I’m a fan of the American revolutionary era, described once by Abigail Adams as “times in which a genius would wish to live”.
One of the things that has always struck me about that time was that the people most involved were prolific letter writers and tended to use such lofty prose in all of their writings (and, it seems, their speaking). The recent impeachment gave cause to review links to their writings in the federalist papers, and last night I finished the last of a three part series on George Washington which played on TV and quoted liberally from his letters, and there is a noticeable effort at eloquence that is readily apparent in both, even though the federalist papers were for public consumption and Washington had a limited formal education.
As an example, consider a part of a speech George Washington gave to soldiers considering a military takeover of the fledgling government, which was failing to pay salaries, following the end of the war. This was a famous speech where General Washington implored his men to be patient. It is generally understood that his gravitas as their leader convinced them to trust him.
These were plain spoken military men he was talking to, was he not? Yet this is hardly plain speech. (I presume it was typical of the time, unless half the room was going “vicissitude”??)
What makes it all the more remarkable is the fact that, in those times, people had to always write by hand. When I think of how laborious that is, I am perplexed by why people seemed to go out of their way to use so many words in their writing. What’s the reason? Or, perhaps more interestingly, why did it change?
I think you’re right, but did people think of it as “arcane words and convoluted sentence structure,” or did they think of it as “how you’re supposed to write”? That is, I suspect that people wrote that way because they heard and read other people writing that way, and thus learned what writing was “supposed” to be like.
I was under the impression that everyone back then wrote in that way. Reading a letter was pretty much the only entertainment there was. Yes, you can read a famous book, but if it was famous, someone would just summarize it for you – “Yeah, Hamlet get stabbed by a poison sword, and everyone else dies too…” A letter or newspaper article, which at that time was just an open letter, was all there was.
There’s the famous letter from Washington to Layfattete when Lafayette got married, wherein Washington spends a winding paragraph to make the joke British people have been making about French men for centuries. I don’t know how fluent Lafayette was in English, but it was a long way to go for a very little joke.
Also, look at this Wikipedia article regarding von Steuben: note, the author is a common soldier, name not recorded, not one of the founding fathers: Friedrich Wilhelm von Steuben - Wikipedia
Everyone, at the time, if they took the trouble to write something down, made it cover all points thoroughly.
As obdurate stone even yields to the steady flow of gentle waters, its contours conforming to an unrelenting touch all the more imperceptible for its drowning ubiquity, so does a bath of prolix prose carve the grooves of the mind, whereupon the most humble and unassuming man may be relied upon to do likewise without an extra conscious thought. Think not this be an affectation, merely the custom of the time perpetuating itself, like begetting like even as it mingles in the mighty flow of time and is borne away, not lost, but altered.
In Michael Shaara’s book “The Killer Angels” about the battle of Gettysburg, he specifies that he somewhat modernized the dialogue to make the story more accessible to modern readers, since people in the Civil War era often tended to speak in an elaborate and “flowery” way that would sound odd to 20th century ears.
I figured that this is a good answer. My understanding is that in that era people who were taught to read and write probably did so by reading the Bible and other ancient and revered texts. If such things are arcane and esoteric, it would lead people to write in a similar style.
I like that manner of speech, although I haven’t read Tom Jones.
Did people of all classes speak with such formality?
Just watch Ken Burns’ Civil War documentary (yes, I know that was 70(ish) years later, but they still wrote that way). He uses loads of letters written at the time to tell the story. Many of which were by regular soldiers.
Illiteracy may have been high at the time but for those who were literate writing was the sole means of long distance communication. Plus, reading was one of few things you could do to entertain yourself.
Add in a lot of time to ponder and think while marching hundreds of miles and you have a recipe for some pretty good writing.
Those guys (mostly guys in the army) wrote remarkably well. Not all I am sure but it was kind of amazing watching it how well some did. Waaaay better than a lot of the crud I read today.
There is nothing wrong with writing in a poetic manner (which does not make the writing a poem). Read/listen to the Gettysburg Address. To my mind the finest piece of writing I have ever read. Just outstanding.
Flowery? If so fine…give me more. Those people really knew how to write. The Declaration of Independence, Constitution…read the Federalist Papers or Poor Richard’s Almanack…just amazing thinking and writing.
You start to realize all this is not “flowery,” which suggests empty rhetoric, but rather really well written stuff and the style is important and useful.
Another factor is that the founding fathers were aware that they were in the middle of major historical events. They knew that what they were writing would be read not only by their contemporaries, but by millions of other people in future generations. So they put a little extra effort in.
You don’t have to go back that far. Here is a part of a letter from President Eisenhower to his cousin:
“Mamie and I appreciated your warm note of welcome to California. The change of pace from the snowy east to bright sunshine and temperatures in the 70s may very well prolong our stay. In any event, we are looking forward to a restful and relaxing vacation…I shall be looking forward to seeing you sometime during our stay here.”
When I went to school in the 1950s, we were taught how to write letters, thanking Granny for the lovely socks. Complete sentences, proper penmanship. fountain pen, sit up straight. It was a sign of respect for our fellow members of a civil society.
I’m not sure this is accurate. Lafayette married in 1774, and stayed married until his wife’s death in 1807, but did not arrive in America until 1777, after which he first met Washington.
At any rate, I can’t track down whatever letter is being referenced, so…cite?
This reminds me of a joke from standup comedian Greg Giraldo
Given that they didn’t assemble a committee to debate the topic of how best to write and hold everyone to it, there’s no real factual answer. The two things that I would propose as the answer, though, are:
Showing your class was an integral part of society. This was the case across everything, not just writing style. Washington might have worn tights and a jacket while his men wore trousers and a tunic. He would listen to classical music. His men would dance jigs. He might have eaten European food, they would have eaten potatoes and fritters.*
They were bored. No TV. No radio. No internet. Sitting down and writing a lengthy letter was probably about as good of a time as one could have, to fill a few evenings.
Going from memory for these differences. Might not be the accurate examples, though the general principal is correct.
One third possibility that also just occurred to me is that the slowness of writing might, itself, have made them write longer. If you can’t go quite as fast, you might think about the sentence that you’re on more deeply and realize that you want to extend it with exceptions and greater style. If you can just dash it off with a few taps of the finger, then you’re more able to do the “fire and forget” style of writing that bypasses the brain.
