Thursday 5 December 1661
This morning I went early to the Paynter’s and there sat for my picture the fourth time, but it do not yet please me, which do much trouble me. Thence to the Treasury Office, where I found Sir W. Batten come before me, and there we sat to pay off the St. George. By and by came Sir W. Pen, and he and I staid while Sir W. Batten went home to dinner, and then he came again, and Sir W. Pen and I went and dined at my house, and had two mince pies sent thither by our order from the messenger Slater, that had dressed some victuals for us, and so we were very merry, and after dinner rode out in his coach, he to Whitehall, and my wife and I to the Opera, and saw “Hamlett” well performed. Thence to the Temple and Mrs. Turner’s (who continues still very ill), and so home and to bed.
46 Annotations
First Reading
A. De Araujo • Link
"and had two mince pies sent thither by our order"
What? Take out food?
A. De Araujo • Link
"but it did not yet please me"
I wonder if he told the paynter!
Australian Susan • Link
Takeaway food
Sam's kitchen probably did not have an oven, so baking of pies, bread and similar items had to be done at a baker's or somewhere else that had an oven. Mince pies will probably come up time and again - like the venison pasties! These would be pies with real minced meat in them, not the fruit-only items we associate with that name now.
john lauer • Link
I think Sam is trying to micro-manage the paynter, which will doom the paynting. But we'll soon know, I suppose.
Mary • Link
Sam's kitchen probably did not have an oven.
As I recall, Elizabeth does have an oven (as part of a kitchen range) and has baked pies in the past. Perhaps she does not bake 'speciality' pies or maybe did not have time to pay sufficient attention to the heat of her oven this morning to risk a baking.
PHE • Link
Sam appreciates a Shakspeare play!
Is this the first time?
David Goldfarb • Link
No, not the first time -- if memory serves me right, he saw "Hamlett" done a few days ago and liked it then too.
Harry • Link
Sam's kitchen probably did not have an oven
I imagine that an oven was considered quite a fire risk. Also it took up space and needed tending to - much simpler to farm out to a specialist.
I remember we had no oven when I was a child. When we needed anything baked my mother would send it round the corner to the local boulangerie. I have just carried out a straw poll in my neighbourhood. One baker tells me he doesn’t have the time to handle such outside orders, the other says he still does it for good customers, especially at night for the Xmas turkey.
Ruben • Link
pies in Pepys times:
I just posted some information about 300 years old pies in Background info.
Douglas Robertson • Link
We have seen Sam dining in on takeaway food before, namely on April 26:
"At the office all the morning, and at noon dined by myself at home on a piece of meat from the cook’s".
Glyn • Link
Following Ruben's link, it appears that the mince pies then were so big that they could only be cooked in a baker's oven, hence the reason for the takeaways (carry-outs) - also that they had been banned in the Commonwealth period, so this is the first year he could legally have eaten them for some time. I bet they tasted better when they were illegal!
Ann • Link
Why on earth would a mince pie be illegal?
Peter • Link
Ann, you've never tasted my wife's....(Sorry couldn't resist).
Mary • Link
Illegal pies.
Although mince pies were not only eaten during the Christmas season, they were very much associated with Christmas and New Year festivities and so were banned under the Commonwealth. In addition to these vain, celebratory associations they were probably thought simply too rich, ostentatious and extravagant to be tolerated in an 'equal' society.
vicenzo • Link
Bakers and baking: before the days of wonderloaf and preservatives, many communities used to have bakers, butchers, grocers etc., in the village or town. A baker of bread rarely was good baker of pies, or vice or versa, there by there would be the Pie maker, and the bread maker and cake maker. It be the same in families, one member would be good a roasts but made terrible pies or tarts or cakes [upside down cake would be inside out]. The equipment is and was not enough to make a good apple & blackberry pie[or mince, still love to have my great Grans version, so heavey it would sink a ship] , some people had a better feel for the job.
Even today Religeous symbols or associations still upset some sensibilities and are being banned where ever they have the power.
conclusion : May be the new maid has not made a decent pie. It appears that Eliza never was schooled in baking, just on the job training and now she has the position and some money, she can either order it from the pie maker or if not good enough, find a lass that can bake a pigeon pie. Ask many of the ladies about making pies and most would give the job to another, but there are those that love the creative and therapeutic aspects of baking of pies.
The Diary gives us another insight into the up and comeing household that thats starts in garret and progresses to the upper middle Mob. Two years ago found it hard to find a bob for the trip up town to shop in a carriage, now is in charge of hired help, and lo and behold gets her mug on canvas, and dines at Simpsons of the day.
Jackie • Link
I believe that many of the Puritans' restrictions about feasting at Christmas are still technically on the statue books. So beware anybody who eats Christmas Pudding on Christmas day.
Maurie Beck • Link
Illegal pies.
I wonder if there were mince pie "Dealers" and mince pie lords, with addicts strung out on a mince pie high, the police busting mince pie eating galleries, and the jails stuffed with those poor addicts gone cold turkey.
Pedro. • Link
Illegal pies.
We had the mention of the illegal pies last year, a law that has not been formally abolished. For "Christmas abolished" by Cromwell see..
http://www.olivercromwell.org/faq…
But if you think the Restoration changed things, spare a thought for us here in Birmingham England. For several years we have been fighting to keep our Christmas as Christmas and not "Winterval"!...see
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/210…
Stolzi • Link
"information about 300 years old pies"
I'd prefer something fresher please...
Australian Susan • Link
Cromwellian proscriptions
Maypoles were also outlawed (Sam mentions the setting up again of maypoles in London) and many localised customs which were perceived as "papist" (often they were simply pagan remainders). Some went "underground", but for others the long hiatus of the Parliamentary era meant that customs and practices died out completely. Some were revived in the late 19th century - such as mumming plays. Some survived the 1650s such as the Abbots Bromley Horn Dance. See http://www.abbotsbromley.com/horn… Sorry getting off on personal hobby horse (pun intended).
Ruben • Link
Abbots Bromley Horn Dance
this dance is interesting indeed!
In the prehistoric cave paintings there is a sorcerer with horns, completely covered by skins except for, well, his genitals. I red that probably it was part of a fertility ritual.
I suppose that today Abbots Bromley people do not feel obliged to use the old garments attire.
Christopher Taylor • Link
Greetings.
Does anyone know if this painting still exists? URL, anyone?
Many thanks.
Pauline • Link
URL, anyone?
There has been discussion of this on several days since the painter was first mentioned in mid-November. Search the annotations by "Savill" or other key word. Not known to still exist; possibly lost in an Naval Office fire.
http://www.pepysdiary.com/diary/1…
Australian Susan • Link
Savill's Painting
Sam really doesn't seem to like this work, does he? One wonders if he did not do much to rescue it from the Naval Office fire! (if indeed it was destroyed at that time). Winston Churchill's widow destroyed a portrait of her husband after his death because she did not think it a true representation of her late husband. Others considered it to be *very* true to his personality and character and thought that was why it made Lady C. uneasy and unhappy. Maybe Sam quietly disposed of the work?
Doug Weller • Link
That 1998 article on Birmingham's 'winterval' was extremely misleading. 'Winterval' was a series of activities lasting over most of the winter, certainly into mid-February -- clearly not a Christmas replacement, especially as there was a huge 'Merry Christmas' sign on the main council building. Unfortunately some people mainly on the right wanted to turn it into a political football. And it has long been replaced by the German market, so the statement about 'for years' etc is simply not true.
Pedro • Link
"some people mainly on the right wanted to turn it into a political football."
Winterval cannot be dismissed in this way, some Council members defended the action. And in 2006 we cannot accuse the Archbishop of York, Dr Sentamu, of being right wing...
"Dr. Sentamu also criticised Birmingham council for trying to re-brand Christmas as Winterval in 1998, out of what he said was its mistaken fear of causing offence."
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/613…
pat stewart cavalier • Link
take away food : as late as the 1970s in the Cévennes (south of France) it was common usage for people to prepare a fruit tart (for Sunday dinner) and take it to the village baker on Saturday for him to cook it in his oven. The one I'm thinking of did it for free.
Second Reading
Sasha Clarkson • Link
Christmas was not abolished under the Commonwealth/Protectorate as an egalitarian measure. Indeed, although the Leveller faction of the Army was egalitarian, Cromwell himself was not; even less so were the original military Parliamentary leaders like Sandwich's cousin Manchester. At best, the interregnum regime was more meritocratic and less corrupt.
People who campaign to "keep Christ in Christmas" always make me smile. Christmas is on 25th December because the Church in the later Roman empire simply rebranded the local pagan winter solstice festivals, from Saturnalia to Yule. Many Norse pagan traditions are subsumed into an English Christmas. For example, the ancient Boar's Head Carol refers to the tradition of sacrificing a wild boar to the fertility god Freyr. Mistletoe is is of great Celtic pagan signnificance, and Santa Claus is the modern manifestation of Jolnir, the Yule god, an aspect of Odin.
The Puritans were not motivated by a desire for misery, but by a desire to "Purify" and remove the Papist sanctioned pagan traditions from their religion. They failed, just as the early church did, because ritual midwinter excess served several useful social functions.
The restrictions on Christmas should also be seen in the context of the long tradition of European sumptuary laws, from ancient Rome, through mediaeval England and also Tudor times.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sum…
Louise Hudson • Link
Many painters won't allow subjects to see portraits until they are finished. Don't know if that was the practice in Sam's day. If it was Sam must have sneaked a peek when the paInter wasn't looking. Or he's just overly concerned.
Dick Wilson • Link
Re: Australian Susan's comment on Churchill's portrait. Churchill detested it, and asked that it be destroyed after his death. Lady Churchill disliked it, too, and burned it. I rather liked it. No honest artist could make Churchill look handsome. A bulldog look was OK.
For more on Christmas, see William Bradford's book, "On Plymouth Plantation": While the "Saints" labored, the "Strangers" played at stool-ball, until the Governor took their playthings away.
Gerald Berg • Link
What is up with Paynter? First, what great name for a painter! Only thing better would be if his first name was Poytrate. Second, why is he letting SP see it before it is finished? Nothing worse that having an over the shoulder critic. No self respecting painter should allow it.
Gerald Berg • Link
Off topic I know, but with regards to Hamlet:
Horatio was not a friend to Hamlet. He was in the pay of Fortinbras. One of the Danish guards had an uncanny resemblance to Ham's old man -- esp. at night during a storm. So a plot was hatched on the emotionally susceptible Hamlet. One would have to believe in ghosts otherwise. Shakespeare certainly didn't. A perusal of Shakespeare's use of ghosts show in none but Hamlet do others see the victim's apparition.
It was all a Norwegian ruse to regain Denmark. Gertrude and Claudius recognised the threat so hence the hasty marriage. Hamlet was a stooge.
william wright • Link
What is up with Paynter? First, what great name for a painter!
The artists name is Mr Savill.
Louise Hudson • Link
I think Paynter was just Sam's way of spelling painter. It isn't the first time nor will it be the last that he's using creative spelling.
Terry Foreman • Link
L&M transcribe "painter." (It's also true that English spelling wasn't standardized yet.)
Gerald Berg • Link
Thanks all! Duh... it was the capital P that deuced me.
Terry Foreman • Link
"Thence to the Treasury Office, where I found Sir W. Batten come before me, and there we sat to pay off the St. George."
L&M: Her pay amounted to c. £2472. Thomas Turner and three other clerks attended. PRO, Adm. 20/2, nos 214, 1065.
Third Reading
San Diego Sarah • Link
"I believe that many of the Puritans' restrictions about feasting at Christmas are still technically on the statue books."
I'm not 100 percent sure about this, so everyone please clarify further if you have better information.
Sometime in 1661 Parliaments passes "An Act for Safety and Preservation of His Majesties Person and Government against Treasonable and Seditious practices and attempts."
"'The Act created four new kinds of high treason, in addition to those already existing. The Act made it treason to:
within the realm, or without, compass, imagine, invent, devise or intend death or destruction or any bodily harm tending to death or destruction, maim or wounding, imprisonment or restraint of the person of ... the King'
or, within the realm or without, compass, imagine, invent, devise or intend:
"to deprive the King of his crown, or 'to levy war against the King, "within this realm, or without", or
to "move or stir" any foreigner to invade England or any other country belonging to the King (this latter clause was derived from the Rump Parliament's Treasons Act 1649, which had been declared void in 1660).'
"These provisions were expressed only to have effect during the lifetime of Charles II. However they were temporarily re-enacted, with two modifications, by the Treason Act 1795, and then made permanent by the Treason Act 1817, both under George III. In the 1795 version, "the realm" meant Great Britain (in 1848 the Act was extended to cover Ireland), and levying war against the King was only an offence under the Act if done in order to compel the King to change his policies or to "intimidate or overawe" Parliament. (However under the Treason Act 1351, which was not affected, levying war against the King was still treason, without these additional criteria.)
"The difference between the Treason Act 1351 and the Acts of 1661 and 1795 was that while the 1351 Act required an actual levying of war, the later Acts also made it treason to "compass, imagine, invent, devise, or intend" a levying of war.
"The penalty for treason was death. ..."
@@@
Since every law passed since 1642 had therefore been written by a seditious, traitorous Parliament, they were all illegal, null and void.
Logically, I think Charles had annulled all those laws last year, but Google isn't helping me out with a date or Act.
For more on the 1661 law, see
https://slaverylawpower.org/all-c…
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sed…
San Diego Sarah • Link
CONCLUSION:
So mince pies were back in favor again for Christmas 1661.
Plus author William Winstanley had been busy reminding people how to celebrate the time of year:
At the Restoration Charles II was lobbied by William Winstanley to restore Christmas traditions.
Unsurprisingly, the nation did not instantly return to the traditional feasting and celebration. For most people, Christmas as a time of rejoicing had almost been forgotten in the 18 years of the Interregnum, and there was no groundswell to restore it.
William Winstanley now becomes a hero. He was a well-regarded writer of poems, pamphlets and books. In these, under the pen-name of Poor Robin Goodfellow, he extolled the joys of Christmas.
Winstanley also had friends in high places, and he lobbied these powerful lords - even Charles II, who invited him to Court - to set an example to their family, friends and tenants by opening their houses for feasting and entertainment, "much mirth and mickle glee".
Winstanley's reasons were high-minded. Christmas was for helping the poor and destitute, and he believed celebrating it properly gave them something to look forward to as winter set in, and provided good memories to carry them through to the spring.
For 38 years until his death, he kept up the propaganda, instructing the nation on the festivities it had forgotten. So persistently and enthusiastically did he share the message that, by the late 1680s, Christmas had taken root again.
Holly and ivy were back.
In Winstanley's ideal Christmas, there had to be roaring log fires in every room and an 'especially jolly blaze' in the hall.
"Good, nappy [nut-brown] ale" was to be on tap, and the sideboards should groan with "chines of beef, turkeys, geese, ducks and capons", then "minc'd pies, plumb-puddings and frumenty [a sweet milky porridge seasoned with cinnamon]".
He documented all the old games to be played - "Hoodman Blind, Shoe The Wild Mare, Hunt The Slipper, Hide And Seek, and Stool-Ball" - and encouraged chess, backgammon and dice, all of which the Puritans had frowned upon.
Most important, there had to be lots of carol-singing - "God Rest Ye Merry Gentlemen" and "I Saw Three Ships" were favorites - as well as gossiping at the table and story-telling round the fire, not only bible tales but also ghost stories.
There should be dancing too, he insisted, with "the whole company, young and old, footing it lustily to the merry sound of the pipe and fiddle".
This fun lasted for the traditional 12 days of Christmas, beginning with holly-gathering on Christmas Eve as the house filled with family and friends.
For Winstanley's background and more info., see
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/a…
The Presbyterian brainwashing took a while to wear off.
San Diego Sarah • Link
The Commons read twice and passed with some minor alterations the Ministers Bill.
It's 17th century legaleze, but surfice to say it put Presbyterian ministers on notice that in August 1661 their parishes will be up for grabs. Church of England services are required, and CofE ministers will be kept in place or will replace the Presbyterians. The old guard knew it was coming, as we have seen from Rev. Ralph's fretting.
Of course, there had been no CofE ministry or training or ordinations for 18 years, so where these new ministers were to come from I don't know. The available talent had been employed to the Universities and reinstated Bishoprics by now.
San Diego Sarah • Link
The Lords were treading a fine line we have a hard time justifing today:
"Bill to prevent vexatious Suits.
"The Lord Privy Seal reported, That the Committee for the Bill for preventing Oppressions and Vexations in the Law have met, and considered of the said Bill, wherein they have thought fit to make some Alterations, which are offered to their Lordships Consideration."
"The Alterations were read Twice, and Agreed to; and ORDERED, That the said Bill be engrossed, with these Alterations."
Having made sure no one could oppress or vex them, they happily went on to order the arrest of three commoners for not appearing to stand trial for
vexing peers or MPs in the hope of oppressing them into paying their bills and/or behaving like gentlemen.
San Diego Sarah • Link
From Sandwich's log, at anchor in Tangier Bay:
December 5, Thursday.
In the morning the Anne came in to us and brought a packet from his Royal Highness dated October 24, 1661.
Copied from
The Journal of Edward Mountagu,
First Earl of Sandwich
Admiral and General-at-Sea 1659 - 1665
Edited by RC Anderson
Printed for the Navy Records Society
MDCCCCXXIX
Section III - Mediterranean 1661/62
@@@
The Anne -- possibly a royal yacht built in 1661; yachts were often used for fast mail deliveries - but this doesn't appear to be any faster than other ships. But it's November so the weather may have slowed it down?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMS…
His Royal Highness - James, Duke of York.
29 October, 1661, was the day of the Lord Mayor's feast that the Sir Wills nixed. Perhaps the mail contained a Dunkirk update, or information about the fleet being prepared for Portugal? Both would be secret and of interest to Sandwich.
RLB • Link
Going back to the very first annotation: yes, take-out food! It may sound surprising now, when we think we in the last couple of decades are the inventors of everything, but take-out food goes back, not to Pepys' time; not to the Middle Ages; but at least as far back as Rome in the first century. IIRC take-out bakeries are mentioned, with complete historical veracity, in the Cambridge Latin Course. They would be entirely matter-of-fact to Sam.
San Diego Sarah • Link
FROM:
Carte Calendar Volume 32, June - December 1661
For more information on the Carte manuscripts and calendar, see the Carte Calendar Project homepage.
https://wayback.archive-it.org/or…
THANK YOU, WAYBACK MACHINE!
A Certificate of the Officers of the Board of Greencloth, concerning persons admitted into his Majesty's service
Written from: Whitehall
Date: 5 December 1661
Shelfmark: MS. Carte 59, fol(s). 108
Document type: Copy; attested by the Lord Steward. [Addressed to the Duke of Ormonde, Lord Steward of the Household.]
[With so many prominent people taking to the ocean in December to visit Portugal, some new appointments must have been necessary - SDS]
James Butler, Duke of Ormonde, retained the title of Lord Steward of the Royal Household, while being reappointed as the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland to implement Charles II's instructions of 30 November, 1660:
https://www.pepysdiary.com/diary/…
https://www.pepysdiary.com/diary/…
San Diego Sarah • Link
From the same source:
Henry Moore to Sandwich
Written from: Wardrobe
Date: 5 December 1661
Shelfmark: MS. Carte 73, fol(s). 639
Document type: Holograph. With seal of arms.
Mentions the despatch to his Lordship of a previous account of the proceedings of Lord Manchester, Lord Crewe, and Mr George Montagu "concerning the warrant of £4,000 per annum;" and also the receipt from Townsend of about £700, for discharged bills yet unpaid.
His Lordship's robes have been duly examined by the robemaker.
@@@
Earl of Oxford to Sandwich
Written from: [London]
Date: [5 December] 1661
Shelfmark: MS. Carte 223, fol(s). 244
Document type: Holograph
Accredits the bearer, not herein named, to assure his Lordship of the writer's readiness to do him service.
Gives this commission after a fruitless endeavour to see Mr. Montagu before his departure ...
@@@
Oh great! Sandwich will be so happy to hear from The Right Honorable Aubrey de Vere, 20th Earl of Oxford, KG, PC that Ned Montagu also PROBABLY owes him money as well. Ned clearly couldn't handle life at Court, and his trip to Portugal has removed him from the scene of his crimes.
https://www.pepysdiary.com/encycl…
As to the sum of 4,000l. the only reference I can find to that amount was Sandwich's request last May to Parliament for back pay. I suspect this is some other transaction.
https://www.pepysdiary.com/diary/…
San Diego Sarah • Link
"The restrictions on Christmas should also be seen in the context of the long tradition of European sumptuary laws, from ancient Rome, through mediaeval England and also Tudor times."
I can't speak to the European Sumptuary Laws, but the House of Commons blog has this to say on 17th Century English ones:
"By the closing years of the 16th century the sumptuary laws had run their course. Although Elizabethan parliaments saw more than half-a-dozen government attempts to update the legislation, only one measure was passed, a short-lived Act in 1563 banning the purchase of expensive foreign clothing on credit. While the House of Lords was happy to entrench peers’ existing privileges, Members of the Commons proved increasingly resistant to further restrictions on their own sartorial choices.
"Queen Elizabeth was instead obliged to issue a string of proclamations enforcing or modifying the sumptuary statutes.
"Her successor, James I, all but abandoned this struggle, and instead tried to profit from the manufacture of gold and silver thread, which had by now reached England. (Famously, his attempt to introduce silkworms to the country failed when the wrong kind of mulberry tree was employed.)
"Even so, the cultural impact of the sumptuary laws lingered into the 17th century. When Richard Sackville, 3rd earl of Dorset needed an outfit for the wedding of Princess Elizabeth and the Elector Palatine in 1613, he opted for this extraordinary ensemble, which featured a doublet of cloth of silver embroidered in gold and black silk, a black velvet cloak embellished with gold and silver, and silk stockings similarly decorated with gold, silver, and black silk thread.
"In the light of such unashamed excess, it is no surprise that the last sumptuary bills debated by Parliament, during the 1620s, were promoted by puritans intent on banning the elitist luxury which the old legislation had encouraged."
Further reading:
Eleri Lynn, Tudor Fashion (2017)
Roy Strong, The Elizabethan Image (2019)
Anna Reynolds, In Fine Style: the Art of Tudor and Stuart Fashion (2013)
Aileen Ribeiro, Fashion and Fiction: Dress in Art and Literature in Stuart England (2005)
For more about Tudor fashions and laws, with photos of some men dressed like peacocks, see
https://historyofparliament.com/2…