The Rev. Ralph, in nearby Essex, says the weather "Feb. 10: from the 6. to this night most misling, but dark weather, ..."
Noun: misle (uncountable) A fine rain or thick mist; mizzle.
Verb: misle (third-person singular simple present misles, present participle misling, simple past and past participle misled) To rain in fine drops; to mizzle.
Etymology 2: From misled, the standard irregular past tense of mislead, being misconstrued as *misle + -ed.
[Too bad, Pepys -- the laundry will be drying all over the house for the next few days. Stoke the fires.]
Then Rev. Ralph reports his daughter's ague is giving her problems. So far, so good. But then he lapses into one of his what I think to be a Puritan example of non-logical/magical thinking:
"god sanctify his dealing to the parents, and then remove the stroke from the child. god good in the word, awakening to me(,) the lord sanctify my heart to fear his name, my cattle were lousy, it proceeds from the blood, lord keep putrefying corruption out of my heart."
My guess on this: He prays God to not punish the children for their parents' errors. He asks a good God for inspiration and help as his cattle are "lousy" [not producing milk? Got hoof rot? Hiding in the bottom of the creek?] which he thinks is God's judgment on the recent [by implication Royalist] bloodshed. Then he asks for God to remove his inpure thoughts.
He's a Cambridge University-educated man, and in the 1650s was considered a Greek scholar. Yes, this is his personal Diary, and not written for our edification. But it is an example of how "lousy cattle" were taken to be a sign from God about current events or the Rev. Ralph's own behavior, he's not sure which.
Pepys' education both at University and from the Montagu family, has been broadminded enough for him to grow out of that sort of Puritan dogma. He seems to now be a Presbyterian-trying-to-understand-the-Church-of-England (hence his dislike of lazy sermons). He no longer believes things are preordained or signs to be interpreted. He thinks conscientious work and plain dealing will make him successful; there's nothing magical or unlogical about that.
Maybe growing up around a tailor's shop helped -- measurements, the cause-and-effect of cutting things correctly or incorrectly, was enough? Also, being exposed to Montagu running his estates and at sea, reacting successfully to the elements, taught Pepys logical thinking. It's a fact that many Early Modern philosophers were also mathemeticians. After you accept that 2 plus 2 always equals 4, your ability to organize thought follows. When enough people independently got their thoughts organized, the Enlightenment followed. That will take another 100 years,
The "Commissioners of the Navy" in this case were Members of Parliament assembled for the sole purpose of paying off the Army and Navy and therefore had no servants/clerks assigned for the work. Pepys made a mistake.
They all had brief experience in dealing with the sailors and paperwork, but have discovered it's not as simple as it appeared when they were just helping.
Now we can add another name: William Jessop, as their clerk -- probably an equal to Mr. Hayter. What a step-down for a former Admiralty official (secretary to Warwick 1642-5 and to the Admiralty Committee 1645-53), after which he moved to the Council of State (as Assistant Clerk in 1653, and Clerk 1654-9, 1659-60). But from the Parliamentary Committee's point-of-view, he's an educated person to have behind the scenes to get The Navy Pay done, once and for all. https://www.pepysdiary.com/encycl…
"Called up by my Cozen Snow, who sat by me while I was trimmed, and then I drank with him, he desiring a courtesy for a friend, which I have done for him."
L&M: John Snow - Pepys' relative. Of Blackwall; in 1666 occupying a house taxed on 6 hearths.
So he's a well-to-do relative -- and now we know why the Pepys were invited to lunch last Sunday. He wanted a favor -- things never change. https://www.pepysdiary.com/diary/…
"I wonder if they adjourned early in 1661, or if Pepys is referring to something other than the law courts? Ideas anyone."
It occurs to me that the people organizing the Coronation would want to clean and refurbish Westminster Hall for the occassion. But we know, thanks to the chatty Venetian Representative, that it has been delayed. The Hillary Term was probably shortened months ago to allow for this activity, and so no trials have been scheduled. Mrs. Michell and the other stall holders will have to clear out as well, but their timing can be more flexible.
Meanwhile, at Whitehall, Charles II was scurrying around:
Anne Palmer was born on February 25, 1661, and Lady Barbara Villiers Palmer claimed she was conceived on the night of Charles II’s return to London in May 1660. Her enemies were quick to suggest the baby belonged either her husband, Roger Palmer, or her other lover, Philip Stanhope, 2nd Earl of Chesterfield.
Roger Palmer acknowledged Anne as his daughter, giving her his name. This was changed to Fitzroy when Charles II later decided to acknowledge Anne as his.
Family matters were well in hand when on 2 May, 1635, Vere went to dine at Whitehall with his friend Sir Henry Vane, ambassador to The Hague, when on a trip home. Sir Horace, in his 70th year, had a stroke and died within 2 hours. He was buried with great pomp on 8 May, 1635, in Westminster Abbey, by the side of his brother Sir Francis, where both still lie.
Sir Horace Vere's will, dated 10 November, 1634, was proved on 6 May, 1635. It makes no mention of his daughters, but he had made a number of conveyances of his property the previous year and he left his remaining lands to Mary, Lady Vere, "my most loving wife", evidently trusting her to make appropriate dispositions for their children (TNA: PRO, PROB 11/168, fol. 7v).
In 1637 Sir Thomas, Lord Fairfax married Anne Vere; and later, the Veres' youngest daughter, Dorothy, married John Wolstenholme of Stanmore, Middlesex.
Mary Tracy Hoby, Lady Vere continued to live at Clapton until the death of the widow of Lord Vere's eldest brother, John, when she succeeded to Kirby Hall, Essex, where she died on Christmas Eve, 1670, aged 90.
As contemporaries recognized, Sir Horace Vere's army was a 'Nurcery of Souldierie' (Hexham, epistle dedicatory). Sir Horace was the teacher and patron of a whole generation of soldiers. In the 1640s they comprised a high proportion of both the cavalier and roundhead officer corps. Generals who had served under Sir Horace included the Earl of Essex, Sir Thomas Fairfax, Philip Skippon, Sir William Waller, Philip, Lord Wharton, Sir Jacob Astley, Sir Nicholas Byron, Sir Thomas Glemham, and Sir Ralph Hopton; but Vere's veterans could be found at all levels of the royalist and parliamentarian armies. Many former protege's of the even-tempered Sir Horace were moderate in their conduct of what Waller, writing to Hopton, famously termed a "war without an enemy". George Monck, who brought about the restoration of Charles II, was one of Vere's particular proteges.
Monck's decision to renew legitimate monarchy, rather than become a military dictator, was doubtless the result of his own character; but this had been moulded by Vere's influence at an early stage.
Revisionist historians have not recognized that any unity in the English body politic in the 1620s and 1630s existed partly because many of those who were discontent with the Stuarts' religious and foreign policies had an opportunity to vent their frustrations.
In 1632 or later Sir Horace Vere went into virtual retirement. His only military duties were connected with the ordnance office and he enjoyed the company of his family.
By this time his 3 elder daughters were all married: In 1626 Elizabeth had married John Holles, who later succeeded as 2d earl of Clare; in 1627 Mary had married Sir Roger Townshend; on his death in 1638 she married Mildmay Fane, 2nd earl of Westmorland. (Both daughters had been born in the Netherlands and had been the beneficiaries of a parliamentary act of naturalization in 1624.) In 1634 Catherine married Oliver St.John, the eldest son of Sir John St.John, first baronet, of Lydiard Tregoze, Wiltshire; after his death she married John Poulett, son and heir of John, Lord Poulett of Hinton St.George. In 1635 Vere's fourth daughter, Anne [see Fairfax, Anne], was betrothed to Thomas Fairfax.
Horace Vere, 1st Baron Vere of Tilbury (1565 – 1635) was an English military officer and peer who served during the Eighty Years' War and the Thirty Years' War. A brother of Francis Vere, he was sent to the Electoral Palatinate by King James in 1620. Horace Vere, 1st Baron Vere of Tilbury was a first cousin of Edward de Vere, 17th Earl of Oxford (1550–1604).
Following the campaign season of 1607 Horace Vere, 1st Baron Vere of Tilbury returned to England for a double celebration: his brother, aged 47, married a woman 30 years younger than himself; and in November 1607 Sir Horace, at 42, wed Lady Mary Tracy Hoby (1581-1671), aged 26. They had met in 1606 when Horace was visiting home. Mary was the widow of William Hoby and had 2 small children. It was thus a convenient match for Mary, but Horace seems genuinely to have been in love.
Lady Mary Tracy Hoby (1581–1671) was a daughter of Sir John Tracy (died 1591) of Toddington, Gloucs., and his wife Anne, daughter of Thomas Throckmorton (died 1568). Her brother Sir Thomas Tracy was a member of the household of Anne of Denmark, as an usher of her privy chamber.
Mary Tracy Hoby, Lady Vere followed Sir Horace to the Netherlands in July 1608, and in later life both clearly had great affection for each other. ...
Mary, Lady Vere's religious views were regarded by some contemporaries as "of a Dutch complexion" (DNB) and it was to this she owed parliament's favour after the civil wars when she was for a time the Governor of Princess Elizabeth and Henry, Duke of Gloucester.
It was probably the case that Horace married her because her views agreed with his own, rather than that she picked up Presbyterianism in the Netherlands.
In 1608, in his absence, she made a donation to Sir Thomas Bodley's Calvinist intellectual project at Oxford University. Lady Mary's strong views; Sir Horace's family background; his friendship with the princes of Orange (known as defenders of the Reformed church in the Netherlands); his appointment as governor of Utrecht in place of Sir John Ogle, tainted with Arminian sympathies; and his patronage of godly ministers exiled from England all make it clear Sir Horace was a Puritan and probably a Presbyterian.
That Vere could live happily in England under King Charles, despite his firm views in favour of military intervention on the continent, and his Puritan sympathies, was probably partly due to an instinctive allegiance to his king, which a close personal tie to the princely house of Orange must have reinforced. In addition, Horace Vere quite simply got on well with people.
Revisionist historians have not recognized that any unity in the English body politic in the 1620s and 1630s existed partly because many of those who were discontent with the Stuarts' religious and foreign policies had an opportunity to vent their frustrations.
"... and I to Westminster Hall, where I found a full term, ..."
Many minor legal proceedings were heard in Westminster Hall (with the echo it must have been difficult to hear testimony). England's legal system is divided into 4 "terms" so the judges and legal beagles have regular non-Court time for their office work. Bill tells us, the Hillary term usually ends on February 12. Today is only the 5th. https://www.pepysdiary.com/encycl…
I wonder if they adjourned early in 1661, or if Pepys is referring to something other than the law courts? Ideas anyone.
"Here we saw Argalus and Parthenia, which I lately saw, but though pleasant for the dancing and singing, I do not find good for any wit or design therein."
I think Pepys took Elizabeth to see "Argalus and Parthenia" because of the singing and dancing, although he thought it unwitty and plot-deficient. And he took her out for a liquid lunch with friends today. (I wonder why he didn't spring for a pasty while they were there?) But he was being a good husband today, all-in-all.
According to this article, which has some lovely pictures (undated), says the Chinese emperor started collecting English clocks in 1662. That's an export market I did not expect: https://www.ianvisits.co.uk/artic…
In Knoppers’ words, ‘the Cromwellian funeral procession’ drew ‘upon the full visual resources of monarchical ceremony … Ceremony, effigy, and funeral hearse clearly imitated previous monarchical forms’.
How should we interpret this evidence? Was it a case of Cromwell being willing to meet monarchy half-way? Can we discern symptoms of Cromwell’s continuing lack of hostility towards monarchy per se? Or are we seeing a clever Cromwellian compromise that was intended to underline his acceptance of traditional forms and so broaden support for his regime? Or was he seeking to live up to contemporary expectations about the kind of trappings that should attend a head of state, whether republican or royal? ... Perhaps characteristically of Cromwell, it may well have been a complex blend of all of these things. As so often with Cromwell, a ‘both … and’ approach generally proves more fruitful than an ‘either … or’ one.
We can see the multi-layered quality of Cromwell’s thinking and his political behavior: his capacity to kill several birds with one stone and to fulfill several objectives through the same action. To adapt his own words, no man rises so high as he who knows how to pursue several agendas simultaneously."
EXCERPT FROM: The Monarchical Republic of Oliver Cromwell (Cromwell Day Address 2015) by Dr. David L Smith, Fellow and Director of Studies in History at Selwyn College, Cambridge. He was a Trustee of the Cromwell Association from 2012 to 2015. http://www.olivercromwell.org/wor…
"His effigy was ‘vested with royal robes, a scepter in one hand, a globe in the other, and a crown on the head’." -- i.e. the casket was closed, but in royal tradition a wooden statue of Cromwell lay on top -- presented as a king. This was a full-blown state funeral -- there was nothing "Puritan" about it beyond a presumably Presbyterian minister conducting the ceremony, since they did not recognize bishops. I wonder what happened to that effigy and the make-believe orb, scepter and crown -- the real things had been melted down to help pay for the civil wars. And Charles II had new ones made, which continue to be used today.
On the subject of the funeral of Oliver Cromwell, I found this article from the Cromwell Association. Specific reference to the funeral starts half way through, but his "coronation"/inaugeration gives it conext. His inauguration came after months of debate about his taking the title of "king" -- he finally decided he had more power as Lord Protector.
"By the later years of the Protectorate, the opening of Parliament had become almost indistinguishable from its traditional form. A similar trend was evident in the 2 ceremonies that marked Cromwell’s inauguration as Lord Protector. Whereas in the first, in December 1653, he wore ‘a black suit and cloake’, and took an oath in the Court of Chancery, sitting on a ‘chair of state’, Laura Knoppers has written that ‘the second Cromwellian inauguration appropriated and revised monarchical forms, transforming a sacred rite into a civil ceremony’. For this ceremony, in June 1657, ‘a large place’ was ‘raised and prepared at the upper end of Westminster Hall’, ‘in the midst’ of which, ‘under the great window, a rich cloth of estate [was] set up, and under it a chair of state’ – Edward I’s coronation chair – ‘placed upon an ascent of two degrees’. Cromwell was invested with ‘a robe of purple velvet, lined with ermine, being the habit anciently used at the solemn investiture of princes’, together with a Bible, a sword and ‘a scepter, being of massie gold’.
Venetian Resident Francesco Giavarina observed that in receiving these ‘royal ornaments’, Cromwell ‘lacked nothing but the crown to appear a veritable king’.37 37 Calendar of State Papers Venetian (1657-9), p. 82 (Giavarina to the Doge and Senate, 3/13 July 1657).
That missing crown finally appeared posthumously in Cromwell’s state funeral, based on that of James VI and I in 1625.38 38 Knoppers, Constructing Cromwell, pp. 133-6; Sharpe, Image Wars, pp. 520-1.
His effigy was ‘vested with royal robes, a scepter in one hand, a globe in the other, and a crown on the head’.39 39 Mercurius Politicus, 443 (18-25 November 1658), p. 30.
Venetian Resident Francesco Giavarina reported that ‘the effigy of the late Protector … was borne on a car, wearing a crown on its head and holding the sceptre and orb in its hands, with every other token of royalty’.40 40 Calendar of State Papers Venetian (1657-9), p. 269 (Giavarina to the Doge and Senate, 26 November/6 December 1658).
A book will be published shortly which addresses Sexual Politics in Revolutionary England -- By Sam Fullerton DESCRIPTION: Sexual politics in revolutionary England recounts a dramatic transformation in English sexual polemic that unfolded during the kingdom's mid-17th-century civil wars. In early Stuart England, explicit sexual language was largely confined to manuscript and oral forms by the combined regulatory pressures of ecclesiastical press licensing and powerful cultural notions of civility and decorum.
During the early 1640s, graphic sex-talk exploded into polemical print for the first time in English history. Over the next two decades, sexual politics evolved into a vital component of public discourse, as contemporaries utilized sexual satire to reframe the English Revolution as a battle between licentious Stuart tyrants and their lecherous puritan enemies.
By the time that Charles II regained the throne in 1660, this book argues, sex was a routine element of English political culture.
• PRICE: £85.00 • ISBN: 9781526175908 • PUBLISH DATE: JUNE 2024 • PUBLISHER: MANCHESTER UNIVERSITY PRESS PRE-ORDER £85.00 -- DELIVERY EXC. NORTH AND SOUTH AMERICA • Format: Hardcover • Pages: 328
"... sex was a routine element of English political culture." I wonder what that really means? But it does support my belief that Pepys' behavior wasn't excessive compared with his contemporary norms.
Perhaps it means the Stuart Brothers' and the Court's sexual exploits were gossiped about openly, and interpreted as being expressions of their rejection of Puritan/Presbyterian mores?
"Puritan" can be a misleading catch-all description, 徽柔. This "Puritan" Parliament and his family buried him with the pomp and tribute required for their leader, with the status of King. Many Ambassadors attended his Westminster Abbey funeral, which was modelled after the ceremony for James I and VI and a magnificent affair, and they reported back to other heads of state on the status of England as a functioning nation based on its ability to do that. The family and couriers must have decided that a simple wooden coffin would have sent the wrong diplomatic message to France and Spain in particular.
The elderly Cromwell liked practical jokes, swearing, good food, parties and alcohol, and dressed his daughters in the finest cloth, and he negotiated wealthy and prestigeous marriages for them with the established nobility.
Yes, he believed Puritan things, namely that his success in battle meant that God was on his side and he was therefore in the right. Unlike his Presbyterian Parliament, he was tolerant of Church of England and Jewish beliefs, but drew the line for other non-conformists like the Ranters, Quakers and Fifth Monarchists.
As a young man Cromwell probably was a devout, rigid Presbyterian who liked to live in lovely houses, but as The Protector, he -- and his family -- adapted to what was expedient. By 1650 his policies and attitudes had to be international as well as national -- and even his nation was not all Presbyterian, never mind Puritan. In other words, he matured like we all do. Things were no longer so black-and-white; shades of grey were embraced.
The coffin therefore speaks to more things than just religion. Cromwell would have understood that, and appreciated the gratitude and symbology it represented.
"(It's very likely that Sam didn't always note down the "washing-day" in his diary - so our picture here is probably incomplete.)"
I suspect there was an every-few-weeks/as needed wash, and twice a year BIG wash (probably in the early spring and as late as they dared in the autumn).
Gillian did an excellent job above explaining what a production this was, and that Pepys mentions this women's work at all tells us how it upset his household routine.
For the most comprehensive review of 17th century laundry see the Old and Interesting blog:
"Outdoor drying and bleaching: Sun on the bleaching ground
"When Sunlight Soap was named in the 1880s, spreading laundry in the sun was the best way of whitening it. For centuries this had worked to counteract yellowing from storage, from soaking in urine, or from certain soap ingredients.
"Bleaching and drying both used to be mainly outdoor activities, and they were closely related. The stretch of grass set aside for these jobs was called a bleaching-green or drying-ground. Whether you were spreading off-white linen on the ground to bleach in the sun, or just putting your laundry there to dry, or if you were hanging it on a breezy line, you wanted a: "grassy corner well open to the sun, ... sheltered from high winds ... the attentions of wandering poultry ... and the incursions of pigs, puppies and calves ... they not only soil the clothes, but will tear and even eat them" -- Katherine Purdon, Laundry at Home, 1902, quoted by Pamela Sambrook in The Country House Servant, 1999
Whitsters: A drying area could be communal, shared by a whole village or neighbourhood; it could be private ground by a large house, or owned by a cloth manufacturer. Domestic bleaching could last just one day or go on for a few days. "Before the 19th century and the arrival of modern chemicals, it was sometimes done by professionals called whitsters. Whitsters visited large, prosperous households at intervals to "spring-clean" the linen. They might also work on their own premises.
"Household and personal linen was spread on the grass, soaked with buckets of lye at intervals, and eventually rinsed and dried. There were variations, like using plain water and no lye, and the process might last for 3 days.
"As well as using grass, you could spread laundry on hedges and bushes. Drying frames with wooden poles rather than ropes were another possibility. "If you had poles, rope and pins/pegs you could have a clothes line. Until the 20th century clothes pins were quite simple pieces of wood: split twigs bound with wire or twine like these made by English Romanies, or plainly-cut wood like the Germans used.
"For more on old laundry methods see: History of Laundry: washing and drying Laundry from 1800 History of Ironing Great wash and washdays Bluing white laundry Washing bats and beetles Ashes, lye and bucking Washboards Washing dollies"
You're right, MartinVT. I believe their circle of acquaintances was much larger than ours today. They spent more time in public locations; they did business in person, not on the phone or by email; they belonged to clubs and churches; plus the lack of welfare state means that they fundamentally understood that helping each other was essential, and the bigger your circle of well-wishers the better. TV radically changed our way of entertaining ourselves. I leave it to you to judge which was the richer lifestyle.
I like the way Pepys visits his sick colleagues and sits chatting with them for hours. No TV or newspapers or computers would make recouperation a very dull non-event, and it was a great opportunity for him to get to know the life stories and character of his colleagues.
Keith Knight's ballad site is great because it explains the background story to the ballad, when known.
However, if you want to hear some of the ballads, back in 2003 there was a CD named "The Musical World of Samuel Pepys," for sale on Amazon -- they not only had it but also gave music samplings from the first few selections!
Eric Walla cautioned that the musical quality is not of the highest caliber, so it probably sounds more like the tavern atmosphere of Pepys' time than do the professional CDs. One of his favorites is sung by the renown Alfred Deller. He also recommended "The King's Delight" from the “King's Noyse” (Harmonia Mundi) for more period ballads. In 2003 Tower Records also stocked "The Musical World of Samuel Pepys" CD. Good hunting.
"Francesco Giavarina, Venetian Resident in England, to the Doge and Senate. ... The king being in deep mourning for the princess of Orange and it being impossible to have everything ready for the coronation by the 16th February, they have decided to have it on the 23rd April, old style."
To clear up a confusing point here, Francesco Giavarina dates his letters NEW STYLE for the convenience of his masters in Venice -- but for our convenience you'll find we have often posted them under the Pepys' date in the Diary annotations. And Pepys is using the OLD STYLE calendar for the convenience of his masters at Whitehall.
I.E. Francesco Giavarina really wrote this letter 10 days ago. And he already knew the Coronation was delayed. Pepys apparently hasn't found that out yet, never mind John Pepys Jr. in Oxford who wants to cut classes in order to come to London to experience the fun and games.
"The ambassadors of Spain, Denmark and Holland ..."
I'll say it before someone else points this out: Holland isn't a country; it's a state. In the 17th century the country now known as the Netherlands was divided into two: The Protestant United Provinces of the Dutch Republic was self-governed by the States-General in The Hague, and the Catholic Spanish Netherlands, AKA Flanders had a governor in Brussels, but was ruled from Madrid.
Therefore, there was an Ambassador from the Dutch Republic, and an envoy or representative as was necessary from the Spanish Netherlands.
Holland is a province of the United Provinces of the Dutch Republic.
When Pepys says "Holland" he means the Dutch Republic.
If you're wondering why people could not take a straight route directly from England's South Coast to Paris by the shortest route, it has to do with Protestant/Catholic and Spain/France problems. Protestants often judged it safer to take longer routes.
I'm struggling with this as well -- it's so easy to think/write/say "Holland" or "the Netherlands" but in the long run these shortcuts cloud your understanding of the story.
Comments
Third Reading
About Wednesday 6 February 1660/61
San Diego Sarah • Link
The Rev. Ralph, in nearby Essex, says the weather "Feb. 10: from the 6. to this night most misling, but dark weather, ..."
Noun: misle (uncountable)
A fine rain or thick mist; mizzle.
Verb: misle (third-person singular simple present misles, present participle misling, simple past and past participle misled)
To rain in fine drops; to mizzle.
Etymology 2: From misled, the standard irregular past tense of mislead, being misconstrued as *misle + -ed.
[Too bad, Pepys -- the laundry will be drying all over the house for the next few days. Stoke the fires.]
Then Rev. Ralph reports his daughter's ague is giving her problems. So far, so good. But then he lapses into one of his what I think to be a Puritan example of non-logical/magical thinking:
"god sanctify his dealing to the parents, and then remove the stroke from the child. god good in the word, awakening to me(,) the lord sanctify my heart to fear his name, my cattle were lousy, it proceeds from the blood, lord keep putrefying corruption out of my heart."
My guess on this: He prays God to not punish the children for their parents' errors. He asks a good God for inspiration and help as his cattle are "lousy" [not producing milk? Got hoof rot? Hiding in the bottom of the creek?] which he thinks is God's judgment on the recent [by implication Royalist] bloodshed. Then he asks for God to remove his inpure thoughts.
He's a Cambridge University-educated man, and in the 1650s was considered a Greek scholar. Yes, this is his personal Diary, and not written for our edification. But it is an example of how "lousy cattle" were taken to be a sign from God about current events or the Rev. Ralph's own behavior, he's not sure which.
Pepys' education both at University and from the Montagu family, has been broadminded enough for him to grow out of that sort of Puritan dogma. He seems to now be a Presbyterian-trying-to-understand-the-Church-of-England (hence his dislike of lazy sermons). He no longer believes things are preordained or signs to be interpreted. He thinks conscientious work and plain dealing will make him successful; there's nothing magical or unlogical about that.
Maybe growing up around a tailor's shop helped -- measurements, the cause-and-effect of cutting things correctly or incorrectly, was enough? Also, being exposed to Montagu running his estates and at sea, reacting successfully to the elements, taught Pepys logical thinking.
It's a fact that many Early Modern philosophers were also mathemeticians. After you accept that 2 plus 2 always equals 4, your ability to organize thought follows. When enough people independently got their thoughts organized, the Enlightenment followed. That will take another 100 years,
About Wednesday 6 February 1660/61
San Diego Sarah • Link
The "Commissioners of the Navy" in this case were Members of Parliament assembled for the sole purpose of paying off the Army and Navy and therefore had no servants/clerks assigned for the work. Pepys made a mistake.
As I recall this Commission included William Prynne MP
https://www.pepysdiary.com/encycl…
Col. John Birch MP
https://www.pepysdiary.com/encycl…
and the Lord Mayor of London, Sir Richard Browne MP
https://www.pepysdiary.com/encycl…
They all had brief experience in dealing with the sailors and paperwork, but have discovered it's not as simple as it appeared when they were just helping.
Now we can add another name:
William Jessop, as their clerk -- probably an equal to Mr. Hayter. What a step-down for a former Admiralty official (secretary to Warwick 1642-5 and to the Admiralty Committee 1645-53), after which he moved to the Council of State (as Assistant Clerk in 1653, and Clerk 1654-9, 1659-60). But from the Parliamentary Committee's point-of-view, he's an educated person to have behind the scenes to get The Navy Pay done, once and for all.
https://www.pepysdiary.com/encycl…
About Wednesday 6 February 1660/61
San Diego Sarah • Link
"Called up by my Cozen Snow, who sat by me while I was trimmed, and then I drank with him, he desiring a courtesy for a friend, which I have done for him."
L&M: John Snow - Pepys' relative. Of Blackwall; in 1666 occupying a house taxed on 6 hearths.
So he's a well-to-do relative -- and now we know why the Pepys were invited to lunch last Sunday. He wanted a favor -- things never change.
https://www.pepysdiary.com/diary/…
About Tuesday 5 February 1660/61
San Diego Sarah • Link
"I wonder if they adjourned early in 1661, or if Pepys is referring to something other than the law courts? Ideas anyone."
It occurs to me that the people organizing the Coronation would want to clean and refurbish Westminster Hall for the occassion. But we know, thanks to the chatty Venetian Representative, that it has been delayed. The Hillary Term was probably shortened months ago to allow for this activity, and so no trials have been scheduled.
Mrs. Michell and the other stall holders will have to clear out as well, but their timing can be more flexible.
Other ideas, anyone?
About Monday 25 February 1660/61
San Diego Sarah • Link
Meanwhile, at Whitehall, Charles II was scurrying around:
Anne Palmer was born on February 25, 1661, and Lady Barbara Villiers Palmer claimed she was conceived on the night of Charles II’s return to London in May 1660. Her enemies were quick to suggest the baby belonged either her husband, Roger Palmer, or her other lover, Philip Stanhope, 2nd Earl of Chesterfield.
Roger Palmer acknowledged Anne as his daughter, giving her his name. This was changed to Fitzroy when Charles II later decided to acknowledge Anne as his.
http://www.historyandwomen.com/20…
About Lady Vere
San Diego Sarah • Link
CONCLUSION:
Family matters were well in hand when on 2 May, 1635, Vere went to dine at Whitehall with his friend Sir Henry Vane, ambassador to The Hague, when on a trip home. Sir Horace, in his 70th year, had a stroke and died within 2 hours.
He was buried with great pomp on 8 May, 1635, in Westminster Abbey, by the side of his brother Sir Francis, where both still lie.
Sir Horace Vere's will, dated 10 November, 1634, was proved on 6 May, 1635. It makes no mention of his daughters, but he had made a number of conveyances of his property the previous year and he left his remaining lands to Mary, Lady Vere, "my most loving wife", evidently trusting her to make appropriate dispositions for their children (TNA: PRO, PROB 11/168, fol. 7v).
In 1637 Sir Thomas, Lord Fairfax married Anne Vere;
and later, the Veres' youngest daughter, Dorothy, married John Wolstenholme of Stanmore, Middlesex.
Mary Tracy Hoby, Lady Vere continued to live at Clapton until the death of the widow of Lord Vere's eldest brother, John, when she succeeded to Kirby Hall, Essex, where she died on Christmas Eve, 1670, aged 90.
Excerpts from https://www.houseofvere.com/Horac…
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mar…
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kir…
What stories Lady Vere could tell; she knew everybody! I almost envy Margaret Pepys working for her -- but I doubt they talked.
About Lady Vere
San Diego Sarah • Link
PART 2
As contemporaries recognized, Sir Horace Vere's army was a 'Nurcery of Souldierie' (Hexham, epistle dedicatory). Sir Horace was the teacher and patron of a whole generation of soldiers.
In the 1640s they comprised a high proportion of both the cavalier and roundhead officer corps. Generals who had served under Sir Horace included the Earl of Essex, Sir Thomas Fairfax, Philip Skippon, Sir William Waller, Philip, Lord Wharton, Sir Jacob Astley, Sir Nicholas Byron, Sir Thomas Glemham, and Sir Ralph Hopton; but Vere's veterans could be found at all levels of the royalist and parliamentarian armies. Many former protege's of the even-tempered Sir Horace were moderate in their conduct of what Waller, writing to Hopton, famously termed a "war without an enemy". George Monck, who brought about the restoration of Charles II, was one of Vere's particular proteges.
Monck's decision to renew legitimate monarchy, rather than become a military dictator, was doubtless the result of his own character; but this had been moulded by Vere's influence at an early stage.
Revisionist historians have not recognized that any unity in the English body politic in the 1620s and 1630s existed partly because many of those who were discontent with the Stuarts' religious and foreign policies had an opportunity to vent their frustrations.
In 1632 or later Sir Horace Vere went into virtual retirement. His only military duties were connected with the ordnance office and he enjoyed the company of his family.
By this time his 3 elder daughters were all married:
In 1626 Elizabeth had married John Holles, who later succeeded as 2d earl of Clare;
in 1627 Mary had married Sir Roger Townshend; on his death in 1638 she married Mildmay Fane, 2nd earl of Westmorland. (Both daughters had been born in the Netherlands and had been the beneficiaries of a parliamentary act of naturalization in 1624.)
In 1634 Catherine married Oliver St.John, the eldest son of Sir John St.John, first baronet, of Lydiard Tregoze, Wiltshire; after his death she married John Poulett, son and heir of John, Lord Poulett of Hinton St.George.
In 1635 Vere's fourth daughter, Anne [see Fairfax, Anne], was betrothed to Thomas Fairfax.
About Lady Vere
San Diego Sarah • Link
Horace Vere, 1st Baron Vere of Tilbury (1565 – 1635) was an English military officer and peer who served during the Eighty Years' War and the Thirty Years' War. A brother of Francis Vere, he was sent to the Electoral Palatinate by King James in 1620.
Horace Vere, 1st Baron Vere of Tilbury was a first cousin of Edward de Vere, 17th Earl of Oxford (1550–1604).
Following the campaign season of 1607 Horace Vere, 1st Baron Vere of Tilbury returned to England for a double celebration: his brother, aged 47, married a woman 30 years younger than himself;
and in November 1607 Sir Horace, at 42, wed Lady Mary Tracy Hoby (1581-1671), aged 26. They had met in 1606 when Horace was visiting home. Mary was the widow of William Hoby and had 2 small children. It was thus a convenient match for Mary, but Horace seems genuinely to have been in love.
Lady Mary Tracy Hoby (1581–1671) was a daughter of Sir John Tracy (died 1591) of Toddington, Gloucs., and his wife Anne, daughter of Thomas Throckmorton (died 1568). Her brother Sir Thomas Tracy was a member of the household of Anne of Denmark, as an usher of her privy chamber.
Mary Tracy Hoby, Lady Vere followed Sir Horace to the Netherlands in July 1608, and in later life both clearly had great affection for each other. ...
Mary, Lady Vere's religious views were regarded by some contemporaries as "of a Dutch complexion" (DNB) and it was to this she owed parliament's favour after the civil wars when she was for a time the Governor of Princess Elizabeth and Henry, Duke of Gloucester.
It was probably the case that Horace married her because her views agreed with his own, rather than that she picked up Presbyterianism in the Netherlands.
In 1608, in his absence, she made a donation to Sir Thomas Bodley's Calvinist intellectual project at Oxford University.
Lady Mary's strong views; Sir Horace's family background; his friendship with the princes of Orange (known as defenders of the Reformed church in the Netherlands); his appointment as governor of Utrecht in place of Sir John Ogle, tainted with Arminian sympathies; and his patronage of godly ministers exiled from England all make it clear Sir Horace was a Puritan and probably a Presbyterian.
That Vere could live happily in England under King Charles, despite his firm views in favour of military intervention on the continent, and his Puritan sympathies, was probably partly due to an instinctive allegiance to his king, which a close personal tie to the princely house of Orange must have reinforced.
In addition, Horace Vere quite simply got on well with people.
Revisionist historians have not recognized that any unity in the English body politic in the 1620s and 1630s existed partly because many of those who were discontent with the Stuarts' religious and foreign policies had an opportunity to vent their frustrations.
About Tuesday 5 February 1660/61
San Diego Sarah • Link
"... and I to Westminster Hall, where I found a full term, ..."
Many minor legal proceedings were heard in Westminster Hall (with the echo it must have been difficult to hear testimony).
England's legal system is divided into 4 "terms" so the judges and legal beagles have regular non-Court time for their office work. Bill tells us, the Hillary term usually ends on February 12. Today is only the 5th.
https://www.pepysdiary.com/encycl…
I wonder if they adjourned early in 1661, or if Pepys is referring to something other than the law courts? Ideas anyone.
About Tuesday 5 February 1660/61
San Diego Sarah • Link
"Here we saw Argalus and Parthenia, which I lately saw, but though pleasant for the dancing and singing, I do not find good for any wit or design therein."
I think Pepys took Elizabeth to see "Argalus and Parthenia" because of the singing and dancing, although he thought it unwitty and plot-deficient. And he took her out for a liquid lunch with friends today. (I wonder why he didn't spring for a pasty while they were there?) But he was being a good husband today, all-in-all.
About Clocks and watches
San Diego Sarah • Link
According to this article, which has some lovely pictures (undated), says the Chinese emperor started collecting English clocks in 1662. That's an export market I did not expect:
https://www.ianvisits.co.uk/artic…
About Wednesday 30 January 1660/61
San Diego Sarah • Link
CONCLUSION:
In Knoppers’ words, ‘the Cromwellian funeral procession’ drew ‘upon the full visual resources of monarchical ceremony … Ceremony, effigy, and funeral hearse clearly imitated previous monarchical forms’.
How should we interpret this evidence? Was it a case of Cromwell being willing to meet monarchy half-way? Can we discern symptoms of Cromwell’s continuing lack of hostility towards monarchy per se?
Or are we seeing a clever Cromwellian compromise that was intended to underline his acceptance of traditional forms and so broaden support for his regime?
Or was he seeking to live up to contemporary expectations about the kind of trappings that should attend a head of state, whether republican or royal? ...
Perhaps characteristically of Cromwell, it may well have been a complex blend of all of these things. As so often with Cromwell, a ‘both … and’ approach generally proves more fruitful than an ‘either … or’ one.
We can see the multi-layered quality of Cromwell’s thinking and his political behavior: his capacity to kill several birds with one stone and to fulfill several objectives through the same action. To adapt his own words, no man rises so high as he who knows how to pursue several agendas simultaneously."
EXCERPT FROM: The Monarchical Republic of Oliver Cromwell (Cromwell Day Address 2015)
by Dr. David L Smith, Fellow and Director of Studies in History at Selwyn College, Cambridge. He was a Trustee of the Cromwell Association from 2012 to 2015.
http://www.olivercromwell.org/wor…
"His effigy was ‘vested with royal robes, a scepter in one hand, a globe in the other, and a crown on the head’." -- i.e. the casket was closed, but in royal tradition a wooden statue of Cromwell lay on top -- presented as a king.
This was a full-blown state funeral -- there was nothing "Puritan" about it beyond a presumably Presbyterian minister conducting the ceremony, since they did not recognize bishops.
I wonder what happened to that effigy and the make-believe orb, scepter and crown -- the real things had been melted down to help pay for the civil wars. And Charles II had new ones made, which continue to be used today.
About Wednesday 30 January 1660/61
San Diego Sarah • Link
On the subject of the funeral of Oliver Cromwell, I found this article from the Cromwell Association. Specific reference to the funeral starts half way through, but his "coronation"/inaugeration gives it conext. His inauguration came after months of debate about his taking the title of "king" -- he finally decided he had more power as Lord Protector.
"By the later years of the Protectorate, the opening of Parliament had become almost indistinguishable from its traditional form.
A similar trend was evident in the 2 ceremonies that marked Cromwell’s inauguration as Lord Protector.
Whereas in the first, in December 1653, he wore ‘a black suit and cloake’, and took an oath in the Court of Chancery, sitting on a ‘chair of state’, Laura Knoppers has written that ‘the second Cromwellian inauguration appropriated and revised monarchical forms, transforming a sacred rite into a civil ceremony’.
For this ceremony, in June 1657, ‘a large place’ was ‘raised and prepared at the upper end of Westminster Hall’, ‘in the midst’ of which, ‘under the great window, a rich cloth of estate [was] set up, and under it a chair of state’ – Edward I’s coronation chair – ‘placed upon an ascent of two degrees’. Cromwell was invested with ‘a robe of purple velvet, lined with ermine, being the habit anciently used at the solemn investiture of princes’, together with a Bible, a sword and ‘a scepter, being of massie gold’.
Venetian Resident Francesco Giavarina observed that in receiving these ‘royal ornaments’, Cromwell ‘lacked nothing but the crown to appear a veritable king’.37
37 Calendar of State Papers Venetian (1657-9), p. 82 (Giavarina to the Doge and Senate, 3/13 July 1657).
That missing crown finally appeared posthumously in Cromwell’s state funeral, based on that of James VI and I in 1625.38
38 Knoppers, Constructing Cromwell, pp. 133-6; Sharpe, Image Wars, pp. 520-1.
His effigy was ‘vested with royal robes, a scepter in one hand, a globe in the other, and a crown on the head’.39
39 Mercurius Politicus, 443 (18-25 November 1658), p. 30.
Venetian Resident Francesco Giavarina reported that ‘the effigy of the late Protector … was borne on a car, wearing a crown on its head and holding the sceptre and orb in its hands, with every other token of royalty’.40
40 Calendar of State Papers Venetian (1657-9), p. 269 (Giavarina to the Doge and Senate, 26 November/6 December 1658).
About Tuesday 10 July 1660
San Diego Sarah • Link
A book will be published shortly which addresses
Sexual Politics in Revolutionary England -- By Sam Fullerton
DESCRIPTION:
Sexual politics in revolutionary England recounts a dramatic transformation in English sexual polemic that unfolded during the kingdom's mid-17th-century civil wars.
In early Stuart England, explicit sexual language was largely confined to manuscript and oral forms by the combined regulatory pressures of ecclesiastical press licensing and powerful cultural notions of civility and decorum.
During the early 1640s, graphic sex-talk exploded into polemical print for the first time in English history. Over the next two decades, sexual politics evolved into a vital component of public discourse, as contemporaries utilized sexual satire to reframe the English Revolution as a battle between licentious Stuart tyrants and their lecherous puritan enemies.
By the time that Charles II regained the throne in 1660, this book argues, sex was a routine element of English political culture.
• PRICE: £85.00 • ISBN: 9781526175908
• PUBLISH DATE: JUNE 2024
• PUBLISHER: MANCHESTER UNIVERSITY PRESS
PRE-ORDER £85.00 -- DELIVERY EXC. NORTH AND SOUTH AMERICA
• Format: Hardcover
• Pages: 328
https://manchesteruniversitypress…
"... sex was a routine element of English political culture." I wonder what that really means? But it does support my belief that Pepys' behavior wasn't excessive compared with his contemporary norms.
Perhaps it means the Stuart Brothers' and the Court's sexual exploits were gossiped about openly, and interpreted as being expressions of their rejection of Puritan/Presbyterian mores?
About Wednesday 30 January 1660/61
San Diego Sarah • Link
"Puritan" can be a misleading catch-all description, 徽柔.
This "Puritan" Parliament and his family buried him with the pomp and tribute required for their leader, with the status of King.
Many Ambassadors attended his Westminster Abbey funeral, which was modelled after the ceremony for James I and VI and a magnificent affair, and they reported back to other heads of state on the status of England as a functioning nation based on its ability to do that.
The family and couriers must have decided that a simple wooden coffin would have sent the wrong diplomatic message to France and Spain in particular.
The elderly Cromwell liked practical jokes, swearing, good food, parties and alcohol, and dressed his daughters in the finest cloth, and he negotiated wealthy and prestigeous marriages for them with the established nobility.
Yes, he believed Puritan things, namely that his success in battle meant that God was on his side and he was therefore in the right.
Unlike his Presbyterian Parliament, he was tolerant of Church of England and Jewish beliefs, but drew the line for other non-conformists like the Ranters, Quakers and Fifth Monarchists.
As a young man Cromwell probably was a devout, rigid Presbyterian who liked to live in lovely houses, but as The Protector, he -- and his family -- adapted to what was expedient. By 1650 his policies and attitudes had to be international as well as national -- and even his nation was not all Presbyterian, never mind Puritan.
In other words, he matured like we all do. Things were no longer so black-and-white; shades of grey were embraced.
The coffin therefore speaks to more things than just religion. Cromwell would have understood that, and appreciated the gratitude and symbology it represented.
About Tuesday 5 February 1660/61
San Diego Sarah • Link
"(It's very likely that Sam didn't always note down the "washing-day" in his diary - so our picture here is probably incomplete.)"
I suspect there was an every-few-weeks/as needed wash, and twice a year BIG wash (probably in the early spring and as late as they dared in the autumn).
Gillian did an excellent job above explaining what a production this was, and that Pepys mentions this women's work at all tells us how it upset his household routine.
For the most comprehensive review of 17th century laundry see the Old and Interesting blog:
"Outdoor drying and bleaching: Sun on the bleaching ground
"When Sunlight Soap was named in the 1880s, spreading laundry in the sun was the best way of whitening it. For centuries this had worked to counteract yellowing from storage, from soaking in urine, or from certain soap ingredients.
"Bleaching and drying both used to be mainly outdoor activities, and they were closely related. The stretch of grass set aside for these jobs was called a bleaching-green or drying-ground. Whether you were spreading off-white linen on the ground to bleach in the sun, or just putting your laundry there to dry, or if you were hanging it on a breezy line, you wanted a:
"grassy corner well open to the sun, ... sheltered from high winds ... the attentions of wandering poultry ... and the incursions of pigs, puppies and calves ... they not only soil the clothes, but will tear and even eat them" -- Katherine Purdon, Laundry at Home, 1902, quoted by Pamela Sambrook in The Country House Servant, 1999
Whitsters:
A drying area could be communal, shared by a whole village or neighbourhood; it could be private ground by a large house, or owned by a cloth manufacturer. Domestic bleaching could last just one day or go on for a few days.
"Before the 19th century and the arrival of modern chemicals, it was sometimes done by professionals called whitsters. Whitsters visited large, prosperous households at intervals to "spring-clean" the linen. They might also work on their own premises.
"Household and personal linen was spread on the grass, soaked with buckets of lye at intervals, and eventually rinsed and dried. There were variations, like using plain water and no lye, and the process might last for 3 days.
"As well as using grass, you could spread laundry on hedges and bushes. Drying frames with wooden poles rather than ropes were another possibility.
"If you had poles, rope and pins/pegs you could have a clothes line. Until the 20th century clothes pins were quite simple pieces of wood: split twigs bound with wire or twine like these made by English Romanies, or plainly-cut wood like the Germans used.
"For more on old laundry methods see:
History of Laundry: washing and drying
Laundry from 1800
History of Ironing
Great wash and washdays
Bluing white laundry
Washing bats and beetles
Ashes, lye and bucking
Washboards
Washing dollies"
http://www.oldandinteresting.com/…
About Tuesday 5 February 1660/61
San Diego Sarah • Link
You're right, MartinVT. I believe their circle of acquaintances was much larger than ours today. They spent more time in public locations; they did business in person, not on the phone or by email; they belonged to clubs and churches; plus the lack of welfare state means that they fundamentally understood that helping each other was essential, and the bigger your circle of well-wishers the better.
TV radically changed our way of entertaining ourselves. I leave it to you to judge which was the richer lifestyle.
I like the way Pepys visits his sick colleagues and sits chatting with them for hours. No TV or newspapers or computers would make recouperation a very dull non-event, and it was a great opportunity for him to get to know the life stories and character of his colleagues.
About Monday 4 February 1660/61
San Diego Sarah • Link
Keith Knight's ballad site is great because it explains the background story to the ballad, when known.
However, if you want to hear some of the ballads, back in 2003 there was a CD named "The Musical World of Samuel Pepys," for sale on Amazon -- they not only had it but also gave music samplings from the first few selections!
Eric Walla cautioned that the musical quality is not of the highest caliber, so it probably sounds more like the tavern atmosphere of Pepys' time than do the professional CDs. One of his favorites is sung by the renown Alfred Deller. He also recommended "The King's Delight" from the “King's Noyse” (Harmonia Mundi) for more period ballads.
In 2003 Tower Records also stocked "The Musical World of Samuel Pepys" CD.
Good hunting.
About Monday 4 February 1660/61
San Diego Sarah • Link
"Francesco Giavarina, Venetian Resident in England, to the Doge and Senate. ... The king being in deep mourning for the princess of Orange and it being impossible to have everything ready for the coronation by the 16th February, they have decided to have it on the 23rd April, old style."
To clear up a confusing point here, Francesco Giavarina dates his letters NEW STYLE for the convenience of his masters in Venice -- but for our convenience you'll find we have often posted them under the Pepys' date in the Diary annotations. And Pepys is using the OLD STYLE calendar for the convenience of his masters at Whitehall.
I.E. Francesco Giavarina really wrote this letter 10 days ago. And he already knew the Coronation was delayed. Pepys apparently hasn't found that out yet, never mind John Pepys Jr. in Oxford who wants to cut classes in order to come to London to experience the fun and games.
About Monday 4 February 1660/61
San Diego Sarah • Link
"The ambassadors of Spain, Denmark and Holland ..."
I'll say it before someone else points this out: Holland isn't a country; it's a state.
In the 17th century the country now known as the Netherlands was divided into two: The Protestant United Provinces of the Dutch Republic was self-governed by the States-General in The Hague, and the Catholic Spanish Netherlands, AKA Flanders had a governor in Brussels, but was ruled from Madrid.
Therefore, there was an Ambassador from the Dutch Republic, and an envoy or representative as was necessary from the Spanish Netherlands.
Holland is a province of the United Provinces of the Dutch Republic.
When Pepys says "Holland" he means the Dutch Republic.
If you're wondering why people could not take a straight route directly from England's South Coast to Paris by the shortest route, it has to do with Protestant/Catholic and Spain/France problems. Protestants often judged it safer to take longer routes.
I'm struggling with this as well -- it's so easy to think/write/say "Holland" or "the Netherlands" but in the long run these shortcuts cloud your understanding of the story.