Sorry -- I misread the Rev. Ralph entry -- it's linked to last Sunday because he says he started feeding the animals on that day. It snowed on November 11, which is the date his Diary entry was made.
Still, London in November is cold, wet and occasionally wild.
"Office day. Much troubled all this morning in my mind about the business of my walk on the leads. I spoke of it to the Comptroller and the rest of the principal officers, who are all unwilling to meddle in anything that may anger my Lady Davis. And so I am fain to give over for the time that she do continue therein."
Office Day means that the Navy Board sat and discussed business today. I imagine when the official agenda was finished, Pepys sent the clerks out of the conference room, and asked his fellow Commissioners for guidance on how to handle the problem of the door and the leads. Slingsby probably said that he would get the broken door fixed, and that now it was winter, the Pepys should stay off the leads anyways for the time being.
That Griffith had searched their home would have put the Davis family on notice that this was unacceptable. Let the matter sit for a while, and in the Spring when the weather is better, we'll see what happens.
Presumably Jane and John Davis have children -- most people did. Suppose Mrs. Davis has been fuming for a while about the Pepys parading around, making noise on "their" roof. One of her teenagers might have heard about her escapade locking/blocking the door, and in his/her eagerness to please the "lady" tyrant, independently went and broke the door?
It's not something an adult would do -- blocking their entrance, yes. Breaking the door, no.
The first thing "Lady Davis" knows about this is when Griffith turns up on the doorstep, demanding to search her house. Dumbfounded, she lets him in -- and after he's gone, there's a General Meeting with the kids, and maybe a beating or two.
John Davis must be worried he'll lose his housing, possibly even his job. He's not a Commissioner, so this is a very uncomfortable situation for him, too.
Pepys understandably sees this as the Commissioners being "unwilling to meddle in anything that may anger my Lady Davis," but maybe that's a paranoid overstatement intended only for his Diary.
Adm. Penn's invitation for a ride into the country sounds like a good idea. Gives everyone some breathing space. Penn has extended himself a lot to Pepys this last 6 months.
Yes, Pepys, it's not 'her house' or 'my house', or 'our house' as you have been saying ... it's Charles II's house. Robert Slingsby is your landlord, and he appears not to be in the office today, so Pepys does a diplomatic thing; he stays out of the way. There are 5 commissioners and they have 2 clerks each. Plus the doorman and runners, totalling 17 people in a contained space.
Not content with locking the door to the leads, someone has now broken the door (hard to imagine that; have you seen how sturdy Tudor/Stuart doors were?) -- but Pepys believes one of the Davis' family has now broken into his house.
To make his outrage crystal clear, Pepys gets a third party, the houseman William Griffith, to search the Davis' house to see if they had stolen anything (how would he recognize any of Pepys' belongings?).
Now the cat is really amongst the pigeons. Can you imagine the dialogue between "Lady" Davis and Griffith when he went to their front door and asked to look around?
Breaking the roof door must have made a lot of noise. Presumably Elizabeth and Jane were out shopping; imagine her concern coming home, going up stairs and finding the splintered mess!
Let's hope Slingsby is in tomorrow. There will be words. And that it doesn't rain tonight and ruin all this new paint and plaster work. Pepys won't sleep well, as he prowls the house, armed with a cudgel. Who pays for the new door?
The book “A Handbook for London, Past and Present” by Peter Cunningham (1849) says Buckingham House was “A spacious mansion on the east side of College Hill, for some time the city residence of the 2nd, and last Duke of Buckingham“.
There is an error in this statement, because if the plaque is in the right place, Buckingham House was on the west side of College Hill, not the east.
The City of London Queen Street Conservation Area document states that “The Dukes of Buckingham owned a substantial property accessed from the west side of College Hill until its redevelopment in 1672”.
Strype, writing in 1720, stated “Buckingham house, so called as being bought by the late Duke of Buckingham and where he some time resided upon a particular humour: It is a very large and graceful Building, late the Seat of Sir John Lethulier an eminent Merchant; some time Sheriff and Alderman of London, deceased“.
Buckingham House was shown on Ogilby & Morgan’s 1676 map of London as a substantial building for the area, between College Hill and New Queen Street.
The building appears to have been accessed through an alleyway from College Hill, and an alley still exists in the same place today (the Buckingham House plaque is on the left of the entrance to the alley).
At the end of the alley is the small space of Newcastle Court, occupying a small part of the space that was once in front of Buckingham House.
There is still no final answer as to which Duke of Buckingham owned Buckingham House, or whether it was both of them. And no firm answer as to the relevance of the date 1672.
We know there was a Buckingham House because, as you walk up College Hill, on the left, on a large brick building, next to an entrance to a courtyard, there is a blue plaque which states this is the site of the Duke of Buckingham’s House, 1672.
The does not state which Duke of Buckingham, or the relevance of the date. Was 1672 when the house was built, or demolished, or when the 2nd Duke of Buckingham lived there, and if it was only for a single year, why does it need a plaque?
Firstly, which Duke of Buckingham? George Villiers purchased many large estates in the early 17th century, He was a favourite of King James, and one history of the county of Rutland (where Villiers' primary country estate was located) states that “It was his elegant legs that first brought George Villiers to the adoring attention of James I”.
George Villiers was made the 1st Duke of Buckingham in 1623. James died in 1625 and King Charles took the throne, and George Villiers continued to have royal favour, but he was not popular, and was often used as a scapegoat for poor decisions.
Villiers was the Lord Admiral, and led a naval force to attempt the relief of La Rochelle. The attempt was a failure and there were around 5,000 casualties in the forces led by Villiers. A second expedition also failed, and following these 2 naval disasters sailors and soldiers were left unpaid, fed up with Villiers command they mutiny. Such was the feeling among the sailors that one of their number, John Felton assassinated Villiers on 23 August, 1628.
Seven months before his death, his first son, also George, was born, and became the 2nd Duke of Buckingham.
The 2nd Duke of Buckingham grew to follow in his father’s footsteps and continue to support King Charles. He fought on the Royalist side during the Civil War and escaped to Europe with the future Charles II. He was later captured and imprisoned in Jersey, Windsor and the Tower.
After Cromwell’s death in 1658, Buckingham was released from the Tower in 1659, and with Charles II restored to the throne, Buckingham had his estates restored and became a rich man, and was also at the center of the royal intrigues.
Buckingham had expensive tastes, and racked up large gambling debts. He died in 1687, and his estates were sold to pay off his debts.
He had no legitimate heir, so the 17th century Dukes of Buckingham's stories ended in 1687, The plaque refers to one or both of these men.
Some respected sources say the house belonged to George Villiers, 1st Duke of Buckingham, with no mention of the 2nd Duke. But he died almost 50 years before the date on the plaque.
There are many stories regarding the founding and age of St. Michael Paternoster Royal. A plaque claims that the church was founded by Richard Whittington, but that is not quiet true. The first reference to a church on the site dates from 1219. The name comes from the sellers of paternosters (rosaries) who were based in College Hill, which was then called Paternoster Lane.
The Royal element of the name comes from a now lost nearby street called Le Ryole, which was a corruption of the name of a town in Bordeaux called La Reole. The street was home to wine sellers, which explains the Bordeaux connection.
Richard Whittington’s involvement with St. Michael Paternoster Royal church dates from 1409 when he paid for its rebuilding, and the extension of the church by the purchase of a plot of land in the street Le Ryole.
Although he was not responsible for the founding of the original church, Whittington did found a College within the extended church for the training of priests, the College of St. Spirit and St. Mary. The association of the church with the college enabled St. Michael Paternoster Royal's to become a collegiate church, so perhaps this is what the plaque is referring to.
The college is also the reason why the street is called College Hill.
St. Michael Paternoster Royal was destroyed in the 1666 Great Fire, and rebuilt by Wren, with Nicholas Hawksmoor adding the steeple between 1713 and 1717.
The church was badly damaged during WWII, ... the church was rebuilt in the 1960s, the last City church to be rebuilt after the damage of the 1940s.
Although there is nothing left of Richard Whittington’s tomb, there is a marked stone on the floor near the altar recording the location of his burial place.
Much has been written about Dick Whittington, and many of these stories are myths. There was no cat, he was not poor, and whether he turned again as he was leaving the City to the north is unlikely.
He was the younger son of Sir William Whittington, from Pauntley, Gloucs., and as a younger son, he did not inherited his father’s wealth and lands.
On his arrival in London, he was apprenticed to a mercer, and gradually grew a reputation as a successful trader and supplier to the King. Between 1392 and 1394 Richard II purchased around £3,475 worth of goods from Whittington. He exported wool and also lent money to the King, all activities which built his wealth and reputation at court.
His future reputation was sealed when he became Lord Mayor of London. It was his money lending, friendship and loyalty to Richard II which enabled this, as in 1397 the City of London was being badly governed.
The King confiscated much of the City of London's land, and selected Richard Whittington to be Mayor of the City, a choice which was confirmed by a vote of those eligible to vote within the City.
Whittington was liked by the people of London; he carried out a number of improvements to the City, which included rebuilding parts of the Guildhall, and according to the Museum of London, he built a communal ‘longhouse’ (a communal privy which would have overhung the Walbrook river). He also was able to buy back the land for the City which had been confiscated by the King.
Although Whittington owned property, he did not own large estates in or out of London, which was normal at the time for a person of his station.
He was Mayor of the City of London in 1397, 1406 and 1419, and he was also an MP, and a member of the Mercers Company.
He wife Alice died in 1410, and Whittington died in 1423, and as they had no surviving children, much of Whittington’s wealth was left for charitable purposes.
...
According to records in the London Metropolitan Archives, Whittington paid for the rebuild of St. Michael Paternoster Royal in 1409.
Two hundred years later the story of the cat seems to have been established as he is shown stroking a small cat in a print, which lists his good works:
“Thrice Mayor of London, a virtuous and godly man full of good works and those famous he builded the Gate of London called Newgate which before was a miserable dungeon. He builded Whittington College and made it an almshouse for poor people. Also he builded a great part of the hospital of St. Bartholomews in West Smithfield in London. He also builded the great Library at Grey Friers in London called Christes Hospital. Also he builded the Guilde Halle Chapel and increased a great part of the east side of the said hall, beside many other good works.”
Members of the Tuners' were those who specialised in wood turning on a lathe, and whilst this would have included the manufacture of furniture, a key product of the Turners' appears to have been wooden measuring vessels, a device that would hold a set quantity of liquids such as wine or ale, and therefore able to show that an expected quantity (such as a pint or a quart) was being provided.
The trade of a Turner seems to date back many hundreds of years. According to "The Armorial Bearings of the Guilds of London" by John Bromley (1960):
"In 1310 six turners were sworn before the mayor not to make any other measures than gallons, pottles and quarts, and were enjoined to seize any false measures found in the hands of others whether free of the City or not."
The problem with false measures was still a problem a couple of hundred years later, when in 1547 Turners were again summoned before the mayor and ordered to make only measures which conformed to the standard.
The mayor is still indirectly responsible for measures in the City of London, although rather than being hauled up before the Mayor, today it is the City of London Corporation Trading Standards team that manage this, and the sale of ale is still on their agenda as they have a web page dedicated to the Pub trade within the City of London and "Was your pint a short measure?".
In 1604, King James the 1st granted the Turners' their first Royal Charter.
The first Turners' Hall was in Philpot Lane, off Eastcheap, where the company leased a mansion in 1591.
The Turners' occupied this hall until 1736 when they had o leave their Philpot Lane location due to the landlord and the legal representative of the landlord's estate both going bankrupt, apparently as a result of the South Sea Bubble. ...
"... my Lady Davis is now come to our next lodgings, and has locked up the leads door from me, which puts me into so great a disquiet that I went to bed, and could not sleep till morning at it."
Pepys has to work with Jane Davis' husband, John. How to diplomatically handle this is what is keeping him awake. He has to "win" back his rights without making an enemy. Presumably John is as terrified of his wife as everyone else.
(Women have had to do everything for the last 15 years while their menfolk fought and were injured or died in the Civil Wars, and Cromwell's Caribbean and Irish adventures. Now the men are home, and the women were supposed to silently have no opinions and sit "at the back of the bus" again. Not everyone took easily to the reintroduction of the new/old rules. (The Puritans educated their daughters, even if they were forbidden to speak in church. Quaker women were told to speak up in discussions and meetings. Leveller women were positively outspoken.)
If you absolutely must know how this leads problem works out, which is full of insignificant SPOILERS way into 1661, and involves the Davis' son, Jack (who will also come to work in the Navy Office soon) see https://www.pepysdiary.com/encycl…
L&M: Jane Davis, wife of John Davis Snr., Clerk to Lord Berkeley of Stratton in 1660.
L&M Companion: John Davis Senior and Junior were Navy Office Clerks.
Senior is referred to above as Clerk to Lord Berkeley in 1660, and was probably with him in Ireland (when Berkeley was Governor of Galway) from 1661-3.
"... and went on foot with my Lady Pickering to her lodging, which was a poor one in Blackfryars, where she never invited me to go in at all, which methought was very strange for her to do."
This seems thoughtless of Pepys: her husband, Gilbert Pickering, was a recicide. His public career ended in 1660. With the help of his brother-in-law Edward Montagu, 1st Earl of Sandwich, Pickering obtained a pardon from Charles II. He escaped punishment beyond being declared incapable of holding office -- so they were keeping a low profile and low expenses until they knew for sure he is in the clear. Parliament may yet impose some punishment.
Lady Elizabeth has probably dressed in her finest clothing to appear at her best to her sister. Gilbert is possibly drowing his sorrows inside their humble abode. Why would she invite in this young upstart Royalist employee to witness their disgrace?
My 2020 copies of L&M -- both the Diary and the Companion -- have nothing on Isackson/Isaacson. Does anyone know what David was referring to? Perhaps other editions had some info.?
"... and after drinking of some strange and incomparable good clarett of Mr. Rumball’s ..." Monday 29 October 1660
✹ language hat on 29 Oct 2003: "Claret" originally meant a lighter red wine than the cabernet-sauvignon-based Bordeaux we associate with the term; here's the discussion from the Wine Spectator:
"Claret is a British term long used to describe wines of various styles from Bordeaux. Up to the mid-17th century, winemakers in Bordeaux kept their wine's contact with grape skins to a minimum, usually fermenting for only a few days. The result was vin clairet, a pale, light-bodied, early-drinking wine which resembled rosé more than a modern Bordeaux.
“But beginning in the second half of the 17th century, winemakers began to choose grapes more carefully, to employ longer fermentation periods and generally to improve their techniques. The result? Full-bodied, high-quality wines that have evolved into the great Bordeaux “clarets” we enjoy today.”
I wonder if Pepys was privileged to try one of those new full-bodied wines, hence the “strange and incomparable good”? https://www.pepysdiary.com/diary/…
"Bartholin's abcess or cyst. Although it can be caused by normal bacteria, it has also been found to be caused by sexually transmitted diseases such as chlamydia and gonorrhea. And since we know that Sam liked the ladies, it is possible that he infected Elizabeth."
My brief research into these cysts revealed that 3 out of 100 women suffer from these things -- no help needed from diseases. Since Pepys lived a long and comparatively healthy life, it's reasonable to think he didn't have chlamydia or gonorrhea. https://www.pepysdiary.com/diary/…
Neville, since we are not sure what -- or where -- these boils were, it's hard to say.
I Googled your question, and this was the answer: "... Elizabeth's health was an ongoing issue throughout the Diary. She often suffered from a recurring abscess, believed to be a Bartholin's cyst, which often made sexual relations difficult for the couple."
"If the cyst becomes infected the swelling may become filled with pus (then called an abscess). Bartholin's cyst or abscess affect up to 3 in 100 women and can be treated with antibiotics or with a small procedure/operation to drain the collection."
Today, this type of poultice is advocated for a Bartholin's cyst: "Fresh Chickweed Poultice: A poultice is an external compress made of herbs. They can be made with fresh or dried herbs, and applied to the skin for many different effects, both for a first-aid and immediate need or for helping to treat chronic illness and pain. Here’s a more in-depth article on poultices and techniques for creating them from The Herbal Academy: How To Make a Poultice with Dry or Fresh Herbs https://theherbalacademy.com/how-…
"If you have access to a fresh patch of chickweed, you can cut a few sprigs at a time and apply them directly to the cyst. Lightly crush the stems and leaves between your fingers and roll them together, making a bundle of bruised chickweed. Apply that ball of herbs directly to the cyst and put a cool, damp cloth on top of it. This can feel very cooling to the inflamed skin! When you can feel the warmth returning and the cooling effect dwindling (usually around 10-15 minutes) replace the chickweed with new and repeat the process.
"You can also puree a few handfuls of chickweed with some cool water in a bullet blender and pour it into a jar to store in the fridge. Don’t make it too thin, you want it to be a bit chunky and thick! Use the cold puree in muslin or other cloth to apply to the cyst." https://www.pixiespocket.com/2018…
In early modern London, 29 October (the day after the feast of Saints Simon and Jude) was the day of the Lord Mayor's Triumph, a celebration of the newly appointed Lord Mayor.
The song, "Late as I walked through Cheapside" is a mid-17th century song about the sights and sounds of the Lord Mayor's Show. It details the procession through the streets of London, accompanied by civic dignitaries, liverymen, whifflers, and more; horses, wild men and noisy fireworks; and pageants with boy and girl actors. From the Gamble Commonplace Book, a collection of songs compiled by John Gamble starting in 1659.
"Late as I walked through Cheapside To mine eyes was there presented As brave a sight as ever I saw, Which much my mind contented: First my Lord Mayor and his steed, With gay trappings, gay indeed. Something there was more than need ..... Twas next day after Simon and Jude As I did look about me, Many a blazing comet I viewed Which made me for to doubt me, Fearing some prodigious sight Should appear me to affright, And as I guessed, it fell out right, But I hope no man will flout me. A crew of wild men, wild indeed To be so ill employed there, Which put the people in such a fear, That some their hose annoyed thereabouts With such a smell, and with such smoke That I was very like to choke Many a wild firecracker broke; Much powder was destroyed there. All the company in array Most trimly were attired In their accoutrement most gay But some of them were tired: Whifflers with white staves and chains And marshall's men that took great pains; They swore they'd beat out poor men's brains That were with dirt bemired. Next the sheriff and aldermen gay Upon their slow paced horses, Did ride in equipage most gay, But some wished them in their purses. All their chains they there had on: Gold did horse and man adorn; There was no difference but the horn, They took such equal courses. In sundry places the player’s boys Unto the Lord Mayor made speeches, But I could hear nothing for the noise, The women made such shrieking; But one that [knew] told me a word, That one of them desired my lordship That he next Easter would afford The Blue-coat boys new breeches. Girls and boys in antic shapes Sat upon the pageant’s gallery The one represented a Jack-a-napes, And the other was like a lady. Sure the porters’ backs were stronger For they did bear them through the throng, And thus they marched all along In as gallant sort as may be. Thus all my delights when I had seen, More than my mind can utter, Out of the throng I fain would have been, I was so daggled in the gutter; But as I strove I lost my purse, Which caused me to ban and curse; I bid a pox take mayor and horse, And I hied me home to supper."
The idea the Undead speak in tiny voices — that they pule — goes back some 7,000+ years; each of these Indo-European peoples believed in the tiny voices from the time of their common cultural origin in the Anatolia region of modern Turkey. Puling therefore probably started before the first Christian missionaries arrived on British soil.
Bailey shows a further evolution in the idea of puling. Plaintive begging has taken on music. By 1841 (the date of the "Kalendarium"), in more Puritan areas the custom has evolved into “Psalm-caking” in which “a sort of procession of young people [went] from house to house, at each of which they recited psalms, and, in return, received presents of cakes”. But, children being children, Puritanism couldn’t hold for long, and, while the singing is done on All Souls once again, a more modern lyric is recorded in "Notes And Queries".
"Soul! Soul! for a soul cake: Pray, good mistress, for a soul cake. One for Peter, two for Paul, Three for them who make us all. Soul! Soul! for an apple or two; If you’ve got no apples, pears will do. &c. An apple or pear or plum or cherry, Is a very good thing to make us merry. &c."[7]
The singing is certainly no longer “small,” the begging no longer abject. Nor do the singers pretend to be the Undead freed for the night from the abyss. The householder who failed to provide treats received a curse for their unkindness.
No citations, that I am yet aware of, refer to the tricks that could be quite frightening by the 18th century in Scotland. The dire warnings given the ancient Celtic worshippers should they fail to placate the dead with food on the night of Samhain mentioned far worse than mere tricks. But the survival of the promise of consequences surely lets us know that tricks of one sort or another there were.
@@@
[1] Two Gentlemen of Verona, II.i.15-6, 25. [2] In modern parlance, “All Saints Day”. The Undead emerging only at night, Shakespeare may be referring to October 31, our Halloween. [3] Hampson, R. T. Medii Ævi Kalendarium or Dates, Charters, and Customs of the Middle Ages (1841). I.375. Mr. Tollet provided notes to George Steevens’ and Samuel Johnson’s works of Shakespeare published in the 1780s. [4] Homer. The Odyssey, Vol. 2 (Loeb, 1919). Tr. A. T. Murray. “ταί δέ τριζουσαι ἕποντο.” “: “They followed speaking in a thin, piercing noise.” I have replaced Murray’s insufficient “gibbering”. [5] Virgil. Eclogues. Georgics. Aeneid I-VI, Vol. 1. (Loeb, 1916). Tr. H. Rushton Fairclough. 541. “tollere vocem exiguam… hiantes”. [6] Hamlet, I.i.115-6. [7] Notes and Queries, Vol. 4, November 15, 1851. 381.
Thanks to Virtual Grub Street, a constant fount of information about many things Shakespearian and Elizabethan https://gilbertwesleypurdy.blogsp…
Comments
Third Reading
About Wednesday 31 October 1660
San Diego Sarah • Link
Sorry -- I misread the Rev. Ralph entry -- it's linked to last Sunday because he says he started feeding the animals on that day. It snowed on November 11, which is the date his Diary entry was made.
Still, London in November is cold, wet and occasionally wild.
About Wednesday 31 October 1660
San Diego Sarah • Link
I forgot: The Rev. Ralph told us on Sunday that it's snowing in Essex. Too cold for walking safely on the leads now anyways.
About Wednesday 31 October 1660
San Diego Sarah • Link
"Office day. Much troubled all this morning in my mind about the business of my walk on the leads. I spoke of it to the Comptroller and the rest of the principal officers, who are all unwilling to meddle in anything that may anger my Lady Davis. And so I am fain to give over for the time that she do continue therein."
Office Day means that the Navy Board sat and discussed business today.
I imagine when the official agenda was finished, Pepys sent the clerks out of the conference room, and asked his fellow Commissioners for guidance on how to handle the problem of the door and the leads. Slingsby probably said that he would get the broken door fixed, and that now it was winter, the Pepys should stay off the leads anyways for the time being.
That Griffith had searched their home would have put the Davis family on notice that this was unacceptable. Let the matter sit for a while, and in the Spring when the weather is better, we'll see what happens.
Presumably Jane and John Davis have children -- most people did. Suppose Mrs. Davis has been fuming for a while about the Pepys parading around, making noise on "their" roof. One of her teenagers might have heard about her escapade locking/blocking the door, and in his/her eagerness to please the "lady" tyrant, independently went and broke the door?
It's not something an adult would do -- blocking their entrance, yes. Breaking the door, no.
The first thing "Lady Davis" knows about this is when Griffith turns up on the doorstep, demanding to search her house. Dumbfounded, she lets him in -- and after he's gone, there's a General Meeting with the kids, and maybe a beating or two.
John Davis must be worried he'll lose his housing, possibly even his job. He's not a Commissioner, so this is a very uncomfortable situation for him, too.
Pepys understandably sees this as the Commissioners being "unwilling to meddle in anything that may anger my Lady Davis," but maybe that's a paranoid overstatement intended only for his Diary.
Adm. Penn's invitation for a ride into the country sounds like a good idea. Gives everyone some breathing space. Penn has extended himself a lot to Pepys this last 6 months.
About Tuesday 30 October 1660
San Diego Sarah • Link
“... to whom the lodgings belong ...”
Yes, Pepys, it's not 'her house' or 'my house', or 'our house' as you have been saying ... it's Charles II's house. Robert Slingsby is your landlord, and he appears not to be in the office today, so Pepys does a diplomatic thing; he stays out of the way. There are 5 commissioners and they have 2 clerks each. Plus the doorman and runners, totalling 17 people in a contained space.
Not content with locking the door to the leads, someone has now broken the door (hard to imagine that; have you seen how sturdy Tudor/Stuart doors were?) -- but Pepys believes one of the Davis' family has now broken into his house.
To make his outrage crystal clear, Pepys gets a third party, the houseman William Griffith, to search the Davis' house to see if they had stolen anything (how would he recognize any of Pepys' belongings?).
Now the cat is really amongst the pigeons. Can you imagine the dialogue between "Lady" Davis and Griffith when he went to their front door and asked to look around?
Breaking the roof door must have made a lot of noise. Presumably Elizabeth and Jane were out shopping; imagine her concern coming home, going up stairs and finding the splintered mess!
Let's hope Slingsby is in tomorrow. There will be words.
And that it doesn't rain tonight and ruin all this new paint and plaster work.
Pepys won't sleep well, as he prowls the house, armed with a cudgel.
Who pays for the new door?
About George Villiers (2nd Duke of Buckingham)
San Diego Sarah • Link
PART 2
The book “A Handbook for London, Past and Present” by Peter Cunningham (1849) says Buckingham House was “A spacious mansion on the east side of College Hill, for some time the city residence of the 2nd, and last Duke of Buckingham“.
There is an error in this statement, because if the plaque is in the right place, Buckingham House was on the west side of College Hill, not the east.
The City of London Queen Street Conservation Area document states that “The Dukes of Buckingham owned a substantial property accessed from the west side of College Hill until its redevelopment in 1672”.
Strype, writing in 1720, stated “Buckingham house, so called as being bought by the late Duke of Buckingham and where he some time resided upon a particular humour: It is a very large and graceful Building, late the Seat of Sir John Lethulier an eminent Merchant; some time Sheriff and Alderman of London, deceased“.
Buckingham House was shown on Ogilby & Morgan’s 1676 map of London as a substantial building for the area, between College Hill and New Queen Street.
The building appears to have been accessed through an alleyway from College Hill, and an alley still exists in the same place today (the Buckingham House plaque is on the left of the entrance to the alley).
At the end of the alley is the small space of Newcastle Court, occupying a small part of the space that was once in front of Buckingham House.
There is still no final answer as to which Duke of Buckingham owned Buckingham House, or whether it was both of them. And no firm answer as to the relevance of the date 1672.
We may never know these answers.
Excerpts consolidated from
https://alondoninheritance.com/lo…
About George Villiers (2nd Duke of Buckingham)
San Diego Sarah • Link
We know there was a Buckingham House because, as you walk up College Hill, on the left, on a large brick building, next to an entrance to a courtyard, there is a blue plaque which states this is the site of the Duke of Buckingham’s House, 1672.
The does not state which Duke of Buckingham, or the relevance of the date.
Was 1672 when the house was built, or demolished, or when the 2nd Duke of Buckingham lived there, and if it was only for a single year, why does it need a plaque?
Firstly, which Duke of Buckingham?
George Villiers purchased many large estates in the early 17th century,
He was a favourite of King James, and one history of the county of Rutland (where Villiers' primary country estate was located) states that “It was his elegant legs that first brought George Villiers to the adoring attention of James I”.
George Villiers was made the 1st Duke of Buckingham in 1623.
James died in 1625 and King Charles took the throne, and George Villiers continued to have royal favour, but he was not popular, and was often used as a scapegoat for poor decisions.
Villiers was the Lord Admiral, and led a naval force to attempt the relief of La Rochelle. The attempt was a failure and there were around 5,000 casualties in the forces led by Villiers.
A second expedition also failed, and following these 2 naval disasters sailors and soldiers were left unpaid, fed up with Villiers command they mutiny.
Such was the feeling among the sailors that one of their number, John Felton assassinated Villiers on 23 August, 1628.
Seven months before his death, his first son, also George, was born, and became the 2nd Duke of Buckingham.
The 2nd Duke of Buckingham grew to follow in his father’s footsteps and continue to support King Charles. He fought on the Royalist side during the Civil War and escaped to Europe with the future Charles II. He was later captured and imprisoned in Jersey, Windsor and the Tower.
After Cromwell’s death in 1658, Buckingham was released from the Tower in 1659, and with Charles II restored to the throne, Buckingham had his estates restored and became a rich man, and was also at the center of the royal intrigues.
Buckingham had expensive tastes, and racked up large gambling debts. He died in 1687, and his estates were sold to pay off his debts.
He had no legitimate heir, so the 17th century Dukes of Buckingham's stories ended in 1687, The plaque refers to one or both of these men.
Some respected sources say the house belonged to George Villiers, 1st Duke of Buckingham, with no mention of the 2nd Duke. But he died almost 50 years before the date on the plaque.
About Dick Whittington and His Cat
San Diego Sarah • Link
PART 2
There are many stories regarding the founding and age of St. Michael Paternoster Royal.
A plaque claims that the church was founded by Richard Whittington, but that is not quiet true.
The first reference to a church on the site dates from 1219. The name comes from the sellers of paternosters (rosaries) who were based in College Hill, which was then called Paternoster Lane.
The Royal element of the name comes from a now lost nearby street called Le Ryole, which was a corruption of the name of a town in Bordeaux called La Reole. The street was home to wine sellers, which explains the Bordeaux connection.
Richard Whittington’s involvement with St. Michael Paternoster Royal church dates from 1409 when he paid for its rebuilding, and the extension of the church by the purchase of a plot of land in the street Le Ryole.
Although he was not responsible for the founding of the original church, Whittington did found a College within the extended church for the training of priests, the College of St. Spirit and St. Mary. The association of the church with the college enabled St. Michael Paternoster Royal's to become a collegiate church, so perhaps this is what the plaque is referring to.
The college is also the reason why the street is called College Hill.
St. Michael Paternoster Royal was destroyed in the 1666 Great Fire, and rebuilt by Wren, with Nicholas Hawksmoor adding the steeple between 1713 and 1717.
The church was badly damaged during WWII, ... the church was rebuilt in the 1960s, the last City church to be rebuilt after the damage of the 1940s.
Although there is nothing left of Richard Whittington’s tomb, there is a marked stone on the floor near the altar recording the location of his burial place.
Highlights taken from
https://alondoninheritance.com/lo…
About Dick Whittington and His Cat
San Diego Sarah • Link
Much has been written about Dick Whittington, and many of these stories are myths. There was no cat, he was not poor, and whether he turned again as he was leaving the City to the north is unlikely.
He was the younger son of Sir William Whittington, from Pauntley, Gloucs., and as a younger son, he did not inherited his father’s wealth and lands.
On his arrival in London, he was apprenticed to a mercer, and gradually grew a reputation as a successful trader and supplier to the King.
Between 1392 and 1394 Richard II purchased around £3,475 worth of goods from Whittington.
He exported wool and also lent money to the King, all activities which built his wealth and reputation at court.
His future reputation was sealed when he became Lord Mayor of London. It was his money lending, friendship and loyalty to Richard II which enabled this, as in 1397 the City of London was being badly governed.
The King confiscated much of the City of London's land, and selected Richard Whittington to be Mayor of the City, a choice which was confirmed by a vote of those eligible to vote within the City.
Whittington was liked by the people of London; he carried out a number of improvements to the City, which included rebuilding parts of the Guildhall, and according to the Museum of London, he built a communal ‘longhouse’ (a communal privy which would have overhung the Walbrook river). He also was able to buy back the land for the City which had been confiscated by the King.
Although Whittington owned property, he did not own large estates in or out of London, which was normal at the time for a person of his station.
He was Mayor of the City of London in 1397, 1406 and 1419, and he was also an MP, and a member of the Mercers Company.
He wife Alice died in 1410, and Whittington died in 1423, and as they had no surviving children, much of Whittington’s wealth was left for charitable purposes.
...
According to records in the London Metropolitan Archives, Whittington paid for the rebuild of St. Michael Paternoster Royal in 1409.
Two hundred years later the story of the cat seems to have been established as he is shown stroking a small cat in a print, which lists his good works:
“Thrice Mayor of London, a virtuous and godly man full of good works and those famous he builded the Gate of London called Newgate which before was a miserable dungeon. He builded Whittington College and made it an almshouse for poor people. Also he builded a great part of the hospital of St. Bartholomews in West Smithfield in London. He also builded the great Library at Grey Friers in London called Christes Hospital. Also he builded the Guilde Halle Chapel and increased a great part of the east side of the said hall, beside many other good works.”
About Thomas Pepys (c, cousin, "the Turner")
San Diego Sarah • Link
Members of the Tuners' were those who specialised in wood turning on a lathe, and whilst this would have included the manufacture of furniture, a key product of the Turners' appears to have been wooden measuring vessels, a device that would hold a set quantity of liquids such as wine or ale, and therefore able to show that an expected quantity (such as a pint or a quart) was being provided.
The trade of a Turner seems to date back many hundreds of years. According to "The Armorial Bearings of the Guilds of London" by John Bromley (1960):
"In 1310 six turners were sworn before the mayor not to make any other measures than gallons, pottles and quarts, and were enjoined to seize any false measures found in the hands of others whether free of the City or not."
The problem with false measures was still a problem a couple of hundred years later, when in 1547 Turners were again summoned before the mayor and ordered to make only measures which conformed to the standard.
The mayor is still indirectly responsible for measures in the City of London, although rather than being hauled up before the Mayor, today it is the City of London Corporation Trading Standards team that manage this, and the sale of ale is still on their agenda as they have a web page dedicated to the Pub trade within the City of London and "Was your pint a short measure?".
In 1604, King James the 1st granted the Turners' their first Royal Charter.
The first Turners' Hall was in Philpot Lane, off Eastcheap, where the company leased a mansion in 1591.
The Turners' occupied this hall until 1736 when they had o leave their Philpot Lane location due to the landlord and the legal representative of the landlord's estate both going bankrupt, apparently as a result of the South Sea Bubble. ...
Excerpt from:
https://alondoninheritance.com/lo…
About Monday 29 October 1660
San Diego Sarah • Link
"... my Lady Davis is now come to our next lodgings, and has locked up the leads door from me, which puts me into so great a disquiet that I went to bed, and could not sleep till morning at it."
Pepys has to work with Jane Davis' husband, John. How to diplomatically handle this is what is keeping him awake. He has to "win" back his rights without making an enemy. Presumably John is as terrified of his wife as everyone else.
(Women have had to do everything for the last 15 years while their menfolk fought and were injured or died in the Civil Wars, and Cromwell's Caribbean and Irish adventures. Now the men are home, and the women were supposed to silently have no opinions and sit "at the back of the bus" again. Not everyone took easily to the reintroduction of the new/old rules.
(The Puritans educated their daughters, even if they were forbidden to speak in church. Quaker women were told to speak up in discussions and meetings. Leveller women were positively outspoken.)
If you absolutely must know how this leads problem works out, which is full of insignificant SPOILERS way into 1661, and involves the Davis' son, Jack (who will also come to work in the Navy Office soon) see
https://www.pepysdiary.com/encycl…
About Jane Davis
San Diego Sarah • Link
L&M: Jane Davis, wife of John Davis Snr., Clerk to Lord Berkeley of Stratton in 1660.
L&M Companion: John Davis Senior and Junior were Navy Office Clerks.
Senior is referred to above as Clerk to Lord Berkeley in 1660, and was probably with him in Ireland (when Berkeley was Governor of Galway) from 1661-3.
Junior was appointed to a clerkship c. 1661.
About Monday 29 October 1660
San Diego Sarah • Link
"... and went on foot with my Lady Pickering to her lodging, which was a poor one in Blackfryars, where she never invited me to go in at all, which methought was very strange for her to do."
This seems thoughtless of Pepys: her husband, Gilbert Pickering, was a recicide. His public career ended in 1660. With the help of his brother-in-law Edward Montagu, 1st Earl of Sandwich, Pickering obtained a pardon from Charles II. He escaped punishment beyond being declared incapable of holding office -- so they were keeping a low profile and low expenses until they knew for sure he is in the clear. Parliament may yet impose some punishment.
Lady Elizabeth has probably dressed in her finest clothing to appear at her best to her sister. Gilbert is possibly drowing his sorrows inside their humble abode. Why would she invite in this young upstart Royalist employee to witness their disgrace?
About Mr Isackson
San Diego Sarah • Link
My 2020 copies of L&M -- both the Diary and the Companion -- have nothing on Isackson/Isaacson.
Does anyone know what David was referring to? Perhaps other editions had some info.?
About Wine
San Diego Sarah • Link
More about claret:
"... and after drinking of some strange and incomparable good clarett of Mr. Rumball’s ..." Monday 29 October 1660
✹ language hat on 29 Oct 2003:
"Claret" originally meant a lighter red wine than the cabernet-sauvignon-based Bordeaux we associate with the term; here's the discussion from the Wine Spectator:
"Claret is a British term long used to describe wines of various styles from Bordeaux. Up to the mid-17th century, winemakers in Bordeaux kept their wine's contact with grape skins to a minimum, usually fermenting for only a few days. The result was vin clairet, a pale, light-bodied, early-drinking wine which resembled rosé more than a modern Bordeaux.
“But beginning in the second half of the 17th century, winemakers began to choose grapes more carefully, to employ longer fermentation periods and generally to improve their techniques. The result? Full-bodied, high-quality wines that have evolved into the great Bordeaux “clarets” we enjoy today.”
I wonder if Pepys was privileged to try one of those new full-bodied wines, hence the “strange and incomparable good”?
https://www.pepysdiary.com/diary/…
About Elizabeth Pepys (wife, b. St Michel)
San Diego Sarah • Link
"Bartholin's abcess or cyst. Although it can be caused by normal bacteria, it has also been found to be caused by sexually transmitted diseases such as chlamydia and gonorrhea. And since we know that Sam liked the ladies, it is possible that he infected Elizabeth."
My brief research into these cysts revealed that 3 out of 100 women suffer from these things -- no help needed from diseases. Since Pepys lived a long and comparatively healthy life, it's reasonable to think he didn't have chlamydia or gonorrhea.
https://www.pepysdiary.com/diary/…
About Sunday 28 October 1660
San Diego Sarah • Link
Neville, since we are not sure what -- or where -- these boils were, it's hard to say.
I Googled your question, and this was the answer:
"... Elizabeth's health was an ongoing issue throughout the Diary. She often suffered from a recurring abscess, believed to be a Bartholin's cyst, which often made sexual relations difficult for the couple."
"If the cyst becomes infected the swelling may become filled with pus (then called an abscess). Bartholin's cyst or abscess affect up to 3 in 100 women and can be treated with antibiotics or with a small procedure/operation to drain the collection."
Today, this type of poultice is advocated for a Bartholin's cyst:
"Fresh Chickweed Poultice:
A poultice is an external compress made of herbs. They can be made with fresh or dried herbs, and applied to the skin for many different effects, both for a first-aid and immediate need or for helping to treat chronic illness and pain. Here’s a more in-depth article on poultices and techniques for creating them from The Herbal Academy: How To Make a Poultice with Dry or Fresh Herbs https://theherbalacademy.com/how-…
"If you have access to a fresh patch of chickweed, you can cut a few sprigs at a time and apply them directly to the cyst. Lightly crush the stems and leaves between your fingers and roll them together, making a bundle of bruised chickweed. Apply that ball of herbs directly to the cyst and put a cool, damp cloth on top of it. This can feel very cooling to the inflamed skin! When you can feel the warmth returning and the cooling effect dwindling (usually around 10-15 minutes) replace the chickweed with new and repeat the process.
"You can also puree a few handfuls of chickweed with some cool water in a bullet blender and pour it into a jar to store in the fridge. Don’t make it too thin, you want it to be a bit chunky and thick! Use the cold puree in muslin or other cloth to apply to the cyst."
https://www.pixiespocket.com/2018…
About Lord Mayor
San Diego Sarah • Link
For a description of the annual Lord Mayor's Triumph, or Show, taken from a 1660's song, see
https://www.pepysdiary.com/diary/…
About Monday 29 October 1660
San Diego Sarah • Link
In early modern London, 29 October (the day after the feast of Saints Simon and Jude) was the day of the Lord Mayor's Triumph, a celebration of the newly appointed Lord Mayor.
The song, "Late as I walked through Cheapside" is a mid-17th century song about the sights and sounds of the Lord Mayor's Show. It details the procession through the streets of London, accompanied by civic dignitaries, liverymen, whifflers, and more; horses, wild men and noisy fireworks; and pageants with boy and girl actors.
From the Gamble Commonplace Book, a collection of songs compiled by John Gamble starting in 1659.
"Late as I walked through Cheapside
To mine eyes was there presented
As brave a sight as ever I saw,
Which much my mind contented:
First my Lord Mayor and his steed,
With gay trappings, gay indeed.
Something there was more than need
.....
Twas next day after Simon and Jude
As I did look about me,
Many a blazing comet I viewed
Which made me for to doubt me,
Fearing some prodigious sight
Should appear me to affright,
And as I guessed, it fell out right,
But I hope no man will flout me.
A crew of wild men, wild indeed
To be so ill employed there,
Which put the people in such a fear,
That some their hose annoyed thereabouts
With such a smell, and with such smoke
That I was very like to choke
Many a wild firecracker broke;
Much powder was destroyed there.
All the company in array
Most trimly were attired
In their accoutrement most gay
But some of them were tired:
Whifflers with white staves and chains
And marshall's men that took great pains;
They swore they'd beat out poor men's brains
That were with dirt bemired.
Next the sheriff and aldermen gay
Upon their slow paced horses,
Did ride in equipage most gay,
But some wished them in their purses.
All their chains they there had on:
Gold did horse and man adorn;
There was no difference but the horn,
They took such equal courses.
In sundry places the player’s boys
Unto the Lord Mayor made speeches,
But I could hear nothing for the noise,
The women made such shrieking;
But one that [knew] told me a word,
That one of them desired my lordship
That he next Easter would afford
The Blue-coat boys new breeches.
Girls and boys in antic shapes
Sat upon the pageant’s gallery
The one represented a Jack-a-napes,
And the other was like a lady.
Sure the porters’ backs were stronger
For they did bear them through the throng,
And thus they marched all along
In as gallant sort as may be.
Thus all my delights when I had seen,
More than my mind can utter,
Out of the throng I fain would have been,
I was so daggled in the gutter;
But as I strove I lost my purse,
Which caused me to ban and curse;
I bid a pox take mayor and horse,
And I hied me home to supper."
As Pepys might have heard it
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b…
Kudos to the Edward de Vere, Shakespeare and Tudor Topics blog, which is a constant source of information.
About All Hallows
San Diego Sarah • Link
"The Soul Cake Song" by the Watersons
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V…
About All Hallows
San Diego Sarah • Link
PART 3
The idea the Undead speak in tiny voices — that they pule — goes back some 7,000+ years; each of these Indo-European peoples believed in the tiny voices from the time of their common cultural origin in the Anatolia region of modern Turkey.
Puling therefore probably started before the first Christian missionaries arrived on British soil.
Bailey shows a further evolution in the idea of puling. Plaintive begging has taken on music. By 1841 (the date of the "Kalendarium"), in more Puritan areas the custom has evolved into “Psalm-caking” in which “a sort of procession of young people [went] from house to house, at each of which they recited psalms, and, in return, received presents of cakes”.
But, children being children, Puritanism couldn’t hold for long, and, while the singing is done on All Souls once again, a more modern lyric is recorded in "Notes And Queries".
"Soul! Soul! for a soul cake:
Pray, good mistress, for a soul cake.
One for Peter, two for Paul,
Three for them who make us all.
Soul! Soul! for an apple or two;
If you’ve got no apples, pears will do. &c.
An apple or pear or plum or cherry,
Is a very good thing to make us merry. &c."[7]
The singing is certainly no longer “small,” the begging no longer abject. Nor do the singers pretend to be the Undead freed for the night from the abyss. The householder who failed to provide treats received a curse for their unkindness.
No citations, that I am yet aware of, refer to the tricks that could be quite frightening by the 18th century in Scotland. The dire warnings given the ancient Celtic worshippers should they fail to placate the dead with food on the night of Samhain mentioned far worse than mere tricks. But the survival of the promise of consequences surely lets us know that tricks of one sort or another there were.
@@@
[1] Two Gentlemen of Verona, II.i.15-6, 25.
[2] In modern parlance, “All Saints Day”. The Undead emerging only at night, Shakespeare may be referring to October 31, our Halloween.
[3] Hampson, R. T. Medii Ævi Kalendarium or Dates, Charters, and Customs of the Middle Ages (1841). I.375. Mr. Tollet provided notes to George Steevens’ and Samuel Johnson’s works of Shakespeare published in the 1780s.
[4] Homer. The Odyssey, Vol. 2 (Loeb, 1919). Tr. A. T. Murray. “ταί δέ τριζουσαι ἕποντο.” “: “They followed speaking in a thin, piercing noise.” I have replaced Murray’s insufficient “gibbering”.
[5] Virgil. Eclogues. Georgics. Aeneid I-VI, Vol. 1. (Loeb, 1916). Tr. H. Rushton Fairclough. 541. “tollere vocem exiguam… hiantes”.
[6] Hamlet, I.i.115-6.
[7] Notes and Queries, Vol. 4, November 15, 1851. 381.
Thanks to Virtual Grub Street, a constant fount of information about many things Shakespearian and Elizabethan
https://gilbertwesleypurdy.blogsp…