Diary of Samuel Pepys. Samuel Pepys

shorthand system used by Pepys was an earlier one than Rich’s, viz., that of Thomas Shelton, who made his system public in 1620.

      In his various editions Lord Braybrooke gave a large number of valuable notes, in the collection and arrangement of which he was assisted by the late Mr. John Holmes of the British Museum, and the late Mr. James Yeowell, sometime sub-editor of “Notes and Queries.” Where these notes are left unaltered in the present edition the letter “B.” has been affixed to them, but in many instances the notes have been altered and added to from later information, and in these cases no mark is affixed. A large number of additional notes are now supplied, but still much has had to be left unexplained. Many persons are mentioned in the Diary who were little known in the outer world, and in some instances it has been impossible to identify them. In other cases, however, it has been possible to throw light upon these persons by reference to different portions of the Diary itself. I would here ask the kind assistance of any reader who is able to illustrate passages that have been left unnoted. I have received much assistance from the various books in which the Diary is quoted. Every writer on the period covered by the Diary has been pleased to illustrate his subject by quotations from Pepys, and from these books it has often been possible to find information which helps to explain difficult passages in the Diary.

      Much illustrative matter of value was obtained by Lord Braybrooke from the “Diurnall” of Thomas Rugge, which is preserved in the British Museum (Add. MSS. 10,116, 10,117). The following is the description of this interesting work as given by Lord Braybrooke

      “MERCURIUS POLITICUS REDIVIVUS;

       or, A Collection of the most materiall occurrances and transactions

       in Public Affairs since Anno Dni, 1659, untill

       28 March, 1672,

       serving as an annuall diurnall for future satisfaction and

       information,

       BY THOMAS RUGGE.

       Est natura hominum novitatis avida.—Plinius.

       “This MS. belonged, in 1693, to Thomas Grey, second Earl of

       Stamford. It has his autograph at the commencement, and on the

       sides are his arms (four quarterings) in gold. In 1819, it was sold

       by auction in London, as part of the collection of Thomas Lloyd,

       Esq. (No. 1465), and was then bought by Thomas Thorpe, bookseller.

       Whilst Mr. Lloyd was the possessor, the MS. was lent to Dr. Lingard,

       whose note of thanks to Mr. Lloyd is preserved in the volume. From

       Thorpe it appears to have passed to Mr. Heber, at the sale of whose

       MSS. in Feb. 1836, by Mr. Evans, of Pall Mall, it was purchased by

       the British Museum for £8 8s.

       “Thomas Rugge was descended from an ancient Norfolk family, and two

       of his ancestors are described as Aldermen of Norwich. His death

       has been ascertained to have occurred about 1672; and in the Diary

       for the preceding year he complains that on account of his declining

       health, his entries will be but few. Nothing has been traced of his

       personal circumstances beyond the fact of his having lived for

       fourteen years in Covent Garden, then a fashionable locality.”

      Another work I have found of the greatest value is the late Mr. J. E. Doyle’s “Official Baronage of England” (1886), which contains a mass of valuable information not easily to be obtained elsewhere. By reference to its pages I have been enabled to correct several erroneous dates in previous notes caused by a very natural confusion of years in the case of the months of January, February, and March, before it was finally fixed that the year should commence in January instead of March. More confusion has probably been introduced into history from this than from any other cause of a like nature. The reference to two years, as in the case of, say, Jan. 5, 1661–62, may appear clumsy, but it is the only safe plan of notation. If one year only is mentioned, the reader is never sure whether or not the correction has been made. It is a matter for sincere regret that the popular support was withheld from Mr. Doyle’s important undertaking, so that the author’s intention of publishing further volumes, containing the Baronies not dealt with in those already published, was frustrated.

      My labours have been much lightened by the kind help which I have

      received from those interested in the subject. Lovers of Pepys are

      numerous, and I have found those I have applied to ever willing to

      give me such information as they possess. It is a singular pleasure,

      therefore, to have an opportunity of expressing publicly my thanks

      to these gentlemen, and among them I would especially mention Messrs.

      Fennell, Danby P. Fry, J. Eliot Hodgkin, Henry Jackson, J. K. Laughton,

      Julian Marshall, John Biddulph Martin, J. E. Matthew, Philip Norman,

      Richard B. Prosser, and Hugh Callendar, Fellow of Trinity College,

      who verified some of the passages in the manuscript. To the Master

      and Fellows of Magdalene College, also, I am especially indebted for

      allowing me to consult the treasures of the Pepysian Library, and more

      particularly my thanks are due to Mr. Arthur G. Peskett, the Librarian.

       H. B. W.

      BRAMPTON, OPPIDANS ROAD, LONDON, N.W.

       February, 1893.

      JANUARY 1659–1660

       Table of Contents

      [The year did not legally begin in England before the 25th March

       until the act for altering the style fixed the 1st of January as the

       first day of the year, and previous to 1752 the year extended from

       March 25th to the following March 24th. Thus since 1752 we have

       been in the habit of putting the two dates for the months of January

       and February and March 1 to 24—in all years previous to 1752.

       Practically, however, many persons considered the year to commence

       with January 1st, as it will be seen Pepys did. The 1st of January

       was considered as New Year’s day long before Pepys’s time. The

       fiscal year has not been altered; and the national accounts are

       still reckoned from old Lady Day, which falls on the 6th of April.]

      Blessed be God, at the end of the last year I was in very good health, without any sense of my old pain, but upon taking of cold.

      [Pepys was successfully cut for the stone on March 26th, 1658. See

       March 26th below. Although not suffering from this cause again

       until the end of his life, there are frequent references in the

       Diary to pain whenever he caught cold. In a letter from Pepys to

       his nephew Jackson, April 8th, 1700, there is a reference to the

       breaking out three years before his death of the wound caused by the

       cutting for the stone: “It has been my calamity for much the

       greatest part of this time to have been kept bedrid, under an evil

       so rarely known as to have had it matter of universal surprise and

       with little less general opinion of its dangerousness; namely,