Castlemaine, for instance, or even thenQueen, Catherine of Braganza, werenthe objects of Pepys’ cerebral lust, issuingnsometimes in dreams of ecstasy.nRobert Latham, the editor of The IllustratednPepys, says that its author showsn”a sort of innocence, a love of truth forntruth’s sake.” That seems true enough,nbut the complexities perceived by Ollardnare also there. They seem to be related,none would guess, to the autobiographicalnliterature of the Puritan movement,nwhich stressed the exercise of consciencenand of constant self-evaluation. We getnthe tone even in the fragments of anothernfamous diary, that of Jimmy Gatz, whonlater became Jay Gatsby.nThe Samuel Pepys that one reads—ornreads about—^is liable to be different fromnone critic to another. He is certainly differentnfrom one passage of his own textnto another. The Illustrated Pepys, in itsnintroduction, views his outstandingncharacteristic as a “genius for happiness”nbut notes that is sometimes overwhelmednby a passionate sense of his own capacitynfor perjury, and a deep sense of worthlessness.nHe will invoke the pleasuresnand peculiarities of sex and within momentsnwrite, “I do by the grace of Godnpromise never to offend her more, andndid this night begin to pray to God uponnmy knees alone in my chamber; whichnGod knows I caimot yet do heartily…”nHe sounds very much like Boswell, whosenlife also was a checkerboard of pleasurenand guilt.nThere is, incidentally, a first-rate studynof both Pepys and Boswell in the contextnof Enlightenment sexual practices.nThat is in Lawrence Stone’s authoritativenThe Family, Sex and Marriage innEngland 1500-1800. Stone comes downnheavily on both, and judges Pepys tonhave been an exceptionally virile fantastnand voyeur. I would tend to be morensympathetic, but Stone’s chapter goesnover the evidence and concludes thatnPepys had contact with about 50 womennin the nine years of his diary, and thatnnearly all his contacts betrayed somenkind of selfish and prudential consideration—^notnto speak of the extraordinarynprolongation of sexual play, which oftennconstituted the whole of his contact. Innote that Stone adds that such behaviornwas either expected or often acceptablenat the time.n1 he Illustrated Pepys shouldbe readnfor its own pleasure, but to make morensense of it I strongly recommend thenOllard biography previously cited, thenStone history of sexual practices of thenage, and the Caedmon recording of passagesnfrom the Diary by Ian Richardson.nThe last provides a new insight into thentext, as Richardson’s wonderfully selfconcernednand self-satisfied voice is deployednabout Pepys’s deep interest innmoney, success, wine, food, and drama. InSemiotics, Sex, SuspicionnKaja Silverman: The Subject of Semiotics;nOxford University Press; NewnYork.nJacques Lacan and the ecolejreudienne:nFeminine Sexuality; W. W.nNorton; New York.nby Gary S. Vasilashn1 he Subject of Semiotics, given thengenerally accepted meaning of the wordsnand the conventional form of the title,nwould seem to be a book about semiotics,nbut to use a well-garbled tag: Thingsnare not what they seem. The book isnabout semiotics and is not about semiotics,na contradictory condition that shouldnarouse no deep concern among thosenfor whom an escape from meaning andncertainty is an ideal to be sought. KajanSilverman admits from the start that hersnis not a book in the tradition of thosenwhich have a similar encompassing titlenand which then provide an overview ofnthe object of the preposition; she explainsnthat her book should be “viewednMr. Vasilash is associate editor ofnChronicles of Culture.nnnnote that there is even a separate booknculled from the Diary on the last. It isncalled Pepys on the Restoration Stagenand has been around since 1916. Therenis an irresistible passage in this booknwhich has not been included in ThenIllustrated Pepys:nSeptember29,1668. Then to the King’snTheatre, where we saw ‘MidsummernNight’s Dream,’ which I had never seennbefore, nor shall ever again, for it is thenmost insipid ridiculous play that ever 1nsaw in my Ufe. I saw, I confess, somengood dancing and some handsomenwomen, which was all my pleasure.nIt is worth the price of the cassette to hearnRichardson reading this. Dnas a supplementary and explanatory textnrather than as one that precedes thenreading of any primary semiotic materials.”nThe fact that she uses the wordnviewed rather than read is a telling one,nas reading in any standard or expectednsense is of less importance than is takingna pseudoscientific approach to and attitudentoward written materials; films,non the contrary, are not to be viewednbut exist to be read. The French frontline,nwho are essentially responsible fornsuch twisted stances, have gastronomicnbrethren who maintain that food is, firstnand foremost, to be viewed; matters ofnthe palate are secondary—^at best. Onenday we may be asked to smell books andnto touch celluloid; then the medium willntruly be the message.nFerdinand de Saussure, the putativenfather of the whole thing, defined semiologynin his Course in General Linguisticsn(published in 1916, three years afternhis death) as “a science that studies thenlife of signs within society Semiologynwould show what constitutes signs, whatnlaws govern them.” Saussure’s use oisciencenis a sign that legitimatizes semioticsnmore than, say, “an approach to the lifenof signs…” or “a theory about the life ofnMarch 1984n