Valentine's Day As I recall, on every previous Valentine's Day Sam has gone into detail about the custom of having the first woman he sees be his Valentine, and his efforts to make sure it would be somebody suitable for the role. Today, no mention. Because it's Sunday? Or has he just outgrown the custom?
"(yet with a good will were it not for my obligation to have bought one)"
This phrase means the opposite of what it looks like at first. It's clearer if we insert a couple of commas: "yet with a good will, were it not for my obligation, to have bought one" What Sam means here is that he really wanted to buy one, but his oath against spending money except when necessary kept him from doing so.
very fine pig Fresh roasted pig, the meat pulled fresh from the bone, is one of the finest meats on earth, tender and succulent. I had one roasted in an earth oven in Hawaii once that still stands out in my memory. So please don't dis the pig.
"I am almost sorry for this present" I take it that Sam means here that he would rather Falconer were still in his debt, so he could go visit him in Woolwich in the summer. But that puzzles me; these people (I mean Sam's acquaintances generally) seem to visit each other all the time without there being obligations to discharge. Maybe Sam was thinking of a more extended stay, several days or a week, which would be a significant imposition.
"which makes our merchants mad" To our modern ears, this sounds like they were annoyed about it, but the word "mad" was much stronger in Sam's time, meaning (sensu strictu) insane, or in this context, outraged.
Just to be clear, I wasn't suggesting that Dutch Maes derived from Spanish (or Portuguese) Maez, but rather that Maes might have been an alternative early spelling of the Hispanic form, quite independent of the Dutch lookalike. However, it's all pure speculation on my part.
Amen to cumgranosalis, who said "Privileges of those that be better, is much sighted in Houses of Lauds and House communis, where a constable or just a gent could get thee in deep water. Justice be not readily available for Hoi Polloi."
We saw a particularly mordant example of this the other day, reported as an annotation on Abraham Granger http://www.pepysdiary.com/encyclo… of which the following is the relevant extract:
"The pamphlet laid bare the facts that Charles Gerard had acquired Gawsworth by means of a forgery and had fraudulently produced evidence to discredit the genuine will. Unfortunately Alexander Fitton was perhaps unaware of the statute of Scandalum magnatum which protected the 'great men' of the land from such accusations. As a peer of the realm Charles Gerard was entitled to the protection of this statute and simply presented a copy of the offending pamphlet to the House of Lords who promptly called Alexander Fitton before them and forced him to apologise on bended knee and fined him £500. Since Alexander Fitton didn't have the necessary £500 to pay the fine, he was clapped in prison, which is where he spent the next twenty years of his life."
Maes/Maez? From a brief googling, Maes does appear to be a Dutch or Flemish surname. However, Maez is an old Hispanic family name here in New Mexico. Perhaps Maes was a spelling variant of it at one time, like Gonzales/Gonzalez or Gomes/Gomez.
"only to see and bless God to find the difference that is now between our condition and that heretofore" Wonder why Sam thinks God favors him over Hartlibb and the others.
Sorry - every once in a while my inner atheist demands attention.
The King and "the King" When Pepys talks, as he often does, about saving money for or getting the best deal for "the King," I really think he is not thinking of the person Charles, but of an abstraction which today we would call "the government." A conscientious civil servant will do his or her best to serve the government well, whatever he/she may think of the people currently at the head of it. (I speak as someone who worked for the U.S. government through five administrations.)
"counterfeiting of hands - Does this mean forging of signatures and handwriting?"
Yes, I think so. The only reference I have found to Granger identifies him as a "notorious forger." See the Granger link http://www.pepysdiary.com/encyclo… for further information, plus a fascinating tidbit of Restoration history.
See http://www.everything2.com/index.… for a discussion of the century-long litigation over the Gawsworth Estate, in which Granger played a role. The following passage is relevant:
In 1660 the world changed; the Cromwellian republic was no more and the monarchy was restored. Charles II now sat on the throne and Charles Gerard could return to England in triumph at the head of the new king's personal bodyguard.
By now William Fitton was in his dotage and it was his son Alexander who now acted as head of the family. With the return of Charles Gerard, Alexander anticipated a reopening of the dispute regarding Gawsworth and so made an effort to reach a compromise with the Baron Gerard, but met with little success. He was contemptuously dismissed by Gerard who now had every confidence that his friendship with the king would now enable him to obtain the 'justice' that had earlier been denied.
Charles Gerard soon launched a lawsuit claiming that he was the rightful owner of the Gawsworth estate. In support of this contention he produced a will dated 16th August 1643 in which he was named as sole beneficiary of the late Edward Fitton's estate. Unfortunately the will wasn't sealed and all the witnesses to the document were long dead but Charles claimed to be able to produce further testimony to support the contention that the will had once been sealed and that the signatures were genuine.
This of course left any court with the difficult choice of deciding between two conflicting wills and no doubt unwilling to leave anything to chance Charles Gerard now decided to put matters beyond doubt. He arranged for the arrest of a notorious forger by the name of Abraham Granger and through threats of violence and the promise of an annuity of a £100, Granger was persuaded to falsely testify that he had forged the 1641 will which granted Gawsworth to William Fitton. To add credibility to the tale further witnesses were hired to support the story that William Fitton had indeed hired Granger to forge the 1641 will.
In November 1662 the case came before the Court of the King's Bench and Charles Gerard's carefully laid preparations bore fruit as the court was indeed persuaded the court that the genuine will was a forgery and the forged will genuine and awarded Charles Gerard possession of Gawsworth.
Nevertheless Alexander Fitton continued to pursue avenues of appeal although without success and his opponent even launched a successful prosecution for perjury against him, which left Alexander languishing in prison for a while. Strangely enough Alexander found some support from the aforementioned Abraham Granger who, disappointed by the failure to of Gerard to pay the promised annuity had decided to confess the truth. This enabled Alexander produced a pamphlet entitled, A True Narrative of the Proceedings in the Several Suits in Law That Have Been Between the Right Honourable Charles Lord Gerrard of Brandon and Alexander Fitton Esq, in a bid to whip up public support for the case.
The pamphlet laid bare the facts that Charles Gerard had acquired Gawsworth by means of a forgery and had fraudulently produced evidence to discredit the genuine will. Unfortunately Alexander Fitton was perhaps unaware of the statute of Scandalum magnatum which protected the 'great men' of the land from such accusations. As a peer of the realm Charles Gerard was entitled to the protection of this statute and simply presented a copy of the offending pamphlet to the House of Lords who promptly called Alexander Fitton before them and forced him to apologise on bended knee and fined him £500. Since Alexander Fitton didn't have the necessary £500 to pay the fine, he was clapped in prison, which is where he spent the next twenty years of his life.
[Well, the last paragraph isn't exactly relevant to Granger, but it's interesting enough that I had to include it.]
"go buy yourself a pair of gloves" I think Bob T may be right, that this is just a way of presenting the gratuity, without actually committing the recipient to buying the gloves. I remember reading a detective/police novel set in New York in the 1940s or 1950s (and written at about that time, I believe) in which the comparable euphemism was "I'll buy you a hat," which meant I'll give you $25, about the cost of a new hat at that time.
"heretofore out of a humour she was wont to give her" I *think* this means that Elizabeth previously gave Margaret Penn her elevated seat to annoy Lady Batten, although today she took it for herself. Anybody have a better idea?
Comments
First Reading
About Sunday 14 February 1663/64
Paul Chapin • Link
Valentine's Day
As I recall, on every previous Valentine's Day Sam has gone into detail about the custom of having the first woman he sees be his Valentine, and his efforts to make sure it would be somebody suitable for the role. Today, no mention. Because it's Sunday? Or has he just outgrown the custom?
About Saturday 13 February 1663/64
Paul Chapin • Link
"(yet with a good will were it not for my obligation to have bought one)"
This phrase means the opposite of what it looks like at first. It's clearer if we insert a couple of commas:
"yet with a good will, were it not for my obligation, to have bought one"
What Sam means here is that he really wanted to buy one, but his oath against spending money except when necessary kept him from doing so.
About Thursday 11 February 1663/64
Paul Chapin • Link
very fine pig
Fresh roasted pig, the meat pulled fresh from the bone, is one of the finest meats on earth, tender and succulent. I had one roasted in an earth oven in Hawaii once that still stands out in my memory. So please don't dis the pig.
About Thursday 11 February 1663/64
Paul Chapin • Link
"I am almost sorry for this present"
I take it that Sam means here that he would rather Falconer were still in his debt, so he could go visit him in Woolwich in the summer. But that puzzles me; these people (I mean Sam's acquaintances generally) seem to visit each other all the time without there being obligations to discharge. Maybe Sam was thinking of a more extended stay, several days or a week, which would be a significant imposition.
About Tuesday 9 February 1663/64
Paul Chapin • Link
"which makes our merchants mad"
To our modern ears, this sounds like they were annoyed about it, but the word "mad" was much stronger in Sam's time, meaning (sensu strictu) insane, or in this context, outraged.
About Thursday 4 February 1663/64
Paul Chapin • Link
Just to be clear,
I wasn't suggesting that Dutch Maes derived from Spanish (or Portuguese) Maez, but rather that Maes might have been an alternative early spelling of the Hispanic form, quite independent of the Dutch lookalike. However, it's all pure speculation on my part.
About Wednesday 3 February 1663/64
Paul Chapin • Link
Amen to cumgranosalis, who said
"Privileges of those that be better, is much sighted in Houses of Lauds and House communis, where a constable or just a gent could get thee in deep water. Justice be not readily available for Hoi Polloi."
We saw a particularly mordant example of this the other day, reported as an annotation on Abraham Granger http://www.pepysdiary.com/encyclo…
of which the following is the relevant extract:
"The pamphlet laid bare the facts that Charles Gerard had acquired Gawsworth by means of a forgery and had fraudulently produced evidence to discredit the genuine will. Unfortunately Alexander Fitton was perhaps unaware of the statute of Scandalum magnatum which protected the 'great men' of the land from such accusations. As a peer of the realm Charles Gerard was entitled to the protection of this statute and simply presented a copy of the offending pamphlet to the House of Lords who promptly called Alexander Fitton before them and forced him to apologise on bended knee and fined him £500. Since Alexander Fitton didn't have the necessary £500 to pay the fine, he was clapped in prison, which is where he spent the next twenty years of his life."
About Thursday 4 February 1663/64
Paul Chapin • Link
Maes/Maez?
From a brief googling, Maes does appear to be a Dutch or Flemish surname. However, Maez is an old Hispanic family name here in New Mexico. Perhaps Maes was a spelling variant of it at one time, like Gonzales/Gonzalez or Gomes/Gomez.
About Friday 29 January 1663/64
Paul Chapin • Link
"only to see and bless God to find the difference that is now between our condition and that heretofore"
Wonder why Sam thinks God favors him over Hartlibb and the others.
Sorry - every once in a while my inner atheist demands attention.
About Monday 11 January 1663/64
Paul Chapin • Link
The King and "the King"
When Pepys talks, as he often does, about saving money for or getting the best deal for "the King," I really think he is not thinking of the person Charles, but of an abstraction which today we would call "the government." A conscientious civil servant will do his or her best to serve the government well, whatever he/she may think of the people currently at the head of it. (I speak as someone who worked for the U.S. government through five administrations.)
About Monday 11 January 1663/64
Paul Chapin • Link
"counterfeiting of hands - Does this mean forging of signatures and handwriting?"
Yes, I think so. The only reference I have found to Granger identifies him as a "notorious forger." See the Granger link http://www.pepysdiary.com/encyclo… for further information, plus a fascinating tidbit of Restoration history.
About Abraham Gowrie Granger
Paul Chapin • Link
A "notorious forger"
See http://www.everything2.com/index.… for a discussion of the century-long litigation over the Gawsworth Estate, in which Granger played a role. The following passage is relevant:
In 1660 the world changed; the Cromwellian republic was no more and the monarchy was restored. Charles II now sat on the throne and Charles Gerard could return to England in triumph at the head of the new king's personal bodyguard.
By now William Fitton was in his dotage and it was his son Alexander who now acted as head of the family. With the return of Charles Gerard, Alexander anticipated a reopening of the dispute regarding Gawsworth and so made an effort to reach a compromise with the Baron Gerard, but met with little success. He was contemptuously dismissed by Gerard who now had every confidence that his friendship with the king would now enable him to obtain the 'justice' that had earlier been denied.
Charles Gerard soon launched a lawsuit claiming that he was the rightful owner of the Gawsworth estate. In support of this contention he produced a will dated 16th August 1643 in which he was named as sole beneficiary of the late Edward Fitton's estate. Unfortunately the will wasn't sealed and all the witnesses to the document were long dead but Charles claimed to be able to produce further testimony to support the contention that the will had once been sealed and that the signatures were genuine.
This of course left any court with the difficult choice of deciding between two conflicting wills and no doubt unwilling to leave anything to chance Charles Gerard now decided to put matters beyond doubt. He arranged for the arrest of a notorious forger by the name of Abraham Granger and through threats of violence and the promise of an annuity of a £100, Granger was persuaded to falsely testify that he had forged the 1641 will which granted Gawsworth to William Fitton. To add credibility to the tale further witnesses were hired to support the story that William Fitton had indeed hired Granger to forge the 1641 will.
In November 1662 the case came before the Court of the King's Bench and Charles Gerard's carefully laid preparations bore fruit as the court was indeed persuaded the court that the genuine will was a forgery and the forged will genuine and awarded Charles Gerard possession of Gawsworth.
Nevertheless Alexander Fitton continued to pursue avenues of appeal although without success and his opponent even launched a successful prosecution for perjury against him, which left Alexander languishing in prison for a while. Strangely enough Alexander found some support from the aforementioned Abraham Granger who, disappointed by the failure to of Gerard to pay the promised annuity had decided to confess the truth. This enabled Alexander produced a pamphlet entitled, A True Narrative of the Proceedings in the Several Suits in Law That Have Been Between the Right Honourable Charles Lord Gerrard of Brandon and Alexander Fitton Esq, in a bid to whip up public support for the case.
The pamphlet laid bare the facts that Charles Gerard had acquired Gawsworth by means of a forgery and had fraudulently produced evidence to discredit the genuine will. Unfortunately Alexander Fitton was perhaps unaware of the statute of Scandalum magnatum which protected the 'great men' of the land from such accusations. As a peer of the realm Charles Gerard was entitled to the protection of this statute and simply presented a copy of the offending pamphlet to the House of Lords who promptly called Alexander Fitton before them and forced him to apologise on bended knee and fined him £500. Since Alexander Fitton didn't have the necessary £500 to pay the fine, he was clapped in prison, which is where he spent the next twenty years of his life.
[Well, the last paragraph isn't exactly relevant to Granger, but it's interesting enough that I had to include it.]
About Francis Tryan
Paul Chapin • Link
Repairing Clement's first URL:
http://www.exclassics.com/newgate…
The second one works as is.
About Friday 8 January 1663/64
Paul Chapin • Link
A slight repair of Clement's URLs:
http://www.exclassics.com/newgate…
http://www.exclassics.com/newgate…
(The closing period and paren in the originals keep them from working.}
About Tuesday 5 January 1663/64
Paul Chapin • Link
"go buy yourself a pair of gloves"
I think Bob T may be right, that this is just a way of presenting the gratuity, without actually committing the recipient to buying the gloves. I remember reading a detective/police novel set in New York in the 1940s or 1950s (and written at about that time, I believe) in which the comparable euphemism was "I'll buy you a hat," which meant I'll give you $25, about the cost of a new hat at that time.
About Thursday 31 December 1663
Paul Chapin • Link
Happy New Year.
After four years, we should all get B.P. (Bachelor of Pepys) degrees.
Many thanks to Phil and to all the annotators who have made this extended sojourn in Restoration London not only possible, but Positively Palatable.
Looking forward to post-graduate study starting tomorrow.
About Saturday 26 December 1663
Paul Chapin • Link
"upon condition he would give me the buying of them"
Does anyone understand what this means? I'm at a loss.
About Wednesday 23 December 1663
Paul Chapin • Link
Thinking it through a little further,
I guess when he was through with the funeral procession he simply left the coach, and the driver took it back.
About Wednesday 23 December 1663
Paul Chapin • Link
So when did he return the coach and six?
He presumably didn't take them to the 'Change. Wish he'd told us, I feel a lack of closure.
About Sunday 20 December 1663
Paul Chapin • Link
"heretofore out of a humour she was wont to give her"
I *think* this means that Elizabeth previously gave Margaret Penn her elevated seat to annoy Lady Batten, although today she took it for herself. Anybody have a better idea?