Talk:Mary Tofts

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	Paranormal Portal This article falls under the scope of WikiProject Paranormal, which aims to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to the paranormal and related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the attached article, help with current tasks, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and discussions.
Start	This article has been rated as start-Class on the quality scale.

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.	Biography Portal
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's quality scale. [FAQ] Please rate the article and, if you wish, leave comments here regarding your assessment or the strengths and weaknesses of the article.

Is it known how Manningham explained her parturition of rabbit corpses? JFW | T@lk 09:22, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Another source is here. Carcharoth 11:55, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Name

This was moved from Mary Toft but "Toft" not "Tofts" is her name according to everything I've read on the topic and the move seems to have been done without discussion here. I can't see any reason why we shouldn't request that it is moved back but I'll leave this open for a bit before getting the ball rolling. (Emperor 18:08, 6 October 2007 (UTC))

I didn't move the article, but it seems to me that it doesn't matter which version of her name we use, since she has been called both (510 Googlebooks hits for Mary Tofts, 535 for Mary Toft). Jenny Uglow, to whose book the article is largely referenced, calls her Mary Tofts, with an s, and so I doubt a request for a move would cut much ice. Uglow is an excellent scholar: I assume she has a good reason for looking further than the contemporary pamphlets. qp10qp 19:38, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

I can't comment on Uglow's scholarship but the contemporary sources (as listed here) give her as Toft and this Powerpoint Presenation gives reproductions of the chief publications (which say Toft) [1]. These various early reports were collected into a volume "Tracts Related to Mary Toft."

Jan Bondeson's A Cabinet of Medical Curiosities devotes a chapter to this and nowhere gives her surname as "Tofts" despite his excellent scholarship and Pickover uses "Toft." [2]. The Surrey Wonder another satirical take on this uses Toft in his book on this [3] and as does Hogarth's Cunicularii (the version as held in the British Museum) and "The Doctor's Labour" an illustrated poem from the same year - 1726. "Three Characters in Hogarth's Cunicularii and Some Implications" from the journal Eighteenth-Century Studies says Toft [4].

So everything I found while looking up details about this all say "Toft" and I've known about this case for years always referring to "Toft" and nothing I've found contradicts this. I suppose it is possible that all the contemporary reports were wrong (despite the close scrutiny - Shakespeare after all spelt his name different ways) as were subsequent scholars but if so "Mary Toft" is the most commonly used name and if she was in fact called "Mary Tofts" then this needs explaining and referencing as it is notable and worthy of comment in and of itself.

The bottom line is that this shouldn't have been moved in the first place (and any move would need discussion) and referring to her as Mary Tofts is something that would require further explanation. (Emperor 21:28, 6 October 2007 (UTC))

One could proabably make a list of books that call her Tofts. I was doing so when I came across the following book, which calls her "Tofts", on Google Books: A Polite and Commercial People: England 1727-1783, by Paul Langford (1998). This stopped me in my tracks because Paul was my tutor at university. He is a fine scholar. I'm not saying that this proves to me that she was called Tofts; but I am saying that if some scholars call her Tofts, then it is OK for us to do so. One assumes that she may be called either and that there must be sources for both names.qp10qp 22:13, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

But that isn't about her (or devotes a large section to her) - like the Bondeson and Pickover books. It might be understandable if books that just mention her either get it wrong or use an uncommon version of her name. What I give above are things specifically about her not found by my looking for "Toft" but what I had to hand and things that cropped up when I was looking for information on the three contemporary sketches. As I say they all say "Toft" (most importantly following all the contemporary reports I found) - using "Tofts" requires some kind of explanation. No chance you can drop Paul Langford a line? There may be some reason for some people saying Tofts which would be worthy of mentioning here. (Emperor 22:26, 6 October 2007 (UTC))

I wasn't using that book as proof, as such. What I was saying is that Paul would not make a mistake on something like that. He is a total eighteenth-century specialist and would care even about details he mentions in passing. He would have thought carefully before he chose that version of the name. It went through my mind to phone him, but I haven't done so since I left the university, so I don't want to pester him over this. If you want to move the page, I won't object. But I really don't think it matters.qp10qp 22:50, 6 October 2007 (UTC)