**I have temporarily misplaced my book and am using an online version of the text that can be found here: http://www.worldcat.org/title/three-medieval-rhetorical-arts-the-principles-of-letter-writing-anonymous-of-bologna-1135-ad-translated-by-james-j-murphy-the-new-poetics-geoffrey-of-vinsauf-c-1210-ad-translated-by-jane-baltzell-kopp-the-form-of-preaching-robert-of-basevorn-1322-ad-translated-by-leopold-krul-osb-edited-by-james-j-murphy/oclc/463151756 though I think this version emcompasses more than the version in our text, but I think this will still be useful to read and perhaps will spur a different thought for some of you.
I found it particularly interesting in reading, The Principles of Letter-Writing by Anonymous, that there are certain contingencies of particular parts of the five-section letter. The author claims that to write a proper letter one must incorporate: the Salutation, the Securing of Good-will, the Narration, the Petition, and the Conclusion (497:IV). He places great emphasis on the Salutation, though later in the text he claims that we may need to shorten the letter for some reason (under the heading 'Concerning the Shortening of a Letter'), and he lists where one could potentially eliminate an element. What struck me most about this, however, was not the idea that anything could be left out, but that there was a sort of relationship between some of the sections and that this need be noted when reducing the content.
The two I found most interesting are the Salutation and the Securing of Goodwill. The author notes a connection between the two, but he does not explain in what way they are mutually connected.
"Now if the Salutation is removed in some way, it is necessary for the Securing of Goodwill to be likewise removed, since they are contiguous and mutually connected. Therefore, the letter will remain correct with only the three remaining parts according to the sender" (Anon. X)
The most I can conjecture is that because of the shift in salutation to the bare-bones name of the recipient and the truly great emphasis he placed previously on the importance of the Salutation, that this would give it's reader a curt and cold beginning that could not be associated with any sort of 'goodwill', therefore it would be a letter written in anger.
Isn't language wonderful that the simple reduction of a phrase can evoke such emotion? Thinking through the lens of this text, I can begin to see why so many people from the generations before mine are concerned about what hypertexts and technology are doing to our language skills. More often than not I begin an email with a simple word, like 'Kate-', or at most, a 'Hi Kate-' and never once did it occur to me that is could potentially convey some kind of coldness or anger. I've always considered the true content of the letter to be the bulk of the expression, but after this reading, I think I will think twice! After all, the Salutation really sets the tone of the whole letter (sort of like a title...), being that it is the first thing read and digested, so I can see where this author was coming from. What do you guys think?
Lea,
ReplyDeleteWhat an appropriately clever title. As with most revelations I have in this class, once I see or understand a concept, I can't 'unsee' it. The formalities and subtleties of letter writing are everywhere now, and i'm having trouble deciding what to add and what to leave out. Like you said, language is wonderful in that the simple reduction of a phrase can evoke such emotion. Following your example of writing an email to Kate, I always worry about the hierarchy of the student and the professor. Some people are sticklers about "It's Dr., not Mrs." although I don't think Kate falls into that group (or I hope not, otherwise I've been rude for awhile). I just sent Kate an email, the same way that you do: 'Kate-' but my issue came with the content of the email. The purpose was to inform her that I am sick and will not be in class, which is news that is not 'goodwill'. Knowing that my content is inherently displeasing, I struggled with my wording. If I used 'happy' words, then it could convey that i'm sending this letter in good health. But if I use too many negative words, the email could come off as angry or irritable to the recipient. Neither of these are my intention, and so in just a simple three sentence email, I'm picking my words extremely carefully (which probably adds an unnatural element to the flow of it) when all I really want to say is, "I'm sick, sorry." I'd be interested in a contemporary version of this text, to see what formalities are still intact. Maybe it would help me to not be so calculating in times where informalities are acceptable.