Interpreting Materiality and Social Signs
- 168 Downloads
While the previous two chapters were concerned with materials, tools and technologies of letter-writing, this chapter concentrates on investigating the meanings attached to distinct physical characteristics and attributes of letters, paying particular attention to the social signs, codes and cues inscribed materially within the form. Several scholars including A.R. Braunmuller and Jonathan Gibson among others have drawn attention to the material meanings of early modern English letters, especially as they relate to the problems of editing. Building on this initial work the present chapter, which is based on the examination of well over 10,000 manuscript letters, offers a detailed examination of the social significance of a complex range of physical aspects of early modern correspondence.1 It considers a broad cross-section of letter-writers from elite and non-elite backgrounds, mercantile and professional groups, men as well as women, and by writers of different generations, children as well as adults. In addition it analyses varying types or categories of letters, including formal petitions, official correspondence, love letters, letters of condolence, familiar or private letters. It thus broadly examines how the physical forms of the English letter changed over the period, considering the impact of social status and gender and codes of deference and humility, as well as the form, function and material conditions of writing.
KeywordsSeventeenth Century Social Sign Blank Space Material Letter Hand Corner
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
- 6.Joan Simon (1966) Education and Society in Tudor England (Cambridge: CUP), p.353.Google Scholar
- 17.Gary R. Grund (1975) ‘From Formulary to Fiction: The Epistle and the English Anti-Ciceronian Movement’, Texas Studies in Literature and Language, 17/2, 379–95 (pp.381-4).Google Scholar
- 23.Nicholas Orme (2001) Medieval Children (New Haven and London: Yale UP), p.338.Google Scholar
- 43.This echoes Walter J. Ong (1986) ‘Writing is a Technology that Restructures Thought’, in Gerd Baumann (ed.) The Written Word: Literacy in Transition, Wolfson College Lectures 1985 (Oxford: Clarendon Press), pp.23-50.Google Scholar
- 59.Jonathan Gibson (2000) ‘Letters’ in Michael Hattaway (ed.) A Companion to English Renaissance Literature and Culture (Oxford: Blackwell), pp.615-19.Google Scholar
- 66.Henderson (1993) ‘On Reading the Rhetoric of the Renaissance Letter’, in Heinrich F. Plett (ed.) Renaissance-Rhetorik/Renaissance Rhetoric (Berlin: Walter de Gruyter), pp.143-62 (pp.149; 151).Google Scholar
- 68.Ralph A. Houlbrooke (1984) The English Family, 1450–1700 (Harlow: Longman), pp.32-3.Google Scholar
- 72.Elbert N.S. Thompson (1924) ‘Familiar Letters’, in Literary Bypaths of the Renaissance (New Haven: Yale UP), pp.91-126.Google Scholar
- 85.Dorothy Gardiner (1929) English Girlhood at School: A Study of Women’s Education Through Twelve Centuries (Oxford: OUP), p.63.Google Scholar
- 122.Heather Hirshfield (2001) ‘Early Modern Collaboration and Theories of Authorship’, PMLA, 116/3, 609–22.Google Scholar