Pepys

[liadnan]

(Entry for 2nd February 1662)

(Lord’s day). To church in the morning, and then home and dined with my wife, and so both of us to church again, where we had an Oxford man give us a most impertinent sermon upon “Cast your bread upon the waters, &c.

But what did he say that was so impertinent? (Is there some 17th-century meaning/connotation of "impertinent" of which I'm unaware? Still, good for Oxford.

Comments

[nikandra.livejournal.com]

was it impertinent because they had just dined instead of throwing their bread upon the waters???

*g*

[ex-ajhalluk585.livejournal.com]

I think it meant "irrelevant" as well as "cheeky".

[joffstar.livejournal.com]

My guess would be that 'impertinent' does mean 'cheeky' here; 'very irrelevant' doesn't really make enough sense. And looking at the biblical passage, I'd guess that the sermon was something like: "So you must all work very hard and you will earn the fruits of your labours." Well, duh.

The passage:

"(Eccl 11:1-6 NIV) Cast your bread upon the waters, for after many days you will find it again. {2} Give portions to seven, yes to eight, for you do not know what disaster may come upon the land. {3} If clouds are full of water, they pour rain upon the earth. Whether a tree falls to the south or to the north, in the place where it falls, there will it lie. {4} Whoever watches the wind will not plant; whoever looks at the clouds will not reap. {5} As you do not know the path of the wind, or how the body is formed in a mother's womb, so you cannot understand the work of God, the Maker of all things. {6} Sow your seed in the morning, and at evening let not your hands be idle, for you do not know which will succeed, whether this or that, or whether both will do equally well."

It's quite an irritatingly preachy bit of text anyway, isn't it?

[liadnan]

OED 2nd edn records five different meanings of "impertinent" and similar numbers of meanings of its cognates, all of which seem to variants on either "not relevant" or "not cheeky/not appropriate" (actually, I can't quite see why they've separated two of the definitions from one another at the moment.) Both basic meanings are reported before 1600, which is no help at all. I would assume "not relevant" is the original, now I think about it, as relevant is closer to the meaning of pertinent and its Latin root (and indeed that's how Geoff and the rest use it on its first appearance c.1380) Marvell and co use it to mean "cheeky" or "inappropriate". Now wondering whether pert (as in "cheeky" comes from the same root: I would guess so but it could be coincidental evolution and I can't be bothered to walk the whole five yards to the OED bay again).

As for Ecclesiastes being a bit preachy, well, yes. In other news, water is wet, and the pope is still a Catholic. S'what the title means.

I'm just picturing Sam walking home terribly indignant about this Oxford chap.