p. 130
journal//littérature :
« [...] the
diarists of the Restoration [...] did not need to worry about grating anyone's
ears. John Evelyn (1620-1706) and Samuel Pepys (1632-1704) wrote for themselves
alone, keeping minute accounts of their daily transactions, recording history
in terms of its immediate impact on their own personalities. Pepys, in
particuliar, is fascinating. He kept his diary in code which was not deciphered
till 1825 ; in that year, a historical personage who had appeared previously
only as a grade civil servant and President of the Royal Society, suddenly
sprang into life as a human being : every intimate detail of his life was revealed,
and the events of the years 1660-1669 shown fresh and living as never before.
Pepys provides us with a door leading straight into the Restoration – all
its personalities emerge, its political problems, its customs, its very smell.
Pepys' Diary is not literature, but it makes the same sort of impact as
literature – revelation of a personality, of the thought-processes
and tastes of an age, all with an astonishing sharpness.
»
De là, la question : un journal peut-il être ou est-il
de la littérature ? Selon Burgess, le journal de Pepys n'en est pas. Il a
raison, car l'acte ne consiste qu'à tenir un journal – quelles qu'en
puissent être les raisons. Pepys n'a pas d'intention, de vue littéraire. D'où
la réponse à la question : un journal peut être de la littérature s'il est tenu
avec cette intention. Les miens, par exemple
Je ne suis pas sûr de poursuivre la lecture de ce
texte...
7 août 2000