Abstract

Abstract Apart from literacy rates and reading and writing acquisition, the actual writing practices of the past, which include the phenomenon of delegated writing, belong to a history of literacy. Delegated writing occurred when illiterate or partly literate individuals wanted to keep in contact with relatives at a distance and had to rely on the assistance of professional or social scribes. The details of this process and the role played by the sender of a letter and its actual, usually unknown, scribe often remain unclear, although different scenarios may be assumed. Cultural historian Lyons explored scenarios for delegated writing in France, Italy and Spain in the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, focusing on the writing of ordinary people during the First World War and in the age of mass migration. For the Dutch language area, we have the opportunity to delve further back in time by exploring the late-seventeenth-century part of the Letters as Loot (LAL) corpus. This corpus previously allowed us to establish linguistic differences between autographs and non-autographs. For a detailed view of the delegated writing process, however, the LAL corpus also provides us with instances of two types of letters written by the same, identified, female scribes: their own letters and the letters they wrote for others. A comparative analysis of these different letters will be shown to contribute to opening the black box of Early Modern delegated writing.

Highlights

  • Apart from literacy rates and reading and writing acquisition, the actual writing practices of the past, which include the phenomenon of delegated writing, belong to a history of literacy

  • For a detailed view of the delegated writing process, the Letters as Loot (LAL) corpus provides us with instances of two types of letters written by the same, identified, female scribes: their own letters and the letters they wrote for others

  • Did the scribe complete a particular format, did the sender of a letter dictate the contents or did they collaborate in some way? The question may arise whether the delegated writing process differed depending on the assistance of either a professional scribe or a relative, friend or neighbour who functioned as a social writer.[1]

Read more

Summary

The phenomenon of delegated writing

Historical linguists and cultural historians share their research interest in the history of literacy, and this research focuses on literacy rates, reading and writing acquisition and their geographical and chronological differences. For the Dutch language area, I have the opportunity to delve further back in time by examining the late-seventeenth-century part of the Letters as Loot (LAL) corpus, compiled at Leiden University, which comprises private letters, sent by both men and women from various social ranks.[2]. The ultimate result was a division of the seventeenth-century part of the LAL corpus into autographs, nonautographs and, in cases where we had insufficient proof, into letters with an ‘unclear status’.6 This result allows us to concentrate on established seventeenthcentury non-autographs for our exploration of delegated writing and to compare them with established autographs

Quantitative research: formulae in autographs versus non-autographs
Qualitative research: zooming in on particular cases
A captain’s wife accumulating formulae
Susanna Jans writing for her mother-in-law
Josje Elias Verburg determines structure and phrasing
23 Dutch text
Fond of religious phrasing
Jaapje Koerten functioning twice as delegated writer
Two different cases
Writing for an illiterate friend
Writing for a literate friend
Discussion and conclusions
Findings
Discussion
Conclusions
Full Text
Published version (Free)

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call