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.
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Answer: When: Because the common place book was unpublished, there is no publication date.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).
