Saturday 29 August 1663

Abroad with my wife by water to Westminster, and there left her at my Lord’s lodgings, and I to Jervas the barber’s, and there was trimmed, and did deliver back a periwigg, which he brought by my desire the other day to show me, having some thoughts, though no great desire or resolution yet to wear one, and so I put it off for a while.

Thence to my wife, and calling at both the Exchanges, buying stockings for her and myself, and also at Leadenhall, where she and I, it being candlelight, bought meat for to-morrow, having never a mayde to do it, and I myself bought, while my wife was gone to another shop, a leg of beef, a good one, for six pense, and my wife says is worth my money. So walked home with a woman carrying our things.

I am mightily displeased at a letter Tom sent me last night, to borrow 20l. more of me, and yet gives me no account, as I have long desired, how matters stand with him in the world. I am troubled also to see how, contrary to my expectation, my brother John neither is the scholler nor minds his studies as I thought would have done, but loiters away his time, so that I must send him soon to Cambridge again.

32 Annotations

First Reading

TerryF  •  Link

This entry in L&M is longer

"Up betimes and settled some necessary papers relating to my security in the accounts which I lately passed with my Lord Sandwich; then to the office and there all the morning sitting. So home to dinner and then abroad with my wife.by water to Westminster, and there left her at my Lord's lodgings, talking with Mrs. Harper about her kinswoman's coming to my wife next week.
And I to Jervas ....

"....So walked home, with a woman carrying our things, and had a very pleasant walk from White-hall home. So to my office and there despatched some business; and so home and to supper and to bed.

"We called at Toms as we came by, and saw his new building, which will be very convenient. But I am mightily displeased at a letter he sent me last night, to borrow 20 l more of me,...."

Robert Gertz  •  Link

"...and my wife says is worth my money..."

What? Sam hint that praise from Bess matters, even pleases him? Why, Samuel Pepys?!

Robert Gertz  •  Link

An air of partnership and camraderie once again with Bess and now we see a different light on the Sam-Tom relationship... Sam frequently touched for cash, wanting a fair account of how it's being handled. John showing clearly that he needs guidance if he's not to fail the great opportunity Sam and John Sr. have helped him to. Very different image from previous entries which suggested a domineering fellow offering little or nothing yet demanding control of his wife's and brothers' lives.

Robert Gertz  •  Link

Imagine what poor Lady Jemina would give for a pleasant shopping trip and happy walk home with Sandwich these days...

Relish this great day, Sam.

Aqua  •  Link

Ah! the Fashion hound, note, he failed to tell us if any one saw Sam'l in his disguise and was found disgusting, or just discussing the possibities of passing along rogues gallery at Whitehall, and was MS Palmer duly impressed.
"...to Jervas the barber’s, and there was trimmed, and did deliver back a periwigg, which he brought by my desire the other day to show me, having some thoughts, though no great desire or resolution yet to wear one, and so I put it off for a while...."

Hope none of Jinny's 'Louses' be still around living expense free on one of the no named pets.

TerryF  •  Link

The prospect of a periwigg (see the link)

"In 1624 Louis XIII went prematurely bald. He disguised this with a wig and started a fashion which became almost universal for European upper & middle class men by the beginning of the 18th Century during his similarly follicley challenged son's [Louis XIV's] reign.
"Wigs were very expensive. A man could outfit himself with a hat, coat, breeches, shirt, hose, and shoes for about what a wig would cost him. A wig also required constant care from a hairdresser for cleaning, curling, and powdering." http://www.costumes.org/history/1…

No wonder Pepys peeps, has "some thoughts...and so...put it off for a while."

Roy Feldman  •  Link

Kudos, Terry F --

I guess the Wheatley edition is abridged (in addition to being bowdlerized)?

And how did you spot this so quickly? Do you follow along in L&M at home?

TerryF  •  Link

For the most part Wheatley is fine, if Victorian. I wouldn't say his version is "bowdlerized," and for the most part is complete. Methinks those who scanned Wheatley for the Project Gutenberg edition are responsible for the lacunae (we are about to encounter more over the next few days). The annotator who can speak with authority about these matters is Michael Robinson, who has a book version of Wheatley. http://www.amazon.com/-Diary-Samu…

Australian Susan  •  Link

I have the Wheatley too and I think it is bowdlerised - all mentions of female bodily functions are removed and details of some of Sam's amours as well. Or perhaps there are different editions of Wheatley and I have a more prudish one? Certainly mine is sprinkled fairly liberally with pattern of dots.....And there is a sniffy section in the introduction when Wheatley assures the reader that what has been omitted matters not and could never be fit for publication anyway. Perhaps my response to that had better be a lot of little dots.....

TerryF  •  Link

Roy and Susan, I misunderstood "bowdlerized" - you are correct!

"Thomas Bowdler (July 11, 1754 – February 24, 1825), an English physician, is best known as the source of the eponym bowdlerise, the process of censorship by arbitrary deletion of 'objectionable' material from a work of literature to 'purify' it." ...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bowd…
I learn someting on this site every day.
Susan, is tomorrow's (30 August) entry in your Wheatley? If it is, perhaps you will post it?

TerryF  •  Link

Susan, is tomorrow’s (30 August) entry in your Wheatley? If it is, perhaps you will post it or send it by email to Phil to post, since it's lacking in the Project Gutenberg edition?!

TerryF  •  Link

Best to email the 30 Auguat entry to Phil.

Michael Robinson  •  Link

Re Wheatley & Omissions

In the edition of Wheatley I have on hand (NY: LEC, 1942) the preface p iii - iv, after reviewing the prior printed editions, states:-

"It has now been decided that the whole of the Diary shall be made public, with the exception of a few passages which cannot possibly be printed. It may be thought by somethat these omis- /
sions are due to an unnecessary squeamishness, but it is not really so, and readers are therefore asked to have faith in the judgment of the editor. Where any passages are omitted marks of omission are added, so that in all cases readers will know where anything has been left out."

The the text of the entry for August 29th. 1663 appears on one silent reading to be the same as the Guttenberg text above. No omissions are marked.

Michael Robinson  •  Link

Wheatley & Omissions (ii)

Wheatley infers, but does not state so directly, that he prepared his edition not from the Diary itself but from the Mss of the "full" transcription of the Diary prepared by Minors Bright, but not published in full. Wheatley's major work was updating and adding to the Braybrook annotations, marked (B).

I assume Wheatley marked only the omissions he made in the Bright Mss text, others having been made earlier and silently by Bright.

Miss Ann fr Home  •  Link

Thanks for the extra information Fellow Annotators - you're all so wise and well read, I am grateful for your input, certainly adds to the nightly reads.

Great to see our couple acting like a married couple (the theory - i.e. a true couple, joined at the hip) - they seem to have ironed out the problems that were so evident on Beth's return from the country - well done team!

A little concerned that "a woman" was bringing home the shopping for them, are they too far up the B-List now to carry their own purchases? (Too posh to carry?)

Australian Susan  •  Link

There is no August 30th entry! Most mysterious.

Mary  •  Link

leg of beef.

A whole leg? That would be a serious chunk of meat and bone and might well warrant the engaging of a porter. Perhaps what Sam bought was a quantity of shin, which would stew beautifully.

As for being 'too posh to carry' there is, no doubt, an element of that attitude here, but there is also the consideration that the meat might well have been a bit bloody (no plastic in those days and even paper would have been a fairly expensive commodity). Elizabeth and Sam would not have wanted to risk staining their walking-out clothes with the bloody drippings of the meat. No doubt some poor soul was glad of a few pence for carrying the shopping back to Seething Lane.

jeannine  •  Link

August 30th entry missing in the Wheatley version of the Diary
I'll email the L&M version to Phil and/or post it here tonight if he doesn't catch it. It'll be a fun one.

JonTom Kittredge  •  Link

Ommissions
Wheatley meant to be making a complete (apart from small excisions absolutely required by 19thC taste) edition of the diary, but it's easy to see how he might have missed a day or two. He probably got confused while working with one of the earlier, abridged editions. Hardly surprising: even noble Homer nods sometimes.

jeannine  •  Link

"The prospect of a periwigg (see the link)"
Thanks Terry -it's fun to see Periwiggs through the ages, however I am much more impressed by the more subtle wigs of today.....
http://www.dame-edna.com/

TerryF  •  Link

Jeannine, et al., Phil is committed to Wheatley only, and so will put up a blank page for the 30th. There are also missing parts of 31, which can also be supplied in annotations.

Gerry  •  Link

Terry, something similar happened a while back and Phil used L&M.

TerryF  •  Link

Gerry, Phil emailed me about the blank page ; he has become far more copyright-sensitive, as the owner of this site, since he himself put up an L&M entry. Annotations are a different but also snsitive matter. Since his request a while back, I - earlier a serial offender - have paraphrased where I could. Today's entry, tomorrow's and the next day's, are exceptions.

Aqua  •  Link

'No doubt some poor soul was glad of a few pence'
farthings be more in line for the normal Generosity. Remember A maid got tuppence a day, even when I be a kid {eons ago], 1d be worth jumping for joy .

Michael Robinson  •  Link

the more subtle wigs of today….

Can we look forward to one of our more subtle wags, Robert Gertz, providing additional commentary and observations from one of the the more subtle wigs of today….

Second Reading

Terry Foreman  •  Link

Orders of Periwigs (The Five Orders of Perriwigs as they were Worn at the Late Coronation Measured Architectonically) is a 1761 engraving by William Hogarth. It contains several levels of satire. First, and most clearly, it lampoons the fashion for outlandish wigs in the mid to late 18th century. Second, in classifying the wigs into "orders", it satirises the formulation of canons of beauty from the analysis of surviving pieces of classical architecture and sculpture from ancient Greece and ancient Rome, particularly the precise drawings of James "Athenian" Stuart in his 1761 book Antiquities of Athens. To the lower right, the engraving gives its publication date as 15 October 1761.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fiv…

arby  •  Link

I'm glad to see that Barry Humphries, Dame Edna and her wigs are still at large in the world.

Third Reading

Irish Susan  •  Link

Wow, that gypsy (August 22nd) was ban on in the prediction that someone would borrow money today…

Irish Susan  •  Link

Bang on, I meant. Sam never dealt with autocorrect…

Log in to post an annotation.

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