5 Annotations

Nix   Link to this

This entry will surely be a letdown for sentimentally inclined readers.

Perhaps we should just credit Samuel with discreet silence.

Paul Brewster   Link to this

Again significant textual differences.
Wheatley differences in wording in []. Significant missing from Wheatley in {}.
10. Whitsunday[Lord's Day]. {Up and to my Lord's. To Mr. Merstons, where Monsieur Impertinent.} At my father's found my wife. After dinner, my wife and I to walk in Licolnes-Inne walks. {After prayers she home and I to my Lord. Stayed there: and so to my father's, where I met Mr. Fairebrother. To bed with my wife.}

vincent   Link to this

Thanks Paul for the fill, in much appreciated.

Eric Walla   Link to this

These textual differences are quite remarkable. I understand the idea that separate notes were inserted into the diary for this short period. But does this account entirely for the discrepancy?

I require information! ;-)

Paul Brewster   Link to this

The case of the missing text ...
The editorial history of Pepys is complex and discussed very clearly in "Previous Editions" section of L&M Volume I. In the case of the Gutenberg source, Mr. Wheatley says that he was striving for a complete edition with the exception of intentional deletions where standards of decency were violated. He claims to have annotated all such changes but as we've seen in the past his actual practice was inconsistent. In any event this passage does not seem to merit a raised Victorian eyebrow. L&M point out that desipite Wheatley's claim numerous other deletions and alterations were made without comment. Without looking at the source page, we can make little but surmises about the readability of the pages with rough notes and until a variorum edition of Pepys exists I think it will be hard to tell where this problem crept in.

Log in to post an annotation.

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