12 of 22 people found the following review helpful
Is this complete?,
This review is from: The Diary of Samuel Pepys: Volume I - 1660: 1660 v. 1 (Paperback)
My test for completeness. On page 196 of the look inside, instead of a reference to... excrement... in traditional Anglo Saxon four letter form, I find the October 20th 1660 entry contains an emptiness; a series of dashes; an 'ole. The t***ds can not be left out of the 17th century! It can't be done! I want my Pepys complete, in all its sticky brown glory. I am not buying this until someone can assure me that the seventeenth century has not been cleaned and sanitised and whitewashed. The seventeenth century did not contain clean, white gaps where words, or t***ds should lie!
Sort: Oldest first | Newest first
Showing 1-2 of 2 posts in this discussion
Initial post: 14 May 2012 21:36:16 BDT
Darryl Green says:
The introduction states that there are still a few passages "which cannot possibly be printed" the editors ask you to "trust them"! So still not complete then ?sigh!
Posted on 8 Feb 2013 11:43:06 GMT
B. Greene says:
No, actually this (the Latham/Matthews edition) is the unedited, uncensored, complete version. The Amazon 'Look Inside' feature on this product page is currently taking you to a different, censored version (Wheatley). Go back to Look Inside and check the front cover - you will see it is not the correct edition.
The other comment on this review about the introduction stating that there are still a few passages which cannot be printed is also from the Wheatley version.
If you want the complete, uncensored Pepys don't worry, this is definitely the one to get.
‹ Previous 1 Next ›