Tuesday 3 December 1661

To the Paynter’s and sat and had more of my picture done; but it do not please me, for I fear it will not be like me. At noon from thence to the Wardrobe, where dinner not being ready Mr. Moore and I to the Temple about my little business at Mr. Turner’s, and so back again, and dinner being half done I went in to my Lady, where my Lady Wright was at dinner with her, and all our talk about the great happiness that my Lady Wright says there is in being in the fashion and in variety of fashions, in scorn of others that are not so, as citizens’ wives and country gentlewomen, which though it did displease me enough, yet I said nothing to it. Thence by water to the office through bridge, being carried by him in oars that the other day rowed in a scull faster than my oars to the Towre, and I did give him 6d. At the office all the afternoon, and at night home to read in “Mare Clausum” till bedtime, and so to bed, but had a very bad night by dreams of my wife’s riding with me and her horse throwing her and breaking her leg, and then I dreamed that I … [was] [had one of my testicles swelled, and – L&M] in such pain that I waked with it, and had a great deal of pain there a very great while till I fell asleep again, and such apprehension I had of it that when I rose and trussed up myself thinking that it had been no dream. Till in the daytime I found myself very well at ease, and remembered that I did dream so, and that Mr. Creed was with me, and that I did complain to him of it, and he said he had the same pain in his left that I had in my right … [stone – L&M] which pleased me much to remember.

29 Annotations

First Reading

RexLeo  •  Link

"...in scorn of others that are not so, as citizens’ wives and country gentlewomen"

My Lady's gentle nudge to Sam to open up his purse strings to buy some decent apparels for his wife I suppose is precisely to avoid this kind of catty remarks against Liz.
"...my wife’s riding with me and her horse throwing her and breaking her leg"

I wonder what kind of a Freudian interpretation this dream would suggest?
May be it represents Sam's fear of their financial security collapsing (like the horse) and hurting them badly.

Conrad  •  Link

A hernia is a condition in which part of the intestine bulges through a weak area in muscles in the abdomen. An inguinal hernia occurs in the groin (the area between the abdomen and thigh). It is called "inguinal" because the intestines push through a weak spot in the inguinal canal, which is a triangle-shaped opening between layers of abdominal muscle near the groin. Obesity, pregnancy, heavy lifting, and straining to pass stool can cause the intestine to push against the inguinal canal.

Symptoms of inguinal hernia may include a lump in the groin near the thigh; pain in the groin; and, in severe cases, partial or complete blockage of the intestine. The doctor diagnoses hernia by doing a physical exam and by taking x rays and blood tests to check for blockage in the intestine.

Pedro.  •  Link

"by dreams of my wife's riding with me and her horse throwing her and breaking her leg, “

Remembers 18 September?

"the way about Puckridge very bad, and my wife, in the very last dirty place of all, got a fall, but no hurt, though some dirt. At last she begun, poor wretch, to be tired, and I to be angry at it, but I was to blame; for she is a very good companion as long as she is well."

http://www.pepysdiary.com/diary/1…

Jesse  •  Link

"yet I said nothing to it"

Lady Wright, if I gleaned from the background correctly, is young, presumably attractive and of some character. I'm surprised our hero would not rise to the occasion.

Clement  •  Link

It's fun that Sam can subconsciously make his rival into a herniated brother in pain.

"Misery acquaints a man with strange bedfellows." --The Tempest 2.ii, W.S.

Conrad  •  Link

D. Savill, the artist, is mentioned in the archive of the National Portrait Gallery only once & then only in association with an engraver. The Gallery says his main body of work was performed between 1652 & 1661. I wonder if Sam had anything to do with the "paynter's" professional demise, due to his concern about the poor likeness being created, bad word of mouth etc. On the other hand he may have simply died as a result of yesterdays illness.

vicente  •  Link

Ita ut cubile.

Ruben  •  Link

Vicente dixit: "and so to bed"
About inguinal hernia: the most important reason for a inguinal hernia is hereditary. All the other are secondary.

J A Gioia  •  Link

a very bad night by dreams

i wonder if sam isn't anxious that liz can't 'keep up' with him, or might be holding him back from where he needs to go. considering the reliance people once had on horses and the animals' obvious sexual characteristics, they probably figured promenantly in disturbing dreams, hence 'nightmare'.

Xjy  •  Link

Bad dream
"i wonder if sam isn't anxious that liz can't 'keep up' with him, or might be holding him back from where he needs to go. considering the reliance people once had on horses and the animals' obvious sexual characteristics, they probably figured promenantly in disturbing dreams, hence 'nightmare'.”

J A G is getting there, I think. Sounds to me like a censored bit of wishful thinking… he’d like her out of the way, or at least crippled and pacified. The horse is power and sex, and Sam feels inhibited in both by her. Too bad we don’t learn about *her* dreams of him ;-)

Oh, and the leg/groin pain *he* feels is wished on her in the dream, of course…

gerry  •  Link

Missing above:I dreamt that I had one of my testicles swelled,and I in such pain..

A. De Araujo  •  Link

"dream"
In spite of Joseph and of Freud,dreams have no significance whatsoever.

language hat  •  Link

"dreams have no significance whatsoever"

Not only is this an irrelevant remark, you cannot possibly know whether it is true.

Firenze  •  Link

Dreams: as well say none of Pepys waking reflections are significant either. Dreams are a different mode of thought - allusive, obscure, but sometime illuminating. If this one impressed Pepys enough for him to record it, then it was significant to him, and that is what matters (not how we interpret it).

Glyn  •  Link

According to this table of prices, "oars" were twice as expensive as "sculls":

http://www.londonancestor.com/sto…

In 1722 (the time of the above table of prices) travel from the Wardrobe under London Bridge to the Tower of London would have cost Pepys at the standard set of prices 6d (6 pennies or 6 pence) for oars and 3d (3 pennies) for sculls. I suspect that the prices were slightly lower in Pepys' time 60 years earlier, so he is paying a little bit more than necessary.

I take it that he means that he is going slower today, with oars which should be faster, than he did with sculls yesterday. Perhaps the tide was against them or they had the equivalent of a traffic jam - the river could get very crowded.

For comparison, in 2005 a trip by ferry to and from about the same start and finishing points, i.e. from Blackfriars Pier and then underneath London Bridge to St Katherines Pier near the Tower of London takes 12 minutes and costs about 2 pounds 25 pence (plus a 1/3 discount if you have a Travelcard). 6 old pence in 1722 to the present price is an increase of exactly 90 times.

http://www.transportforlondon.gov…

Australian Susan  •  Link

Would a boat with oars have two boatmen and a boatmen with sculls, one?

Australian Susan  •  Link

Oars and sculls
Thanks, Glyn for your reference to pervious comments on water transportation - wasn't reading this then. It seems oars are the turbo-charged version.

Second Reading

Terry Foreman  •  Link

"I to the Temple about my little business at Mr. Turner’s"

L&M note this was the legal dispute with Trice and refer us to this entry noting Pepys's receipt of the subpoena for him:
http://www.pepysdiary.com/diary/1…

Sasha Clarkson  •  Link

On 20th November, Pepys wrote of Anne Wright " a witty but very conceited woman and proud." Today's entry sheds a little more light on the reasons therefor.

Although the daughter of a puritan Commonwealth family, the good Lady's attitudes firmly reflect the values of the restored court. Some of Sam's own values were undoubtedly a product of Cromwell's era and, although a supporter of the new regime, he is still uneasy about its stability and "public relations".

Michaela  •  Link

I think that maybe Sam interpreted the catty comment about unfashionably dressed wives as a jibe against his wife, and the unpleasant feeling (after all, we know he cares about her) remained in the back of his mind along with the discomfort of feeling that he might be leaving her unprotected against the scorn of women like Lady Wright. This could have triggered the dream of Liz falling and breaking her leg while at his side.
I don’t believe he saw her as a hindrance to his success, Sam doesn’t strike me as that kind of person.

Third Reading

San Diego Sarah  •  Link

'"yet I said nothing to it" Lady Wright, if I gleaned from the background correctly, is young, presumably attractive and of some character. I'm surprised our hero would not rise to the occasion.'

Jemima, Lady Sandwich and her sister, Lady Wright, who, through her association with Lady Sandwich, are both members of the nobility, and ladies, even if they were Parliamentarians in the past.
Pepys, a commoner and a man, would never "rise to the occasion" and pick a disagreement with the ladies over lunch, or at any other time. This is an eye-rolling matter, which resulted in his holding them in less esteem.

The point above that this was a way of needling Pepys into spending some money on Elizabeth is probably the correct point. They knew they had him in a situation where he couldn't retort and they let him know their opinions. They were grooming him for his new station in life, and he resented their well-intentioned interference.

Good.

San Diego Sarah  •  Link

The Commons discussed some substantive things today, including:

Supply Bill.
Ordered, That the Bill for Eighteen Months Assessment for Supply of his Majesty's present Occasions, be brought in To-morrow Morning.

Militia.
Resolved, upon the Question, That the Persons hereafter named be appointed a Committee to prepare and bring in a Bill for the Settling of such a Militia as may be suitable to the present Condition of this Kingdom: [67 NAMES MENTIONED, INCLUDING SIR WILLIAM COVENTRY[ and all the Members of this House who were Commission Officers to his Majesty or his Royal Father: And they are to meet in the Speaker's Chamber this Afternoon, at Two of the Clock: And to send for Persons, Papers, and Records: And it is specially recommended to Mr. Vaughan to take care of this Business; and to speed the Bringing-in of the Bill.

Attempts against publick Peace.
Ordered, That the Members of this House, who are of his Majesty's Privy Council, Mr. Cofferer, and Sir Roger Bradshaigh, do humbly represent unto his Sacred Majesty, That this House hath received credible Informations, from several Parts of the Kingdom, of divers Designs and Attempts to disturb the publick Peace, and to beseech his Majesty to be pleased to take care for the Prevention and Suppression thereof, and for the Securing the Peace of the Kingdom, in such Manner as to his Majesty, in his Princely Wisdom shall seem meet.

The "plot" in question -- which Pepys says didn't find credible -- is explained at https://www.pepysdiary.com/diary/…

San Diego Sarah  •  Link

Some Lords must have been burned by former employees claiming privileges that only legally applied to current employees.
I suspect the chaos created by the Restoration and the 180 degree change in power bases resulted in many situations like this. Deciding which family could live in which stately home had occupied both houses in the last 18 months.

Declaration concerning Protections.
The Marquis of Dorchester made Report from the Committee for Privileges, of an Order or Declaration concerning Protections; which was offered to the Consideration of the House, as the Opinion of the Committee: Which was read, as followeth:

"That the House should declare, That all Protections that have been granted to any Persons, that are not now their Lordships menial Servants, or Persons necessarily employed about their Estates, are void, and of none Effect; and that Persons who have presumed, or shall presume, to counterfeit the Protection of any Peer of this Realm, shall be severely punished; and that the House would cause this Declaration to be printed."

ORDERED, That this House approves and confirms this Report; and orders the same to be printed and published, as a Declaration of this House.

Sir H. and Sir J. Thynne.
The House took into Consideration the Business heard Yesterday, by Counsel, at this Bar, between Sir Henry Frederick Thyne and Sir James Thyne, upon the Bill and Petition depending in this House.

And it is ORDERED, That the further Debate of this Business shall be resumed To-morrow Morning.

@@@

On November 9, 1661, the Thynne suit was somewhat explained -- I think a nephew is contesting his uncle's right to property:

Sir Hen. Thyn's Bill:
"An Act for settling the Manor and Lands of Kempsford in Sir Henry Frederick Thyne, and the Heirs of his Body, and the Manor of Buckland, and divers other Manors and Lands, in him and the Heirs Males of his Body."

Sir J. Thyn to be heard about it.
Also the Petition of Sir James Thyne was read; desiring Counsel may be heard, at this Bar, before the aforesaid Bill be further proceeded in.

And it is ORDERED, That Sir Henry Frederick Thyne and Sir James Thyne shall be heard, by their Counsel on both Sides, at this Bar, upon the whole Matter of the Bill and Petition now depending in this House, on Monday the Second of December next, at Ten of the Clock; and, after hearing Counsel at the Bar, the Lords will take further Consideration of the said Bill and Petition aforesaid.
https://www.british-history.ac.uk…

San Diego Sarah  •  Link

CONCLUSION:

Wiki tells us something about this situation:
Tangible evidence of the Thynnes at Buckland [MANOR] occurs over 100 year's later. Thomas' third son, Henry Frederick, had 3 sons, the second of whom, James Thynne of Buckland, had become the lord of the manor, and appears to have been resident in the village. ...
He died unmarried, aged 66, in 1709, and a memorial in St. Michael's Church records how he left his 'large personal estate to pious uses', and his lands to his nephew, Thomas Thynne.
Thomas, as third son of a third son, would have had few expectations of inheritance. However, his uncle (the 1st Viscount Weymouth, James' elder brother) had inherited Longleat when another Thomas Thynne was assassinated in Pall Mall in 1682, and when Henry, the heir, died without sons in 1708, Thomas ... became heir to the entire Longleat estate.
He died a year after James, in 1710, a month before his son was born, The baby Thomas became heir to Longleat, and became 2nd Viscount Weymouth, inheriting the Longleat estates aged just 4, when his great uncle, the 1st Viscount, died.
The manor of Buckland was thus re-united with the Longleat estates, and Thomas' son, the 3rd Viscount, was made 1st Marquis of Bath in 1789.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buc…

In 1549 the manor [OF KEMPSFORD] was granted to Sir John Thynne (d. 1580) and it passed to his son John, whose son Sir Thomas was lord in 1608.
Sir Thomas (d. 1639) was succeeded at Kempsford by his son by his second marriage, Henry Frederick Thynne, who was made a baronet in 1641 and suffered heavy sequestration fines after the Civil War.
From Sir Henry the manor passed to his son Sir Thomas, who was created Viscount Weymouth in 1682, in which year he succeeded to Longleat House and the main family estates.
Viscount Weymouth (d. 1714) was succeeded in his estates and title by his great-nephew Thomas (fn. 85), who gave Kempsford to his second son, Henry Frederick Thynne. ...
https://www.british-history.ac.uk…

As I said, who lives where was occupying a lot of time.

Stephane Chenard  •  Link

Reflecting on the Poisonous airs of these Times, apart from all the nitpicking on property claims exposed above by Sarah, we also happen'd upon two letters in the State Papers. One, dated December 2, is from a Serjeant Thos. Brown to none other than John Evelyn, reporting accusations uttered by a Mr. Christmas, of "saying that the late King was an arrant juggler" and the present one "an idle, ignorant man", and that Sir John "would as soon kiss a sow as go to Whitehall to kiss the King's hand". Which seems comicall to anyone who knows Evelyn (or checked his Wiki), on whom Charles II calls from time to time to discuss the rings of Saturn. Evelyn has a property deal gone sour with this Mr. Christmas, and jots on the letter "that this accusation was only made in revenge". Tomorrow he's due at the Duke of York, where (he says in his diary) he will discuss the case of "a woman who swallowed a whole ear of barley", and perhaps the late slander against his innocent gardening person.

Today it's the turn of Roger L'Estrange, to "vindicate himself" in a letter to Chancellor Clarendon, "from the charge of James Whitelock, that he was a traitor, and had received £600 from Cromwell". Roger is anything but an innocent gardening person, but in this case he was so sanguine about his vindication as to have it printed. At this time he is fast rising as Charles II's propaganda master and will soon, we expect, be his most zealous censor of subversive books and pamphlets.

We resolve, on the next occasion when we feel like calling someone nasty names, to call the rogue "you arrant juggler". That should stop him cold ("you what??") and give us a second or two before he smashes a bottle on the bar.

RLB  •  Link

Fun fact: the Thynnes mentioned by San Diego Sarah, from Longleat in Wiltshire, are now the Marquesses of Bath and feature in the BBC television series Animal Park. The second- or third-previous Marquess built a safari park on the estate to pay for the upkeep of Longleat Castle.

Meanwhile, the current Earl of Sandwich - that is, the heir of Sam's cousin Edward Montagu - runs a chain of sandwich shops with his son, called Earl of Sandwich. And yes, the sandwich was named after Earl #4. Who can blame them?

(I don't think the Thynnes are related to Hercules Grytpype-Thynne, but I'd be delighted, as well as very surprised, to learn otherwise.)

RLB  •  Link

I must be confused. According to L&M, Pepys complained of a swollen testicle. From this, it is concluded that he had an inguinal hernia. Now... these are in roughly the same area of the body, it is true. But as a man, I would never, under any circumstances, confuse a wildly painful swollen bollock - seriously, women, you have no idea! - with a somewhat hurting extrusion on my hip. What's going on here? This conclusion makes no physiological sense at all.

San Diego Sarah  •  Link

If you're confused, RLD, rest assured none of the ladies will be arguing with you, no matter which part of Pepys' extremities was swollen.

@@@

"Today it's the turn of Roger L'Estrange, to "vindicate himself" in a letter to Chancellor Clarendon, ..."
His backstory is at https://www.pepysdiary.com/encycl…

On Friday 4 September, 1663 Pepys records: "... and then abroad by water to White Hall and Westminster Hall, and there bought the first newes-books of L’Estrange’s writing; he beginning this week; and makes, methinks, but a simple beginning." One of the few mentions of Pepys reading the 'newspaper' of the day.
I suspect Roger L'Estrange's writing was more of a royalist opinion piece than objective reporting.
Since the rest of the entry could be a material spoiler, I'm not linking it.

Log in to post an annotation.

If you don't have an account, then register here.