In A Woman's Hand? The Question of Medieval Women's Holograph ...

In A Woman's Hand?The Question ofMedieval Women's Holograph LettersJosephine Koster TarversWinthrop University"Who was the first woman to write in English?" Thisquestion, posed informally by John Hurt Fisher almost twodecades ago, has so far defied answer. Our fragmentaryknowledge of medieval educational practices, the problemof manuscript survival, and the absence of most systematicrecord-keeping before the reign of Henry VII all combine tomake a certain identification difficult. Nonetheless, itought to be possible with careful study to arrive at anapproximate identificationdocument in a woman's hand.of the first extant EnglishThis article attempts such an identification. Let me. say at the outset that I may well be wrong, and I hope I am:dating the earliest surviving holographic text by a womanin English to the mid-fifteenth centry can only remindus-painfully-that much of the history of women'sliteracy is lost forever. Still, I hope that by providing theevidence as far as I have found it, I may inspire otherscholars to extend my search, and to help discover earlierexamples of women's holographs, thus adding to ourfragmentary knowledge of this tantalizing and importantsubject.My argument rests on three assumptions: first, that thewoman lived before the time of Katherine of Aragon, sincethat queen's English letters survive; second, that she mostlikely would be found in the noble, merchant, or religiousclasses, since those "estates" left the most frequent writtenrecords; and third, that letters, household records, or other"ephemeral" writings would be a more likely source thandidactic or literary texts, given what we know aboutwomen's lives before the sixteenth century. Women werenot excluded from "literary culture," as I have8889..; rvwL-W~--~

.. ... ... ,.'01. ,.. .'... d... '.'._~demonstrated elsewhere. However, their spheres of powerand literacy were more likely to be domestic. Europeanmedieval law made books and other writing implementspart of a woman's household property as her inheritancerights-just as it did her kitchen utensils (Bell 155).Women were taught the abc's before the age of five, so thatthey could read their Psalter, and, equally as importantly,keep the household accounts. So domestic writings seemmoreotherlikely to yield examplesareas.of women's hands than doAs we well know, many obstacles faced the womanwriter: exclusion from clerkly education as a consequence ofexclusion from religious orders; the high cost of writingmaterials, which caused so many texts to be written onmargins, dorses, scraps, and recycled skins; the tradition ofemploying male clerks and secretaries, particularly in therising middle classes; and the considerable risk ofaccusations of heresy for being literate in the vernacular.No holograph manuscript of an English woman's literarycomposition apparently has survived. But letters-theseare another story.English letters from women of nobility survive from asearly as the 1500s. We are accustomed, of course, tothinking of Elizabeth I at the end of the sixteenth centuryas literate-and indeed she was. Examples of her Italichandwriting survive, such as those in BL MS Lansdowne1236 as a twenty-three-year-old supplicant to her cousinMary Tudor in 1553, and in BL MS Addit 18738 as a seventyyear-oldmonarch writing to her heir, James I, in 1603 (Gregplate XCI, a-c). In the latter, she makes the famousreference to "my skrating hand" in describing herhand writing. As one can see by comparing the twomanuscripts, it was age, rather than lack of skill, whichcaused the degeneration in her handwriting; certainly shewas not, as one unidentified historian averred, "nearlyincapable of forming her letters" (Tudor Royal Letters 16).The Italian humanists had introduced the Italic handto England, and it was this hand that Elizabeth, like herhalf-sister Mary and Mary's mother Katharine beforethem, learned to write. The high-minded reason for such astyle was that it was the style of the Humanists, clear andelegant as the texts that it recorded. But in point of fact, asMartin Billingsley noted in The Petts Excellettcie (1618),there were other reasons men taught women to write theItalic rather than the secretary hand:it is conceiued to be the easiest hand that is writtenwith Pen, and to be taught in the shortest time:Therefore it is vsually taught to women, for as much asthey (hauing not the patience to take any great paines,besides phantasticall and humoursome) must be taughtthat which they may instantly learne. (Dawson 10)But their "phantasticall" and "humoursome" natures aside,women's letters written earlier than the sixteenth centuryshow that they learned the same scripts that men did.Writing was a part of all of the Tudor women'sbackgrounds. Henry VIII's eldest sister, Margaret ofScotland (through whom Mary Queen of Scots claimed herright to the English throne) was married to James IV ofScotland by proxy in 1503 at the age of twelve (Ellis 42-43).The next spring, after her mother's sudden death, she wasshipped off to her husband's court by her grieving father.BL Cotton Vespasian F XIII, folio 61v, preserves a letter,the last nine lines of which are the young Queen'sholograph, in a competent secretary hand-thehandwriting generally taught to men. The thirteen-yearold'sletter, written shortly after her arrival, complains ofher homesickness and general neglect at the Scottish court.She writes to her father (in quite creative spelling):For Godes sake, Syr, oulde mea escuuysed that I wrytnot myself to your Grace [referring to the first part ofthe letter, which is scribal], for I han no layser thystym, bot wyt a wishse I would I wer wyt your Gracenow, and many tyms mor, wan I wold andsyr. And forthys that I have wrytyn to your Grace, yt is uery tru,bot I pray God I may fynd it for my weles erefter. No90 91

more to your Grace at this tym, bot our Lord han you enys kepyng. Wrytyn wyt the hand of your humble douterMARGARETComparisons of this addition to Margaret's hand in otherstate documents make its identification as holographcertain; moreover, the personal immediacy of this addition("yt is uery tru") argues than even as a very young woman,Margaret recognized the rhetorical force of conveyingmessages in her own holograph.As we step backward chronologically into the fifteenthcentury and leave our royal ladies and English humanistsbehind, we find frequent examples of female hands not onlyin the noble but in the mercantile estates, among thedaughters and wives of the rising English merchant class.We still have no idea how many more Cely, Paston,Plump ton, or Stonor families have letters preserved inlibraries, archives, or even dusty attics. But theappearance of a new Paston document as recently as 1968suggests that not even these families are fully documentedyet (Davis xxx); and Alice Friedman's discovery of thesmall, mid-Elizabethan Willoughby archive in 1986suggests that smaller collections of women's correspondencehave survived. These do not include other indications ofwomen's writing abilities, such as names signed inmanuscripts or on legal documents; I refer to sustainedexamples of women'stheir own hands.ability to create their own texts, inMost of their documents, as I said before, were letters.As Karen Cherewatuk and Ulrike Wiethaus have recentlyargued, "Through letters, women who desired to write couldbypass the need for formal education, literary patronage,editors, and publishers, and they often thus circumventedthe censorship of a patriarchal literary culture" (1).Moreover, letters fall into the province of what M.B.Parkes two decades ago identified as the defining literacyof the laity: pragmatic literacy, the kind of skill withtexts needed to manage everyday life. One of the mostfamous examples is Margaret Paston's famous letter to her92husband asking him to buy her almonds, sugar, cloth-andcrossbows and axes (Davis no. 130). Diane Watt reminds usthat of the 930 surviving Paston letters, 174 are bywomen-nearly twenty percent of the total, admittedly amuch larger percentage than any other surviving collectionof family correspondence (122). Whereas many of thequasi-literary texts we believe to be authored by women areanonymous and undated, or later copies as in the case ofMargery Kempe or Julian of Norwich, letters tend to beimmediately localizable and datable, thus making themvaluable primary evidence for women's holographs. Why,then, are there so few in women's own hands?First let us examine the canonical literary criticalassumption-fostered by our standard interpretation ofwomen like Margery Kempe-that these women wereilliterate in the modem sense, and hence totally dependent. on male readers and male scribal assistance. But in thesenouveau riche classes, status was an importantconsideration. If noble ladies could employ secretaries,these upper middle-class women reasoned, so could they.Margery Kempe, the mayor's daughter, tells us that shetaxed the patience of several scribes (3-6); Norman Davishas identified the incredible total of twenty-nine handspreserved in Margaret Paston's letters alone-none ofwhich is hers (I.lxxix). But these ladies were literate.They could, and often did, autograph affectionatefarewells on their letters; for instance, see Margery Paston'ssignature in Davis, no. 418. Although Davis uses this as anexample of women's illiteracy, Margery's signature is notonly legible, but uses several of the abbreviations socommon to professional scribes. This was a woman whoknew something about the technology of writing. Thedifference in quality, so far as one can determine fromphotographs, is largely owing to Margery's using a larger,less sharply cut pen nib.Women could inscribe their ownership in manuscripts,and bequeath manuscripts to other women (Tarvers passim).The implication of scribal letters, then, need not be that"the women could not write, or wrote only with difficulty,"93

as Davis would have us believe (I.xxxvii), but that theyfelt it unnecessary to do so when they were paying clerksanyway. Thus, even the most personal letters may onlyhave an autograph subscription, and holograph letters mayimply that the matter treated therein is of particularimportance to the correspondents.Among these correspondents, Elizabeth Brews, motherof Margery Brews Paston, writes to her son-in-law JohnPaston III in the late 1480s (or early 1490s) begging in hastefor a dozen armed men to protect her "stres" [stray cows]from the "screvyss man" [shreeve's man] who threatensthem. Davis, whose comments must remain the authorityhere, describes the hand of the letter (BM Add!. 27446, fo!'80) as "unidentified; evidently unskilled, possiblyautograph," and the haste occasioned by the trouble in thisletter (no. 820) may have prevented Dame Elizabeth fromsummoning one of her usual scribes (cp. nos. 789-91,815).Even earlier than this is a letter of Margery Cely,dated September 1484, when she was a bride of but fivemonths and had apparently not yet informed her husbandthat they were expecting their first child. Thehandwriting is confirmed as holograph by the most recenteditor of the Cely letters, Alison Hanham, who has foundMargery's handwriting in a household account roll as well(201). The writer of "thys sympyllletter" demonstrates allthe qualities we would expect in a young, worried, insecure,primipara; she writes to her husband that "1 sch[all] nerebe mery to I see you agayn," sends him a love-token ("afeterloke of gold with a rebe [th]erin"), and begs to knowwhen he will return to her (no. 222). This is, however, theone extant holograph letter of hers; all the rest are scribalcopies with autograph signatures.One noble lady's holograph does appear in the Pastoncorrespondence. Elizabeth, Duchess of Suffolk, writes anote to the youngest John Paston in what Davis dismisses as"an unpractised hand, apparently autograph." This shortbillet doux (no. 798) is one of the most intriguing letters inall the Paston material, since no one has yet found anexplanation for the Duchess' request. The entire note reads:Mastyr Paston, I pry yow [th]at jt may plese yow to leueyowr logeyng for iij or for days tyl I may be porv(yd)edof anodyr, and I schal do as musch to yowr pleysyr. ForGodys sake say me not nay; and I pray yow rekomaundme to my Lord Chambyrleyn. Yowr frend ELIZABETH[dated between 1479-83]Again we note the sense of urgency ("say me not nay") thatseems to mark occasions for women's holographs; there areclearly some instances when requests cannot be entrusted tothe hands of a male scribe.An earlier, middle-class correspondent is ElizabethRyche, cousin of William Stonor. She wrote a holographletter (her only surviving one) dated, in best socialclimbingStratford-at-Bowe French, "le xviij jour d'aoust"1476 to her cousin. The letter deals with Elizabeth'sdaughter "Kateryn [who] is craysed and hath a desese onhir neke," and attempts to persuade Stonor to helpElizabeth obtain some of her late husband's family silverby subterfuge. As long ago as 1926 Asta Kihlbom confirmedthat this letter is a holograph; she found other instances ofElizabeth Ryche's hand in household accounts. Kihlbomgoes on to assert that Elizabeth "could write very well ifshe chose, though her bold impatient hand-by no meansbad-and several smudges of ink indicate that writing wasa task she did not particularly relish" (xvi). Like MargeryCely, only this holograph letter of Ryche's survives; herother letters are in scribal copies.Yet an earlier female correspondent in the Pastonfamily is Elizabeth Mundford, who wrote to her nephewJohn Paston Sr. "in grete necessyte" (no. 657) in a Februarybetween 1460 and 1467. Davis does not identify the hand,and makes no comment about its being either autograph orholograph. Yet Dame Mundford refers twice to "mywrytyng" (line 3) and "my symple wrytyng" (line 26),"bisechyng" John's pardon in the latter case, for she "haddeno leyser" (line 26). The haste she refers to, the wildlyirregular spellings, and the dual excuses for an unpractised94 95

hand coupled with the same excuse Margaret of Scotlandwould later offer for scanty handwriting, suggest but cannotconfirm that this is a holograph.But the likely earliest example of a holographicwoman writer comes from one of John Paston's otherrelatives. His cousin Elizabeth Clere began correspondingwith the family in 1449 and continued until at least 1466.Her four extant letters and their signatures are in the sameunidentified hand, which, Davis grudgingly admits, "maybe her own, but it seems too regular and practised for this tobe likely" (no. 446).All of Clere's letters deal with urgent family business.No. 724 asks Margaret Paston to return quickly somedocuments Clere had lent John, for they are urgently neededin a lawsuit. (Among the borrowed documents,astonishingly, is "j roole called domysday"l) But she alsofinds time in this letter to refer briefly to John Paston III,Margaret's young son, whom Clere is fostering, tellingJohn's mother that "my litel cosyn yore sone is a fairechilde and amery, blissed be God." The combination ofhaste and intimacy, as well as the widow's habit ofconducting her own affairs, strengthen the assumption thatthis letter is a holograph.Before this, in letter no. 600, Clere writes to John PastonSr. asking for immediate advice on what she should dowith "an accion" in court that she has been handling forhim. The letter is "wretyn in hast," and begs for an answer"be [th]e bryngger" of the letter. Again, either haste makesher forego secretarial assistance, or she is accustomed toconducting her own correspondence. Earlier in 1460Elisabeth had again written to John, this time asking foradvice in a lawsuit involving grazing rights. Once more thesubscription is "in hast," and once more she needs animmediate answer from her kinsman and business advisor.But the most crucial letter in establishing this group asElisabeth Clere's holograph letters is her first survivingletter. This 1449 letter (no. 446) is one of the mostfrequently quoted of all the Paston letters, dealing as itdoes with Agnes Paston's mistreatment of her daughter96Elizabeth, cousin to Dame Clere. The letter is not merelygossip, as some citations would make it appear; rather, in itClere conveys an appeal to John Paston I from his abusedsister Elizabeth. The circumstances of the letter arefamiliar: Elizabeth Paston did not want to marry a mannamed Scrope of whom the family approved, but hermother Agnes tried to beat her daughter into submission.This occasions Clere's often-quoted assertion thatElizabeth Paston "hath . . . be betyn onys in [th]e weke ortwyes, and some tyme twyes on 0 day, and hir hed broken into or thre places." Clere continues, "Wherfor, cosyn, schehath sent to me be Frere Newton in gret counsell andpreyeth me [th]at I would sent to 30W a letter of hirhevynes and prey yow to be hir good brothir, as hir trost isin 30W." Note that while Elizabeth Paston uses FriarNewton as an intermediary for passing messages, ElisabethClere needs no such assistance.But this is not all of the letter, for Clere herself runsrisks in conveying this message against the formidableDame Agnes' wishes. So she asks, "Cosyn, I prey yowbrenne [th]is letter, [th]at 30ure men [that is, John'ssecretaries] ne no o[th]er man se it, for and my cosyn 30wremoder knew [th]at I had sent yow [th]is letter sche schuldneuer love me." Then, to conclude the matter, Clereindicates the clandestine circumstances in which it hasbeen written, subscribing it "Wretyn in hast on SeyntPeterys Day be candellyght."No evidence in any of these letters suggests thatElisabeth Clere did not write them. She was not unlearned;she acted as her own bailiff and as her cousin John'sbusiness representative. Sharing the family propensity forlegal entanglements, she seems thoroughly versed in legalterminology and business details. Clere figures in MargaretPaston's letters, where Queen Margaret's compliments toClere are preserved (no. 146); again in Margaret's letters,when Clere lends the family money (nos. 221-222). She alJoserved occasionally as a scribe for Agnes Paston, who in1451 sent a copy to her son of "the mater wheche ye desyredmy cosyn Clere shulde write fore, [which] she hath doo"97

(no. 25). She is witness to Paston indentures, sends advice onlegal dealings, acts as John's representative during anoutbreak of plague in 1465, and receives kindly personaland jealous professional mention for her sharp businessacumen from almost all of the family members, as well asseveral of the family clerks.But the most important element in the identification ofthe letter about Elizabeth Paston is, once again, thepersonal circumstances: they deal with the family dirtylinen, afterservants.all,Themattersletterbestshowsdiscussed pas devanther rhetorical skilllesinappealing for John's aid, her politic attempts to avoidAgnes' displeasure, and above all, the knowledge amongthe young women of the family that cousin Clere could becounted on to send a letter on the sly when none of thefamily scribes could be trusted. All the evidence indicatesthat Elisabeth Clere was a shrewd business woman, wellaccustomedto dealing in controversial, urgent, ornecessarily private matters.There is no reason, despite Davis' prejudices, that sucha woman should not have been able to write a hand thatwas "regular and practised" if necessary-even whenwriting by candlelight. If this be the case-and until anyevidenceassumeis found to the contrary-there is no reason not tothat Elisabeth Clere's 1449 letter is the earliestsurviving holograph letter written by an English womanyet identified. It is neither written in a "skrating hand"nor by "the hand of your humble douter"; nor is it in theeasy, feminine Italic but the difficult, masculine Secretaryscript common to business transactions of its time. It is inthe hand of a confident, practiced womancorrespondent-who must have been one among many of hergender in late medieval England. In bringing attention toElisabeth Clere as a woman writing letters in her ownhand, I hope I can inspire the search to find Elisabeth'sfellow female holographers.WORKS CITEDBelI, Susan Groag. "Medieval Women Book Owners: Arbiters of LatPietyand Ambassadors of Culture."Women and Power in the Middle Ages.Ed. Mary Erler and Maryanne Kowaleski. Athens: U Georgia P,1988.Cherewatuk, Karen, and Ulrike Wiethaus, eds. Dear Sister: MedievalWomen and the Epistolary Genre. Philadelphia: U Pennsylvania P,1993.Davis, Norman, ed. Paston Letters and Papers of the Fifteenth Century.Parts I and II. Oxford: Clarendon P, 1971, 1975.Dawson, Giles E., and Laetitia Kennedy-Skipton. ElizabethanHandwriting 1500-1600. NY: Norton, 1966.Ellis, Henry, ed. Original Letters Illustrative of English History. FirstSeries Vol. 1, Second Series Vol. 1, 1825, 1827.Greg, W. W. English Literary Autographs 1550-1650. Oxford: ClarendonP, 1932.Hanham, Allison, ed. The Cely Letters 1472-1488. Early English TextSociety o.s. no. 273. London: Oxford UP, 1975.Kihlbom, Asta. A Contribution to the Study of Fifteenth Century English.Uppsala: A. B. Lundequistska, 1926.Kingsford,C. L, ed., The Stonor Letters and Papers 1290-1483. London:Camden Society, Third Series no. 30,1919.Meech, Sanford Brown, ed. The Book of Margery Kempe. Early EnglishText Society o.s. 212. London: Oxford U P, 1940.Parkes, M.B. "The Literacy of the Laity." The Medieval World. Ed.David Daiches and Anthony Thorlby. London: Aldus, 1973.Public Record Office. Tudor Royal Letters: The Family of Henry VIII.London: Public Record Office Pamphlets no. 2, 1972.Tarvers, Josephine Koster.'''Thys ys my mystrys boke': English Women asReaders and Writers in Late Medieval England." The Uses ofManuscripts in Literary Studies: Essays in Honor of Judson BoyceAllen. Ed. Charlotte Cook Morse et al. Kalamazoo, MI: TheMedieval Institute P, 1992.98 99

Watt, Diane. '''No Writing for Writing's ~ake': The Language of Serviceand Household Rhetoric in the Letters of the Paston Women." DearSister: Medieval Women and tile Epistolary Genre. Philadelphia,U Pennsylvania P, 1993. 122-138.100