Talk:Samuel Pepys

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
Biography Portal
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]
Peer review This article was externally reviewed (October 24, 2005) by The Guardian. It was rated 6/10.

Contents

[edit] Etymology of the Name "Pepys"

I have been searching for information on this subject for some time, and Claire Tomalin provides no information beyond a family tree beginning in 1519. Exactly what is the origin of the surname "Pepys," and shouldn't it be explained in the entry?

[edit] Status of the Diary Text: code/cipher?

odeless WysiWiki is available. More on the dedicated mailinglist: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/pepys-users/message/7 -- FridemarPache

Hi. I own the first and last volumes of the Latham edition (11 total), and it says the diary wasn't ciphered, but somehow the word cipher made it to the title of the first edition (maybe it meant something different back then), so I changed that. I have to check it, but I believe the Latham edition (1970's, I think) was the first unabridged, uncensored version of the diary, not the 1893's one. Asereje 01:32, 18 Jul 2004 (UTC)

The diary was *not* written in code or any form of cipher. It was written in the standard office shorthand that Pepys and his clerks used everyday for naval administration. This is all made clear in the Latham and Matthews introduction and in Claire Tomalin's book. Proper names were written out in long hand, and there is good textual evidence that Pepys wrote out a fair copy of the diary from rough notes. Parts of the diary -- especially his rencontres and liaisons -- are written in a curious private language, mainly a mixture of Latin and Spanish. Its possible that this was intended to stop anyone else reading it, but L&M speculate that he is probably hiding only from himself. Thruston 13:01, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

The shorthand Pepys used was the one called Shilton's Tachygraphy, which he had acquired during his time at Cambridge University. Shilton's shorthand system was one of several the University Press had published textbooks on in the years before Pepys got there (i.e. the early 1650ies). In medieval and early modern university education, students were required to take down what the "reader" read to them from one of the classics. Christian Rödel 4 Aug 2005

That's "Shelton" not "Shilton" --- see my recent additions to Shorthand Thruston 19:17, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Guardian criticisms

This article in the Guardian contains criticisms of this Wikipedia entry which may be useful to improve it. OpenToppedBus - Talk to the driver 13:13, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

If you have reason to take issue with the critique you may wish to say something here: Wikipedia:Village_pump_(news)#Guardian_article --bodnotbod 22:36, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

I think it would be better to take note of the helpful suggestions and improve this article:

Claire Tomalin on the Samuel Pepys entry
This provides a fairly substantial introduction to Pepys. However, there are a few small inaccuracies. It says that he married "Elisabeth St Michel", which should be "de St Michel", at St Margaret's, Wesminster in December 1655. In fact there was an earlier wedding on October 10, the anniversary they always celebrated. :It was probably a religious ceremony, whereas the December one was a civil ceremony, the only kind legal under Cromwell.
The entry suggests Pepys's diary was started as a new year's resolution, but there is no evidence to support this. It also misspells Henry Wheatley, who was responsible for a good edition of the diary, as Wheatly.
More important are the omissions. It fails to say that Edward Montagu became the Earl of Sandwich. There is no mention of Pepys's Tangier diary. And it says, "he was variously MP for Castle Rising, Norfolk; for Sandwich; and for Harwich. Most of these constituencies had connections with his patron Edward Montagu." In fact, Pepys was elected for Sandwich but was contested and immediately withdrew, returning to Harwich. His patron was not Edward Montagu but the Duke of York. It should also really mention the stone Pepys suffered from throughout his childhood and youth, and which he had surgically removed in 1658, a brave and risky decision that changed his life, and without which there would have been no diary.
And it is poor on the diary itself. There is no appreciation of its literary merits. It ends with, "Reading it, one cannot help thinking how very much we must all be alike. His characteristic closing sentence was:
'And so to bed'." Which is hardly a worthy summary of the literary merits of one of our great literary works.
But sophisticated lit crit would be asking a lot of a small, free encyclopedia entry. There's a lot of good basic stuff in it, and I can't be rude about the bibliography because I'm in it!
Overall mark: 6/10
Claire Tomalin is author of Pepys: The Unequalled Self

--Paul 16:37, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

I already corrected most of the omissions apart from the stone, but, as she said there needs to be more discussion on it's literary merits...maybe we can quote from Ms. Tomalin... Arniep 18:07, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Split biography and diary articiles?

In order to better appreciate the diary in response to Claire Tomalin's suggestions, I think that we should split off a new article on "The Diary of Samuel Pepys" and point to it from here.

It could include headings such as these from the Latham and Matthews "Introduction" to the diary:

  • The Diary
    • The Manuscript
    • The Shorthand
    • The Text
  • History of Previous Editions
  • The Diary as Literature
  • The Diary as History

Without plagiarizing from L&M clearly their "Introduction" and "Companion" volumes would be the main sources.

This split would allow the main Pepys arcticle to conform more closely to the WP Biography standards.

Comments? Thruston 16:17, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

I wouldn't use the definate articel (So something like Diary of Samuel Pepys), but I like the idea. 68.39.174.238 00:29, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

==Merge Suggestion== I 've tagged Spitting sheet as a proposal to merge with this article, it is an anctidote only, and not enclylopedic alone. Xaosflux 03:29, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

Since no one has been able to improve Spitting sheet in well over a year, no action has been taken on merger, and I can't personally find anything that would help make said article encyclopedic in nature, I'm proposing deletion (because Wikipedia is not a dictionary). Just so y'all know. PubliusFL 19:23, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Rarity

A recent edit by endyoldboy included (with reference to his recovery from the cutting for the stone) that "such was a rarity". Tomalin says "....Hollier was at the height of his powers as a lithoromist; that year alone he operated successfully on thirty patients. The following year, 1659, was not so good; his first four died...". So, successful recovery was cause for celebration but was hardly a "rarity". Bluewave 11:37, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Arthur Bryant (I think, although it might have been in the Companion to the Diary) speculates that Pepys was one of the lucky patients because Hollier happened to use new (and therefore clean) instruments. I will try to find the reference. Thruston 15:44, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Spoilers or not?

We've just seen the introduction of a spoiler warning...and its deletion...and its reinsertion. So what are the arguments for and against? My personal view is you only use spoiler warnings where you are about to reveal plot details of a work of fiction where the knowledge is liable to spoil someone's enjoyment of the work (eg revealing who is the murderer in an Agatha Christie novel). If we apply this to factual material, where does this end? Would we include a spoiler warning in the article about the Battle of Hastings (because it gives away the information about which side won)? Anyone like to offer the other view? Bluewave 19:24, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Hi. I'm the 'reïnserter'. Your argument has some merit. I think Pepys's diary is somewhat a different case, because it is a work of literature. ... Then again, we don't have spoiler warnings in articles about Bible stories. (Or do we? I haven't really checked.) ... I don't feel strongly about it either way. Part of my reason for reverting your edit was that your calling the insertion 'vandalism' made me wonder how much thought went into the reversion. ... Anyway, good idea to discuss it—and, as I said, I don't feel strongly either way. ... One thought, though: When someone picks up nonfiction a book about, say, the Korean War, the person may or may not already know everything revealed by the book; but there's also probably very little expectation along the lines of "I hope no-one spoils this for me before I finish reading the book." Pepys, however, is more obscure—and even those who know about him may be quite unaware of very, very much of the detail in his diary—and they may well read it as a gripping, juicy narrative—which entails more of that "Don't tell me whether he ends up buying porn again: I want to find out myself" kind of thinking. ... Alright; enough said; I made my one reversion, and won't repeat it. President Lethe 20:33, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
Just as a point of information, it wasn't me who edited, or reverted, or referred to vandalism: I just thought it worth debating... Bluewave 20:47, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
Oops. Sorry. I'm usually more careful about who did/wrote what. President Lethe 22:10, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
I was the original inserter, and later reverter. Most of what Pres. said is kindof what impelled me to add that. Also, as was sortof said above, Pepys's diary is much closer to a fictional work (That would have spoiler warnings) as say, a historical novel, given its nature, and the nature of the man who wrote it. I would also support moving it into a seperate articel if it sounds like a good idea. 68.39.174.238 00:28, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
If it's coming to a vote, I vote for removing the Spoiler tags. I think they look amateurish and completely out of place in a historical article. I wholeheartedly disagree that Pepys' diary is "much closer to a fictional work" (than what?). If you read it, it is obviously not fiction and clearly honest reporting of real life. Thruston 15:35, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
I vote for removing the Spoiler tags. I cannot see Pepys' diary being presented in the same way as something like say Harry Potter. Surely it is not a spoiler to find out that London burned in 1666? :)
No, I'd think that's common knowledge, but things like Deborah Willet... 68.39.174.238 05:27, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
I vote for removing the Spoiler tags. Pukkie 10:17, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
They certainly must be removed. Spoilering factual, historical events in someone's life is absurd. Should the entire Benjamin Franklin article be spoilered, as it gives away events from his autobiography, itslef a very noted work of literature? Of course not. Nor should any of this article. -Elmer Clark 16:20, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
I removed the tags this afternoon, without realising this discussion was here, and found that someone reinstated them and told me to see the talk page. Looking at it... the consensus does seem to be to remove them, so I'm going to take them out again. I see the Diary as a book to read for flavour and for style, not as a narrative of a life - we don't read it to find out what happens to Pepys, we read it to find what it felt like to live in Pepys' London. Shimgray | talk | 20:14, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
They should stay removed. This really isn't the place for spoiler warnings. --Philosophus T 20:17, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Regardless of what happens with the spoilers, a few points:

  • Greater voicing of opinion on one side of an argument than on the other does not equal consensus.
  • What one person reads a book for can be drastically different from what another reads it for.
  • I, too, disagree with the claim that the diary is "much closer to a fictional work".
  • I also disagree that the diary "is obviously not fiction and clearly honest reporting of real life". Our perception of the truth of tons of points in the diary is a matter of our faith in Pepys's own word, not a matter of anyone else's extant hard evidence.
This is an interesting question. And worth a separate discussion. Thruston 13:56, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Sorry about my reversion earlier today. I had forgotten that, almost two weeks ago, I'd said I wouldn't re-revert.

President Lethe 23:53, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Actually, come to think of it, my recent reversion was somewhat justifiable. I'd already seen an edit in which someone moved the spoilers to encompass a more compact part of the diary description and left a summary that made me think the editor had been aware of the discussion here—and the person whose edit I reverted yesterday seemed to have come along and made the change unaware of the discussion. Anyway ... . President Lethe 23:48, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Pepys' honesty and the historical veracity of the diary

To pick up on the point about the "honesty" vs "veracity" in the spoilers discussion...

One of the interesting things about the diary is the extent to which we "get to know" Pepys and how our opinion of him colours our judgment about what he writes. To some readers (like me) it is easy to identify with Pepys as someone we would have enjoyed meeting, and to others he is an irritating philander forever meddling in matters that he doesn't really understand. It is very easy to allow these feelings to affect how we interpret the diary as historical evidence.

But I think it is possible to do more than just to take Pepys' word "as a matter of faith".

First it is possible to verify Pepys' accounts of events with other people's evidence; the restoration is after all a documented period in English history. And while there are often points in the diary at which Pepys' reporting of an event is mistaken or his opinions are ill-informed (Latham and Matthews' commentary points out many of them), he is on the whole a very reliable source.

Secondly, and this was my main point about his honesty in the preceding discussion, it is obvious from the text and his own references to the diary that it was never written for publication. Clearly by the later stages of his life he took active steps to preserve it in his papers and bequeathed it to his nephew (with all the other books), but when it was being written it was completely private and Pepys is not trying to deceive anyone (except perhaps occasionally his puritanical self). He has no political agenda to follow, and unlike say John Evelyn or Cicero, he is not consciously addressing an audience. This is what I meant by it being an honest (if sometimes mistaken) report of his daily life.

There are better discussions of this issue in Claire Tomalin's book and in the L&M Introduction. Comments? Thruston 14:12, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, because I brought it up and you've replied with some interesting points, I'll continue, even though it may be some time before (if ever) this affects the article.
I don't like all that Pepys says and does; but I think I'd quite like to sit and talk with him. Very merry.
When I say it's a matter of faith, I'm not talking so much about the big, historical events. I'm talking about smaller details of those events, and even the things that are quite 'unhistorical'. Say, a conversation with the maid, or at what time he went to bed. These are things that are subject to unintentional error as well as intentional dishonesty (or intentionally misleading words that we might misunderstand but that, Pepys knew, really meant something else—something beyond the shorthand and the influx of other tongues). And I do know, from personal experience, (1) that even diaries that seem unintended for publication while they're being kept may be written by those who have some desire that, eventually, the work will be read by others, perhaps many, many others, and (2) that even those writing private diaries, ones that, they expect, no others will read while they're alive, can sometimes tell blatant lies in their diaries.
I like to believe all that Pepys says. I just know that, for many, many of the little, personal details, I have no hard reason to believe him—just my own feeling about him.
It's been almost seven years since I read the L&M introduction. Eventually, I'll have my own copies of that edition's volumes and read it again.
It is interesting to think what we might add about this issue to the article.
President Lethe 23:46, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Pepys' alleged "puritan" view of life.

Especially due to the historical period, I view this description as at best misleading, and have changed it accordingly. Still, I'm open to argument.

gabriel 13:24, 24 August 2006 (PST)

[edit] MP

As an MP was he a Tory or a Whig? --81.105.251.160 12:13, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Tory. Tomalin writes "As soon as the label 'Tory' was heard in English politics, he applied it to himself: 'We Tories', he wrote". She cites "Pepys to James Houblon...14 Mar 1682, printed in Letters and Second Diary of Samuel Pepys, ed. R G Howarth, pp127-8". Bluewave 13:26, 9 October 2006 (UTC)