What none of us has remarked on is that, back in February, Pepys and Hawly experienced a situation with Squibb and Downing, where the ownership of a house and possibly the tellership of the exchequor was in question. Downing lost. https://www.pepysdiary.com/encycl…
The law then sided with the Fifth Monarchist, and today I think they would side with the King's appointment, but we can appreciate Pepys' anxiety to settle this situation.
L&M explains that the court case at the beginning of the Diary concerned possession of a HOUSE [my emphasis] in Westminster owned by Arthur Squibb (once Teller of the Exchequer) and occupied by William Swan. William Beaver, Squibb's tenant, brought an action of trespass and ejection: PRO, E13/637, m.25; E 12/19, p.21.
It sounds as if Downing became the Teller, and discovered that a house appeared to go with the office, and evicted William Beaver -- maybe he had sublet from William Swan? Squibb sued, claiming he owns the house
The Court ruling could imply they thought Squibb should still be the Teller, and therefore gave him his house back with damages. The on-lookers disagreed, and Downing continues to act as Teller, but still lost the house.
Or it could just mean they agreed that Squibb owned the house, and Downing was mistaken of his understanding about what went with the position.
As Downing promptly leaves for the Netherlands and takes his belongings with him, the housing situation is mute. If Squibb was claiming to be the Teller -- which is why Pepys fears for his job -- he must know that a Fifth Monarchist isn't going to keep that position for long, and appears to have taken his shilling and house, and left it at that.
"... drank with Mr. Pulford, servant to Mr. Waterhouse, who tells me, that whereas my Lord Fleetwood should have answered to the Parliament to-day, he wrote a letter and desired a little more time, he being a great way out of town."
L&M: Parliament was enquiring into the expenditure of public money during the "interruption" of parliamentary government, Oct-Dec 1659. Lt.-Gen. Charles Fleetwood, leading political figure of the army since Oliver Cromwell's death, was held primarily responsible, but appears to have escaped punishment. On 1 March, 1660, he wrote to [Adm.] Montagu from Feltwell, Norfolk, where, he said, he had gone for quietness sake. (Carte 73, f. 216s)
Pepys isn't the only one moving and feeling insecure about the future: "good lord how uncertain all these things are." -- Ralph Josselin's Diary today. The Puritan family who owned both the manors in Earls Colne had all moved away. The future of the village was uncertain.
I was under the impression that paper came in all sizes and shapes in the 17th century, so this might rule out the foolscap idea. BUT:
"The earliest example of such paper was made in Germany in 1479. Unsubstantiated anecdotes suggest that this watermark was introduced to England in 1580 by John Spilman, a German who established a papermill at Dartford, Kent." So foolscap was known in London by the 17th century.
Not in the mood for a deep dive on the subject tonight.
But I note Pepys BORROWED 2 sheets. That rules out the writing paper idea for me.
The grant under the privy signet authorized Killigrew and Davenant to build or hire two playhouses in London and to maintain two companies to act in them. But although the grant stated that there were to be no other theatrical establishments, rival companies continued to act, and Killigrew and Davenant were not immune from the hostile authority of the master of the revels.
On 25 April 1662 Killigrew at last obtained from Charles II a patent under the authority of the Great Seal. This contained 2 new clauses, one authorized him to enjoy his rights 'peaceably and quietly without the impeachment or impediment of any person or persons whatsoever' (i.e., including the master of the revels); and the other required the suppression of all other playhouses in London except Davenant's.
On 15 January 1663 Davenant was granted a similar patent, and the joint monopoly of the London theatre which persisted -- in theory at least -- until 1843 had been established."
At the Palace of Whitehall, today Charles II decrees there will be entertainment -- but it turns out to be not that simple:
When Charles II returned to England in May 1660 the theatrical affairs of London were in some confusion. In March 1660 Sir William Davenant, the dramatist and poet laureate, who still had in his possession a patent for a playhouse granted by Charles I, had taken a lease of Lisle's Tennis Court in Portugal Street, for conversion into a theatre. He had then departed to France to persuade Charles II to restore and confirm his rights.
Already in France with Charles II was Thomas Killigrew, playwright, one of the grooms of the bedchamber, and according to Pepys, 'a merry droll, but a gentleman of great esteem with the King', who may well have already promised him some theatrical preferment.
On 9 July, 6 weeks after the Restoration, a royal warrant required the issue of a patent under the Great Seal authorizing Killigrew to establish a company of actors and build a theatre. The warrant recognized Davenant's rights under his patent from Charles I, but all other companies of actors were to be suppressed.
Davenant was dissatisfied with this indirect authority and 10 days later he drafted a second warrant to authorize by a patent the establishment of a theatrical monopoly to be shared by Killigrew and himself.
This proposal upset Sir Henry Herbert, the master of revels, who on 4 August presented a petition to Charles opposing it on the ground that it would be 'destructive' of the authority of his office.
The question was referred to the attorney general, Sir Jeffry Palmer, who opined 'the matter more proper for A tolleration; than A Grant under the greate Seale of England'.
The grant passed the privy signet on 21 August 1660, but did not reach the final stage of a patent under the Great Seal, probably because Davenant had decided not to press the matter in face of Herbert's opposition, for in September Palmer added a note to Herbert's petition, stating that he had 'foreborne to proceede further haveinge alsoe receaved an intimacion by Letter from Sir William Davenant that I was freed from further hearing in this matter'.
Back at the Palace of Westminster, Charles II continues to thank people for services rendered:
Lady Elizabeth Fielding Boyle, Viscountess Boyle of Kinalmeaky became a Roman Catholic decades ago, and had, for years, shared Queen Mother Henrietta Maria's exile in France.
She was born Elizabeth Feilding, the daughter of Sir William Feilding (later created 1st Earl of Denbigh) and his wife Susan Villiers Feilding, sister to the royal favorite George Villiers, 1st Duke of Buckingham. William Feilding benefited greatly from his brother-in-law's rise in court, receiving various offices and dignities. William Feilding married circa 1607 and was invested as a knight around the same time, in March 1607. Sir William Feilding was created 1st Baron Feilding of Newnham Paddocks in 1620, and 1st Earl of Denbigh and 1st Viscount Feilding on 14 September 1622. Elizabeth Feilding Boyle had two sisters and two brothers who survived infancy. Her brother Basil, born ca. 1608, became the 2nd Earl of Denbigh upon their father's death.
While in France, Elizabeth Feilding Boyle, Viscountess Boyle of Kinalmeaky had charge of Margaret Blagge, daughter of Col. Thomas Blagge (and eventually wife of Sidney Godolphin). https://www.pepysdiary.com/encycl…
John Evelyn, author of the book "The Life of Mrs. Godolphin", depicts Lady Boyle of Kinalmeaky as a harsh, overly religious governess.
After the Restoration, Lady Boyle was made Countess of Guilford for life by Charles II on the 14 July 1660. She also held the office of Groom of the Stole and Lady of the Bedchamber to Queen Mother Henrietta Maria.
Elizabeth Boyle, Countess of Guilford died without issue c. 3 September 1667 at Colombes, France. Upon her death, the earldom of Guilford in this creation became extinct. https://en-academic.com/dic.nsf/e…
"I wonder if there is any of this in Sam's debt-paying, making sure that he is all-square with the Parish. "Is his new home in the same parish?"
There are traditionally four “quarter days” in a year [Lady Day (25 March), Midsummer (24 June), Michaelmas (29 September) and Christmas (25 December)]. So Pepys is either a bit late or very early settling up, but since he's moving to the other end of town, it makes sense.
No, his new parish will be St. Olave's. Lots more about that later.
I think he's in a hurry to move for a few reasons: 1. Montagu won't be next door any more, and expecting him to stop by and work; 2. Ownership is 9/10ths of the law; 3. He's tired of getting up early, walking to the Thames, finding a boatman, and sailing/being rowed to Tower Steps. Much better to fall out of bed and walk across the garden. And then doing that all in reverse.
I have a theory on why having Pepys' patent "finished" was so complicated, time consuming and expensive: After the King signs it, the recipient needs to take it to the various offices that need to know about the new order. In order to not only 1. make them read the paper, 2. earn money for reading it, 3. give the recipient proof that they have been informed of the change, and 4. they have retained a copy for future use it was necessary for the clerks to make a copy and endorse the recipient's copy before the recipient takes it to the next office.
My guess is that Pepys ends up with the original signed by Charles -- and maybe another copy with all their endorsements, or did they scribble all over the original?
Life without a xerox or duplication machine was time consuming. I remember -- I worked for Solicitors back in the day. I hated those carbon copies.
Thank you, Eric The Bish, for telling me about the Psychology of Clothes. I find it's available on line at https://archive.org/details/in.er… I'll check it out.
My understanding of how things were in the early 1660's: The incoming Courtiers had French tailors as well as English ones (Montagu mentions that), and wore colorful French fashions -- one can think of this as a political statement. Dark colors and "sensible" Puritan dress was a reflection of all things Interregnum, and therefore out. (Think tie dye and levis -vs- couture in the 1970's. Dressing that way showed disrespect to the establishment -- a young people's political statement.)
Back to the 1660's: clothing was very expensive, and therefore people who were not Courtiers continued to wear Puritan clothing hand-me-downs, but added ribbons, or adapted it to be less Puritan. We read of Pepys having his clothes recut.
Plus Pepys was not going to be a Courtier. The social level down from there took care not to misrepresent themselves, or draw too much attention to themselves -- which could have disasterous consequences.
An interesting painting from this time is called Man in Black by Gerard Ter Borch, which shows a fashionable dressed man. https://useum.org/artwork/Portrai…
In the early days of the Restoration, alliances to the throne or to Parliament were indicated through clothing. This man’s ensemble puts forth mixed messages as to who he was. The lack of excessive decoration, the sombre color, and the capotain suggest he was a Parliamentarian. Clerks traditionally wore black -- divines wore black -- think of the paintings of More and Wolsey: Lord Chamberlains in black -- poor men who wanted to be taken seriously. The man's longer hair, the fine construction and silhouette of his garments (namely the “shrunken” doublet and rhinegraves), his shoe and knee bows, and the crispness of his appearance suggest he has disposable income and an interest in fashion. We can assume he is from the wealthier classes based on these clues. He is chosing to dress this way, communicating his station in society, but also showing awareness of the fashionable trends.
I think he represents the model Pepys is trying to follow. Quality, awareness, but restrained.
That is, until October 1666 when Charles II promotes British exports and style by changing everything about men's dress -- and SPOILER, that's about the time we will see Pepys stretch his wardrobe choices, but he'll be living the right sort of life to support these decisions: https://www.pepysdiary.com/diary/…
[The more things change, the more they stay the same. I'm waiting for the Brits to roll out a "Swinging London" campaign, and turn fashion upside down once again. People always spend money to have fun and be stylish.]
Such angst about the Stuart Brothers' and court' behavior, so what does Charles do to divert attention? Put on a new style vest.
Arguably, he had great foresight:
In 1666, Charles II was not a supporter of the excessive amounts of embellishment and volume that characterizes early Restoration dress although it was a celebration of his return to the throne. Through consultation with his personal tailors, he instead adopts a new style of dress that costume historians claim is the origin of the modern day 3 piece suit. It featured a long, collarless, sleeved coat (called a justacorps or surtout). Under this was worn a waistcoat which was cut in a similar line as the justacorps. It, too, was sleeved. (The shirt was worn underneath the waistcoat). The waistcoat hem was a few inches shorter than the coat. The breeches that accompanied this ensemble were narrow, but not tight. They tapered toward the knee. When the justacorps was buttoned from neck to hem (which it had the ability to do), the waistcoat was completely hidden. Breeches peeked out just below the hem. Buttons spaced so closely that they were nearly touching one another was a common decorative feature.
Charles II vowed that he would wear this style of dress until he passed from this earth. He, of course, did not stay completely true to this vow. However, his influence over men’s wear is felt through the remainder of costume history.
From this point forward, France is no longer the European fashion leader for men’s wear. England is in the spotlight.
RLB - granted, all you say. I've been surprised by many annotations during the Diary showed the annitators did not know how racy, earthy, uninhibited -- shall I say joyful? -- the Stuarts were about sex. The Victorians may have been obsessed by sex, but it was far from a joyful freedom, even if Vicky did chase Albert around the Palace. Most women were taught to close their eyes and think of England.
The Puritans were a predictable backlash to Tudor/Stuart/upper class "unGodliness" -- greed, oppression, call it what you will -- after people found out what the Good Book really taught about being a Christian. Regardless, just the number of sermons preached promoting ethical sexual behavior tells you how open people's licentious behavior must have been. Live for today for tomorrow you die, etc.
I ignored Galileo to make a point about their personal relationship with God, which many of us do not experience these days either. What the likes of Montagu thought about God, and what Nan Hartlib and Mynheer Roder believed were light years apart. Even Robert Boyle and John Evelyn went to great lengths to incorporate their religious beliefs into their science.
So much about life that we take for granted was in flux in the 17th century. Ignore the flux and you don't understand the story. Writing about any specific understates the big picture. It's a quandry which reading the Diary solves, but that takes 9 years.
You mention the Puritans getting kicked out of the Netherlands. Spinoza was also thinking and writing there in the 1660's. His ideas about how to love God were also surpressed, although they were the mirror opposite of those Puritans. Same problem: specifics deny the big picture.
Bottom line: while we undertake this 9 year adventure together, let's be broadminded. Pepys is far from prudish, which should not turn us into default Puritans.
A history of Somerset House, plus a picture of how it was during Queen Anne of Denmark's time -- when it was called Denmark House: https://vgs-pbr-reviews.blogspot.…
And I refound the picture and article about Simerset House during Queen Mother Henrietta Maria's times: https://lostcityoflondon.co.uk/20…
It was a little city -- imagine how many people lived there, and how many people were needed to run it (not to mention mow those lawns).
And I wonder where Sir Edmund Berry Godfrey was alleged to have been murdered, and his body stored? -- but now we are decades after The Diary, so it's not a spoiler. Just a teaser to learn about the Popish Plot.
Aristocratic girls usually were bethrothed and sometimes married very young -- sometimes before puberty, so the parents kept the couple apart until they had matured. These unions were about money and land and power, not love. The female's chastity was prime, to ensure inheritance went to legitimate children.
There are many of stories about the woman only sleeping with her husband until she had produced a legitimate heir and spare, after which both husband and wife consider themselves able to play away from home, and the husband accepted whatever children turn up, since they probably won't inherit. (This was good for the gene pool in general.)
But we're talking about Nan Hartlib and Mynheer Roder -- he was a fundamentalist minister, and she came from a poor family who probably lived in cramped quarters. Opportunity would be a fine thing in their case -- if he would even participate; his concern with purity might dampen desire, and since she had been brought up in a Millennialist household, she would take that for granted.
17th century people's relationship with faith and God was much greater than ours. Even people who were not "religious" were conscious of it in a superstitious way. Many of them still thought the heavens revolved around earth, and God was really watching your every move, which were predestined. And some, not so much, of course.
Births and deaths took place at home; the bedroom was frequently occupied by many people at night. How ignorant could children be? Sex was right there.
Teenage hormones are the same today as they were then. What parents wanted and what happened were not/are not necessarily the same thing.
"Imagine in those days of pre-marital abstinence (or was it really?) he's raring to go, ...?"
Colin Gravois brings up an important question: The Stuarts were far from Victorians when it came to sex.
Marriage was a fairly recent requirement: "The story of British birth, marriage and death records starts way back in 1538. The Church of England split with Rome, and it was decided that every parish priest should keep a register of any baptism, marriage or burial that happened under their jurisdiction. "... These parish records, which, depending on the priest, could be either highly detailed or not kept at all, are the source of all BMD information up to 1837, when the lack of consistency in record-keeping saw the beginning of civil registration." https://www.findmypast.co.uk/blog…
During the Interregnum, weddings did not necessarily include church nuptials, because the Puritans considered marriage a civil contract. A magistrate officiated at the ceremony. Samuel and Elizabeth Pepys were married by a magistrate at St. Margaret's, Westminster. He was 22 and she was 14.
Lord Hardwicke’s Marriage Act of 1753 — AKA ‘An Act for the Better Preventing of Clandestine Marriage’ — Before this there were two distinct parts to a medieval marriage: the betrothal, where the two families worked out the financial exchanges and then the marriage service. If the couple chose to consummate the marriage before the wedding mass then the marriage was considered valid and the husband took control of all his partner's worldly goods then. Consummation was recognised by the presence of one child or more. This meant that the landed gentry were losing loads of land to unscrupulous ne'er-do-wells who got to the betrothal stage and then ran off with the bride to be and her assets. By insisting that the couple wait to consummate the marriage until after the register was signed, the family had much more control over the assets and made sure they went to the person they preferred. If the marriage wasn't consummated after signing the register it could still be annulled -- and is still one of the valid reasons for divorce. You have to sign the register for a marriage to be legal even now, so a handfasting which does not include a visit to the registrar with witnesses and the solemn declaration that you are free to marry is not legal. https://www.quillsandquartos.com/…
At Court today Charles II continues his "thank you's" per L&M Companion:
Rother / Roder / Roth / Rothe, Johannes / Jan / John, a merchant of Utrecht who, with his father (Burgomaster of Amsterdam) had befriended Charles II in exile. Wheatley: John Roder, knighted August 5, 1660. Le Neve calls him Roth and says he was of Utrecht.
So Nan Hartlib Roth seems to have married well, except Johannes was a Millenarian evangelist, and at some point during the 1660s he returned to the United Provinces, preaching the Second Coming and hoping to unite the Protestant churches of Europe in preparation for it. Gratitude only went so far.
Frederick Clod (or Clodius) (1625 – after 1661), was a physician and "mystical chemist" of German extraction. He lived in a sizeable house (taxed on eight hearths) in Axe Yard, London, next door to the Hartlibs, whose daughter Mary he married in 1660. He was also a neighbour to the diarist Samuel Pepys, who mentions him several times. He was a minor figure in scientific circles and a friend of Robert Boyle, to whom he supplied some very varied recipes.
He came to England in 1652, having been recommended to Samuel Hartlib by Johann Moriaen. He had been in the service of Frederick III of Denmark, collecting "Rarities", and himself was a native of Holstein.[5]
He presided at the wedding of his sister-in-law Nan Hartlib to Johannes Rothe in 1660. Pepys, a guest at the wedding, describes it as a social event of great magnificence. This suggests that Clod was a man of some wealth, since the Hartlibs were then living in dire poverty ("Nan will have nothing in the world" Pepys remarked), and Nan's father could not possibly have paid for the wedding. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fre…
"From the Archives of Scientific Diplomacy: Science and the Shared Interests of Samuel Hartlib’s London and Frederick Clodius’s Gottorf" -- by Vera Keller and Leigh T. I. Penman
ABSTRACT: Many historians have traced the accumulation of scientific archives via communication networks. Engines for communication in early modernity have included trade, the extrapolitical Republic of Letters, religious enthusiasm, and the centralization of large emerging information states. The communication between Samuel Hartlib Sr., Rev. John Dury, Duke Friedrich III of Gottorf-Holstein, and his key agent in England, Frederick Clodius, points to a less obvious but no less important impetus — the international negotiations of smaller states. Smaller states shaped communication networks in an international (albeit politically and religiously slanted) direction. Their networks of negotiation contributed to the internationalization of emerging science through a political and religious concept of shared interest. While interest has been central to social studies of science, interest itself has not often been historicized within the history of science. This case study demonstrates the co-production of science and society by tracing how period concepts of interest made science international. https://www.journals.uchicago.edu…
Comments
Third Reading
About Friday 13 July 1660
San Diego Sarah • Link
What none of us has remarked on is that, back in February, Pepys and Hawly experienced a situation with Squibb and Downing, where the ownership of a house and possibly the tellership of the exchequor was in question. Downing lost.
https://www.pepysdiary.com/encycl…
The law then sided with the Fifth Monarchist, and today I think they would side with the King's appointment, but we can appreciate Pepys' anxiety to settle this situation.
About Arthur Squibb
San Diego Sarah • Link
L&M explains that the court case at the beginning of the Diary concerned possession of a HOUSE [my emphasis] in Westminster owned by Arthur Squibb (once Teller of the Exchequer) and occupied by William Swan. William Beaver, Squibb's tenant, brought an action of trespass and ejection: PRO, E13/637, m.25; E 12/19, p.21.
It sounds as if Downing became the Teller, and discovered that a house appeared to go with the office, and evicted William Beaver -- maybe he had sublet from William Swan? Squibb sued, claiming he owns the house
The Court ruling could imply they thought Squibb should still be the Teller, and therefore gave him his house back with damages. The on-lookers disagreed, and Downing continues to act as Teller, but still lost the house.
Or it could just mean they agreed that Squibb owned the house, and Downing was mistaken of his understanding about what went with the position.
As Downing promptly leaves for the Netherlands and takes his belongings with him, the housing situation is mute. If Squibb was claiming to be the Teller -- which is why Pepys fears for his job -- he must know that a Fifth Monarchist isn't going to keep that position for long, and appears to have taken his shilling and house, and left it at that.
Pepys is not the best Court Reporter.
About Tuesday 31 January 1659/60
San Diego Sarah • Link
"... drank with Mr. Pulford, servant to Mr. Waterhouse, who tells me, that whereas my Lord Fleetwood should have answered to the Parliament to-day, he wrote a letter and desired a little more time, he being a great way out of town."
L&M: Parliament was enquiring into the expenditure of public money during the "interruption" of parliamentary government, Oct-Dec 1659. Lt.-Gen. Charles Fleetwood, leading political figure of the army since Oliver Cromwell's death, was held primarily responsible, but appears to have escaped punishment.
On 1 March, 1660, he wrote to [Adm.] Montagu from Feltwell, Norfolk, where, he said, he had gone for quietness sake. (Carte 73, f. 216s)
About Thursday 12 July 1660
San Diego Sarah • Link
Pepys isn't the only one moving and feeling insecure about the future:
"good lord how uncertain all these things are." -- Ralph Josselin's Diary today. The Puritan family who owned both the manors in Earls Colne had all moved away. The future of the village was uncertain.
About Wednesday 11 July 1660
San Diego Sarah • Link
I was under the impression that paper came in all sizes and shapes in the 17th century, so this might rule out the foolscap idea. BUT:
"The earliest example of such paper was made in Germany in 1479. Unsubstantiated anecdotes suggest that this watermark was introduced to England in 1580 by John Spilman, a German who established a papermill at Dartford, Kent."
So foolscap was known in London by the 17th century.
Not in the mood for a deep dive on the subject tonight.
But I note Pepys BORROWED 2 sheets. That rules out the writing paper idea for me.
About Monday 9 July 1660
San Diego Sarah • Link
PART 2
The grant under the privy signet authorized Killigrew and Davenant to build or hire two playhouses in London and to maintain two companies to act in them. But although the grant stated that there were to be no other theatrical establishments, rival companies continued to act, and Killigrew and Davenant were not immune from the hostile authority of the master of the revels.
On 25 April 1662 Killigrew at last obtained from Charles II a patent under the authority of the Great Seal. This contained 2 new clauses, one authorized him to enjoy his rights 'peaceably and quietly without the impeachment or impediment of any person or persons whatsoever' (i.e., including the master of the revels); and the other required the suppression of all other playhouses in London except Davenant's.
On 15 January 1663 Davenant was granted a similar patent, and the joint monopoly of the London theatre which persisted -- in theory at least -- until 1843 had been established."
https://www.british-history.ac.uk…
About Monday 9 July 1660
San Diego Sarah • Link
At the Palace of Whitehall, today Charles II decrees there will be entertainment -- but it turns out to be not that simple:
When Charles II returned to England in May 1660 the theatrical affairs of London were in some confusion. In March 1660 Sir William Davenant, the dramatist and poet laureate, who still had in his possession a patent for a playhouse granted by Charles I, had taken a lease of Lisle's Tennis Court in Portugal Street, for conversion into a theatre. He had then departed to France to persuade Charles II to restore and confirm his rights.
Already in France with Charles II was Thomas Killigrew, playwright, one of the grooms of the bedchamber, and according to Pepys, 'a merry droll, but a gentleman of great esteem with the King', who may well have already promised him some theatrical preferment.
On 9 July, 6 weeks after the Restoration, a royal warrant required the issue of a patent under the Great Seal authorizing Killigrew to establish a company of actors and build a theatre. The warrant recognized Davenant's rights under his patent from Charles I, but all other companies of actors were to be suppressed.
Davenant was dissatisfied with this indirect authority and 10 days later he drafted a second warrant to authorize by a patent the establishment of a theatrical monopoly to be shared by Killigrew and himself.
This proposal upset Sir Henry Herbert, the master of revels, who on 4 August presented a petition to Charles opposing it on the ground that it would be 'destructive' of the authority of his office.
The question was referred to the attorney general, Sir Jeffry Palmer, who opined 'the matter more proper for A tolleration; than A Grant under the greate Seale of England'.
The grant passed the privy signet on 21 August 1660, but did not reach the final stage of a patent under the Great Seal, probably because Davenant had decided not to press the matter in face of Herbert's opposition, for in September Palmer added a note to Herbert's petition, stating that he had 'foreborne to proceede further haveinge alsoe receaved an intimacion by Letter from Sir William Davenant that I was freed from further hearing in this matter'.
About Saturday 14 July 1660
San Diego Sarah • Link
Back at the Palace of Westminster, Charles II continues to thank people for services rendered:
Lady Elizabeth Fielding Boyle, Viscountess Boyle of Kinalmeaky became a Roman Catholic decades ago, and had, for years, shared Queen Mother Henrietta Maria's exile in France.
She was born Elizabeth Feilding, the daughter of Sir William Feilding (later created 1st Earl of Denbigh) and his wife Susan Villiers Feilding, sister to the royal favorite George Villiers, 1st Duke of Buckingham.
William Feilding benefited greatly from his brother-in-law's rise in court, receiving various offices and dignities.
William Feilding married circa 1607 and was invested as a knight around the same time, in March 1607.
Sir William Feilding was created 1st Baron Feilding of Newnham Paddocks in 1620, and 1st Earl of Denbigh and 1st Viscount Feilding on 14 September 1622.
Elizabeth Feilding Boyle had two sisters and two brothers who survived infancy. Her brother Basil, born ca. 1608, became the 2nd Earl of Denbigh upon their father's death.
While in France, Elizabeth Feilding Boyle, Viscountess Boyle of Kinalmeaky had charge of Margaret Blagge, daughter of Col. Thomas Blagge (and eventually wife of Sidney Godolphin).
https://www.pepysdiary.com/encycl…
John Evelyn, author of the book "The Life of Mrs. Godolphin", depicts Lady Boyle of Kinalmeaky as a harsh, overly religious governess.
After the Restoration, Lady Boyle was made Countess of Guilford for life by Charles II on the 14 July 1660. She also held the office of Groom of the Stole and Lady of the Bedchamber to Queen Mother Henrietta Maria.
Elizabeth Boyle, Countess of Guilford died without issue c. 3 September 1667 at Colombes, France. Upon her death, the earldom of Guilford in this creation became extinct.
https://en-academic.com/dic.nsf/e…
About Saturday 14 July 1660
San Diego Sarah • Link
"I wonder if there is any of this in Sam's debt-paying, making sure that he is all-square with the Parish.
"Is his new home in the same parish?"
There are traditionally four “quarter days” in a year [Lady Day (25 March), Midsummer (24 June), Michaelmas (29 September) and Christmas (25 December)]. So Pepys is either a bit late or very early settling up, but since he's moving to the other end of town, it makes sense.
No, his new parish will be St. Olave's. Lots more about that later.
I think he's in a hurry to move for a few reasons:
1. Montagu won't be next door any more, and expecting him to stop by and work;
2. Ownership is 9/10ths of the law;
3. He's tired of getting up early, walking to the Thames, finding a boatman, and sailing/being rowed to Tower Steps. Much better to fall out of bed and walk across the garden. And then doing that all in reverse.
About Friday 13 July 1660
San Diego Sarah • Link
"... finished my patent and made it ready ..."
I have a theory on why having Pepys' patent "finished" was so complicated, time consuming and expensive:
After the King signs it, the recipient needs to take it to the various offices that need to know about the new order. In order to not only
1. make them read the paper,
2. earn money for reading it,
3. give the recipient proof that they have been informed of the change, and
4. they have retained a copy for future use
it was necessary for the clerks to make a copy and endorse the recipient's copy before the recipient takes it to the next office.
My guess is that Pepys ends up with the original signed by Charles -- and maybe another copy with all their endorsements, or did they scribble all over the original?
Life without a xerox or duplication machine was time consuming. I remember -- I worked for Solicitors back in the day. I hated those carbon copies.
About Friday 13 July 1660
San Diego Sarah • Link
Eric The Bish -- another black suit. But with silver buttons this time.
About Tuesday 10 July 1660
San Diego Sarah • Link
Thank you, Eric The Bish, for telling me about the Psychology of Clothes. I find it's available on line at
https://archive.org/details/in.er…
I'll check it out.
My understanding of how things were in the early 1660's:
The incoming Courtiers had French tailors as well as English ones (Montagu mentions that), and wore colorful French fashions -- one can think of this as a political statement. Dark colors and "sensible" Puritan dress was a reflection of all things Interregnum, and therefore out.
(Think tie dye and levis -vs- couture in the 1970's. Dressing that way showed disrespect to the establishment -- a young people's political statement.)
Back to the 1660's: clothing was very expensive, and therefore people who were not Courtiers continued to wear Puritan clothing hand-me-downs, but added ribbons, or adapted it to be less Puritan. We read of Pepys having his clothes recut.
Plus Pepys was not going to be a Courtier. The social level down from there took care not to misrepresent themselves, or draw too much attention to themselves -- which could have disasterous consequences.
An interesting painting from this time is called Man in Black by Gerard Ter Borch, which shows a fashionable dressed man.
https://useum.org/artwork/Portrai…
In the early days of the Restoration, alliances to the throne or to Parliament were indicated through clothing.
This man’s ensemble puts forth mixed messages as to who he was.
The lack of excessive decoration, the sombre color, and the capotain suggest he was a Parliamentarian. Clerks traditionally wore black -- divines wore black -- think of the paintings of More and Wolsey: Lord Chamberlains in black -- poor men who wanted to be taken seriously.
The man's longer hair, the fine construction and silhouette of his garments (namely the “shrunken” doublet and rhinegraves), his shoe and knee bows, and the crispness of his appearance suggest he has disposable income and an interest in fashion.
We can assume he is from the wealthier classes based on these clues. He is chosing to dress this way, communicating his station in society, but also showing awareness of the fashionable trends.
I think he represents the model Pepys is trying to follow. Quality, awareness, but restrained.
That is, until October 1666 when Charles II promotes British exports and style by changing everything about men's dress -- and SPOILER, that's about the time we will see Pepys stretch his wardrobe choices, but he'll be living the right sort of life to support these decisions:
https://www.pepysdiary.com/diary/…
[The more things change, the more they stay the same. I'm waiting for the Brits to roll out a "Swinging London" campaign, and turn fashion upside down once again. People always spend money to have fun and be stylish.]
About Monday 15 October 1666
San Diego Sarah • Link
Such angst about the Stuart Brothers' and court' behavior, so what does Charles do to divert attention? Put on a new style vest.
Arguably, he had great foresight:
In 1666, Charles II was not a supporter of the excessive amounts of embellishment and volume that characterizes early Restoration dress although it was a celebration of his return to the throne.
Through consultation with his personal tailors, he instead adopts a new style of dress that costume historians claim is the origin of the modern day 3 piece suit.
It featured a long, collarless, sleeved coat (called a justacorps or surtout). Under this was worn a waistcoat which was cut in a similar line as the justacorps. It, too, was sleeved. (The shirt was worn underneath the waistcoat).
The waistcoat hem was a few inches shorter than the coat.
The breeches that accompanied this ensemble were narrow, but not tight. They tapered toward the knee.
When the justacorps was buttoned from neck to hem (which it had the ability to do), the waistcoat was completely hidden.
Breeches peeked out just below the hem.
Buttons spaced so closely that they were nearly touching one another was a common decorative feature.
Charles II vowed that he would wear this style of dress until he passed from this earth. He, of course, did not stay completely true to this vow. However, his influence over men’s wear is felt through the remainder of costume history.
From this point forward, France is no longer the European fashion leader for men’s wear. England is in the spotlight.
ARTICLE AND PICTURES AT https://lowelldesigns.com/the-res…
About Tuesday 10 July 1660
San Diego Sarah • Link
RLB - granted, all you say.
I've been surprised by many annotations during the Diary showed the annitators did not know how racy, earthy, uninhibited -- shall I say joyful? -- the Stuarts were about sex.
The Victorians may have been obsessed by sex, but it was far from a joyful freedom, even if Vicky did chase Albert around the Palace. Most women were taught to close their eyes and think of England.
The Puritans were a predictable backlash to Tudor/Stuart/upper class "unGodliness" -- greed, oppression, call it what you will -- after people found out what the Good Book really taught about being a Christian.
Regardless, just the number of sermons preached promoting ethical sexual behavior tells you how open people's licentious behavior must have been. Live for today for tomorrow you die, etc.
I ignored Galileo to make a point about their personal relationship with God, which many of us do not experience these days either.
What the likes of Montagu thought about God, and what Nan Hartlib and Mynheer Roder believed were light years apart.
Even Robert Boyle and John Evelyn went to great lengths to incorporate their religious beliefs into their science.
So much about life that we take for granted was in flux in the 17th century. Ignore the flux and you don't understand the story. Writing about any specific understates the big picture. It's a quandry which reading the Diary solves, but that takes 9 years.
You mention the Puritans getting kicked out of the Netherlands. Spinoza was also thinking and writing there in the 1660's. His ideas about how to love God were also surpressed, although they were the mirror opposite of those Puritans. Same problem: specifics deny the big picture.
Bottom line: while we undertake this 9 year adventure together, let's be broadminded. Pepys is far from prudish, which should not turn us into default Puritans.
About Somerset House
San Diego Sarah • Link
A history of Somerset House, plus a picture of how it was during Queen Anne of Denmark's time -- when it was called Denmark House:
https://vgs-pbr-reviews.blogspot.…
And I refound the picture and article about Simerset House during Queen Mother Henrietta Maria's times:
https://lostcityoflondon.co.uk/20…
It was a little city -- imagine how many people lived there, and how many people were needed to run it (not to mention mow those lawns).
And I wonder where Sir Edmund Berry Godfrey was alleged to have been murdered, and his body stored? -- but now we are decades after The Diary, so it's not a spoiler. Just a teaser to learn about the Popish Plot.
About Tuesday 10 July 1660
San Diego Sarah • Link
PART 2
Aristocratic girls usually were bethrothed and sometimes married very young -- sometimes before puberty, so the parents kept the couple apart until they had matured. These unions were about money and land and power, not love. The female's chastity was prime, to ensure inheritance went to legitimate children.
There are many of stories about the woman only sleeping with her husband until she had produced a legitimate heir and spare, after which both husband and wife consider themselves able to play away from home, and the husband accepted whatever children turn up, since they probably won't inherit. (This was good for the gene pool in general.)
But we're talking about Nan Hartlib and Mynheer Roder -- he was a fundamentalist minister, and she came from a poor family who probably lived in cramped quarters. Opportunity would be a fine thing in their case -- if he would even participate; his concern with purity might dampen desire, and since she had been brought up in a Millennialist household, she would take that for granted.
17th century people's relationship with faith and God was much greater than ours. Even people who were not "religious" were conscious of it in a superstitious way. Many of them still thought the heavens revolved around earth, and God was really watching your every move, which were predestined. And some, not so much, of course.
Births and deaths took place at home; the bedroom was frequently occupied by many people at night. How ignorant could children be? Sex was right there.
Teenage hormones are the same today as they were then. What parents wanted and what happened were not/are not necessarily the same thing.
About Tuesday 10 July 1660
San Diego Sarah • Link
"Imagine in those days of pre-marital abstinence (or was it really?) he's raring to go, ...?"
Colin Gravois brings up an important question: The Stuarts were far from Victorians when it came to sex.
Marriage was a fairly recent requirement:
"The story of British birth, marriage and death records starts way back in 1538. The Church of England split with Rome, and it was decided that every parish priest should keep a register of any baptism, marriage or burial that happened under their jurisdiction.
"... These parish records, which, depending on the priest, could be either highly detailed or not kept at all, are the source of all BMD information up to 1837, when the lack of consistency in record-keeping saw the beginning of civil registration."
https://www.findmypast.co.uk/blog…
During the Interregnum, weddings did not necessarily include church nuptials, because the Puritans considered marriage a civil contract. A magistrate officiated at the ceremony. Samuel and Elizabeth Pepys were married by a magistrate at St. Margaret's, Westminster. He was 22 and she was 14.
Lord Hardwicke’s Marriage Act of 1753 — AKA ‘An Act for the Better Preventing of Clandestine Marriage’ — Before this there were two distinct parts to a medieval marriage:
the betrothal, where the two families worked out the financial exchanges
and then the marriage service.
If the couple chose to consummate the marriage before the wedding mass then the marriage was considered valid and the husband took control of all his partner's worldly goods then.
Consummation was recognised by the presence of one child or more. This meant that the landed gentry were losing loads of land to unscrupulous ne'er-do-wells who got to the betrothal stage and then ran off with the bride to be and her assets.
By insisting that the couple wait to consummate the marriage until after the register was signed, the family had much more control over the assets and made sure they went to the person they preferred.
If the marriage wasn't consummated after signing the register it could still be annulled -- and is still one of the valid reasons for divorce. You have to sign the register for a marriage to be legal even now, so a handfasting which does not include a visit to the registrar with witnesses and the solemn declaration that you are free to marry is not legal.
https://www.quillsandquartos.com/…
About Sunday 5 August 1660
San Diego Sarah • Link
At Court today Charles II continues his "thank you's" per L&M Companion:
Rother / Roder / Roth / Rothe, Johannes / Jan / John, a merchant of Utrecht who, with his father (Burgomaster of Amsterdam) had befriended Charles II in exile.
Wheatley: John Roder, knighted August 5, 1660.
Le Neve calls him Roth and says he was of Utrecht.
So Nan Hartlib Roth seems to have married well, except Johannes was a Millenarian evangelist, and at some point during the 1660s he returned to the United Provinces, preaching the Second Coming and hoping to unite the Protestant churches of Europe in preparation for it.
Gratitude only went so far.
About Frederick Clodius
San Diego Sarah • Link
Frederick Clod (or Clodius) (1625 – after 1661), was a physician and "mystical chemist" of German extraction.
He lived in a sizeable house (taxed on eight hearths) in Axe Yard, London, next door to the Hartlibs, whose daughter Mary he married in 1660.
He was also a neighbour to the diarist Samuel Pepys, who mentions him several times.
He was a minor figure in scientific circles and a friend of Robert Boyle, to whom he supplied some very varied recipes.
He came to England in 1652, having been recommended to Samuel Hartlib by Johann Moriaen. He had been in the service of Frederick III of Denmark, collecting "Rarities", and himself was a native of Holstein.[5]
He presided at the wedding of his sister-in-law Nan Hartlib to Johannes Rothe in 1660. Pepys, a guest at the wedding, describes it as a social event of great magnificence. This suggests that Clod was a man of some wealth, since the Hartlibs were then living in dire poverty ("Nan will have nothing in the world" Pepys remarked), and Nan's father could not possibly have paid for the wedding.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fre…
About Frederick Clodius
San Diego Sarah • Link
"From the Archives of Scientific Diplomacy: Science and the Shared Interests of Samuel Hartlib’s London and Frederick Clodius’s Gottorf" -- by
Vera Keller and Leigh T. I. Penman
ABSTRACT:
Many historians have traced the accumulation of scientific archives via communication networks. Engines for communication in early modernity have included trade, the extrapolitical Republic of Letters, religious enthusiasm, and the centralization of large emerging information states.
The communication between Samuel Hartlib Sr., Rev. John Dury, Duke Friedrich III of Gottorf-Holstein, and his key agent in England, Frederick Clodius, points to a less obvious but no less important impetus — the international negotiations of smaller states.
Smaller states shaped communication networks in an international (albeit politically and religiously slanted) direction. Their networks of negotiation contributed to the internationalization of emerging science through a political and religious concept of shared interest.
While interest has been central to social studies of science, interest itself has not often been historicized within the history of science.
This case study demonstrates the co-production of science and society by tracing how period concepts of interest made science international.
https://www.journals.uchicago.edu…