1660 Diary Becomes 2003 Weblog 193
EnlightenmentFan writes "When technology improves a book that was already good, that's good news for nerds. I'm not talking about the Two Towers, but the diary of Samuel Pepys (1633-1703) (pronounced Peeps, as in marshmallow peeps), whose diaries record not only the Great Fire of London and the plague but his many seductions, trickeries, encounters with the king, almost getting executed, etc. Brit blogger Phil Gyford realized that this diary would make a great weblog--clickable footnotes, online feedback and all. So now he is serializing it daily, starting Jan 2, 1660, supposedly over the next ten years. The BBC has the backstory. I hope Gyford will deviate from Gutenberg's 1893 version to include some of Pepys's more outrageous sexual adventures, reduced by the 1893 version to "....""
Is this automated (Score:1, Interesting)
Re:Is this automated (Score:4, Informative)
Well lets hope (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Well lets hope (Score:1, Funny)
Who? Oh, Shakespeare. No, I think one or two really booky people have heard of him.
Re:Well lets hope (Score:2, Funny)
blogs from history happen ... (Score:5, Interesting)
Via blogs4God [blogs4god.com] I found "the Fathers of the Christian Church [wayneolson.com] as well as a few other blog that basically take books, devotionals or diaries out of the past and post them blogs.
I personally think this is a cool way to teach history. I'd like to see more of this on the high-school level as a means of familiarizing students with the great men and women of antiquity on a personal level.
Re:blogs from history happen ... (Score:3, Insightful)
Perhaps blogs might work as a supplimentary source, but not as a replacement for actually reading the assigned text. What happens next week when blogging becomes passe? Is this promoting form over content ("I'll read Marie Antoinette's web log, but pick up a book?!?! Yucko! That is just so 20th century"). Is it the job of educators to reformat content to display in the currently accepted paradigm, which is likely to be supplanted before the reformatting is complete?
Re:blogs from history happen ... (Score:2)
I also agree this would be a good teaching tool. I think it might also be a great extension to the Project Gutenberg [gutenberg.org].
Back in the day, and I mean way back like in the day of Mozart, music was taught by having students copy scores of the great masters. It might be a good practice to do the same by web logging historical figures of the past. The question is, will the DCMA stick its ugly head into the mix and put the kibosh this good teaching tool?
Re:blogs from history happen ... (Score:4, Insightful)
He's talking about actual historical people here. What they believed in (religiously or politically) is another matter entirely. Surely you are not questioning the historicity of Clement of Rome or Gregory of Nyssa here? What's next, questioning the historical existence of Julius Caesar?
And if you consider them to be "great men."
Or are you just bashing them because they were Christians? Is that what you meant by "fantasy"?
If that is the case, that would bring up an interesting follow-up point: say someone made a blog out of Caesar's "The Gallic Wars". Caesar believed in Roman gods, and his political scheme included murdering his enemies and their families to become Emporer of the World. Would you make some crack about "fantasy" in that case just because you don't believe in his religion or disagree with his politics?
Belloc
Re:blogs from history happen ... (Score:2)
Why not? Or if not questioning that they existed at least questioning that they wrote the tracts attributed to them by church histories. Outside the church supported schools there is wide consensus that much of the christian dogma attributed to the early church was actually later forgeries and inserts. There was a huge movement around 400 CE to alter the past to support the new Roman adoption of christianity. Winston Smith would have felt right at home. That "jesus' brother's ossuary" that was in the news a while back seems to be an example of the effort. Taht is, that someone around 400 CE took an ossuary of someone from the 0 CE period and worked it over (poorly) to include support that a religion that would be recognised as christianity and the persons associated with it existed at a time when they probably didn't.
"Emporer of the World"? (Score:2)
While your point about the historicity of Clement and Gregory is well taken, I should point out that I would be interested to hear of any examples from history where Caesar had his enemies and their families murdered. Perhaps you're thinking of Sulla.
In addition, the title of "emperor" was created long after his death; Julius Caesar was not the first Roman emperor, as the ignorant sometimes like to profess. Caesar attained the position of dictator for life, which was not the same thing.
It is also not clear that Caesar's long-term political ambitions originally centered around the dictatorship. Caesar, in his Civil Wars, argues that civil war was forced upon him by Pompey's paranoia, and that he became dictator in the end because of a political vacuum (the resulting civil war having destroyed Pompey's faction, and the power balance that went with it).
Re:"Emporer of the World"? (Score:2)
It is also not clear that Caesar's long-term political ambitions originally centered around the dictatorship. Caesar, in his Civil Wars, argues that civil war was forced upon him by Pompey's paranoia, and that he became dictator in the end because of a political vacuum (the resulting civil war having destroyed Pompey's faction, and the power balance that went with it).
All points very well taken. I was merely being rhetorical, and in doing so, I was hasty and sloppy. I just was questioning the original poster's motives for using the word "fantasy". My general rhetorical approach was simply to take a well-established figure in history, and show that the original poster probably would disagree with him both religiously and politically (granted, I chose extreme and probably incorrect examples of the latter), and that he was therefore just being bigoted in saying Clement and Gregory were mere "fantasy".
Whatever you may say about the origins of Caesar's intentions, the facts remain that he was involved in a bloody civil war. I was thinking more of Pompey than of Sylla as Caesar's main combatant. Sylla's principal enemy was Marius, IIRC, not Caesar. There wasn't a heckuva lot of overlap between the Marius/Sylla conflict and the Caesar/Pompey conflict, right? Maybe a few years? Certainly less than a decade. I'd have to look it up.
Belloc
Re:"Emporer of the World"? (Score:2)
Marius died in 86 BC, but Sulla's final victory came in 82. Caesar was eighteen years old at the time (and narrowly missed execution for being Marius' nephew).
The war between Pompey and Caesar broke out in 49 BC.
Re:blogs from history happen ... (Score:2)
Even many contemporaries blamed the Christians for the decline of Roman culture, which is why Augustine asked Orosius to write a whole "history against the pagans", generally recognized as a fictional account whose primary purpose was to discredit time before the Christians. The claim about Caesar and many other misconceptions about ancient Roman culture are related to these deliberate Christian acts of historical revisionism. Since almost all ancient writings have survived only through the hands of Christian monks (carefully selected, with 90% of material ignored), we have no idea how much of it is manipulated.
Surely it is possible to treat the writings of the church fathers for their literary value, just as it is possible to look objectively at the belief set of the Taliban. However, given the damage both have done to society, to history even, you should not be surprised that many people frown upon such historical fetishes.
Re:blogs from history happen ... (Score:2)
I guess that's a fine claim to make, but if "almost all ancient writings have survived only through the hands of Christian monks," and are therefore untrustworthy (your claim), why should we be expected to believe anything you or anyone else says about the ancients?
Further, read Aristotle sometime. The Ethics and the Politics would do. Most post-Christian academics find Aristotle (especially in these works) "irrational, antisexual, and dogmatic" as well. In fact, medieval Christians based their theology largely upon the philosophy of Aristotle.
But then, what would we know? The monks are our only sources, and they're a bunch of liars.
Belloc
Re:blogs from history happen ... (Score:2)
It's a matter of consistency. When authors cite each other and we even have citations from directly surviving manuscripts, we can create a reasonably accurate picture. It is often possible to create a "family tree" for a particular document to see what was added when. Alas, this kind of analysis is hardly done nowadays - unlike 19th century historians, which were a lot more critical, 20th and 21st century historians hardly ever analyze the credibility of their sources in sufficient detail (with some notable exceptions).
In fact, medieval Christians based their theology largely upon the philosophy of Aristotle.
Yes, the Christians liked to copy Aristotle (and probably modified him when necessary, just as they modified the Bible, where we now have whole books about the extent of forgery in the Old and New Testament). Meanwhile, they ignored the majority of scientific writings of antiquity, such as those of Democritus, who postulated atoms and a populated universe. What do you think happened to the 700,000 scrolls in Alexandria? Hint: Caesar didn't destroy them. Read up on Hypatia some time to find out what Christian "theology" really is about.
Re:blogs from history happen ... (Score:2)
Wow, whole books? I take back everything. Because as we all know, if a whole book is written about something, it must be true.
Listen, you worship modern scholarship the same way that you accuse the Christians of worshipping their scholarship. I don't really care whether you buy into Christianity at all--that's not the issue. You are just a dishonest scholar. You are clearly so heavily prejudiced against Christianity, that you'll accept any shoddy scholarship that points an accusatory finger at it. Did you know that whole books are also written about how scholarship like the pap that you're talking about is inconsistent with itself and is revisionistic to the core in its obvious attempts to refute Christianity? Whole books!
What do you think happened to the 700,000 scrolls in Alexandria? Hint: Caesar didn't destroy them.
Do you know what the majority of those scrolls were? Hint: they weren't scholarly works. A great deal of them were merely wild and goofy spiritualistic handbooks.
It's a matter of consistency....Alas, this kind of analysis is hardly done nowadays...
Except by you, you mean. If anyone is as revisionistic as you seem to think the Christians were, it's modern anti-Christian scholars.
Democritus...postulated atoms and a populated universe.
Please. Please don't tell me you're using Democritus as the paragon of modern science. Yes, he was an atomist, but his atoms were NOTHING like the atoms of modern atomic theory. Just because he called them atoms and we call them atoms doesn't mean that he was right, and anyone who rejects him is wrong. His atomic theory was an absolute joke. And a "populated universe"? Where exactly is your evidence of a populated universe? Oh, right, there is none.
Serious (non-bigoted) scholars recognize Christian scholarship as in the tradition of true modern scholarship.
Read up on Hypatia some time to find out what Christian "theology" really is about.
Hypatia? Oh, I get you now. Anyone desperate enough to play the Hypatia card is just a pure anti-Christian and nothing more. Hypatia was not a philosopher, as far as we can tell. What we know about her was that she edited and compiled mathematical works, and that she was pretty good at it. Anyway, she was murdered by fanatical monks, not even close to being representative of Christians of her day. Rule #1 of debate: never use fringe particulars to prove a universal. You only end up making yourself look silly. Hypatia doesn't help your argument one iota.
Belloc
Re:blogs from history happen ... (Score:2)
You should. You really don't want me to get into the subject of biblical contradictions and forgery. Not even the most devout theologians assert the authenticity of much of the New and Old Testament any longer.
Do you know what the majority of those scrolls were?
No, and neither do you. They were destroyed, probably during Theophilus' time.
Except by you, you mean. If anyone is as revisionistic as you seem to think the Christians were, it's modern anti-Christian scholars.
In no century has Christianity regained as much ground in scholarship as in the 20th. You should read Norman Cantor's "Inventing the Middle Ages":
Cantor describes in detail how this new historical tradition was created and how it permeates, to this day, much of historical scholarship about the medieval period. He's professor emeritus of history, sociology and comparative literature at New York University.
Please don't tell me you're using Democritus as the paragon of modern science. Yes, he was an atomist, but his atoms were NOTHING like the atoms of modern atomic theory. Just because he called them atoms and we call them atoms doesn't mean that he was right, and anyone who rejects him is wrong. His atomic theory was an absolute joke.
Democritus correctly realized that the attributes of matter are the attributes of interaction among atoms. He correctly saw them as the smallest building blocks of matter. His theory was logically consistent and not to be surpassed for many centuries. To call it an "absolute joke" is consistent with your demonstrated ignorance.
And a "populated universe"? Where exactly is your evidence of a populated universe? Oh, right, there is none.
Our observations about the universe make the hypothesis of a populated universe (whether intelligently or not is another question) virtually inevitable, as the contrary hypothesis requires the postulation of too many assumptions (Ockham's Razor). The microbiological evidence from neighbouring planets is already fairly strong as well.
Serious (non-bigoted) scholars recognize Christian scholarship as in the tradition of true modern scholarship.
You mean like Roger Bacon, who explained in detail how to catch and ride a dragon? Or your beloved Augustine with his sophisticated demonology? From W.G. Soldan's "Geschichte der Hexenprozesse" (translation mine):
Do you want me to go into the subject of Christian "medicine"?
Hypatia was not a philosopher, as far as we can tell. What we know about her was that she edited and compiled mathematical works, and that she was pretty good at it. Anyway, she was murdered by fanatical monks, not even close to being representative of Christians of her day. Rule #1 of debate: never use fringe particulars to prove a universal. You only end up making yourself look silly. Hypatia doesn't help your argument one iota.
Nonsense, nonsense and more nonsense. Even the revisionist Dzielska calls Hyptia a philosopher, as do all contemporary sources, such as Socrates Scholasticus:
The monks who murdered her were in the direct employ of Cyril, patriarch of Alexandria; his personal Christian Sturmabteiling. Hypatia was murdered for her public lectures, and John of Nikiu calls her a witch:
The earlier remains of "idolatry" were of course destroyed by Theophilus during his storm of the Serapeum and the destruction of the other pagan temples. The murder of Hypatia was consistent with Christian policy of the time, which laid the foundations of later anti-scientism and witchhunts.
But I don't want to omit the Christian perspective on the matter: The History Of Hypatia, A most Impudent School-Mistress of Alexandria: Murder'd and torn to Pieces by the Populace, In Defence of Saint Cyril and the Alexandrian Clergy. [polyamory.org]
Re:blogs from history happen ... (Score:2)
This is quickly becoming the wrong forum for continuing this discussion, but I'd be happy to continue it via some other forum. You can email me at belloc@NOSPAMlatinmail.com if you're interested.
A few final thoughts, though:
Aristotle said this about education in general: "An educated man should be able to form a fair off-hand judgement as to the goodness or badness of the method used by a professor in his exposition. To be educated is in fact to be able to do this; and even the man of universal education we deem to be such in virtue of his having this ability" (de Partibus Animales).
That's where I find myself in this discussion. I've not read most of the works that you're quoting here, so I can't dispute on the basis of those in particular.
But as an educated man I can judge, as Aristotle says, your "method". You seem to me to have ignored true contemporary Christian scholarship altogether.
Not even the most devout theologians assert the authenticity of much of the New and Old Testament any longer.
That's utter nonsense. I can probably name, without much research, fifty or one hundred devout theologians that "assert the authenticity" of the Old and New Testaments. The problem is that these theologians have been systematically marginalized by scholars and theology departments for the past several centuries.
So if you go to places like Notre Dame, and talk to Fr. O'Brien and his cronies, you get the sense that real Christian theologians don't accept the text of the Bible. But the truth is that that's not the place to look anymore to find "devout theologians". You have to look at smaller, truly Catholic and other Christian colleges.
The "new old boys network" of theologians at major Universities, even Catholic ones (especially Catholic ones!) has used biased and shoddy scholarship to push the devout theologians either to the fringe or out of the university altogether.
In no century has Christianity regained as much ground in scholarship as in the 20th.
When I talk about modern scholarship, I'm not just talking about the 20th century. I'm talking about all theology in the traditions of Spinoza, Hobbes, Feuerbach, and others who reinvented theology to fit their personal or political goals.
The scrolls of the Library of Alexandria: No, and neither do you. They were destroyed, probably during Theophilus' time.
Here's an example of your "method". You're being inconsistent again. Of course we can know something of the content of the Library, just the same way you claim we can know about ancient texts without the filter of the monks: by references from contemporary works. It's likely that a great deal of those scrolls were mere spiritualistic manuals on how to read innards of birds and other silliness. You can't have it both ways. We can either know about the past, or not. Which is it?
Democritus: To call it an "absolute joke" is consistent with your demonstrated ignorance.
Just to clarify: what I meant by that is that in its details, the atomic theory of Democritus is nothing like that of today. His atoms were infinitely hard, spherical bodies; nothing like our understanding of atoms. Further, it is not at all clear that all "attributes of matter are the attributes of interactoin among atoms". That is largely true, of course, in physics and chemistry, but not everything we observe is reducible to atoms and their interaction. I know you don't believe in the human soul, but a strong case can be made for its attributes being irreducible to matter. That, of course, is a long story; one I'd be happy to discuss with you.
In any event, your whole method ignores a still very strong and serious Christian scholarship that takes ancient texts (both Christian and Pagan) at face value. It's just that the anti-Christian bias is so strong in the major universities, that if that's the only place you spend your time (which I suspect is the case with you), that that's all you'll think is out there. I'd be happy to give you names and titles, but I have a feeling you'd just brush them off without taking them seriously.
Belloc
kurt cobain's diary (Score:1, Informative)
Re:kurt cobain's diary (Score:1)
Actually, thinking about it, I wouldn't give a crap, cause I'd be dead.
Re:kurt cobain's diary (Score:3, Interesting)
The problem with that is something that every Slashdot reader should be familiar with: copyright infringement.
As mentioned in the BBC article about Pepys' diaries, "Copyright isn't a problem; the remarkable Project Gutenberg, a community effort to make electronic texts of copyright-free books available to everyone, has produced a version of the diary dating from 1893."
Re:kurt cobain's diary (Score:2)
Out of the millions of creations each year, only a very tiny number are commercial suggestions. Each year, films that would have entered the public domain deteriorate, books disappear, and the legacy of Sonny Bono slaps a 20 year moratorium on things like Project Guteberg.
Re:kurt cobain's diary (Score:2)
Advertisement revenues? On the Internet?
Or... (and this is radical, work with me on this one, 'kay?) you can buy the book! I am almost certain the copyright holders will benefit from people purchasing the book. Whaddya think? Crazy, huh, but it just might work!
Just because a hot book is published and called a "diary," and just because it has become trendy for self-obsessed 20-somethings to put their own diaries on the Internet free-of-charge, doesn't mean that anyone, copyright holder or distributor, "should" take that same hot property and turn it into a free weblog.
Not if they have any sense, leastaways...
Hmm... (Score:1, Funny)
Ye Olde LiveJournal (Score:3, Funny)
"You are so offeth my friends list!"
who would have guessed that... (Score:1)
Bloggus Caesari (Score:4, Interesting)
Same as it ever was (Score:4, Insightful)
And the view is a lot more interesting in some of those windows than others. Pepys lived a life that's a lot more interesting than almost anything today.
Re:Same as it ever was (Score:4, Insightful)
Pepys diary was encoded and the code wasn't even cracked until long after his death. This, you get a brutally honest portrayal of what actually happened. Whereas with blogs, basically people are just trying to prove how witty they can be.
Re:Just goes to show you: (Score:2)
Well, what's really awful about it is that this case has nothing to do with "security through obscurity". He coded his information, that code was cracked. That's normal and good standard practice encyryption. It was just weak encryption. STO would be as if his diary was unencrypted, but just hidden from direct view.
STO is not always a bad policy, by the way, like many want you to believe. But that's a topic for another time.
Re:Just goes to show you: (Score:3, Interesting)
I thought it was just a "special form of shorthand", not really actual encryption. I find it difficult to believe that he was doing hard-core mathematically-based encryption
Encryption doesn't have to mathematical. Anything that takes a message, applies a transformation to it and is reversible through another transformation can be said to be a cypher. I could make an alternate alphabet with funny symbols and do a 1-1 correspondence of the English alphabet and that would still be a cypher. A weak one, but still encrypted.
Re:Just goes to show you: (Score:2)
Re:Just goes to show you: (Score:2)
Though that is still mathematical. In fact, I don't believe you can encrypt without math.
It depends on how you define "mathematical", I suppose. I could create a purely mechanical encrypter by creating a message out of dots of a certain color, and then mixing dots of a whole bunch of other colors. You would decrypt the message by viewing the image through a particular color filter. You could argue that it's mathematical in nature, but then, everything is mathematical by that definition.
I think the original poster's use of the word mathematical was applying specific formulas to numeric encodings of a message, more along the lines of modern methods of cryptography.
Re:Just goes to show you: (Score:2)
in the year 2300... (Score:4, Funny)
Re:in the year 2300... (Score:2)
They are doing it already: (Score:2)
So all the stories on
Re:in the year 2300... (Score:2)
Let's not forget an important date in world history. The USSR ceased to exist as a political entity on Christmas Day, 1991.
Re:in the year 2300... (Score:2)
Outrageous! (Score:5, Funny)
Yes, the one thing the Internet lacks is sex.
Re:Outrageous! (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Outrageous! (Score:5, Funny)
Or, the voices in my head could be wrong this time.
Likewise.
Re:Outrageous! (Score:2)
[ Reply to This | Parent ]
I guess that only works to a certain point.
reduced to "...." (Score:5, Funny)
Oh, I don't know. I browse at -1: it's amazing what images can be evoked using only punctuation. :-)
Re:reduced to "...." (Score:3, Funny)
Yeah, like some jackass in a robe with a Bible in one hand, a torch in the other, and a stack of "lascivious writings" in front of him...
outrageous sexual adventures (Score:1)
Bernard Schifman (Score:1, Funny)
Anyone else feel like a giggle? (Score:1)
Blogging has jumped the shark.
It's great the way bloggers show their individuality by posting their daily thoughts, just like all the other bloggers.
Blogging is dying.
pronounced Peeps, as (Score:1)
couldn't resist...
mirror (Score:5, Funny)
Jan 11, 1660: Not much happening today. Lost one o my kids in the bog.
Jan 12, 1660: Damne bog ate my dog. Off to the pub for a pint.
Jan 13, 1660: Walking back from the pub early this morn, almost fell into the bog.
Jan 14, 1660: Good Lord.. the Mayor fell into the bog. Presumed lost. Kenny Axeblood wants to take over. 'Aye' I say.
Jan 15, 1660: God hates our wee village; Kenny Axeblook walked into the bog and disappeared from our sight. We think it's that woman with the wart. Off to burn her.
Jan 16, 1660: Burnt the witch and threw her remains into the bog.
Re:mirror (Score:2)
Re:mirror (Score:5, Funny)
> Jan 12, 1660: Damne bog ate my dog. Off to the pub for a pint.
> Jan 13, 1660: Walking back from the pub early this morn, almost fell into the bog.
> Jan 14, 1660: Good Lord.. the Mayor fell into the bog. Presumed lost. Kenny Axeblood wants to take over. 'Aye' I say.
> Jan 15, 1660: God hates our wee village; Kenny Axeblook walked into the bog and disappeared from our sight. We think it's that woman with the wart. Off to burn her.
> Jan 16, 1660: Burnt the witch and threw her remains into the bog.
Jan 17, 1660: 1) Elected new mayor in the bog. He fell into the bog before he could be sworn in. Burnt another witch. That witch burned down, fell over, and then sank into the bog, but the third witch stayed up!
Jan 18, 1660: 2) In pagan Denmark, bogs fall into you!
Jan 19, 1660: ...
Jan 20, 1660: 3) ...geld!
Along the same lines as serialized books (Score:3, Interesting)
It'd also be interesting to see other famous diaries given this treatment. Think Anne Frank, or Anais Nin. However, in the later case, the blog's past entries would have to be heavily revised every once in a while
Neil Gaiman had this to say ... (Score:4, Interesting)
"The best thing about Pepys, I thought, when I read the diaries, some years ago, was watching him change, with the country, from the puritan days to the restoration -- watching him discover the theatre (to which he slowly becomes addicted), watching him grow and reinvent himself. The other best thing is that, confiding in a coded diary, he gradually becomes unutterably honest, and thus human, sometimes shockingly so."
I thought you guys might be interested.
Why is this an improvement? (Score:5, Insightful)
Yes, you can read a little bit each day -- but is that not equally possible with a book (or even the online version of the diary)?
Yes, people can add comments explaining the "archaic" English (according to the article), but should I trust these explanations? How many Samula Pepys experts will be following this, and how many yowzers?
Blogs can be great tools, but I don't see how in this particular case the medium is especially useful. There's so much hype about technology improving learning, but after watching many a powerpoint presentation, I'm wary of too much hoopla with too little benefit.
But hey, the internet really does need more blogs, so I guess a new one can only be a good thing
Re:Why is this an improvement? (Score:3, Insightful)
There's no reason you should trust the annotations any more than on any other site (like
Re:Why is this an improvement? (Score:2, Insightful)
In other words, most of us don't get paid for time spent reading nontechnical books. Websites on the other hand...
Re:Why is this an improvement? (Score:2)
Haha (Score:5, Funny)
Bet he didn't see that one coming.
a coupla points (Score:2)
You mean Project Gutenberg's version of Henry Wheatley's 1893 edition? It just sounds like you are referring to the great Johann Gutenberg.
When technology improves a book that was already good, that's good news for nerds. I'm not talking about the Two Towers
Just to clarify: The Two Towers film did not improve upon the book. Faramir is spinning in his grave.
Re:a coupla points (Score:4, Funny)
Uh... you are aware, right, that Lord of the Rings is not actually a history? Just to be clear: fictional character, never existed, not in grave. Okay?
Re:a coupla points (Score:2)
With that said; No one actually spins in their grave anyway, unless they're mounted on a turntable or rotisserie. So a fictional character spinning in their grave would seem to make more sense to me...
Re:a coupla points (Score:2)
Re:a coupla points (Score:2)
Doesn't mean there's nothing to be dissapointed in.
Pronunciation (Score:4, Funny)
Was that really necessary? I mean, are there really people out there who don't know how to pronounce Pepys? Did you not learn anything at school? Sheesh!
BTW, I haven't the faintest clue what marshmallow peeps are...
Re:Pronunciation (Score:4, Informative)
Thats too bad, because Just Born [marshmallowpeeps.com], the makers of Marshmallow Peeps have a great web page.
Personally, Marshallow Peeps are delicious. They are a staple of every Easter morning. Unless of course you are a nasty heratic.
Aged Peeps (Score:3, Funny)
I think he is just smoking crack entirely too much.
Re:Aged Peeps (Score:2)
I don't like them when they're fresh let alone a year old..
Re:Pronunciation (Score:2)
Or diabetic...
(-:
Re:Pronunciation (Score:2)
Like me??
Long live Hera, queen of the gods!!!
Re:Pronunciation (Score:2)
Not as great as the fine folks at Peepresearch.org [peepresearch.org]. Science and marshmallow animals- a winning combination!
Re:Pronunciation (Score:2)
Not how to pronounce Pepys. I didn't go to school in an english-speaking country.
Hope no one else has mentioned this one (Score:3, Funny)
http://www.progress.demon.co.uk/Fun/AOLer-diary
"Peeps" pronuciation disputed by Pepys family... (Score:5, Informative)
London, Sept. 26
Members of the historic Pepys family said today they pronounce the name
"Pepp-iss" not Peeps"
On the other hand, the Encyclopedia Britannica asserts: "The name was
pronounced in the seventeenth century and has always been pronounced by the
family, 'Peeps.' "
The discrepancy came to light when Lady Paulina Mary Louise Pepys faced
a magistrate on a traffic charge. The magistrate, A.A. Pereira, pronounced
it "Peeps."
"Sorry," Lady Paulina said, "but it's Pepp-iss."
The magistrate, thus corrected, then fined her two pounds.
"Of course I'm related to Samuel Pepys, and if he called himself 'Peeps'
he was the first member of the family to do so and none has done it since.
I don't like it pronounced 'Peeps.' "
The present head of the family is John Digby Thomas Pepys, the 7th Earl
of Cottenham and the 10th Baronet Pepys. His secretary said:
"I can assure you that Lord Cottenham pronounces it 'Pepp-iss' and so do
his son, the Viscount Crowhurst"
Re:"Peeps" pronuciation disputed by Pepys family.. (Score:3, Funny)
"No, it's Frederick. Why do you ask?"
"I don't know."
"Let's go, Igor."
"That's Eye-gor."
Re:"Peeps" pronuciation disputed by Pepys family.. (Score:4, Funny)
In other news, hillbillies today said that they would prefer to be called "sons of the soil."
Re:"Peeps" pronuciation disputed by Pepys family.. (Score:2)
I mean, highlight some similar names. Whats the origin? original language of the original name? etc...
Re:"Peeps" pronuciation disputed by Pepys family.. (Score:3, Funny)
Man, what a bunch of sissies. My wife has a friend that married a gentleman named "Dorkson".
Yup, you heard me, "Dorkson".
He's a great guy, and all, but man - what do you say to that? Understandably, she insists that we pronounce it "Dorrson" because the 'k' is silent, you know.
Egbert Souse, pronounced "soo-say" (Score:2)
Re:"Peeps" pronuciation disputed by Pepys family.. (Score:3, Funny)
his son, the Viscount Crowhurst"
If they can't hire a secretary that understands subject/verb agreement, I have doubts about their ability to pronounce their own last names.
Re:"Peeps" pronuciation disputed by Pepys family.. (Score:2)
Maybe the thinks it makes her sound royal.
Re:"Peeps" pronuciation disputed by Pepys family.. (Score:2)
Congratulations. You actually made me look this up. My old college grammar book says:She doesn't seem to be doing any of those. She didn't say "If he do that" or "He should do that," she said "He do that."
Though I do agree with you that she probably did that to sound royal.
Henry David Thero' or Tho'row? (Score:3, Interesting)
Anyway, it is cool to discover that the Pepys family prefers Pee-piss to Peeps, but since most people don't know this, you'll probably be understood by more people if you still just say Peeps, IMHO.
Re:"Peeps" pronuciation disputed by Pepys family.. (Score:3, Funny)
Pepys: It's Pepys, Papa Homer
Old lies (Score:2, Insightful)
The more things change, the more they stay the same.
Another blog from the past (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Another blog from the past (Score:3, Insightful)
What would have been dismissed at the time as the mundane details of a New England midwife has proven to be an invaluable historical register of the area. Births, deaths, business transactions, travel routes, etc all preserved for future study.
What better way to learn about history but from the perspective of the one who lived it (to the best of the writers recollection, anyway).
Not outrageous (Score:3, Informative)
Sorry, you're going to have to find outrageousness elsewhere. A footnote for Jan 1 reads, This is the first of too many censored passages marked by "...." wherin Mr. Wheatly determines (in this unabridged edition) that some of the words of Pepy's are too raw for our eyes.
A more complete edition (still under copyright) (Score:4, Informative)
"mi mano sub her jupes and toca su thigh" (Score:5, Interesting)
To quote a Boston Globe article, now available only in the Google cache: [216.239.33.100]
"Edited out until as recently as 1970 were the clumsy rolls beneath alehouse tables and the gropings in horse-drawn carriages, generally rendered in his unique personal porno style: 'and yo did take her, the first time in my life, sobra mi genu and poner mi mano sub her jupes and toca su thigh, which did hazer me great pleasure.' "
Re:"mi mano sub her jupes and toca su thigh" (Score:2)
Unique personal porno style, my left hind foot. My friend Stan sounds just like this after he's finished off the night's second bottle of Mother Goose's Sweet Potato Sparkling Wine.
This story, in and of itself. . . (Score:3, Insightful)
What happens when the language changes only scholars can read Dickens and Twain?
This is what happens.
This can only happen *because* the work is in the public domain and presents one of the greatest arguments for works not remaining in the private domain overlong.
It also serves as a great example of the true social utility of a free internet and I applaud the author for making this great literary and historical document accessable in a modern and entertaining manner.
KFG
DMCA violation! (Score:4, Funny)
His diary was written in a shorthand code called tachygraphy that was not deciphered until the 19th century. Pepys never expected the diary to be decoded and so wrote only for himself--the diary is brutally frank
This is a clear example of DRM circumvention! Stop the terrorists! Now, where did i put my UAV?
But Pepys could write (Score:2)
I'm afraid that blogs are just random spatters dressed up the sense of legitimacy borne of nice web design. By and large the joy of writing is rewriting.
Devious Hot-Blooded Slashdotters (Score:2)
You hot-blooded geek, you.
Great, now people want daily blogger smut...from the 17th century. Nothing like fantasizing about dead people. Gross, man, gross.
Copyright? (Score:3, Interesting)
So what? Presumably they are in the original and since that is 300 years old it must be out of copyright by now. Surely there are more recent editions which include the full unexpurgated text? Why can't the 'naughty bits' just be copied from one of them?
Now, I understand that when someone re-prints an old text they are allocated a new copyright, but only on new work (text formatting and layout, footnotes, updated punctuation and spelling etc). But, we don't need any of that, just the original words. If these were just copied into the blog, how would anyone know whose edition they had come from anyway?
A little sex will spice things up... (Score:2)
The best diaries online.. (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Unfortunately... (Score:2, Informative)