"there chose two or three good Cutts to try to vernish"
I don't quite follow this. I assume "cutts" are engravings, but why would one varnish them? If for preservation, one would assume that the engraver would do that before selling them. And why would one have to "try" to varnish them? All you would need is some varnish and a brush, I would think.
Phil glosses this as a hackney carriage. That could be right, but Wheatley evidently thought Sam meant they returned home through the town of Hackney, hence the capital H. Looking at the map, Hackney is certainly out of the way for going home from Islington, but maybe that was what made it a "tour." Also, Sam mentioned earlier that they went on the tour by "coach," and there's no reason to suppose they changed vehicles midway.
What a full day - gossip, business, sentiment, art, amour, plague fears, and lobsters left in the coach. If anyone asks you why you read Pepys' diaries, point them to this entry.
Oakum: loosely twisted hemp or jute fiber impregnated with tar or a tar derivative and used in caulking seams and packing joints (Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary)
I looked for a while for mentions of its use in eye-patches, but the only one I found linked right back to today's entry. Sounds like an improvisation caused by desperation.
"I don’t think any kind of drug was criminalised before the 20th century,"
Well, it depends on what you mean by "drug." Tobacco was outlawed in various European states, and China, in the 17th century. Coffee was outlawed in several Islamic countries and Ethiopia in the 16th and 17th centuries, and of course Islam has always proscribed alcohol.
I meant to add, the normal procedure for making a will official at the time was to read it aloud in the presence of the witnesses. It was considered peculiar to ask people to sign as witnesses without having heard the will read, although as my first post said, witnesses were not necessary for a written will to be valid if the handwriting was demonstrably that of the testator. People who wanted to keep the contents of their wills private relied on this provision.
"the witnesses are only there to see you sign the document. They have no need to see the contents."
Well, the source I cited went on at some length on this point. There were such cases, where the witnesses only saw the signing without the contents, but they were the exception. Many testators were illiterate, and the witnesses had to verify that the document said what it was supposed to. And even in cases like Sam's, witnesses would sometimes refuse to sign something they hadn't read. So privacy was a major concern for many preparing wills at the time. Sam, to be sure, makes no mention of the matter, so we can't know what he thought.
Interesting that Sam does not mention the presence of any witnesses to his will-writing. The little bit of research I did on this point indicates that it was common but far from universal to have witnesses. Here's a relevant passage from the best source I found:
"A will indubitably written or subscribed in the testator's hand was valid even if it had not been witnessed during his lifetime ... The law relating to [wills bequeathing land] was made more stringent by the Act of Frauds of 1677, which required three credible witnesses ..." Ralph Anthony Houlbrooke, "Death, Religion, and the family in England, 1480-1750," p. 88.
Since Sam's handwriting was well represented in many documents, and it was not yet 1677, he didn't need witnesses, and presumably didn't want any, for privacy's sake.
Eric Walla asks: would they have gotten around to criminalizing marijuana in Sam's time?
Answer: no. Marijuana criminalization started in the early 20th century. There is some controversy about the reasons, but the strongest evidence, in my view, supports the analysis that it was the result of racism and cultural warfare. See http://www.alternet.org/drugrepor… for a long, lively historical survey supporting this view.
JWB, thanks for that Wikipedia citation. I knew Indiana was all messed up timewise, but I had no idea of the extent of it. I used to be in a job where I had to telephone people all over the U.S., so I had to know what time it was pretty much everywhere, but for Indiana it was just impossible.
BTW (and even further OT), I recently learned that the entire nation of China is on a single time zone. Imagine what that must mean for people on the eastern and western borders.
George Downing was a man of many parts, but being an anchor-smith was surely not one of them. The link between this Mr.Downing and Sir George is unwarranted.
RG's latest scenario reminded me of an old joke about Quakers. A Quaker surprised a burglar in his house. He picked up his hunting rifle and said, "Friend, I would not harm thee for the world, but thou standest where I am about to shoot."
I hear you, Sam. Just a couple of weeks ago I finally gave up on 2-3 months effort to discover the source of a $180 discrepancy between my checkbook and the bank statement. It happened to be in my favor, but that didn't make it any less frustrating not being able to figure it out.
If, as Terry reports, L&M show "emptying" instead of "shying" in the sentence about Sir W. Penn's pot, I'd be careful about alerting OED to this entry. It doesn't look like a scanning error, but it may have been an editing error, by Wheatley or Braybrook misreading the shorthand.
I didn't calculate, but yes, it's an enormous sum. I haven't priced pearls lately, but last I knew, you could get a pretty nice necklace today for 80L or about 150 dollars. The only place you could get 5-6 portraits for that amount is at the cartoonist's booth at the county fair.
I was curious, as I said, about the comparative prices of precious stones at Sam's time. What little I've been able to find suggests that diamonds were much rarer then than now (although artificial restrictions on their supply by the DeBeers cartel keep their prices up). The other precious stones, I don't know. I was wondering if Sam might have chosen an emerald necklace, for instance, for Elizabeth instead of pearls, or if that would have been completely out of his range.
Comments
First Reading
About Wednesday 20 June 1666
Paul Chapin • Link
"there chose two or three good Cutts to try to vernish"
I don't quite follow this. I assume "cutts" are engravings, but why would one varnish them? If for preservation, one would assume that the engraver would do that before selling them. And why would one have to "try" to varnish them? All you would need is some varnish and a brush, I would think.
About Sunday 17 June 1666
Paul Chapin • Link
"our tour by Hackney home"
Phil glosses this as a hackney carriage. That could be right, but Wheatley evidently thought Sam meant they returned home through the town of Hackney, hence the capital H. Looking at the map, Hackney is certainly out of the way for going home from Islington, but maybe that was what made it a "tour." Also, Sam mentioned earlier that they went on the tour by "coach," and there's no reason to suppose they changed vehicles midway.
About Sunday 17 June 1666
Paul Chapin • Link
"we saw one of the prettiest little boys with the prettiest mouth that ever I saw"
I suspect he may mean a choir boy who sang especially well.
About Sunday 17 June 1666
Paul Chapin • Link
"if he be good for any thing doubt not to get him preferment"
This is the first time I remember seeing Sam use "doubt" the way we would. It may be because it's in a negative context.
About Wednesday 13 June 1666
Paul Chapin • Link
What a full day - gossip, business, sentiment, art, amour, plague fears, and lobsters left in the coach. If anyone asks you why you read Pepys' diaries, point them to this entry.
About Monday 4 June 1666
Paul Chapin • Link
Good point, cgs. A gravel pit would have roughly the shape of a parabolic reflector.
About Wednesday 6 June 1666
Paul Chapin • Link
Terry, thanks very much for giving us Evelyn's account of the day's events. A rather more somber (and realistic) perspective than Sam's unalloyed joy.
About Monday 4 June 1666
Paul Chapin • Link
"his right eye stopped with okum"
Oakum: loosely twisted hemp or jute fiber impregnated with tar or a tar derivative and used in caulking seams and packing joints (Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary)
I looked for a while for mentions of its use in eye-patches, but the only one I found linked right back to today's entry. Sounds like an improvisation caused by desperation.
About Friday 25 May 1666
Paul Chapin • Link
"I don’t think any kind of drug was criminalised before the 20th century,"
Well, it depends on what you mean by "drug." Tobacco was outlawed in various European states, and China, in the 17th century. Coffee was outlawed in several Islamic countries and Ethiopia in the 16th and 17th centuries, and of course Islam has always proscribed alcohol.
About Sunday 27 May 1666
Paul Chapin • Link
I meant to add, the normal procedure for making a will official at the time was to read it aloud in the presence of the witnesses. It was considered peculiar to ask people to sign as witnesses without having heard the will read, although as my first post said, witnesses were not necessary for a written will to be valid if the handwriting was demonstrably that of the testator. People who wanted to keep the contents of their wills private relied on this provision.
About Sunday 27 May 1666
Paul Chapin • Link
"the witnesses are only there to see you sign the document. They have no need to see the contents."
Well, the source I cited went on at some length on this point. There were such cases, where the witnesses only saw the signing without the contents, but they were the exception. Many testators were illiterate, and the witnesses had to verify that the document said what it was supposed to. And even in cases like Sam's, witnesses would sometimes refuse to sign something they hadn't read. So privacy was a major concern for many preparing wills at the time. Sam, to be sure, makes no mention of the matter, so we can't know what he thought.
For those who would like to read more about wills in 17th century England, the link is
http://books.google.com/books?id=…
Chapter 4 is "The making of wills."
About Sunday 27 May 1666
Paul Chapin • Link
Interesting that Sam does not mention the presence of any witnesses to his will-writing. The little bit of research I did on this point indicates that it was common but far from universal to have witnesses. Here's a relevant passage from the best source I found:
"A will indubitably written or subscribed in the testator's hand was valid even if it had not been witnessed during his lifetime ... The law relating to [wills bequeathing land] was made more stringent by the Act of Frauds of 1677, which required three credible witnesses ..."
Ralph Anthony Houlbrooke, "Death, Religion, and the family in England, 1480-1750," p. 88.
Since Sam's handwriting was well represented in many documents, and it was not yet 1677, he didn't need witnesses, and presumably didn't want any, for privacy's sake.
About Friday 25 May 1666
Paul Chapin • Link
Eric Walla asks: would they have gotten around to criminalizing marijuana in Sam's time?
Answer: no. Marijuana criminalization started in the early 20th century. There is some controversy about the reasons, but the strongest evidence, in my view, supports the analysis that it was the result of racism and cultural warfare. See http://www.alternet.org/drugrepor…
for a long, lively historical survey supporting this view.
About Tuesday 15 May 1666
Paul Chapin • Link
"he is very doubtful" = he suspects strongly (that we shall fail)
About Sunday 13 May 1666
Paul Chapin • Link
JWB, thanks for that Wikipedia citation. I knew Indiana was all messed up timewise, but I had no idea of the extent of it. I used to be in a job where I had to telephone people all over the U.S., so I had to know what time it was pretty much everywhere, but for Indiana it was just impossible.
BTW (and even further OT), I recently learned that the entire nation of China is on a single time zone. Imagine what that must mean for people on the eastern and western borders.
About Tuesday 8 May 1666
Paul Chapin • Link
George Downing was a man of many parts, but being an anchor-smith was surely not one of them. The link between this Mr.Downing and Sir George is unwarranted.
About Saturday 5 May 1666
Paul Chapin • Link
RG's latest scenario reminded me of an old joke about Quakers. A Quaker surprised a burglar in his house. He picked up his hunting rifle and said, "Friend, I would not harm thee for the world, but thou standest where I am about to shoot."
About Monday 30 April 1666
Paul Chapin • Link
"I am to this day at a loss for 50l"
I hear you, Sam. Just a couple of weeks ago I finally gave up on 2-3 months effort to discover the source of a $180 discrepancy between my checkbook and the bank statement. It happened to be in my favor, but that didn't make it any less frustrating not being able to figure it out.
About Monday 30 April 1666
Paul Chapin • Link
If, as Terry reports, L&M show "emptying" instead of "shying" in the sentence about Sir W. Penn's pot, I'd be careful about alerting OED to this entry. It doesn't look like a scanning error, but it may have been an editing error, by Wheatley or Braybrook misreading the shorthand.
About Saturday 28 April 1666
Paul Chapin • Link
I didn't calculate, but yes, it's an enormous sum. I haven't priced pearls lately, but last I knew, you could get a pretty nice necklace today for 80L or about 150 dollars. The only place you could get 5-6 portraits for that amount is at the cartoonist's booth at the county fair.
I was curious, as I said, about the comparative prices of precious stones at Sam's time. What little I've been able to find suggests that diamonds were much rarer then than now (although artificial restrictions on their supply by the DeBeers cartel keep their prices up). The other precious stones, I don't know. I was wondering if Sam might have chosen an emerald necklace, for instance, for Elizabeth instead of pearls, or if that would have been completely out of his range.