jeannine (The Diary of Samuel Pepys)

jeannine on 22 Jul 2007 • Link

From the "Navy White Book" portion of the "Samuel Pepys and the Second Dutch War" edited by Robert Latham

July 22, 1664. About timber measure. Mr Sish a master shipwright his inability therein. Being this day at Deptford at the burial of Mr. Falconer, and coming a little too soon, I walked up and down the year; and among other things got Mr. Shish to measure a piece or two of timber, but very rawly and uncertainly. At last, to try him, I took him to a piece of time that was flitched and brought into the yard die-square, 6 inch deep one way and 20 ½ inch the other and 32 feet long. He measures it, and makes it 37 ft. of timber in it. I observed how he did it, and seeing him bring is so false out, I asked him plainly again and again whether he found that the true way of measuring of this piece, to take the half of the two depths for the square of the piece; he without any doubting replied again and again that it was, and he would maintain it to be right - when, as I told him, that it was but 27 ft in content. And Mr Fletcher coming by, I bid him do it, and he by his line of numbers and a pair of compasses did it right, but a great while he was doing it over me by my ruler. And ashamed he was of Mr Shish, though he durst not appear so to him. Now this piece could cost the King less than 5£ per load, which is 20s. less to him in a piece of timer of 27 foot content.

About Friday 22 July 1664

jeannine on 22 Jul 2007 • Link

"one slovenly and ugly fellow Seignor Pedro"

In Defense of our Pedro!

How dare Sam deal a slanderous blow
To our annotator Sir Pedro
Who on his own behalf
Should post his photograph
And prove he's a dashing dynamo!

About Wednesday 20 July 1664

jeannine on 21 Jul 2007 • Link

From "Journal of the Earl of Sandwich" edited by R.C. Anderson, today's entry reads:

20th Wednesday. From Canterbury I went towards Deal. About Ash the commanders of the ships met me. At Sandwich port Captain Titus and the Mayor and assistants of Sandwich met me. I went to the Lion and received courtesy from the Mayor. Then near Sandwich Castle my boats lay ready and about one of the clock I boarded the London in the Downs. Sandown Castle gave me guns at going off, but neither ships nor any other castle spent powder at my request.

Fleets then in the Downs (note: formatting below differs from actual journal)

Admiral Squadron: London, Gloucester, Happy Return, Dover, Kent, Drake, Nonsuch ketch

Vice Ad. Squadron: Plymouth, Dreadnought, Crown, Breda, Guernsey, Lily

Rear Ad. Squadron: Revenge, Elizabeth, Hampshire, Pearl, Hector

About Tuesday 19 July 1664

jeannine on 21 Jul 2007 • Link

From "Journal of the Earl of Sandwich" edited by R.C. Anderson, today's entry reads:

19th. Tuesday. From Rochester I travelled to Canterbury and there lodged that night. Went to the Cathedral and viewed it diligently. In the coat of Cardinal Pole I found quartered the Arms of Mountagu and Mont Hermer.

About Monday 18 July 1664

jeannine on 21 Jul 2007 • Link

Sandwich's Journals,

After a lapse, Sandwich begins writing in his journal again today and continues to do so through most of the Second Ducth War. I'll post a few entries over the next few days to give an idea of his 'style" (factual, recording of ship mpovement, etc.) and then from time to time if anything that looks like it may be of interest appears, I'll try to get that posted too. From "Journal of the Earl of Sandwich" edited by R.C. Anderson, today's entry reads:

July 18th. Monday. In the morning I crossed the Thames at Lambeth. Went to the Archbishop to take my leave. About Southwark met the King, Duke of Ormond and Mr Secretary Bennett in the coach coming from Greenwich. And I lay that night at Rochester, where I went and viewed the ships.

About Sunday 17 July 1664

jeannine on 18 Jul 2007 • Link

"and talked and DRANK, and the Doctor showed me the manner of eating, turpentine"

...mix it with enough alcohol and the taste won't bother you at all......???

About Saturday 16 July 1664

jeannine on 17 Jul 2007 • Link

"Certain offices, for example Carteret as Navy Treasurer, had small commissions on the volume of business, poundage, added to the annual 'base' salary by the Crown; but not the ones Pepys held at the time."

And, Carteret's arrangement for his three pence poundage was approved by the King and 'publicly' known. I doubt that Sam's one off arrangements were either King approved or shared on a public platform.I am inclined to agree with Language Hat that "We all like the fellow, but he's as susceptible to self-justifying rationalizations as the rest of the species", (except of course, "rest of the species" would never apply to any of us!)

About Friday 15 July 1664

jeannine on 17 Jul 2007 • Link

Language Hat

I agree and that's exactly how I read it too. I understood THAT they argued, but not WHAT they argued about. I've never been able to figure that the cause of the intitial dispute. Nothing about the cause appears in any of the books that I have about Sandwich or Mountagu.

About Monday 11 July 1664

jeannine on 17 Jul 2007 • Link

Robert and John, Thanks so much for your poems (John we'll have to hear from you again soon!). I must remind you both of one thing --Sam's view of a Midsummer's Night Dream...

"where we saw "Midsummer's Night's Dream," which I had never seen before, nor shall ever again, for it is the most insipid ridiculous play that ever I saw in my life. I saw, I confess, some good dancing and some handsome women, which was all my pleasure."

http://www.pepysdiary.com/diary/1…

He probably would have liked to see your versions of Midsummer's Night Dreary on stage----even if it poked fun at him it was still ALL ABOUT HIM!

About Friday 15 July 1664

jeannine on 16 Jul 2007 • Link

Portraits of Frances Stuart

According to her biographer, Hartmann, who wrote "La Belle Stuart" in 1924, the link that Michael provided, which is a beautiful portrait (thanks Michael!) is most likely the link that Sam is referring to today. The 3 that appear in his book include the Lely one referred to above, another by Huysman (can not find a link anywhere on the web, but in the actual picture alas there aren't any legs showing) and one by Wissing and Van der Vaart http://images.npg.org.uk/OCimg/we…

Frances was incredibly popular among the painters of the time which caused a great deal of irritation to a certain Lady Castlemaine, who was feeling somewhat ignored as the sun was now shining on the favor of La Belle Stuart. Hartmann devotes 9 pages of the appendix tracing the known portraits and miniatures and those that are named after Frances, but not necessarily confirmed to be her. Apparently the naming of paintings (as we've seen recently in the last auction of the Castelmaine vs. Nell Gwyn painting) was not exact. Also, several that sold to private owners, that were confirmed paintings are now sadly nowhere to be found from a public point of view, so now perhaps only descriptions still exist, at best.

About Friday 15 July 1664

jeannine on 16 Jul 2007 • Link

Terry, Thanks for your translation of above regarding Edward Moutagu-it makes sense to me. I was trying to determine if we ever figured out what exactly Edward Mountagu and Sandwich were at odds about. I went through both of the bios of Sandwich that I had and a book with a section on Mountagu but didn't see anything. What I did find was rather interesting about the overall politics of what we have seen regarding Sandwich going back to sea, so I thought I'd add that.

When Coventry sent Sam to ask Sandwich about going back to sea, Coventry was hoping that Sandwich would say no. Harris, in his bio, explains this and the last few weeks of activity surrounding Sandwich, which Sam may not be seeing. This is from F.R. Harris' "Life of Edward Mountagu: Earl of Sandwich" (slight spoilers):

" But though Sandwich was rightly piqued, because he had not been consulted as to the war, he determined to offer his services. He decided that it was wholly inconsistent with his honour, and with his reputation at Court, not to go with the fleet; so he sent Pepys to tell Coventry that he was most willing to receive any commands from the Duke, and to take charge of a small squadron.

His offer was none too well received, and Coventry inquired whether Pepys had told Sandwich that the Duke had not expected him to go, a fact of which Sandwich was aware. The rebuff rendered Pepys doubtful, and set him wondering whether the Duke looked upon the proposed squadron as too small and unworthy a command, or whether he really desired Sandwich out of the way. In reality the intrigues and jealousies were woven around a future question, that of the command of the whole fleet. James was himself extremely anxious to go to sea, but was inexperienced in naval matters. In addition, he was heir to the throne, and that stood in the way of his going. Other men had claims: Prince Rupert was experienced in a piratical kind of way; and there was Albemarle, who had been General-at-Sea in the Commonwealth navy, and had won a glorious victory over the Dutch. But Charles could not spare him nor risk so valuable a life. Two men, however, had sufficient experience -Sandwich and Penn. Though the former had never been in an actual battle, he had commanded off Mardky and Dunkirk, chased Turks in the Mediterranean, and bombarded Algiers. William Penn was a sailor by profession; he had served under Blake during the first Dutch War, and had fought in three important and successful engagements. In addition, such men had infinitely the greatest interest with the seamen, numbers of whom had been in the fleet during the Commonwealth, and who looked up to Albemarle, Sandwich, and Penn, as survivors of a great period. Of the last two named, Sandwich held the higher rank, and it was a natural that he should be called upon for service.

It is possible that his actual appointment owed something to the King, Charles was a good judge of naval matters; though he had not of late called Sandwich consistently to his private council; he had done so 'in business of sea and the like,' and when war was possible he paid him great attention; indeed, Sandwich thought "the King never more kind to him in his life than now". James, when once assured of the chief command, acted in a more friendly manner, and Sandwich was made Vice-Admiral. He received his commission to hold courts-martial, and was instructed to take into the Downs whatever ships could be collected, and keep the Duke of York informed of the size, strength and motions of the Dutch fleet, and preserve his majesty's honour. (pp. 266-267)

About Thursday 14 July 1664

jeannine on 15 Jul 2007 • Link

In his book "All for the King Balleine" explains that Carteret got involved in a quarrel with Clarendon who "Deeply resented the cutting down of some timber in his park, which was requisitioned for the Navy, and complained that Carteret had sent the 'veriest fanatic in all England' to mark the doomed trees. 'He was never so angry in all his life', says Pepys, 'as he was in this business, in a great passion'. As a result the two old friends were never again on their former terms of intimacy." (p. 126), so, Balleine concurs with Paul's interpretation.

What is rather disheartening is that Clarendon and Carteret's friendship goes way back to the days when Carteret was the governor of Jersey Island and he offered refuge to the then Prince of Wales and Hyde (as he was known in those days) in 1646. Hyde stayed as a guest of Carteret for 2 years and wrote his famous "History" during that time. Hyde always spoke about Carteret in the warmest terms and was highly complimentary of his generosity, abilities, etc. Sad to see a friendship, well established for almost twenty years, damaged over this issue. I also have a hard time thinking that Carteret would have any "political agenda" in mind with the marking of these trees for the Navy, other than they needed the timber, they were (in his mind) 'the King's trees' and not Hyde's, and it was business for the King. When push comes to shove, Carteret would ALWAYS stand on the side that he believed was best for the King. He was never a man known for any back room politics, etc.

About Tuesday 12 July 1664

jeannine on 13 Jul 2007 • Link

"and know not how to eat alone"

Sam's culture & job involve interactions with SO many people -via actual face to face contact that it is rare for him to eat alone. When I first read this, I sarcastically thought-"you don't know how to eat alone-you just pick up the fork and stick the food in your mouth!", but then I started to realize that his work doesn't involve internet connections , phone calls, conferences, etc. where you can actually sit in one place and 'connect' virtually with people. I'm often eating lunch with a phone line on mute, email shooting in and a call going on with people from different countries who I will never meet. He actually connects physically, which in many ways is sadly gone from our culture, yet we'd never think of it as being "sad and lonely" as it's what we know. Perhaps we're all used to it as technology has changed so much in terms of how people actually interact.

About Sir Edward Mountagu ("my Lord," Earl of Sandwich)

jeannine on 11 Jul 2007 • Link

"Journal of the Earl of Sandwich" edited by R.C. Anderson (Appendix IV)

SANDWICH'S INSTRUCTIONS FOR 1664
(Carte MSS. Vol 75, f. 193)

James, Duke of York and Albany, Earl of Ulster, Lord High Admiral of England and Ireland, etc. Constable of Dover Castle, Lord Warden of Cinque Ports and Governor of Portsmouth, etc.

To Edward Earl of Sandwich my Lieutenant and Admiral and Captain General of the Narrow Seas, and Admiral of his Majesty's Fleet, now bound forth to the sea.

So soon as his Majesty's ships (now in the Hope) shall be fully provided of their victuals and stores for four months, you are to order them to take the first opportunity of sailing into the Downs, where you are to take upon you the charge and command not only of the said ships, but likewise of such other of his Majesty's ships as you shall find there, or shall hereafter be sent thither for his Majesty's service, within his Majesty's seas.

You are to take care that Almighty God be duly served on board the ship under your command twice every day by the whole ship's company, according to the Liturgy of the Church of England, and that blasphemy, drunkenness, swearing and profaneness be discountenanced, restrained and punished.

You are from time to time to send out such of his Majesty's ships or vessels under your command as you shall judge fit, toward the coast of Holland, or to any other parts where you shall understand the Dutch fleet or any considerable part thereof shall be, to the end you may by that means have frequent and certain information of their number, strength and motion.

You are to instruct the commanders of such ships or vessels as you shall so send forth, and all others, that they do not attempt any hostility against any of his Majesty's Allies, unless they shall refuse or neglect to strike sail unto his Majesty's ships, or to do such other things as are customarily done in acknowledgement of his Majesty's right and Sovereignty of the Sea.

You are upon all occasions to take care that his Majesty's hounour be preserved, and his subjects protected and defended.

You are to take care to preserve good order and discipline in his Majesty's fleet under your command, and to that end (as occasion shall require) you are to put in execution the Articles of War established by Act of Parliament, and to hold Courts Martial for punishing offenders, according to the Commission particularly granted to you on that behalf.

You are to give me frequent notice of all occurrences which may any way concern his Majesty's service, to the end you may receive such further orders as may conduce to the good of his Majesty's service.

Given under my hand at St. James's this ninth day of July 1664.

James.

By command of his R: Highness
W. Coventry

(Endorsed by Sandwich) July 9, 1664. His Royal Highness. Instructions upon my first going to sea this summer.

About John Pepys (a, father)

jeannine on 11 Jul 2007 • Link

From Helen Heath's "The Letters of Samuel Pepys and his Family Circle", John Sr. writes this letter to Sam, dated 10 July 1664. Heath noted that the handwriting and punctuation were so erratic that it was hard to know where a sentence ended. Printed below as it appeared in her book (pages 10-13):

dear Soon
you will find by the inclosed that the foule mouthed docter is resolved to be troublesom it was with the consent of his brother mr Roger for thay ware both with mr fillips [the lawyer at Brampton] that brought me this letter. thay gote a promise from him to be for them befor thay told him aganst home it was. and sent the note to him after ward and docter tomess note that he had under your brother hand for £ 10 but noe seal to it. he did acknowleg to me and your brother John that it was but £ 8 pound that was due to him and thare was 19s and 6d was in your brothers book which was due to him of that £ 8. i was with mr fillips this morning & he shoed me the note for the 10 pound. and I see noe seal to it & i told him thare shuld be noe need of troubling a baly to serve the leet. tharefore pray good child let thare be som theng done in it. nether can i know how an new inventery can be mad the goods is so disparsed. if you have aded the mony which is 24s for the 3 shirtes and 40s for the clothe. and a letter case. I can but tak my oath-as i have done all redy- that i have mad a true inventery of all things that was his I hope you have receved my last letter with the [receipt] inclosed under toms hand [see note 1] for an acknowlegment that the goods were mine with the other paper which was writ not a quarter of a year before he died whare in he wished i wold mak and asinement of my goods over to him. now in answer to your last I have spoken to will Stancks and he will sift out Steven wilson and foxe [see note 2] what was due when your uncle died he is afeared that foxe hath payd your uncle. I wished w. Stancks to let him know if he pleeds, that he had noe write to it tell he was admited to it. and for ashtone [ see note 3] Stanckes cannot tell what it shuld be for that thare shuld be mony due from him for the close. thar was an acker that belonged to an other man that your uncle never agreed for but thinking he might have it at any time yelded to pay 8s a year tell he had concluded for it. and soe your uncle set trees and dichet and set a queck set as far as that acker went. he that ode [owned] it being dead it is Latin [letten] to an nother and he hath taken it to his one use. it was the land that the hay cock stood one. Stanckes gote the gate removed when i was at london last. so prices mony is not to be payd tell mickellmus or the next cort that we give up our write to him in the land. for the £ 39 pound which is yet due to us from piget doe not know what securi[ty] we are like to have from him for it more then we have all redy. we must indever to mak sale of soe much as is left for soe much as is left unpayd. i doe not yet understand hoe it is that is to give sattisfackshon for the none payment of [rent] from the time that it shuld be payd. as for barten bisnes thare is 7 rodes of that land your uncle had of old barten [see note 4] which is worth a matter of 15 or 16£ to be sold. thes and soe much more as mad it up 14 or 16£ a yeare was geven to old barten and his wife and to the are male of them to after thare desest. this was geven 4 years befor the oner died. when he died he gave all the rest of his estate to old barten. if we cannot find any writing that bartan was ingaged to your uncle for to cleare this. if we cold find any thing then we cold tak a corse with the old man. If we cannot if the old man die it comes to the young man and we cannot hinder him. Mr Narborow hath a good bart of this land and hath sold it to price and price hath the bennefet of it this year. it is thought he refueses to paye mr narborow tell he hath cleared this thing. i desird he wold act for us as wel as himself and according to the valluashan of ours we wold contribute toward the charges. you will doe very well to write to him and at your uncle whiles you may know how to have your Ietter convade. not receveing a letter by york makes me fear thare is som hinderance of my daughters [Elizabeth] coming next week. if thare be i shall be very sory for it for i shold be very glad to see her hear as sone as can be. dear Child I am very much troubled what my lords potiecarries [see note 5] fear is of you-that you have an ulser groeing in your kidnes. for godsak let me beg of you that you will have mr holards' advice and som able docter of his acquantance with as much speed as you can. and to beg a blesing from the lord that your life may be preserved for what a sad condishan shuld your poor old father and mother be in if the lord shuld tak you before us. i shall be very glad if any lines com to will stanck to day for our bisnes requires his spedie asistance. thiss with mine and your mothers very kindely be presented to you both with your sisters service i rest hoe shall ever be
Your very loving father
John Pepys

Note 1: The Inventory of the Tailor Shop and the later part is Tom's endorsement of it
http://www.pepysdiary.com/indepth…
dated August 25, 1661.

Note 2: Heath explains that Fox and perhaps Wilson also had purchased land previously from Uncle Robert.

Note 3: Ashton does not appear as either person or place in the Diary.

Note 4: Heath explains john Barton was married to Elizabeth Kight (sister of Margaret, therefore Sam's uncle via marriage) and "was an alderman and burgess of Huntingdon and apparently an intimate of Sandwich. From the Diary it is apparent that Barton's business refers to the sale of a house which Uncle Robert had bought of Barton, but to which Barton's title had been dubious, as appeared when one Prior offered to buy the place from John Pepys Senior." (p 12)

Note 5: "Apothocary" refers to Dr. Burnett, see his advice to Sam http://www.pepysdiary.com/diary/1…

About Sunday 10 July 1664

jeannine on 10 Jul 2007 • Link

Apologies for the long post, please skip it if family letters are of no interest to you. From Helen Heath's "The Letters of Samuel Pepys and his Family Circle", John Sr. writes this letter to Sam, dated today. Heath noted that the handwriting and punctuation were so erratic that it was hard to know where a sentence ended. Printed below as it appeared in her book (pages 10-13):

dear Soon
you will find by the inclosed that the foule mouthed docter is resolved to be troublesom it was with the consent of his brother mr Roger for thay ware both with mr fillips [the lawyer at Brampton] that brought me this letter. thay gote a promise from him to be for them befor thay told him aganst home it was. and sent the note to him after ward and docter tomess note that he had under your brother hand for £ 10 but noe seal to it. he did acknowleg to me and your brother John that it was but £ 8 pound that was due to him and thare was 19s and 6d was in your brothers book which was due to him of that £ 8. i was with mr fillips this morning & he shoed me the note for the 10 pound. and I see noe seal to it & i told him thare shuld be noe need of troubling a baly to serve the leet. tharefore pray good child let thare be som theng done in it. nether can i know how an new inventery can be mad the goods is so disparsed. if you have aded the mony which is 24s for the 3 shirtes and 40s for the clothe. and a letter case. I can but tak my oath-as i have done all redy- that i have mad a true inventery of all things that was his I hope you have receved my last letter with the [receipt] inclosed under toms hand [see note 1] for an acknowlegment that the goods were mine with the other paper which was writ not a quarter of a year before he died whare in he wished i wold mak and asinement of my goods over to him. now in answer to your last I have spoken to will Stancks and he will sift out Steven wilson and foxe [see note 2] what was due when your uncle died he is afeared that foxe hath payd your uncle. I wished w. Stancks to let him know if he pleeds, that he had noe write to it tell he was admited to it. and for ashtone [ see note 3] Stanckes cannot tell what it shuld be for that thare shuld be mony due from him for the close. thar was an acker that belonged to an other man that your uncle never agreed for but thinking he might have it at any time yelded to pay 8s a year tell he had concluded for it. and soe your uncle set trees and dichet and set a queck set as far as that acker went. he that ode [owned] it being dead it is Latin [letten] to an nother and he hath taken it to his one use. it was the land that the hay cock stood one. Stanckes gote the gate removed when i was at london last. so prices mony is not to be payd tell mickellmus or the next cort that we give up our write to him in the land. for the £ 39 pound which is yet due to us from piget doe not know what securi[ty] we are like to have from him for it more then we have all redy. we must indever to mak sale of soe much as is left for soe much as is left unpayd. i doe not yet understand hoe it is that is to give sattisfackshon for the none payment of [rent] from the time that it shuld be payd. as for barten bisnes thare is 7 rodes of that land your uncle had of old barten [see note 4] which is worth a matter of 15 or 16£ to be sold. thes and soe much more as mad it up 14 or 16£ a yeare was geven to old barten and his wife and to the are male of them to after thare desest. this was geven 4 years befor the oner died. when he died he gave all the rest of his estate to old barten. if we cannot find any writing that bartan was ingaged to your uncle for to cleare this. if we cold find any thing then we cold tak a corse with the old man. If we cannot if the old man die it comes to the young man and we cannot hinder him. Mr Narborow hath a good bart of this land and hath sold it to price and price hath the bennefet of it this year. it is thought he refueses to paye mr narborow tell he hath cleared this thing. i desird he wold act for us as wel as himself and according to the valluashan of ours we wold contribute toward the charges. you will doe very well to write to him and at your uncle whiles you may know how to have your Ietter convade. not receveing a letter by york makes me fear thare is som hinderance of my daughters [Elizabeth] coming next week. if thare be i shall be very sory for it for i shold be very glad to see her hear as sone as can be. dear Child I am very much troubled what my lords potiecarries [see note 5] fear is of you-that you have an ulser groeing in your kidnes. for godsak let me beg of you that you will have mr holards' advice and som able docter of his acquantance with as much speed as you can. and to beg a blesing from the lord that your life may be preserved for what a sad condishan shuld your poor old father and mother be in if the lord shuld tak you before us. i shall be very glad if any lines com to will stanck to day for our bisnes requires his spedie asistance. thiss with mine and your mothers very kindely be presented to you both with your sisters service i rest hoe shall ever be
Your very loving father
John Pepys

Note 1: The Inventory of the Tailor Shop and the later part is Tom's endorsement of it
http://www.pepysdiary.com/indepth…
dated August 25, 1661.

Note 2: Heath explains that Fox and perhaps Wilson also had purchased land previously from Uncle Robert.

Note 3: Ashton does not appear as either person or place in the Diary.

Note 4: Heath explains john Barton was married to Elizabeth Kight (sister of Margaret, therefore Sam's uncle via marriage) and "was an alderman and burgess of Huntingdon and apparently an intimate of Sandwich. From the Diary it is apparent that Barton's business refers to the sale of a house which Uncle Robert had bought of Barton, but to which Barton's title had been dubious, as appeared when one Prior offered to buy the place from John Pepys Senior." (p 12)

Note 5: "Apothocary" refers to Dr. Burnett, see his advice to Sam http://www.pepysdiary.com/diary/1…

About Saturday 9 July 1664

jeannine on 10 Jul 2007 • Link

"blasphemy, drunkenness, swearing and profaneness"

Gee Robert, when I read this I thought these were exactly the reasons why men actually went on these boats..go out and have some wild times! God knows they won't get paid by Charles II!

Or ... perhaps this line came from the job description of "close personal friend of Charles II" (aka Buckingham, Rochester, etc. may fit this bill....)

About Saturday 9 July 1664

jeannine on 9 Jul 2007 • Link

Meanwhile Lord Sandwich has received his instructions from the Duke of York today.....