PREFACE

Previous
separator

The manuscript in which Phineas Pett has recorded the story of his life from his birth in 1570 to the end of September 1638, consisted originally of sixty-nine uniform quarto sheets, of which the 52nd is now lost, together with the bottom of the 14th. The handwriting is that of Phineas throughout, but marginal references on the first few pages and a note at the end—'The life of Commissioner Pett's father whose place he did enjoy'—have been added subsequently by Samuel Pepys, no doubt when he was making the transcript referred to below.

The first paragraph is written on a separate sheet, which, unlike the rest, has no writing on the back, and is followed by a series of subtraction sums of the form 1612 1570 42 giving the age of Phineas for each year from 1612 to 1640. From the differences apparent in the figures and ink it is clear that these calculations were made year by year from the time that Phineas was forty-two until he reached the age of seventy.

A close inspection of the internal construction, the handwriting, and of the ink used, leads to the conclusion that the body of the manuscript, in the form in which it has descended to us, was written up, not at short intervals, but in sections at comparatively long intervals of time. The first and largest of these, written apparently in 1612, narrates the events down to September 1610, and stops at the word 'ordered' on line 15 of page 80 below. The remainder[1] of that paragraph continues on a fresh sheet in a smaller handwriting and different ink, and from that point the ample margin of the earlier pages is abandoned and a small one ruled off with lead pencil. The top line of this page is also ruled, and from this page to the end of the writing the use of these pencil lines persists. The next break is in July 1611 (page 92), where Pett reiterates the statement that he was sent for by Prince Henry. Another break in the writing seems to occur in September 1613; and a very perceptible one, with change of ink, occurs in 1625 at 'All April' (page 134). The final section, as indicated by a further change of ink, begins in February 1631: 'The 23rd of February' (page 146). The various anachronisms observable in the text show that these sections were written up some considerable time after the events occurred. Thus, the references to 'Sir' John Pennington in 1627 and 1628 make it clear that the events of those years were not written up before 1634.

From the great accuracy of the dates given (which have been frequently tested from contemporary sources), it is clear that Phineas kept a diary in which events were recorded as they occurred, and from which the narrative was compiled. He appears to have commenced this diary on going to Chatham in June 1600, when precise dates begin to replace the vague 'about,' 'toward the end,' &c., of the earlier paragraphs.

The narrative stops abruptly in 1638, apparently with the sentence unfinished, for there is no mark of punctuation after the last word. In 1640, when the final section seems to have been written, Pett was an old man, and it is probable that, having been interrupted at this point, the fast-gathering troubles of the State diverted his mind from the subject, or left him without sufficient energy or leisure to pursue it.

It will be noticed that towards the end the composition becomes more slovenly and the omission of words more frequent, as though the task had become burdensome and the author anxious to have done with it.

Pepys copied the whole of the manuscript into the first volume of his Miscellany with the following preface:

'A Journal of Phineas Pett, Esquire, Commissioner of the Navy and father to Peter Pett, late Commissioner of the same at Chatham, viz: from his birth Ao 1570 to the arrival of the Royal Sovereign, by him then newly built, at her moorings at Chatham; transcribed from the original written all with his own hand and lent me to that purpose by his grandson Mr. Phineas, son to Captain Phineas Pett.'

The manuscript afterwards came into the possession of George Jackson, who was Secretary of the Navy Board in 1758 and Second Secretary of the Admiralty from 1766 to 1782. Sir George Duckett (he had changed his surname in 1797) died in 1822, and ten years later his library, including a very valuable collection of naval manuscripts, was sold by auction. Fortunately the manuscripts were purchased by the British Museum after being bought in at the sale; the volume (No. IV) in which this manuscript was contained becoming Additional MS. 9298. A commonplace book (Additional MS. 9295) containing, among copies of various naval documents, an abbreviated version was purchased at the same time.

The copy of the autobiography most generally known is the early eighteenth-century transcript in the Harleian Collection (Harl. 6279). It is to this copy that writers usually refer, possibly because it is mentioned in the paper[2] published in ArchÆologia in 1796, although the garbled extracts there given are stated to have been taken 'from another copy' and seem, in fact, to have been taken from the original.[3] A further reason for the preference generally shown for the Harleian copy may be its more modern and more clerkly handwriting.

The Harleian transcript is not a good one. It contains few omissions, none of great importance, but mistranscriptions of individual words are very numerous and have reduced the text to nonsense in several places.[4] It may seem strange that writers should be content to quote passages that were evidently incorrect, without looking at another copy, which was easily to be found; but whatever the reason may be, the fact is that hitherto the original has remained unidentified as such.

The best transcript is that made by Pepys; but even he had difficulty in deciphering some of the words, although the handwriting of Pett is, on the whole, very clear and consistent.

In preparing this edition, the Pepysian and Harleian copies have been collated and the missing parts of the original made good by this means; but as the numerous inversions of form and mistakes of reading in these copies have no general interest—and are of no authority in presence of the original—there is no need to specify them in detail.

Considerable licence has been taken with the punctuation of the sentences, which is entirely without system in the original, and the spelling has been modernised in accordance with the rule of the Society, but the composition has been left otherwise untouched. Where some word is necessary to complete the sense it has been added in square brackets [], and the parts now missing from the original, which have been supplied from the transcripts, have been printed in italics. The legal year in England, prior to 1752, did not commence until the 25th March, and Pett usually gives his dates by this reckoning, but in one or two instances he writes as though the year had begun on 1st January and ended on 31st December. To avoid misunderstanding, it may be stated that the dates in the Introduction, headings, and notes are given according to the Julian year, commencing on 1st January.

Pett invariably wrote and signed 'Phinees' but it has been thought better to adhere to the spelling 'Phineas,' which appears from time to time in documents from 1605 onwards and has been universally adopted by modern writers.

In the Introduction an attempt has been made: first, to trace the rise of the Master Shipwright as an official of the Crown and to consider his relation to the profession of shipwrights generally; secondly, to trace the origin of the Pett family and its ramifications down to the date of Phineas' death; thirdly, to throw additional light on the events narrated in the manuscript from such original sources as are accessible. In asking the indulgence of the reader towards the evident shortcomings of this attempt, the Editor would plead that most of the work has had to be carried out under great difficulties in scanty moments of leisure. Despite the generous assistance of Mr. Vincent Redstone of Woodbridge, whose extensive knowledge of Suffolk genealogy has been brought to bear on the problem, it has not been found possible to trace the Pett family to its original location, but it is hoped that sufficient has been done to render this task more easy to some future investigator.

In conclusion the Editor has to thank many friends for the help readily given, more especially Dr. Tanner, who has read the proofs and given the Introduction the benefit of his criticism, and Mr. G. E. Manwaring, of the London Library, who has rendered invaluable help in clearing up many obscure points, and he is indebted to Mrs Scott for the loan of the MS. treatise on shipbuilding referred to in the Introduction. The Editor has also had the great advantage of discussing with Mr. L. G. Carr Laughton the technical questions raised in connexion with the Prince Royal and the Sovereign of the Seas.

December 1918.

W. G. P.

FOOTNOTES:

[1] Probably rewritten when the narrative was taken up again.

[2] By the Rev. S. Denne, ArchÆologia xii. p. 217.

[3] The words 'and ourselves to sit with the Officers' (page 144), not in the Harleian copy, are in the printed version.

[4] E.g. 'Articles' for 'Arches,' p. 14; 'enemy' for 'injury,' p. 26; 'tarried' for 'arrived,' p. 25; 'Frank Moore' for 'Tranckmore,' p. 33; 'perceived' for 'protested,' p. 61; 'care' for 'ease,' p. 104; 'Warwick,' for 'Woolwich' p. 142, &c., &c.

ornate section header
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                           

Clyx.com


Top of Page
Top of Page