Talk:Mary Toft

Rabbits

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)

It is also the reason, according to some magic history scholars like Dr. Abo, that magicians started to pull rabbits out of hats. If she could pull them out of there, magicians could pull them out of hats. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kazoo23 (talk • contribs) 00:50, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

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)

Toft or Tofts

Discussed before at Talk:Mary_Tofts#Name, I want to see what the opinion on this is. Just about all the early literature I have read on this subject uses 'Toft' instead of 'Tofts'. I don't think there is any longer a rationale for retaining the use of 'Tofts', and therefore want to move the article to 'Mary Toft'. Parrot of Doom (talk) 12:40, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

• Agree, retain a redirect at this page would be my recommendation. -- billinghurst (talk) 16:23, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Well providing that there is no further input, I'm going to move this tomorrow. Parrot of Doom (talk) 16:46, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Over-linking

Do "hoax", "rabbits", "newspapers" and "porter" really need to be linked? This seems a little excessive to me. Graham Colm ^Talk 10:44, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Maternal impression

Since, apart from the prurient exhiliration it arouses, this story is about maternal impression, I was surprised to have to work so far down into it before the old medieval idea was first introduced. I'd have edited it into the opening, but I know Wikipedia's august Featured Article vetting committee has passed the article for the Main Page. So there must be a reason for its omission.--Wetman (talk) 03:29, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

English variations

This article has both American English (skeptical) and British English (coloured) spelling. It should consistently use one or the other. 86.152.23.225 (talk) 06:45, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

That's because some people in this world don't understand there is a difference. These were recent changes today that I've reverted. Parrot of Doom 08:04, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Age- phrasing

"... between twenty-four and twenty-five" I don't like the way this is phrased. "twenty-four or twenty-five" OR "about twenty-five" OR "approximately twenty-five" would surely be better. I'd like to re-phrase this. Any thoughts? Tigerboy1966 (talk) 12:06, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Haha, someone beat me to it! Tigerboy1966 (talk) 12:09, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Puerperal fever?

This is a great article, but I'm curious how this played out in regard to the "childbed fever". This story dates to a period when the disease had become rampant, but long before it was understood. Did she have no fear of infection from all these procedures? How is it that she did manage to escape infection, despite the attentions of so many filthy-fingered surgeons?

Also, the current version states that she went into labor in September 1726 and delivered a daughter in February 1727, a feat to rival the other. This should be fixed - it would be interesting to know for sure that despite loose cat claws and all she still remained fertile. (But isn't it a pity that this did not lead to the invention of the intrauterine device?) Wnt (talk) 18:16, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Did she have no fear of infection from all these procedures? Seeing as how "infection" was unheard of prior to late 19th-century discoveries in germ theory, I'm guessing she had no cause to worry. The idea that physicians carried the infection from one patient to another was first theorized many years later, and was not verified until many years after that. As for the rampant nature of the disease, many women had numerous children without ever contracting puerperal fever, while some unfortunate few contracted the disease after only giving birth once. Puerperal fever has nothing to do with Toft, it would seem. María (habla conmigo) 19:02, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

I spotted the Feb 1727 thing earlier today but didn't have chance to look at it. I will re-investigate, I'm not sure if the year is incorrect, or if the source is incorrect. Leave it with me. Parrot of Doom 21:49, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

first section

The parenthetical addition weighs down what had been a completely entrancing first sentence:

"Mary Toft (née Denyer) (c. 1701–1763), also called Mary Tofts, was an English woman from Godalming, Surrey, who in 1726 became the subject of considerable controversy (and minor celebrity) when she tricked doctors into believing that she had given birth to rabbits."

"Controversy" implies some degree of public attention, celebrity, or notoriety, so the added phrase provides no useful information (and is elaborated sufficiently later), interrupts the sentence's "pay off," and is not reader-friendly. It's the kind of diddling and over-nicety to which Wiki editors are prone. Cynwolfe (talk) 20:28, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Your comment would be likely to carry more weight if it were delivered without the slighting comment about Wiki editors, to which pedantic prats like you seem all too prone. --Malleus Fatuorum 20:40, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Long S

The letter beginning with "Since I wrote to you" is written with long S, but it includes the word "Satisfaction". Is the presence of "s" instead of "ſ" in this word in the original? We either need to correct the text here or to insert a [sic]. Nyttend (talk) 21:40, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

The paragraph is a direct quote of the source, which is readily available to anyone by following the blue links. I note that some editors don't like the long s, but I see no harm in keeping it, indeed it somehow makes reading that section more authentic. Parrot of Doom 21:51, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

well known or simply famous?

Can't see the need for an edit war ovwr this, at the time the mass population would not even have heard of her, well known is more than plenty see is not even famous niw, actually she is nit even "well known" now. Govindaharihari (talk) 10:52, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Could you reformat your question in English please? Parrot of Doom 11:29, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Worthless attempts at childish insults won't make you right either. Govindaharihari (talk) 17:15, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

It was good enough for FAC so PoD's choice of words seems perfectly fine to me. J3Mrs (talk) 17:30, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

"well known is more than plenty see is not even famous niw" - I have absolutely no idea what this means. It's a simple enough request, rewrite it in English so I can understand it. If you can't then I'm sure someone else will be able to help, but if this is typical of your English then might I suggest that an English history article is not something you should be editing. Parrot of Doom 17:32, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

What a story?!

I just wanted to give compliments to all the writers of this article. It is a fascinating and disgusting story that I couldn't stop reading! A good job, well done, ツStacey (talk) 21:45, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

A useful source?

I came across this in Atlas Obscura and the piece contains some details that are not otherwise mentioned in the article. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 16:45, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

I did not realize when I wrote this comment that Atlas Obscura is not really considered a reliable source. Feel free to ignore the above comment. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 08:23, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

Born c.1701, or 1703?

Why the strange estimate for the birth year? According to the 2004 edition of the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography, Mary was baptized on 21 February 1703 in Godalming, not "circa 1701". See here for an online version of the article (requires a subscription). Renerpho (talk) 00:54, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

The estimate is for birth year rather than for baptism - ODNB doesn't specify a birth date (estimated or otherwise). Nikkimaria (talk) 04:35, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

@Nikkimaria: The death date comes from the date of her burial, and we don't say she died c.1763. Granted, waiting with a burial comes with complications that don't apply to baptisms, but a baptism at age 2 would still have been very unusual at the time. And there are articles like Godalming that at least make it c.1703, which looks much more sensible to me. Or do we have any evidence that she was baptized at age 2? Renerpho (talk) 03:50, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

Other sources support that she died in 1763, eg Seligman. However, with regards to birth date, most sources seem to say she was 25 in 1726, thus the c. 1701 birthdate rather than 1703. The simplest solution given the uncertainty might be to replace birth date with baptismal date, since that is documented? Nikkimaria (talk) 04:13, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

Yes, I think that's more appropriate. We can give the burial date as well. Renerpho (talk) 07:58, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

I changed the date in the infobox to c.1703. Most sources seem to say she was 25 in 1726 -- Yes, and that's perfectly consistent with her being born in 1703. Age estimates from 18th century documents are approximate at best. Renerpho (talk) 00:03, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

@Nikkimaria: She died in 1763, and her obituary ran in London newspapers alongside those of aristocrats. -- I was able to check two of the three references for this (Cody and Bondeson). Neither of them say she died in 1763, just that her obituaries appeared in 1763. With a burial date of 13 January 1763, can we just assume that she died some time in January, without any of the sources actually saying so? Renerpho (talk) 06:47, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

The obituary referenced is dated 21 January 1763 and states she died "last week" - no exact date but that would still be January 1763. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:30, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

Okay! Renerpho (talk) 01:03, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

Removal of legacy section

@Nikkimaria: I understand why you removed the unsourced second sentence but why did you remove the first one? [5] It's fairly common for articles to include such sections. Is there some random page I'm not aware of that prohibits them? Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 08:22, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

I've double checked the source and the sentence added by the other editor is actually supported by it, they just didn't format the old ref to be after it. I don't think it's necessary to include information on the publisher but I see no need to remove the content wholesale. The novel appears to be notable in its own right under WP:NBOOK. [6][7][8] I don't understand the argument that this is not significant. It seems like a disservice to readers to not mention that. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 08:35, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

I'd also get rid of the "inspired" language because the sources don't verify that part of it. I'd say something like: In 2020, a book by Karen Harvey entitled The Imposteress Rabbit Breeder: Mary Toft and Eighteenth-Century England was published. In 2024, a novel by Noémi Kiss-Deáki also featured Toft. I'm open to different phrasing but I do think there should be something here. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 08:45, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

Hi Clovermoss, the issue is not whether the books are notable themselves, but whether they are significant to understanding the subject of this article - see the discussion in this RfC. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:11, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

I wasn't thinking this was comparable to an "in popular section" so I suppose I understand your rationale a bit better. However, I still disagree. Even that closing argument says that secondary sources are required, not that content about a subject's broader legacy can't be covered. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 01:19, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

I certainly won't argue that legacy material can never be included. But I don't think that a review of a book demonstrates the significance of the book to an article about its topic. Is there other sourcing available that would? Nikkimaria (talk) 01:27, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

We obviously disagree on when something is significant enough. I'll list our dispute at WP:30 to get another opinion. I find outside perspectives tend to be helpful. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 01:44, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

3O Response: I tend to agree with Nikkimaria that this shouldn't get its own section. First, it's a stub section, which isn't suitable for an FA article. Second, a book being published on a notable topic doesn't warrant discussion in an article on the topic. I think it's undue to single out sources in that way and that the book is not significant vis-à-vis the topic. Third, since the book meets NBOOK, it can get its own article, be used as a source in this one, and then wikilinked from the reference. voorts (talk/contributions) 01:57, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

@Voorts: I don't think it can be used as a source here, especially given the one book is a fictional novel. Otherwise I'd just put it in further reading. It is a fairly short section but it could be fleshed out a bit. More than two sentences could be written, that's just the barebones. If you scroll up you see content about satirical publications in Toft's day so I don't think this is all that out there. I think that could easily be combined into a broader legacy section. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 03:26, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

If it's a broader legay section, then that would be fine. This book doesn't appear to be fictional. voorts (talk/contributions) 03:33, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

@Voorts: Yes, I was talking solely about the second book when it came to the novel. The first one could be placed in further reading. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 03:38, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

The further reading section is already fairly long, and as an FA, this should summarize the most recent—and apparently most comprehensive—scholarship on this issue. The fact that the Harvey book isn't already cited in the article gives me pause as to whether this should still be FA. voorts (talk/contributions) 03:46, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

I'm not sure what should be done from an FA standpoint as that isn't really my area of expertise. I will say that I'm sure Nikkimaria has worked very hard on this article. If she doesn't have access to the book, I could try to see if one of my local libraries does. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 04:04, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, but most of the work here was done by Parrot of Doom, who is now largely inactive. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:06, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

Oh, okay then. What do you think of my latest attempt to add content? I'm open to constructive feedback. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 04:07, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

I'd suggest making Legacy a level-3 heading, and removing the bit about being favourably reviewed; otherwise I think this is workable. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:15, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

I'm fine with those changes if you wish to implement them. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 04:16, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

I do think it should be mentioned tbh, at the very least in a further reading section but honestly probably should be more utilised throughout this article. Karen Harvey was one of the first scholars on the subject to actually examine and extensively make use of Mary Toft’s testimony, and her work has raised a number of questions about the case and what it reveals about different social aspects of the period (especially in regards to family dynamics and female sexual assault). Vetiveronline (talk) 19:53, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

I just cited a different Karen Harvey article on the matter from 2015 in a minor content edit, so now there is mention of Harvey in the article itself. Vetiveronline (talk) 20:24, 17 November 2024 (UTC)