So I received from University of California Press the first volume of eleven of ‘The diary of Samuel Pepys’ Volume I-1660. That date is correct – 1660. For ten years Samuel Pepys, a British citizen living in the mid-17th Century London, kept a more or less daily diary of his coming and goings, his romances, his marriage, his bar ’n tavern hopping, his music making, and his work as clerk, assistant and then administrator in the Navy, as well as keeping connection to a wide swath of politicians, neighbors, family and extended family. Historical events such as two Dutch-British wars, a London fire, religion and royalty issues are also described. The reader gets a good sense of London life of 350 years ago. This first volume discusses in great detail how the diaries (journals) were written (shorthand and hand-bound single copy), when versions of them were known and published (first 100 years later one book of excerpts was printed in late 1700s, twice in the 1800s, a fuller five book set came out, the later one more accurate. Up to this point the shorthand system’s symbols had not been accurately identified; and it wasn’t until 1971 and 1983, that the full unabridged, fairly accurate, eleven book set was published from the scholarships of Robert Latham and William Matthews of Magdalene College Oxford.) For old men like myself, one quote piques interest from the Volume VI -1966 book: March 10th– “And so to Mrs Martin and there did what je voudrais avec her, both devant and backward, which is also muy bon plazer.” The reason I’m piling all these words on you is that journal-writing is my business, my art (some question that being art, some call it therapy, maybe it’s both). Pepys actually called his writing journals, but publishers chose ‘diary’. Compared to his writing, he covers his 27th to 36th years, from 1660 to 1670, London; mine cover from my 50th to my 84th years (so far), from 1983 to 2017, New York; quantity is not synonymous with quality, however mine are close to 10.0 million words compared to Pepys’ 1.2 million. Another difference is that my words are 75% personal & emotional history, and 25% people in my life (under pseudonym), cultural and political events, while his is 15% personal history and 85% people in his life, functionaries in government, and political events. Another difference is that Pepys’ Diary was written in a little-known shorthand script that saved him from embarrassment and mostly identified people, high and low, by their proper names. In fact he was so well connected in his administrative career, that 10% of his words were people’s names. He was a Who’s Who of London mid-17th Century. A major contrast to my own mostly private and solitary life. Another difference having to do with current ease of travel, I have lived and worked in four countries, while he traveled only once out of England to Holland, and only a handful of times out of London, a short carriage-ride to nearby countryside in his unusually long life till age 70. I aim to live to 100. This first volume goes into great depth to discuss Pepys’ Diary on two fronts: The Diary as Literature and the Diary as History. For history, there’s no dispute, for descriptions of the politically active events of those ten years including an exiled King Charles II, Dutch Wars and a London Fire. As literature, William Matthews makes a creditable case for Pepys standing in rank with Chaucer and Shakespeare based on his enthusiastic participation of London’s taverns, streets, churches and administrative offices, and his frankness about marriage, mistress and professional rivalries. To me his writing lacks self-reflection regarding personal drives and psychical motives. Freud is 250 years forward.
