Advertisement

Conclusion

  • James Daybell
Part of the Early Modern Literature in History book series (EMLH)

Abstract

Material readings are central to a full understanding of the early modern letter, and represent a mode of analysis that complements traditional historical and literary approaches, as well as more recent linguistic and gender-based analyses. The physical characteristics of manuscript letters in addition to rhetorical and stylistic features imparted social meaning, nuances in which were readily understood by contemporaries familiar with epistolary cultures.

Keywords

Material Letter Stylistic Feature Literary Approach Spiritual Counselling High Social Standing 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Notes

  1. 4.
    See also, Christopher Burlinson and Andrew Zurcher (2005) ‘“Secretary to the Lord Grey Lord Deputie here”: Edmund Spenser’s Irish Papers’, The Library, 6/1, 30–75 (p.59).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 7.
    Charles Hughes (1905) ‘Nicholas Faunt’s Discourse Touching the Office of the Principal Secretary of Estate, & c. 1592’, EHR, 20, 499–508 (pp.501-2, 503–4). Bodl., Tanner MS, 80, fols91-4.Google Scholar
  3. 9.
    Alan Stewart (2008) Shakespeare’s Letters (Oxford: OUP), pp.165-72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 14.
    F.G. Emmison (1976) Elizabethan Life: Home, Work and Land: Erom Essex Wills and Session and Manorial Records (Chelmsford: Essex RO), pp.19-21.Google Scholar
  5. 33.
    Laetitia Yeandle and WR. Streitberger (1987) ‘The Loseley Collection of Manuscripts at the Folger Shakespeare Library, Washington, DC’, SQ, 38/2, 201–7 (p.204).Google Scholar
  6. 41.
    Peter Beal (1998) In Praise of Scribes: Manuscripts and their Makers in Seventeenth-Century England (Oxford: Clarendon Press), pp.269-73.Google Scholar
  7. 59.
    F.G. Emmison (1991) ‘Are Microfilms the Only Alternative to Production of Originals’, Archives, 19/86, 433.Google Scholar
  8. 60.
    Alan Howell (2001) ‘Preserving Information in a Digital Age: What’s the Difference?’, The Paper Conservator, 25, 133–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© James Daybell 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • James Daybell
    • 1
  1. 1.Plymouth UniversityUSA

Personalised recommendations