Teachers‘ Notes
When Boyle met Pepys
When Boyle met Pepys
Teachers Notes
Robert Boyle and Samuel Pepys were historical contemporaries. Both were Fellows of the Royal
Society (http://www.royalsoc.ac.uk/) which was founded on 28 November 1660 to meet weekly to
witness experiments and discuss what we would now call scientific topics. Although both were
members, and would have met to discuss to discuss the philosophical issues of the day, they could
not have had more diverse personalities, Boyle being a deeply religious and pious man, whereas
Pepys was a convivial filanderer who was serially unfaithful to his wife. Hence, we have the perfect
scenario for an informative meeting of minds when the two Fellows meet to discuss Boyle‘s latest
research into gases.
Aim
The aim of this package of learning material is to teach Boyle‘s Law to science students, partly
through the medium of narrative learning. The students will produce the narrative themselves,
which will demonstrate their understanding of the science and create a powerful association by
putting it in an historical context with interaction between two real historical characters. Students
will learn about science, history, and the fundamentals of playwriting.
Contents
The package includes the following material:








Teacher‘s Powerpoint presentation
Teachers‘ notes
Original publication of Robert Boyle
Worksheets on the workings of Boyles Law using data taken from the original publication
Biographical details of Robert Boyle
Biographical details of Samuel Pepys
Historical information about Restoration England
Worksheets on scripting a Restoration Comedy play
Process
The following are suggestions for using the material in a series of workshops. The timings are
guides based on experience but this will depend on the number of students and groups. Some of
the writing exercises can be completed as homework.
Evans & Hall, University of Plymouth
Teachers‘ Notes - Page 1
Teachers‘ Notes
When Boyle met Pepys
Workshop 1
Powerpoint
slides
1-2
3
4-7
8-12
13-14
15-16
17-18
19
20
Worksheet
Boyle’s Law
– Original
Publication
Boyle’s Law
Explanation
Prove
Boyle’s Law
t
Pepys’
Diary
Extract
Biography
Timeline
What is a
Play?
Restoration
Comedy
Playshheet
1
Playsheet 2
Activity
Time
Introduction and explanation of learning objectives
Question students about Robert Boyle and Samuel Pepys
Have they heard of Robert Boyle or Samuel Pepys and their
importance to the development of science and social history
respectively? Ask whether anyone knows about the
Restoration period in English History.
Ask the students whether they know anything about the gas
laws and Boyle‘s Law in particular.
Students read the original publication by Boyle and write
down their answers to the questions.
5
Discuss answers to questions with students using the
teaching notes in the powerpoint slides
Workshop 2
Hand out the explanation of Boyle‘s Law and use the
powerpoint slides to explain it.
Students undertake the worksheet exercise and do the
following:
 examine Boyle‘s data and discuss how he calculated it.
 perform calculations to see if their figures match the data
 prove Boyle‘s Law by plotting his data.
Discuss the plotted graph referring to the solution given in
the powepoint slide
Workshop 3
Students read diary extract and write down answers to
questions posed at the end.
Discuss answers to the questions
Students read biographies of Boyle and Pepys and the
timeline.
Discuss the link between the two men; compare their
respective writings; contrast their characters.
Discuss the historical context.
Students read this handout and discuss the elements of a
play with the tutor.
Workshop 4
Students read the handout.
Discuss the elements of restoration comedy
Students perform Playsheet 1
Students perform Playsheet 2 while following the stage
directions. Some teacher intervention may be necessary to
demonstrate good acting style!
15
20
20
20
30
10
20
15
20
15
15
15
Show YouTube clip starting from 2 min 55 s
Discuss the importance of the Nebentext to the meaning of
the play
Evans & Hall, University of Plymouth
15
Teachers‘ Notes - Page 2
Teachers‘ Notes
When Boyle met Pepys
Workshop 5
Powerpoint
slides
21
Worksheet
Writing
Workshop
Activity
Time
Split students into groups of 4 to complete the following
exercises
Non-stop writing (individual exercise)
10
Improvisation (group exercise)
20
22-23
Starting point for two characters (invdividual exercise):
reiterate the essential elements of a play. Start, End and
something must happen to the emotional state of one or
more characters to make it interesting
20
24
Boyle and Pepys: Split students into groups of 3 or 4 and
tell them to choose one of their written pieces for
development. Student groups write scene where Boyle
meets Pepys and attempts to explain his hypothesis.
Students can make this as humorous as they like, using
appropriate props from the earlier writing exercises. This
can be done as homework.
(10H)
Workshop 6
25
Boyle and Pepys: Performance of the plays
Evans & Hall, University of Plymouth
5 ea
Teachers‘ Notes - Page 3
When Boyle met Pepys
Evans & Hall, University of Plymouth
Teachers‘ Notes
Teachers‘ Notes - Page 4
When Boyle met Pepys
Boyle‘s Law Original Publication
Boyle’s Law – Original Publication
Read the following extract, starting at, CHAP. V., from A Defence of the Doctrine Touching the
Spring and Weight of Air (1682 edition but originally published in 1662) by Robert Boyle.
Consider the following questions:
 What do you think of the style of writing, is it easy to read or not?
 Compared to a modern laboratory report what similarities and differences stand out?
 Look at the data given in the table, do you notice anything odd about it?
 Interpret the data in the table and explain what it means.
 Can you state what is Boyle’s Hypothesis?
 How does Boyle prove his Hypothesis?
 How would you prove Boyle’s Hypothesis?
Evans & Hall, University of Plymouth
Boyle‘s Law Original Publication - Page 1
When Boyle met Pepys
Evans & Hall, University of Plymouth
Boyle‘s Law Original Publication
Boyle‘s Law Original Publication - Page 2
When Boyle met Pepys
Evans & Hall, University of Plymouth
Boyle‘s Law Original Publication
Boyle‘s Law Original Publication - Page 3
When Boyle met Pepys
Evans & Hall, University of Plymouth
Boyle‘s Law Original Publication
Boyle‘s Law Original Publication - Page 4
Boyle‘s Law - Explanation
When Boyle met Pepys
Boyle’s Law - Explanation
 So what is Boyle’s Law anyway?
Boyle‘s Law states that the volume occupied by a fixed amount of gas at a constant temperature is
inversely proportional to the pressure, or in mathematical terms:
p 
1
V
(at constant T )
Equation 1
where: p = pressure; V = volume; T = temperature.
In order to test this hypothesis Boyle undertook an experiment using a glass J-tube into which he
poured mercury, as described in an appendix1 to his original work2:
We took then a long Glass-Tube, which by a dexterous hand and the help of a Lamp was in such
a manner crooked at the bottom, that the part turned up was almost parallel to the rest of the
Tube….’ (Figure 1).
‘…then Quicksilver [Mercury] being poured in to fill up the bended part of the Glass…’
B
A
original
height of air
Figure 1 Experimental apparatus constructed for
Boyle‘s experiments showing the J-tube as Fig. 4
(from ref. 3).
Figure 2 Schematic of the J-tube into which Boyle
poured mercury
Boyle added increasing amounts of mercury (or Quicksilver as it was known then) to the longer leg
of the tube (Figure 2) so that the air (A) in the shorter leg became more compressed:
Evans & Hall, University of Plymouth
Boyle‘s Law - Explanation - Page 1
When Boyle met Pepys
Boyle‘s Law - Explanation
‘…then Quicksilver being poured in to fill up the bended part of the Glass, that the surface of it in
either leg might rest in the same Horizontal line, as we lately taught, there was more and more
Quicksilver poured into the longer Tube; and notice being watchfully taken how far the Mercury
was risen in that longer Tube, when it appeared to have ascended to any of the divisions in the
shorter Tube, the several Observations that were thus successively made, and as they were made
set down, afforded us the ensuing Table.’
Boyle conducted the experiment by noting the height of added mercury (B in Figure 2) in the longer
leg of the tube each time the air trapped in the shorter leg was compressed to a desired height (A
in Figure 2), and recorded the results in the table shown in Figure 3.
Figure 3 Data from a later reprint (ref. 3) of Boyle‘s original publication (ref. 2)
 What does the data mean?
The second column (A) in Figure 3 shows the height occupied by the trapped air in the tube [the
first column (A) is the height expressed as the number of ¼ inch divisions]; the third column (B) is
the height of added mercury which exerts a pressure on the air; the fourth column (C) is the height
of mercury equivalent to normal atmospheric pressure [which Boyle had measured in a separate
experiment]; the fifth column (D) is the sum of B and C and is the height of mercury equivalent to
the pressure of the trapped air plus atmospheric pressure; and the sixth column (E) is the height of
mercury calculated using Boyle‘s hypothesis that the height of mercury is inversely proportional to
the volume of trapped air as stated thus in Figure 3:
‘E. What that pressure should be according to the Hypothesis, that supposes the pressures and
expansions to be in reciprocal proportion.’(Figure 3).
In simple terms, the values in columns D and E should be identical if Boyle‘s hypothesis holds true,
Evans & Hall, University of Plymouth
Boyle‘s Law - Explanation - Page 2
When Boyle met Pepys
Boyle‘s Law - Explanation
and Boyle invites the reader to compare the two columns to verify this fact, while also taking
account of experimental error:
‘Now although we deny not but that in our Table some particulars do not so exactly answer to
what our formerly-intimated Hypothesis might perchance invite the Reader to expect; yet the
Variations are not so considerable, but that they may probably enough be ascribed to some such
want of exactness as in such nice Experiments is scarce avoidable.’
 What if the temperature changes?
In order for the hypothesis to hold true the temperature should be constant, however, when air is
compressed it gets hot, as you will know if you have ever pumped up a tyre with a bicycle pump.
There is no evidence in the treatise that Boyle controlled the temperature during the course of the
experiment, but he was well aware of the effect:
‘6. That when the Air was so compress'd, as to be crouded into less than a quarter of the space it
possess'd before, we tryed whether the cold of a Linen Cloth dipp'd in Water would then
condense it. And it sometimes seemed a little to shrink, but not so manifestly as that we dare
build any thing upon it. We then tried likewise whether heat would notwithstanding so forcible a
compressure dilate it, and approaching the flame of a Candle to that part where the Air was pent
up, the heat had a more sensible operation than the cold had before; so that we scarce doubted
but that the expansion of the Air would, notwithstanding the weight that opprest it, have been
made conspicuous, if the fear of unseasonably breaking the Glass had not kept us from increasing
the heat.’
 So why not just plot a graph?
As well as the data illustrating ‗Boyle‘s‘ Law‘ (as it is now known) there are a number of interesting
features that might surprise the modern reader (for more information see the article by John B.
West4). The table shown in Figure 3 contains many awkward fractions such as 18/23 and 11/19; this is
because decimal notation was not in common usage at this time so Boyle made his calculations
using raw fractions, which have been rounded in some cases. Nowadays, students would plot a
graph of D versus 1/A (the equivalent of pressure versus 1/volume) with a linear relationship
proving the hypothesis. This would be better than a comparison of two columns of figures, so why
didn‘t Boyle plot a graph? The answer once again is that graphical methods to represent data were
not widely used in 1662.
References
1
2
3
4
Robert Boyle (Edited by Robert Sharrock). Defence of the doctrine touching the spring and
weight of the air propos'd by Mr. R. Boyle in his new physico-mechanical experiments, against
the objections of Franciscus Linus ; wherewith the objector's funicular hypothesis is also
examin'd, by the author of those experiments. London : Printed by F.G. for Thomas Robinson,
1662.
Robert Boyle. New experiments physico-mechanicall, touching the spring of the air, and its
effects (made, for the most part, in a new pneumatical engine) : written by way of letter to the
Right Honorable Charles, Lord Vicount of Dungarvan, eldest son to the Earl of Corke. Oxford :
Printed by H. Hall ... for Tho. Robinson, 1660.
Robert Boyle. New experiments physico-mechanical, touching the air. London : Printed by
Miles Flesher for Richard Davis, bookseller in Oxford, 1682.
John B. West. The original presentation of Boyle‘s law. J. Appl. Physiol., 1999, 87, 1543-1545.
Evans & Hall, University of Plymouth
Boyle‘s Law - Explanation - Page 3
When Boyle met Pepys
Evans & Hall, University of Plymouth
Boyle‘s Law - Explanation
Boyle‘s Law - Explanation - Page 1
Prove Boyle‘s Law
When Boyle met Pepys
Prove Boyle’s Law
You can prove Boyles law yourself by using the original data to calculate the figures in column E
(Figure 3) and comparing them with Boyle‘s original calculations. First, you need to understand how
Boyle arrived at the results in column E. Boyle hypothesised that pressure is inversely proportional
to volume (Eqn. 1). This is the same as saying that pressure multiplied by volume is always
constant (Eqn. 2):
pV
 k (a constant)
Equation 2
The experiment is shown schematically in Figure 4. Table 1 contains part of Boyle‘s original data
converted to decimal notation. As can be seen, as more mercury is poured into the long arm of the
tube the height of mercury (B1, B2…etc.), increases to and the height of trapped air (A1, A2…etc.),
decreases. To arrive at the total pressure, Boyle added 29.125 (the height of mercury equivalent to
atmospheric pressure) to column B to get column D.
Figure 4 The effect of increasing the
height of mercury (B) on the height of the
trapped air (A) in the tube.
A0 A1 A2
B1 B2
Table 1 Part of Boyle‘s original data (top) converted
to decimal notation (bottom).
A’
B
48
46
44
42
40
38
12.0
11.5
11.0
10.5
10.0
9.5
0.000
1.438
2.813
4.375
6.188
7.875
C
D (B+C)
E
29.125
Evans & Hall, University of Plymouth
A
29.125
30.563
31.938
33.500
35.313
37.000
29.125
30.375
31.750
33.143
35.000
36.789
Prove Boyle‘s Law - Page 1
Prove Boyle‘s Law
When Boyle met Pepys
 How did Boyle arrive at the figures in column E?
Using Eqn. 2 and the data in Table 1 you can calculate the constant ‗k’ using the first row of data
as follows:
pV
 k (a constant)
To calculate k multiply the number in the first row of column D (equivalent to the total pressure, p)
by the number in the first row of column A’ (equivalent to volume, V):
29.125  12  k (a constant)
349.5  k (a constant)
Because k is a constant you can now calculate any value in column E (the pressure predicted by
the hypothesis) by rearranging Eqn. 2 and dividing k by any number in column A’:
p 
E.g. for A’ = 12.0
p 
k
V
349.5
11.5
p  30.391
 This is close to Boyle’s result of 30.375 in column E but doesn’t agree exactly, why not?
It‘s because the rounding errors associated with converting from fractions to decimals can make
quite a difference, especially when you remember that Boyle also rounded the fractions in the data
table too!
Calculate the next three predicted pressures in column E and see how they compare with Boyle‘s
results
 How would we test whether the data obeys Boyle’s Law today?
You can easily prove Boyle‘s Law by plotting a graph of D versus 1/A’ using the data from Table 2
and the graph paper overleaf. Plot 1/A’ on the x-axis and D on the y-axis; you should get straight
line which means that D (pressure) is inversely proportional to A’ (volume).
Evans & Hall, University of Plymouth
Prove Boyle‘s Law - Page 2
When Boyle met Pepys
Prove Boyle‘s Law
Table 2 Boyle‘s data taken from Figure 3 and converted to decimal notation
Evans & Hall, University of Plymouth
Prove Boyle‘s Law - Page 3
When Boyle met Pepys
Evans & Hall, University of Plymouth
Prove Boyle‘s Law
Prove Boyle‘s Law - Page 4
When Boyle met Pepys
Pepys‘ Diary Extract
Robert Boyle and Samuel Pepys.
Read the extract from the diary of Samuel Pepys and consider the questions at the end.
FEBRUARY 1665
14th (St. Valentine). This morning comes betimes Dicke Pen, to be my
wife's Valentine, and come to our bedside. By the same token, I had him
brought to my side, thinking to have made him kiss me; but he perceived
me, and would not; so went to his Valentine: a notable, stout, witty boy.
I up about business, and, opening the door, there was Bagwell's wife, with
whom I talked afterwards, and she had the confidence to say she came with
a hope to be time enough to be my Valentine, and so indeed she did, but my
oath preserved me from loosing any time with her, and so I and my boy
abroad by coach to Westminster, where did two or three businesses, and
then home to the 'Change, and did much business there. My Lord Sandwich
is, it seems, with his fleete at Alborough Bay. So home to dinner and
then to the office, where till 12 almost at night, and then home to supper
and to bed.
15th. Up and to my office, where busy all the morning. At noon with
Creed to dinner to Trinity-house, where a very good dinner among the old
sokers, where an extraordinary discourse of the manner of the loss of the
"Royall Oake" coming home from Bantam, upon the rocks of Scilly, many
passages therein very extraordinary, and if I can I will get it in
writing. Thence with Creed to Gresham College, where I had been by Mr.
Povy the last week proposed to be admitted a member;
[According to the minutes of the Royal Society for February 15th,
1664-65, "Mr. Pepys was unanimously elected and admitted." Notes of
the experiments shown by Hooke and Boyle are given in Birch's
"History of the Royal Society," vol. ii., p. 15.]
and was this day admitted, by signing a book and being taken by the hand
by the President, my Lord Brunkard, and some words of admittance said to
me. But it is a most acceptable thing to hear their discourse, and see
their experiments; which were this day upon the nature of fire, and how it
goes out in a place where the ayre is not free, and sooner out where the
ayre is exhausted, which they showed by an engine on purpose. After this
being done, they to the Crowne Taverne, behind the 'Change, and there my
Lord and most of the company to a club supper; Sir P. Neale, Sir R.
Murrey, Dr. Clerke, Dr. Whistler, Dr. Goddard, and others of most eminent
worth. Above all, Mr. Boyle to-day was at the meeting, and above him Mr.
Hooke, who is the most, and promises the least, of any man in the world
that ever I saw. Here excellent discourse till ten at night, and then
home, and to Sir W. Batten's, where I hear that Sir Thos. Harvy intends to
Evans & Hall, University of Plymouth
Pepys‘ Diary Extract - Page 1
When Boyle met Pepys
Pepys‘ Diary Extract
put Mr. Turner out of his house and come in himself, which will be very
hard to them, and though I love him not, yet for his family's sake I pity
him. So home and to bed.
16th. Up, and with Mr. Andrews to White Hall, where a Committee of
Tangier, and there I did our victuallers' business for some more money,
out of which I hope to get a little, of which I was glad; but, Lord! to
see to what a degree of contempt, nay, scorn, Mr. Povy, through his
prodigious folly, hath brought himself in his accounts, that if he be not
a man of a great interest, he will be kicked out of his employment for a
foole, is very strange, and that most deservedly that ever man was, for
never any man, that understands accounts so little, ever went through so
much, and yet goes through it with the greatest shame and yet with
confidence that ever I saw man in my life. God deliver me in my owne
business of my bill out of his hands, and if ever I foul my fingers with
him again let me suffer for it! Back to the 'Change, and thence home to
dinner, where Mrs. Hunt dined with me, and poor Mrs. Batters; who brought
her little daughter with her, and a letter from her husband, wherein, as a
token, the foole presents me very seriously with his daughter for me to
take the charge of bringing up for him, and to make my owne. But I took
no notice to her at all of the substance of the letter, but fell to
discourse, and so went away to the office, where all the afternoon till
almost one in the morning, and then home to bed.
17th. Up, and it being bitter cold, and frost and snow, which I had
thought had quite left us, I by coach to Povy's, where he told me, as I
knew already, how he was handled the other day, and is still, by my Lord
Barkeley, and among other things tells me, what I did not know, how my
Lord Barkeley will say openly, that he hath fought more set
fields--[Battles or actions]--than any man in England hath done. I did my
business with him, which was to get a little sum of money paid, and so
home with Mr. Andrews, who met me there, and there to the office. At noon
home and there found Lewellin, which vexed me out of my old jealous
humour. So to my office, where till 12 at night, being only a little
while at noon at Sir W. Batten's to see him, and had some high words with
Sir J. Minnes about Sir W. Warren, he calling him cheating knave, but I
cooled him, and at night at Sir W. Pen's, he being to go to Chatham
to-morrow. So home to supper and to bed.
 How does this compare to Boyle’s publication, what are the similarities and differences?
 What is the link between Boyle and Pepys?
 What kind of character do you think Pepys was?
Evans & Hall, University of Plymouth
Pepys‘ Diary Extract - Page 2
When Boyle met Pepys
Biography
Robert Boyle (1627-1691)
Robert Boyle (Plate 1) was one of the most significant
scientists of his time. He put into practise, through experiment
and observation, the process of inductive reasoning advocated
by Francis Bacon in the early part of the 17th century. He was
one of the founding members of the Royal Society, which
became the focus for the burgeoning of British science during
the enlightenment in the following century.
Born into a wealthy protestant family at Lismore Castle, Cork
on 25th January, Robert was the seventh (and youngest) son
of Richard and Catherine Boyle. His father was the Earl of
Cork and Lord High Treasurer of Ireland, making him one of
the richest and most influential men in the country. He was
educated at home by private tutors and, from 1635-1638, at
Eton College England, subsequently travelling abroad to
France, Switzerland and Italy. While in Florence in 1642
Galileo died at his villa in Arcetri nearby. On his eventual
return to England in 1644 Boyle would have found the country
in a chaotic state as a result of the outbreak of the civil war in
1642. His father had died in 1643 and left him an estate at
Stalbridge in Dorset where he lived for the next decade, setting
up a laboratory in 1649 to pursue his scientific interests.
In 1654-6 Boyle moved to Oxford encouraged by John Wilkins,
the leader of a group of natural philosophers who, in 1660,
were instrumental in establishing the Royal Society. It was
here that Boyle‘s experimental work took off, and coincides
with the publication of the work which became known as
Boyle‘s Law (sometimes called Mariotte‘s Law), describing an
ideal gas. His experimental results were described in detail an
appendix (1662) to his work entitled New Experiments PhysioMechanicall, Touching the Spring of the Air and its Effects
(1660) shown in Figure 5. This work was undertaken using an
air-pump (Figure 6) which he designed with the aid of Robert
Hooke (most widely known for ‗Hooke‘s Law‘), who was
working as his assistant at the time. The publication
demonstrates Boyle‘s attention to experimental detail and
comprehensive descriptions of the experiments themselves,
which was intended so that others could repeat them. In this
way he was important in establishing experimental science as
a means of acquiring knowledge. Boyle also advanced a
corpuscular theory of matter (substances are composed of
particles) in defiance of the widely held Aristotlean belief that
matter was comprised of four elements, earth, air, fire and
water.
In 1668 Boyle went to live with his sister, Lady Ranelagh, in
London. In 1670 he suffered a stroke which left him
temporarily paralysed, however, he gradually recovered his
health and continued to work.
Evans & Hall, University of Plymouth
Plate 1 Robert Boyle by Johann
Kerseboom (1708).
Figure 5 Title page of Boyle’s
New Experiments PhysioMechanicall, Touching the Spring
of the Air and its Effects (1660).
Figure 6 The air-pump designed
by Boyle and Hooke.
Biography - Page 1
When Boyle met Pepys
Biography
Religion was an important part of Boyle‘s scientific philosophy.
His early writings, dating from when he settled at Stalbridge in
1644, are predominantly on religious themes, and it was not
until he set up his laboratory that his enthusiasm was taken up
with experimental science. Boyle saw belief in God as being
perfectly compatible with a mechanistic explanation of the
world, and it is this which partly drove him in his experimental
investigations. His later works, published from 1674 onwards,
deal extensively with philosophical and theological issues, in
which he put forward his views on the relationship between
God and the natural world. After his death on 31 December
1691, a codicil to his will provided for the setting up of the socalled Boyle Lectures (Figure 7), a series of lectures for the
defence of the Christian religion against atheists and others.
The first of these was delivered in 1692 and have continued
intermittently over the last 314 years. Since 2004 they have
been revived and take place annually in February at St Mary
Le Bow church (‗Bow Bells‘ of the nursery rhyme) in the City of
London, where they were originally given.
Figure 7 One of the original Boyle
Lectures given by Richard
Bentley.
.
Want to know more?
You can find out much more about Robert Boyle by visiting the Robert Boyle Project website
http://www.bbk.ac.uk/boyle/index.htm where you will find a comprehensive biography and gain
online access to his workdiaries (the equivalent of laboratory notebooks). This project has resulted
in publication of his complete works (Michael Hunter and Edward B. Davis, Eds., The Works of
Robert Boyle, Vols. 1-14, Pickering and Chatto, 1999-2000) and correspondence (Michael Hunter,
Antonio Clericuzio and Lawrence M Principe, Eds. The Correspondence of Robert Boyle, Pickering
and Chatto, 2001; Michael Hunter, Ed., Robert Boyle by Himself and His Friends, Pickering and
Chatto, 1994).
Scanned images of his published works can be accessed through Early English Books Online
http://eebo.chadwyck.com/home.
Evans & Hall, University of Plymouth
Biography - Page 2
When Boyle met Pepys
Biography
Samuel Pepys (1633-1703)
Samuel Pepys (Plate 2) was an important civil servant during
the latter part of the 17th century. Perhaps more importantly,
during the period 1660-1669 he kept a diary in which he
recorded several major events of the age, including the
Restoration of the Monarchy (1660), the Second Dutch War
(1665-1667), the Great Plague of London (1665), the Great
Fire of London (1666), as well as daily events.
Samuel Pepys was born on 23 February, 1633 in Salisbury
Court, off Fleet Street, London. His father, John Pepys, was a
tailor so, although relatively well off for the time the family were
not particularly wealthy; but they did have influential relatives
which would aid Pepys in his later career. After a spell at the
‗Free Grammar School‘ in Huntingdon he was educated at St
Paul‘s School, beside the Cathedral, in London. It was while at
St Paul‘s that he witnessed the execution of Charles I in 1649,
at the culmination of the English Civil War. At this point Pepys
was a staunch Republican, but in common with many
contemporaries he was a faithful subject after the restoration
of Charles II in 1660. Between 1651-1654 he studied for a
degree at Magdalene College, Cambridge and subsequently
entered the employ of a relative, Sir Edward Montagu in 1655,
the year in which he married Elisabeth Marchant de St Michel.
The period between his marriage and the start of his Diary in
1660 saw Pepys establish himself as a clerk in the service of
Montagu, then eventually appointed to Clerk of Acts to the
Navy Board in 1660. The most significant event during this
time was his decision to undergo a lithotomy (Plate 3), an
operation to remove a bladder stone, which was by 1658
causing him extreme pain. This was no trivial decision on the
part of Pepys: the operation involved insertion of a thin metal
tube through the penis to locate the stone then, bound and
trussed, he was held down while an incision was made
between the scrotum and anus and a stone the size of a
‗tennis ball‘ extracted. This was endured without the benefit of
anaesthetic or antiseptic and the fatality rate was between 2040%. Pepys survived the operation and made a full recovery;
he even mounted the stone in a special case and resolved to
celebrate the anniversary thereafter.
Plate 2 Portrait of Samuel Pepys
painted by John Hayls in 1666,
when he was 33.
Plate 3 Preparation for a
lithotomy (from François Tolet, A
treatise of lithotomy. London,
1683.
Plate 4 Pepys’ library at
Magdalene College Cambridge.
On January 1, 1660, Pepys started his famous Diary with this entry:
Blessed be God, at the end of the last year I was in very good health, without any sense of my old pain,
but upon taking of cold. I lived in Axe Yard, having my wife, and servant Jane, and no more in family
than us three. My wife, after the absence of her terms for seven weeks, gave me hopes of her being with
child, but on the last day of the year she hath them again. The condition of the State was thus; viz. the
Rump [the so-called Rump Parliament], after being disturbed by my Lord Lambert, was lately
returned to sit again. The officers of the Army all forced to yield. Lawson lies still in the river, and
Monk is with his army in Scotland. Only my Lord Lambert is not yet come into the Parliament, nor is it
expected that he will without being forced to it.
Evans & Hall, University of Plymouth
Biography - Page 3
When Boyle met Pepys
Biography
This passage illustrates the style of his Diary: domestic events jumbled up with observations on
matters of state. Indeed, the great value of Pepys‘ diary is his ability to render daily events with
honesty and clarity; in particular the accounts of his relationship with his wife are written with
complete self awareness, as if he were a spectator observing his own actions. The Diary includes
many passages detailing Pepys‘s dalliances with the maids and numerous lady friends as this
extract, written on 12 September 1666 just after the Fire of London relates:
Thence to Martin [Betty Martin, a regular acquaintance], and there did 'tout ce que je voudrais avec'
her, and drank, and away by water home and to dinner, Balty and his wife there. After dinner I took him
down with me to Deptford, and there by the Bezan loaded above half my goods and sent them away. So
we back home, and then I found occasion to return in the dark and to Bagwell [Mrs Bagwell, another
of Pepys lady friends], and there . . . did do all that I desired, but though I did intend 'pour avoir
demeurais con elle' to-day last night, yet when I had done 'ce que je voudrais I did hate both elle and la
cose', and taking occasion from the occasion of 'su marido's return . . . did me lever', and so away
home late to Sir W. Pen's (Batty and his wife lying at my house), and there in the same simple humour I
found Sir W. Pen, and so late to bed.
Pepys wrote his Diary in a form of shorthand called Tachygraphy, devised by Thomas Shelton,
and the more salacious parts are in a mixture of Latin, French, and Portugese. Pepys completed
six volumes between the first entry in 1660 and the last on 31 May, 1669.
As well as being known for the Diary, Pepys was an eminent civil servant, serving as Secretary to
the Admiralty Commission (1673), M.P. for Castle Rising and also Harwich, and in 1684 he was
appointed King‘s Secretary for the Affairs of the Admiralty under both Charles II and James II. His
career was not all plain sailing however, and he was briefly imprisoned in the Tower of London
under suspicion of treachery in 1679, and again in 1689 and 1690. By his own (and others)
account he was a convivial companion and eminently clubbable, with wide ranging interests in
science, music and literature. He was a contemporary of Isaac Newton, Robert Boyle, Christopher
Wren, Robert Hooke and others, in whose company he was elected a Fellow of the Royal Society
in 1665. He served as president from 1684-86 in which capacity his name appears on the front
cover of Newton‘s Principia. He was also a bibliophile and set himself the task of establishing a
library of 3000 volumes, stipulating in his will that it should be preserved intact. The library,
including the six volumes of his diary, still resides at Magdalene College Cambridge (Plate 4),
housed in the original glazed bookcases which Pepys had made by Dockyard joiners.
After his release from prison in 1690 Pepys retired from public life and eventually moved to
Clapham where he died on May 26, 1703.
Want to know more?
You can find out more about Samuel Pepys by visiting the following websites:
http://www.magd.cam.ac.uk/pepys/
Pepys site at Magdalene College Cambridge
http://www.pepysdiary.com/
Phil Gyfords weblog of the Pepys Diary
http://www.pepys.info/
Duncan Grey‘s Pepys site
There are numerous biographies of Pepys, the most recent being Claire Tomalin‘s Samuel Pepys:
The Unequalled Self, Pengiun, 2003. ISBN 0140282343.
The 1875 transcription of the Pepys Diary by Mynors Bright can be downloaded from the Project
Gutenberg website at http://www.gutenberg.org/, however, the more salacious parts have been
omitted. The definitive version edited and transcribed by Robert Latham and William Matthews in
11 volumes (including an introduction and companions) has recently been re-published by
HarperCollins.
Evans & Hall, University of Plymouth
Biography - Page 4
When Boyle met Pepys
Timeline
Restoration England
Boyle/Pepys Timeline
Robert Boyle
Samuel Pepys
Historical Events
1625: Accession of Charles I
1627: 25 Jan. Born at Lismore,
Ireland, seventh son of Richard
Boyle, 1st Earl of Cork, by his
second wife, Catherine
1633: 23 Feb. Born in Salisbury
th
Court, Feet Street, London. 5
child of John and Margaret.
1635, 2 Oct: Enters Eton College
with his brother, Francis, later
Viscount Shannon
1638, 23 Nov: Leaves Eton
College
1639: Travels to France and
Switzerland with Francis, under
the tutelage of Isaac Marcombes;
spends several months in Geneva
1641: Travels to Italy
1642: Stranded at Marseilles;
returns to Geneva
1642: Outbreak of Civil War
Death of Galileo
Birth of Newton
1643-46: attends the ‗Free
Grammar School‘ in Huntingdon
1644: Returns to England
1645: Settles at Stalbridge,
Dorset, where he spends much of
the next decade
1645: End of 1st Civil War
1646-50: enters St Pauls School,
London
1649: laboratory established at
Stalbridge
1649: witnesses execution of
Charles I
1648-9: 2nd Civil War
1649, Jan: Execution of Charles I
1651: Enters Magdalene College,
Cambridge
1652-4: Visits Ireland
Evans & Hall, University of Plymouth
Timeline - Page 1
When Boyle met Pepys
Timeline
Boyle/Pepys Timeline continued…
Robert Boyle
Samuel Pepys
Historical Events
1653: Establishment of
Protectorate in England
1654: Severe illness in Ireland,
affecting Boyle's eyesight
1654: Leaves Cambridge
Late 1655 or early 1656: Settles
at Oxford
1655: Enters employment of Sir
Edward Montagu.
Oct 10: Marries Elisabeth
Marchant de St Michel at St
Margaret‘s Westminster
1658: 26 March. Undergoes a
lithotomy to remove a bladder
stone.
1658: Death of Oliver Cromwell
Rents a house in Axe Yard,
Westminster.
1659: First executes experiments
with air-pump
1660: 28 Nov. Attends inaugural
meeting of Royal Society
1660: 1 Jan. Starts his Diary
April/May: accompanies Montagu
to Holland to bring Charles II back
from exile
June: appointed Clerk of the Acts
to the Navy Board
July: moves to a Navy Office
House in Seething Lane, Tower
Hill
1660: Foundation of Royal Society
1660: Restoration of Charles II
1665: elected Fellow of the Royal
Society
1665: Great Plague
1665-67: second Dutch War
1666: 2-10 Sept. Pepys witnesses
the Fire of London and writes an
account in his Diary
1666: Fire of London
1662, 7 Feb: Appointed first
Governor of the Corporation for
Propagation of the Gospel in New
England
1667: Dutch attack on Medway
1668: Settles in London, living for
the rest of his life with Lady
Ranelagh in Pall Mall.
1669: 31 May final entry in the
Diary
1669: 10 Nov. Elisabeth dies.
Evans & Hall, University of Plymouth
Timeline - Page 2
When Boyle met Pepys
Timeline
Boyle/Pepys Timeline continued…
Robert Boyle
Samuel Pepys
Historical Events
1670: Suffers severe stroke.
1673: Secretary to the Admiralty
Comission
elected M.P. for Castle Rising,
Norfolk
1679: elected MP for Harwich
Imprisoned in the Tower of
London under suspicion of
treachery
1680: 18 Dec. Declines
presidency of the Royal Society
1683: travels to Tangier to assist
in the evacuation of the British
colony
1684: Appointed King‘s Secretary
for the Affairs of the Admiralty
President of the Royal Society
(1684-86)
1685-88: MP for Harwich
1685: Death of Charles II;
accession of James II
1687: Publication of Newton's
Principia
1689, 22 Aug: Resigns
Governorship of Corporation for
Propagation of the Gospel in New
England
1689: Imprisoned as a suspected
Jacobite
Defeated as MP for Harwich
Resigns as Secretary to the
Admiralty
1691, 18 July: Will signed and
sealed
23 Dec: Lady Ranelagh dies.
31 Dec: Boyle dies.
1690: Imprisoned as a suspected
Jacobite Retires from public life on
release.
1692, 7 Jan: Buried at St Martin's
in the Fields. Burnet's funeral
sermon delivered
1688-9: Glorious Revolution,
James II deposed, accession of
William of Orange and Mary
1692: Richard Bentley gives first
Boyle Lectures
1701: moves to Clapham
1703: May 26. Pepys dies.
Evans & Hall, University of Plymouth
Timeline - Page 3
When Boyle met Pepys
Evans & Hall, University of Plymouth
Timeline
Timeline - Page 4
When Boyle met Pepys
What is a Play?
What is a Play?
When writing a dramatic text it is important to realise there are different types of texts: the
‗Haupttext‘, which is the main text, and the ‗Nebentext‘, which includes all the non-verbal signsystems. This can be as basic as stage directions, or in modern performances the director, the
designer and the actors create their own often extremely individual Nebentext.1
Making meaning
The text of a dramatic work contains a plethora of important meaning-producing elements:
a) The basic lexical meaning – the words themselves. These are the speech acts and
conform to all we know about the use of language as a medium for human intercourse.2
In drama there are the meaning-producing elements of the Style of the text – whether it is
prose or verse or a mixture. In Restoration Comedy the style is very defined and would be
easily recognisable to an audience of its day (see later example).
b) The words also serve to individualise characters.
c) The verbal text also produces meaning through the overall structure of the dialogue: this
embodies narrative techniques, dynamics of contrasts, the rhythms inherent in the dialogue,
the pauses and silences and the subtle timing of the dialogue itself.3
All speech in drama produces meaning on several levels: the words spoken by the characters will
always contain another charge of meaning for the audience.
Every word of dramatic dialogue carries at least a double charge: the factual meaning of the
words and the information they yield about the character of the speaker on the other.
The decoding of this secondary string of meaning is a continuous process, with each new line of
dialogue putting an additional touch to the character portrait that is being built up.
The dramatic text needs to be performed or put into action, without this performative element the
dramatic text is always incomplete because as Ingarden points out:
drama represents its world by: events that are wholly indicated by visual and other means; by
elements which are indicated both verbally and visually and by events that are indicated only in
words, narrations of events that have happened outside the spatial or temporal ambit of the
action.4
Esslin believes that the Nebentext is always more important that the Haupttext. The example he
gives to illustrate this is from Samuel Beckett‘s Waiting for Godot, where the line ‗let‘s go‘ is
followed by stage direction ‗they don‘t move‘ which is crucial to an understanding of the significant
themes of the play
As drama is concerned with ‗action‘, the verbal element in drama also functions primarily as action.
Even if the words spoken are in contradiction to the supposed action, the words indicate what they
do to characters to whom they are addressed, or the speaker if in a monologue.5
The creation of a dialectic
In all drama the words spoken by a character can never be taken at their face-value. This is
particularly true of Restoration plays. They are always the product of the character, his/her
motivations and the situation in which s/he finds her/himself.
Evans & Hall, University of Plymouth
What is a Play? - Page 1
When Boyle met Pepys
What is a Play?
As Esslin states, the audience is constantly compelled to question and then subjects these
questions to analysis, in the light of developing situations.
This is the Dialectic between what the characters know or do not know, and what the audience
knows that the characters may not know.6
This is also known as the subtext and arises from the dialectical interplay between the situation,
as it has developed from the chain of previous situations. and the words that are spoken. Thus the
underlying unspoken thoughts and emotions of the characters – the subtext – ultimately, ‗emerge
for the attentive and perceptive spectator who has often instinctively mastered the art of decoding
such a subtle interplay of signs‘.7
In drama the meaning of the words derives ultimately from the situation from which they spring. So
a drama can be seen as a sequence, a continuum of situations.
In performance a dramatic text exists and unfolds in time as well as space, within each of its basic
structural elements which can be broken down into scenes, acts, and sequences.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Ingarden, R. in Esslin Martin (1987) The Field of Drama, Methuen. P. 80.
Austin & Searle in Esslin, p. 81.
Esslin, ibid, p.82
Esslin, ibid, p.83.
Esslin ibid,
Esslin ibid, p.85
Esslin ibid, p.86.
Evans & Hall, University of Plymouth
What is a Play? - Page 2
When Boyle met Pepys
Restoration Comedy
Restoration Comedy
Restoration comedy is the name given to a type of play written
and performed after the restoration of the English Monarchy in
1600. All public performances had been banned for the
previous 18 years under the puritan regime of the
Commonwealth so the period after the restoration saw the
rebirth of English theatre. The restored monarch, Charles II,
was famous for the lax morals of his court and had many
mistresses (among them the actress Nell Gwynne) who bore
him at least 14 illegitimate children, so it is hardly a surprise
that restoration comedies were famous for their sexual nature.
A famous playwrite of the era was Aphra Behn (Plate 5, 16401689), regarded as the first professional female writer, her
most famous work being Oroonoko (1688), based on
experiences she had in the Dutch West Indies. The period saw
the introduction of the first professional women actors
(previously female roles had been played by boys) a
development which presumably lent credibility to the
production of the risqué performances.
Plate 5 Portrait of Aphra
Behn aged 30 by Mary
Beale.
The Country Wife is a Restoration comedy written in 1675 by William Wycherley, about the exploits
of Harry Horner, a rake who puts it about that he is impotent, thereby gaining the confidence of
numerous aristocratic ladies whom he then seduces.
Playsheet 1 is the famous ―china scene‖ which contains a sustained double entendre dialogue
between Horner, Lady Fidget and Mrs Squeamish where they purportedly discuss Horner‘s china
collection which they have been viewing in his lodging room off-stage. Lady Fidget‘s husband and
Lady Squeamish, the grandmother of Mrs. Squeamish, listen front stage oblivious to the double
meaning.
Read the extract and look for the subtext. This might include the sexual double-talk and the use of
asides between characters or directly to the audience; these were common devices used in
restoration comedies.
Perform the scene in front of the class.
Playsheet 2 is the same scene except that this time Directors instructions have been included [in
square brackets]. This forms part of the Nebentext.
Perform the play again, this time paying full attention to the Directors instructions.
How much better does it come across now?
Check out excerpts from a production of The Country Wife on YouTube:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YsKQN32kLFM
Evans & Hall, University of Plymouth
Restoration Comedy - Page 1
When Boyle met Pepys
Evans & Hall, University of Plymouth
Restoration Comedy
Restoration Comedy - Page 2
When Boyle met Pepys
Playsheet 1
Playsheet 1
ACT IV, SCENE III.—HORNER‘S Lodging
Re-enter Mrs. Squeamish.
Mrs. Squeam. I can‘t find ‘em.—Oh, are you here, grandmother? I followed, you must know,
my Lady Fidget hither; ‘tis the prettiest lodging, and I have been staring on the prettiest
pictures—
Re-enter Lady Fidget with a piece of china in her hand, and Horner following.
Lady Fid. And I have been toiling and moiling for the prettiest piece of china, my dear.
Horn. Nay, she has been too hard for me, do what I could.
Mrs. Squeam. Oh, lord, I‘ll have some china too. Good Mr. Horner, don‘t think to give other
people china, and me none; come in with me too.
Horn. Upon my honour, I have none left now.
Mrs. Squeam. Nay, nay, I have known you deny your china before now, but you shan‘t put
me off so. Come.
Horn. This lady had the last there.
Lady Fid. Yes indeed, madam, to my certain knowledge, he has no more left.
Mrs. Squeam. O, but it may be he may have some you could not find.
Lady Fid. What, d‘ye think if he had had any left, I would not have had it too? for we women
of quality never think we have china enough.
Horn. Do not take it ill, I cannot make china for you all, but I will have a roll-waggon for you
too, another time.
Mrs. Squeam. Thank you, dear toad.
Lady Fid. [Aside to Horner] What do you mean by that promise?
Horn. [Aside to Lady Fidget] Alas, she has an innocent, literal understanding.
Lady Squeam. Poor Mr. Horner! he has enough to do to please you all, I see.
Horn. Ay, madam, you see how they use me.
Lady Squeam. Poor gentleman, I pity you.
Horn. I thank you, madam: I could never find pity, but from such reverend ladies as you are;
the young ones will never spare a man.
Mrs. Squeam. Come, come, beast, and go dine with us; for we shall want a man at ombre
after dinner.
Horn. That‘s all their use of me, madam, you see.
Evans & Hall, University of Plymouth
Playsheet 1 - Page 1
When Boyle met Pepys
Evans & Hall, University of Plymouth
Playsheet 1
Playsheet 1 - Page 2
When Boyle met Pepys
Playsheet 2
Playsheet 2
ACT IV, SCENE III.—HORNER‘S Lodging
[Don’t forget to include the reactions of Lady Fid’s husband and Mrs. Squeam’s grandmother
as they listen downstage, oblivious of the real context of the scene]
Re-enter Mrs. Squeamish.
[She looks out to audience and smoothes her hands slowly down her waist to her hips]
Mrs. Squeam. I can‘t find ‘em.—Oh, are you here, grandmother? I followed, you must know,
my Lady Fidget hither; ‘tis the prettiest lodging, and I have been staring on the prettiest
pictures—
Re-enter Lady Fidget with a piece of china in her hand, and Horner following.
[Lady Fid. and Horn. simultaneously fondle the piece of china]
Lady Fid. And I have been toiling and moiling for the prettiest piece of china, my dear.
Horn. Nay, she has been too hard for me, do what I could.
[Coquettishly takes the china from them and holds it high above her head]
Mrs. Squeam. Oh, lord, I‘ll have some china too. Good Mr. Horner, don‘t think to give other
people china, and me none; come in with me too.
[Horn. tries to reach for the china, his attempts to retrieve it are intentionally lame]
Horn. Upon my honour, I have none left now.
[She tantalises Horn. with the china, they play a cat and mouse game with it]
Mrs. Squeam. Nay, nay, I have known you deny your china before now, but you shan‘t put
me off so. Come.
[Horn. gives up, in mock weariness he addresses this to the audience, then in an
exaggerated manner, flops on a chair]
Horn. This lady had the last there.
[As she addresses this to the audience she does a mock limp hand gesture]
Lady Fid. Yes indeed, madam, to my certain knowledge, he has no more left.
[She crosses to Horn in a predatory way, handing Lady Fid. the china as she passes]
Mrs. Squeam. O, but it may be he may have some you could not find.
Evans & Hall, University of Plymouth
Playsheet 2 - Page 1
When Boyle met Pepys
Playsheet 2
[Admiring the shape of the china and follows her across to Horn.]
Lady Fid. What, d‘ye think if he had had any left, I would not have had it too? for we women
of quality never think we have china enough.
[Mrs. Squeam. Does a mock suggestive search of Horn as he sits on the chair]
Horn. Do not take it ill, I cannot make china for you all, but I will have a roll-waggon for you
too, another time.
[Lady Fid. joins Mrs. Squeam, give him back the china, they are standing either side of him]
Mrs. Squeam. Thank you, dear toad.
[They continue to ruffle him up and tussle with him whilst at the same time competing for his
attention]
Lady Fid. [Aside to Horner] What do you mean by that promise?
Horn. [Aside to Lady Fidget] Alas, she has an innocent, literal understanding.
Lady Squeam. Poor Mr. Horner! he has enough to do to please you all, I see.
[He becomes increasingly dishevelled at their hand])
Horn. Ay, madam, you see how they use me.
Lady Squeam. Poor gentleman, I pity you.
Horn. I thank you, madam: I could never find pity, but from such reverend ladies as you are;
the young ones will never spare a man.
[They stand him up and tidy him up, then standing either side begin to lead him off]
Mrs. Squeam. Come, come, beast, and go dine with us; for we shall want a man at ombre
after dinner.
[Directed to audience as he is led out]
Horn. That‘s all their use of me, madam, you see.
Evans & Hall, University of Plymouth
Playsheet 2 - Page 2
When Boyle met Pepys
Writing Workshop
Writing Workshop
The following exercises are designed to give you an opportunity to begin writing for two characters,
these strategies can then be applied more specifically to the characters of Boyle and Pepys.
1. Non-stop writing
Select one of the objects below (these might have come from Boyle‘s Laboratory or Pepys‘ Office),
then, without stopping, write about it for 8 minutes. It is important that you continue writing for this
length of time in order to let the writing take shape. Don‘t censor yourself, just keep writing!
Thermometer
Vacuum pump
Glass J-tube
Quill
Diary
Bladder stone
2. Improvisation
Think of a story involving Boyle and Pepys and the object you have chosen. Think of the START
and the END and write them down. Now stand up and improvise dialogue for the middle part of the
story. If you have ever seen the TV programme Who’s Line is it Anyway you will be familiar with
this!
3. Starting points for two characters:
Look back over your piece of writing and improvisation and consider how to develop the two
characters involved in this ‗story‘. How might your begin the dialogue? One way could be to ask a
question, related to the object, which draws on some element you covered in the non-stop writing.
When you have decided what your first line is going to be try to ensure that the characters move
through an ‗emotional journey‘. So the characters begin in one emotional tone but this shifts
through the scene. For example, the sentiment at the beginning could be one of irritation but ends
up apologetically, or one of hostility developing into one of understanding. Be aware of the
emotional context of the exchange between the two characters. What does it indicate about the
situation, what does is signify about them?
4. The Nebentext
Now begin to think of the ‗nebentext‘ of your exchange. What would the stage directions be, would
there be any sound or lighting effects. What is the importance of gesture or facial expression in the
piece? What do the pauses in the exchange signify?
5. Boyle and Pepys
Apply the above techniques and write a narrative which has Boyle attempt to explain his
hypothesis. Use objects from exercise 1 as props. Do this in the style of a Restoration comedy to
include a comic tension based on what you know about the characters of the two men. You can
include other characters. It should be about 5 minutes long.
6. When Boyle met Pepys: A Play
Perform your play
Evans & Hall, University of Plymouth
Writing Workshop - Page 1