarkson has posted 752 annotations/comments since 16 February 2013.

Comments

Second Reading

About Monday 2 February 1662/63

Sasha Clarkson  •  Link

Jane Turner's husband John was a Serjeant at Law, which means a very senior barrister, senior even to a Queen's/King's Counsel (QC/KC).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ser…

All barristers belong to an Inn Of Court, so meeting Jane with Roger suggests that John, like Roger, might have been a member of the Middle Temple. The Middle Temple and Inner Temple are two Inns of court which occupy a magnificent site between Fleet Street and the Thames.

It's worth looking at on Google maps satellite image and Street View. The two Inns share the historical Temple Church.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tem…

When I was a student at KCL (next to Somerset House) in the 1970s, I frequently walked past the Temple on my way from Blackfriars Station to College: other days I walked down Fleet St itself, occasionally hearing the bells of St Clement Danes (a Wren Church) chime "Oranges and Lemons".

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_…
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6…

About Sunday 1 February 1662/63

Sasha Clarkson  •  Link

"Serves you right Sam"

I would be fascinated if you could explain your reasoning, referencing the social norms of the seventeenth century, and how this fits into the context of the complex relationships between the principal characters of the diary.

About Saturday 31 January 1662/63

Sasha Clarkson  •  Link

The diary gives us a glimpse, but not a full view. It doesn't give details about the day to day housekeeping, nor does Sam record trivia about everyday arrangements. However, just because no arrangements were mentioned, doesn't mean that none were made. It's very frustrating when we want to know more. Alas, a diary can never be a complete record, or it would take longer to write than to live.

About Saturday 31 January 1662/63

Sasha Clarkson  •  Link

Language, spelling and grammar are always evolving. Nonetheless, at any time there is a (flexible) common standard by which educated people understand each other. I had an email yesterday inviting me to sign an online petition. Although I sympathised with the cause, I didn't sign, because it was so poorly worded, as well as misspelt, that I wasn't prepared to put my name to it. In fact, it didn't really mean what I believe its creators intended it to mean, so the Parliamentary Standards Commissioner, to whom it was addressed, would not be able to act on it anyway.

A long time ago, I was a political press officer, so I had to edit or even rewrite pieces pieces by our Parliamentary candidate. We got on very well, but he didn't always enjoy my surgery on/butchery of his prose, (especially when it was to fit limited available space.)

We know from Sam's previous entries that he's very gratified by the interest My Lady takes in Elizabeth. We also know that he's very anxious, perhaps even neurotically so, for Team Pepys look good in front of all their social superiors. So this anxiety is what fuelled the evening's marital strife. People who feel strongly aren't always capable of being tactful: in fact, spouses/girl/boyfriends can't always bothered to be tactful, especially at the end of a long day.

Every relationship has arguments - and subsequent regrets. The diary gives a mere glimpse of those of Sam and Elizabeth: after all, we do not have a transcript of the conversations. Yet some annotators seem to enjoy rushing to sanctimonious and self-righteous judgement. The worst thing about this, is that it obscures rather than helps understanding of the diary in its historical context. Let the one without fault cast the first stone!

About Wednesday 28 January 1662/63

Sasha Clarkson  •  Link

San-Diego Sarah: it's well to remember that despite the Restoration, England as a whole still had a rather Puritan mindset. :)

The Restoration happened because of the perceived need for settled government: hence the side which lost the Civil Wars suddenly found itself in power, with the help and support of those like Sandwich who had served under Cromwell. While many welcomed some relaxation of the strictures of the previous regime, like the return of church music and the Theatre, there was suspicion and unease about the lifestyle of the Court and its supporters, and the example it set. So Sam is unhappy about some changes in the mentor to whom he owes everything.

I have seen something similar in modern times: I have relatives who lived in the old East Germany. To begin with, they were very happy to see the Berlin Wall come down, and experience the social liberalisation which came with it. After a while though they began to be rather uneasy about the general moral tone of the society which they had joined, and the everyday social/commercial pressures of media, advertising etc. For example, my aunt, smart in every way and a senior university statistician, felt that the position of women had weakened, as they were now expected to dress to objectify themselves, whereas such things were unimportant before. Attitudes in the old East Germany are still different, a quarter of a century on.

In England too, the puritan mindset lingered. There was covert sympathy for the "Good Old Cause" for several decades, and it certainly contributed to the defeat of James in 1688.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goo…

About Wednesday 28 January 1662/63

Sasha Clarkson  •  Link

Ned Pickering was brother of Sandwich's Neighbour and brother-in-law Sir Gilbert Pickering*, and not entirely without means. Laud/Loud was a servant rather than a social equal, so if, for the amusement of m'Lord, he were actually playing too, I would guess that Sandwich was putting up his stakes.

*Thus he was a relation by marriage to Sam. Sir Gilbert's wife was Sandwich's sister Elizabeth. Their mother Paulina was half-sister to Pepys' grandfather Thomas Pepys "the Black". Paulina's full brother, Talbot of Impington, was still alive, and Sam met him last year. He was father of Roger Pepys the Lawyer, and the apparently rather boorish Dr Thomas Pepys.

Sir Gilbert Pickering's daughter Elizabeth eventually married John Creed, who thus became a relative by marriage of both Sandwich and Sam.

About Tuesday 27 January 1662/63

Sasha Clarkson  •  Link

When looking at individual actors, it is always important to consider the bigger picture.

For the benefit of new visitors, as I have suggeted before, Sam's protection of Creed was really protection of Sandwich, under whose command Creed served as Deputy Treasurer of the Fleet. Although, in his own post, Sam is not answerable to Sandwich, he does owe his position to Sandwich's patronage and therefore first and foremost remains Sandwich's man on the Navy Board. Part of his job was to watch Sandwich's back. That would have been understood and uncontroversial at the time, even though Sam is also trying to curry favour or solicit approval of other powerful men.

Post diary, after Coventry's fall and Sandwich's death, Sam was by now James' man. Hence Sam himself became a target for those who wished a proxy to attack the Duke of York. Sam defended himself, and thus James, with great determination and skill. He was also defended by Coventry, no longer in office, but an increasingly distinguished parliamentarian.

BTW I suspect that the post of 'Deputy Treasurer', was actually chief treasurer to the actual fleet, but, formally, a deputy to the Treasurer of the Navy, currently Sir George Carteret.

About Wormwood

Sasha Clarkson  •  Link

The diary refers to "wormewood wine", in principle now more commonly known as Vermouth*, but just as Coca Cola no longer contains cocaine, Vermouth generally no longer contains wormwood!
(or, at most, very small quantities)

❝..."wormwood wine". By the mid-17th century, the drink was being consumed in England under the name "vermouth" ...❞

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ver…

*as in Martini, Noilly Prat, etc

About Monday 26 January 1662/63

Sasha Clarkson  •  Link

"wormewood wine", in principle now more commonly known as Vermouth, but just as Coca Cola no longer contains cocaine, Vermouth generally no longer contains wormwood!
(or, at most, very small quantities)

❝..."wormwood wine". By the mid-17th century, the drink was being consumed in England under the name "vermouth" ...❞

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ver…

About Edward Mountagu (Ned)

Sasha Clarkson  •  Link

During the course of the diary, Pepys' opinion of Ned gradually became more negative. There were no problems at the beginning. Indeed, when it was announced that Sandwich was to be sent to Portugal, and that Sam would "receive orders from my Lord Chancellor and Mr. Edward Montagu" his reaction was "At all which my heart is above measure glad ..." (The reference on this page, and the subsequent one on 14th June, mistakenly links to the Earl of Manchester.)

http://www.pepysdiary.com/diary/1…

After this, Sam, and others in Sandwich's circle, gradually took against Ned because he made a poor job of being PA and agent to Sandwich as ambassador to Portugal. The final straw came on 14th February 1661/2 when it it turned out that he appeared to have embezzled £2000 of Sandwich's money for his own use, and left Sandwich with £1000 of debts to pay.

http://www.pepysdiary.com/diary/1…
http://www.pepysdiary.com/diary/1…

Ned was a younger son of a cousin to whom Sandwich had given a chance to rise, but Sam felt that he had abused his position and brought "team Sandwich" into disrepute, to the dishonour of them all. Hence Sam was"troubled and ashamed". Sam was very much a team player, possibly by nature, and certainly by perceived self-interest.

Pepys also felt that Ned's jealousy, hot-headedness and lack of judgement reflected poorly on the Montagu clan to which he owed his allegiance. The duel with Hugh Cholmley, which Ned lost ignominiously, was an early example of the behaviour which would eventually cause Ned to be banished from court.

http://www.pepysdiary.com/diary/1…

About Sunday 25 January 1662/63

Sasha Clarkson  •  Link

Ned Montagu going "down the wind in honour as well as every thing else, every day".

Sam had no problems with Ned at the beginning of the diary. Indeed, when it was announced that Sandwich was to be sent to Portugal, and that Sam would "receive orders from my Lord Chancellor and Mr. Edward Montagu" his reaction was "At all which my heart is above measure glad ..." (The reference on this page, and the subsequent one on 14th June, mistakenly links to the Earl of Manchester.)

http://www.pepysdiary.com/diary/1…

After this, Sam, and others in Sandwich's circle, gradually took against Ned because he made a poor job of being PA and agent to Sandwich as ambassador to Portugal. The final straw came on 14th February 1661/2 when it it turned out that he appeared to have embezzled £2000 of Sandwich's money for his own use, and left Sandwich with £1000 of debts to pay.

http://www.pepysdiary.com/diary/1…
http://www.pepysdiary.com/diary/1…

Ned was a younger son of a cousin to whom Sandwich had given a chance to rise, but Sam felt that he had abused his position and brought "team Sandwich" into disrepute, to the dishonour of them all. Hence Sam was"troubled and ashamed". Sam was very much a team player, possibly by nature, and certainly by perceived self-interest: hence his recent defence of Creed's accounts despite his own reservations. Ned's hot-headedness and lack of judgement reflected poorly on the Montagu clan to which Sam owed his allegiance.

About Thursday 22 January 1662/63

Sasha Clarkson  •  Link

Sam was in Montagu's service before his marriage, so it seems quite likely that he had a small closet somewhere: small by the standards of Whitehall Palace that is!

About Tuesday 20 January 1662/63

Sasha Clarkson  •  Link

"sometimes how I feel about it": The "sometimes" is key. If the record is for oneself only, a partial record will bring a fuller memory to mind.

About Thursday 22 January 1662/63

Sasha Clarkson  •  Link

One of JRR Tolkien's many philological jokes was to translate 'cul de sac' as 'Bag End' in his Middle Earth novels.

"cul" IS from Latin culus, and is often used profanely in French. (it was one of the first words my French friends taught me).

About Tuesday 20 January 1662/63

Sasha Clarkson  •  Link

"Somewhat pompous"? Can't a man be pleased with himself sometimes in a PRIVATE diary of his doings, hopes, fears, joys and pains? Or does he have to be modest, deceiving even himself about his feelings and motivations, for the sake of others' prim puritanical sanctimony? In which case what's the point?

In any case, the diary is hardly a record of over-fulfilled Five-Year-Plans! Yesterday, as often, Sam was judging himself: "God forgive me! I was a little moved with envy ..."

I kept a diary, almost daily, for several years, starting when I was seventeen, partly because, in a moment of prescience, I feared looking back in ten or twenty years time and forgetting who I had been. More than 40 years later I still have them, and they really are of no interest to anyone else. For me they are at times uncomfortable reading, but it does no harm to be embarrassed occasionally by one's younger self. In general, I can look back on perceived Triumph and Disaster, and regard both those impostors with relative equanimity!

It is fortunate for us, and for history, that Sam's private thoughts have survived, and painted him , and the society he lived in, "warts and all". Perhaps, when he was older, Sam's memories of his younger self helped him lend a sympathetic ear to his younger friends, relatives and protégés?

About Sunday 18 January 1662/63

Sasha Clarkson  •  Link

"And no attempts at padding friends' (or tolerated competitors') salaries..." might be a good one to consider."

I presume Robert refers to Sam's protection of Creed. This was NOT petty corruption: as I mentioned yesterday, Sam's duty to Creed is part of his social obligation to Sandwich, which everyone at the time would have understood. It occurs to me now that the holes in Creed's accounts might well have been moneys disbursed by him on Sandwich's behalf, or Sandwich helping himself to petty cash out of Creed's Navy chest. Sandwich, if not venial, was certainly a hopeless money manager: in future years he actually had to borrow money from Sam, who by then had vastly improved his own fortunes. So, when mocking Sam's parsimony, or anachronistically criticising it, it is well to reflect that without it, both he and his patron might have been ruined.

Life was precarious, Sam mentioned his worries the other day as to "how things would be with them all if it should please God that I should die". His parents would not be able to cope with the ongoing legal dispute, Bess would be a homeless widow, Tom would have to sink or swim in the business, young John might have to leave university, and Pall's last chance of obtaining a marriage portion would be gone.

Everything and everyone depends upon Sam: so he swears his oaths, tries to save money, is diligent in the office, cautiously invests in the odd business venture, watches his back, and tries to improve his standing with those who can protect him. He's certainly no saint, but he does his best. Fortunately he does not have to read the more fatuous advice given by people living three and a half centuries later! ;)

About Sunday 18 January 1662/63

Sasha Clarkson  •  Link

I have no doubt that that Sam took his oath very seriously indeed: that's why it was an oath and not a resolution.

Oaths were part of the social glue which kept society together in feudal days, weakening but not gone in Sam's time, nor even today. Oaths are still embedded in the legal system. Walk on any English high street, and you are likely to see "Commissioner for Oaths" on the sign in the window of the local *solicitor's office.

(*Lawyer: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sol…)

I recently had to swear two oaths in my capacity as executor of a will: one was at the probate office, that I would carry out my duties in the manner prescribed by law, and the other was a sworn affidavit before a solicitor confirming my identity, as my name had been mis-spelled in the will. In both cases I declined the Bible and chose to affirm instead: a right won in Sam's lifetime, initially by Quakers in 1695, but now universal in the UK. However, I believe that most people just put their hand on the Bible!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aff…

About Saturday 17 January 1662/63

Sasha Clarkson  •  Link

Re Creed: he, like Sam is a "client" (informally similar to the Roman sense) of Sandwich. He was treasurer of the fleet which went with Sandwich to fetch Catherine of Bragança. Although Sam does not think much (at least) of Creed's record keeping, clearing his accounts is part of his duty to Sandwich, to whom he owes his own place. Failure do do to would undermine his patron (again in the Roman sense.)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pat…

The other officers aren't particularly happy with with the situation, but nor do they want to take action which might be deemed to be a political attack upon Sandwich, who is still in the King's confidence, even if his star is no longer ascending. It may well be no big deal by contemporary standards, except that Coventry and Sam are trying to clean up the Navy's administration: hence Sam's embarrassment.

In fact, although Sam is loyal to Sandwich, there are hints that, given the fluctuating political tides, he feels the need to have other protectors too: hence his cultivation of Coventry and the Duke of York.

In the end, political loyalty defined Sam's career: he stood by Sandwich, stood by Coventry, and although no Papist, stood by James, in all cases at some risk to himself. When James fell, Sam's career came to an end and, after a nervous couple of years, he enjoyed a long and honourable retirement.