Answer: My text, Milcah Martha Moore’s Book*, is not a published text. It is a commonplace book, a bound manuscript. As such, there is no publication history in the traditional sense. I have to rely on the research of others, namely Blecki and Wulf, and trust that their transcription of the original manuscript is correct. I will also have to look at the role commonplace books played in early American literature in order to understand its importance and place in expanding the canon of American women writers. Unpublished manuscripts are establishing themselves as viable alternatives to published texts, which in turn, enlarges the scope of women writers of the time. Ignoring these unpublished manuscripts (and letters, diaries, etc.) was the result of scholars ignoring the historical context that restricted or discouraged publishing works written by women in early America.
*I will refer to the text as MMMB for short throughout this project.
In fact, while I keep throwing the term commonplace book around, I don’t know the history or full meaning. So, let’s turn to the Penguin Dictionary of Literary Terms & Literary Theory for some illumination.
A notebook in which ideas, themes, quotations, words and phrases are jotted down. Almost every writer keeps some kind of commonplace book where he can put things in storage. In a properly organized one the matter would be grouped under subject headings. A famous example is Ben Jonson’s Timber: Or Discoveries (1640), which comprises a draft for a treatise on the art of writing and on types of literature, miniature essays, sententiae, pensées (qq.v.) and so forth. Two very agreeable modern examples are Maurice Baring’s Have You Anything to Declare? (1963), the work of an exceptionally civilized and well-read man, and John Julius Norwich’s Christmas Crackers (1980). (162)
Now, I know that a dictionary entry will not give a detailed history, but the complete lack of mention of the co-mingled history of women writers and the commonplace book is disappointing. The two modern examples are written by men, and I find it hard to believe that there isn’t a modern example authored by a woman worth mentioning. At the very least, mention one male author and one female author. Oh well.
Keeping in mind the historical context during which Moore lived, the commonplace book was a way for women to engage in the literary world without violating the public sphere of publishing. In the preface of the modern edition, Blecki and Wulf inform the reader, “[f]or these women, the handwritten manuscript, circulated among friends and family, was their preferred form of publication” (MMMB xii). The footnote for this line reads, “Wright and Griffitts did not seek publication for their poetry in print form, though both circulated their poetry freely among Quakers. A few of Griffitts’s poems were reprinted in colonial newspapers, probably without her permission…” (MMMB xii). If you’re like me, what stands out is “without her permission.” A woman, one would hope, could not get into trouble for the public publishing of her work if it was done without her permission. There were of course, women in early American literature who printed and published their works with purposeful intent – see Cathy N. Davidson’s Revolution and the Word, but these women seemed to be the exception, not the rule. By creating an unpublished book, Moore could operate within the standards of gender regulation concerning literacy and literature.
By reading the modern edition’s critical essays “Documenting Culture and Connection in the Revolutionary Era” by Wulf and “Manuscripts vs. Print culture, and the Development of Early American Literature” by Blecki, I feel confident in stating I expect to find brilliance within my text. I do fear bursting into tears while reading the poetry though, since a lot of it concerns the death of infants, children and other loved ones. Especially because I never know what will set off my urge to cry (commercials featuring puppies and kittens, though a cliché, will occasionally cause me to cry).
By all accounts Moore is an accomplished editor, carefully selecting and organizing the works presented in her commonplace book. As long as I keep in mind the specific context of the text (geographical location, class, religion, etc.), I expect to find a previously undiscovered, to me, view of America during the Revolutionary War. I have no preconceived notions regarding Moore and her political and religious views, or her taste in literature. I think this will help me keep an open mind when it comes to reading the text (which hopefully, I can start after class on Tuesday). And luckily for me, I don’t mind reading poetry, even if it is rhyming couplets.
I expect to find proof that the four women, Moore, Wright, Griffitts, and Fergusson, the main contributors, were engaged in cementing bonds of intimacy via their shared love of, and passion for, literature. Wish me luck!
Works Cited:
Blecki, Catherine L., and Karin A. Wulf, eds. Milcah Martha Moore's Book: a Commonplace Book from Revolutionary America. University Park, PA: Pennsylvania State UP, 1997. Print.
Cuddon, J. A., and Claire E. Preston. "Commonplace Book." The Penguin Dictionary of Literary Terms and Literary Theory. Fourth ed. London: Penguin, 1999. 162. Print.
Davidson, Cathy N. Revolution and the Word: the Rise of the Novel in America. Oxford (GB): Oxford UP, 2004. Print.
No comments:
Post a Comment