Because if she does, I want to be one too. A couple weeks ago, I created a free account on HASTAC, and I follow HASTAC on Twitter as well, so this afternoon, I came across a link for Davidson’s proposed MA in Knowledge and Networks (MAKN). It’s so freaking cool, you must go read about it right now.
Keep in mind this is an initial draft, and Davidson is asking that you leave comments concerning the proposal. You can also download the proposal as a PDF.
From the proposal:
We believe that knowledge in the Information Age is not a one-way transmission from expert to learner but is constantly interactive and never stops. We believe that knowledge in the classroom must extend beyond those walls and must bring the knowledge in communities back into the academy as well. We believe that deep knowledge of historical processes, in-depth understanding of context and culture, and sustained critical thinking need to be combined with real-world project management, collaboration, and sophisticated technology and social media skills in order to prepare students for the challenges of a changing world and a twenty-first century workplace (Davidson).
You have no idea how this makes my literary/technophile hybrid-heart go pitter patter, and want to leap out of my chest in excitement. Now, if you’ll excuse me, I have to go geek out over this amazing and revolutionary proposal.
Works Cited:
Davidson, Cathy N. Proposed Master's in Knowledge and Networks. HASTAC. HASTAC @ Duke University, 1 Oct. 2010. Web. 14 Oct. 2010. <http://hastacblogs.org/duke/makn/ma-in-knowledge-and-networks/>.
Question: What kinds of information can you infer about representations of women in early American literature from the publication history and front matter (including illustrations, type, prefaces and dedications, subscriber lists, etc.)? What do you expect to find in this text?
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 Unpublished manuscripts are establishing themselves as viable alternatives to published texts, which in turn, enlarges the scope of women writers of the time.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.
The assignment from Dr. Logan:
As early American scholars seeking to analyze the literary representations of unruly women, we must first understand the text as a material artifact, an object that circulated in and had meaning for specific readers who lived in a particular socio-cultural moment. By considering the text as an artifact, we draw closer to understanding how the text functioned in its original context. While we may be unable to travel to archives in Boston, New York, or Philadelphia, we can look at digitized or microfilm images of the original objects and learn about how particular texts looked, felt, and circulated. To that end, our initial research activities will introduce us to our chosen texts as material objects.
[Submitted: 3 September 2010]
Question 1: When, where, and by whom was your text first printed?
Answer: When: Because the common place book was unpublished, there is no publication date. According to the scholars Blecki and Wulf, authors of the modern edition, the entries were compiled during the middle years of the American Revolution, between 1760 and 1770.
That is not to say that the contents were necessarily written between this time frame. Blecki notes the earliest poem is from 1704 and the latest, 1788. Wulf notes that “[s]ignificant clusters of material are dated between 1764 and 1769 and from 1773 through 1776” (38).
Where: Milcah Martha Moore resided in the Delaware Valley area in Pennsylvania, amongst Quakers (aka the Society of Friends).
By whom: Moore was the only known transcriber, but none of the entries were written by her. The three main contributors were Susanna Wright, Hannah Griffitts, and Elizabeth Graeme Fergusson.
There are 13 unidentified authors that are possibly men; the rest of the entries are by women. There are at least 16 distinct authors.
Not all of the content of the commonplace book is original prose and/or poetry. Reprints of original content by “noted intellectuals and prominent colonials, Quaker and non-Quaker, and people from many sides of the debate over the American Revolution” (xiii) are scattered throughout.
Speculation: The creation of a commonplace book speaks to me of commitment, passion for literary expression, creativity, generosity, and a keen mind.
Moore’s commonplace book was a creation meant for sharing and delighting in the works of her friends and family, to showcase their talents and to preserve their work. It’s a physical representation of her love for them (and their love for her). It’s obvious this book was a long-term commitment, requiring careful thought in terms of editorship.
Plus, the act of carefully handwriting 132 pages of prose and poetry, making sure it was legible for her intended audience, must have been exhausting. I know my handwriting is terrible and it would have taken a great deal of concentration for me to accomplish her feat.
I find it fascinating that the book was complied during the middle years of the American Revolution, perhaps when it felt to Moore and her friends and family that no end to the war or a happy solution was in sight. I am eager to begin reading through the entries to see the war through the lens of Moore, a Quaker and Loyalist.
My previous experience has always been through men’s writing – Franklin, Adams, Jefferson, etc. And most of those writings were strictly political.
Question 2: How often was your text reprinted? List all of the reprints. Do not confuse dates of publisher’s/printer’s birth and death with reprint dates.
Answer: A modern edition was edited by scholars Catherine La Courreye Blecki and Karin A. Wulf and published in 1997.
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.
The original commonplace book is located in the Edward Wanton Smith Collection, in the Quaker Collection Library at Haverford College, Pennsylvania. Its current status is “in house only” and there are no digitized copies of the original manuscript.
Moore, Milcah Martha. MS 955. Edward Wanton Smith Collection, Haverford College.
Speculation: What is most frustrating is the lack of a digitized copy of the actual manuscript. I haven’t contacted the Edward Wanton Smith Collections yet, but I do want to find out if the text is even available for scanning, photocopying and/or photography. Though Blecki and Wulf state that the text is in excellent condition, that doesn’t mean it will withstand the scanning or photocopying process.
The modern edition does contain a picture of the title page as well as a picture of two pages containing two poems, but it’s not the same as having an actual copy.
I should state though, that I am satisfied that Blecki and Wulf made an accurate and complete transcription based on the “Notes on the Text” section. This section describes their textual methodology, which “maintains the eighteenth-century character of the text as Moore transcribed it with as few modifications as possible, while offering a readable text for twentieth-century students and scholars” (xxiii).
