Deconstructing A 17th Century Letter

Continuing the letter writing fever, I’ve been exploring the academic work called Letters As Loot by Gijsbert Rutten and Marijke J. van der Wal. It’s a treasure trove of information on how letters were written in the 17th and 18th century, based on a corpus of 50k letters that were captured by raiding ships between England and The Netherlands. These boats usually contained a bag full of letters headed to offshore family and friends but due to the raging Anglo-Dutch War (four of them between 1652 and 1784), many letters never made it to their destination.

That’s frustrating for the reckless explorers waiting to hear something from their family back home (or the other way around). But at the same time, nearly four hundred years later, these lost letters are the only thing that help us shape our view of lower and middle-class Dutch letter writers, which is otherwise dominated by upper class male writing. I’d love to think that if the Belgian Post loses a letter I sent, it’ll turn up in a couple hundred years for researchers to marvel at. I’m pretty sure by then this website is long gone. Who says the internet will still be alive? Or the planet, for that matter, judging by the extreme weather conditions…

Unfortunately, Letters As Loot is written in a stereotypical form of Academese and hard to recommend in its current state. So I scanned the pages diagonally and summarised the coolest findings here. The most interesting is the deconstruction of a typical 17th century letter, written by Angenieten Cornelis to her husband at sea Roelandt IJosten Ostvorndijck.

Here’s what she originally wrote:

looft goodt u booven al dit geschreuen uit rotterdam date
met alle vrient schaep schep schaep den viftienden
september
eersaemen seer beminden man roellant iosten oost voren dick
en alderliesten man ick ul husvrou angenietge cornelis
laet ul weeten als dat ick en ul vaeder en min vaeder en
moeder noch klock en gesont sien en ick hoep min alderliesten
man roellant iosten oost vooren dick oock mede soo is waer het
anders het souden min niet lief om hooren weesen en ick
hoep dat het den goeden god goodt langen sal laeten dueren
aen siel en aen lichaem ist ons salich ick hoep dat ghi met gesontheit
weeder thus komen mogen dat wij men kander weeder sien en
spreken mogen min alder liesten man roellant ioosten oost
vooren dick ick wenssen ul veel hondert dui duisent mal
mael goeden nacht met een kus aen den brief
min pet oem een vrou is doet daer hebben ick mede te
begrauen gewest daer wort geseit dat wij buiet gelt
ont fangen sellen eersdaechs maer ick weet niet hoeveel middle part
sij praeten dat ghi licht noch wel drie of vier maenden uit
weesen mocht ick senden ul hier twee niewen heemde
met een paer kusen1 met een kam met een mes met
drie nosdocken met een dasse ie met een sloepie
niet meer op dit pat danden heer bevolen min alder lieten
man ghi moet het min ten besten houden ick heb daer ending
geschreuen van dat goedt tebet stellen maer passchintge konden
niet nou moet ick het thuis houden hondert duisent
mael goeden nacht bij min
Angenieten Cornelis

That’s quite challenging to read even for a Dutch speaking person like me. Here’s the line-by-line translation by the authors:

Praise God above all, this written from Rotterdam
with all friendship, the fifteenth
September
worthy very beloved husband Roellant Iosten Oostvorendick
and dearest husband, I, your wife Angenietge Cornelis
let you know that I and your father and my father and
mother are still in good health, and I hope my dearest
husband Roellant Iosten Oostvoorendick is also like that, if it were
different, I would regret to hear that, and I
hope that the good God will let it last a long time
to body and soul, we’ d be blessed, I hope that you, with health,
may return home again, that we may see each other again and
speak to each other, my dearest husband Roellant Ioosten Oost-
voorendick, I wish you many hundred thousand
times good night with a kiss on the letter
my godfather’s wife is dead, I went to the
funeral, it is said that we a share of the loot
will receive one of these days, but I do not know how much
they say that you easily another three or four months
may be gone, I hereby send you two new shirts
with a few stockings with a comb with a knife with
three handkerchiefs with a scarf with a pillow slip
nothing more on this occasion than commended to the Lord, my dearest
husband, you must not take it ill of me, I have
written to order the goods but Passchintge could
not make it, now I have to keep it at home, a hundred thousand
times good night, by me
Angenieten Cornelis

What’s so interesting about this letter? The fact that more than 50% of its contents is what we’d nowadays call formulaic nonsense:

• God is praised in the “address field”¹?
• Why write worthy and very beloved husband to address and start the letter?
• Why repeat the full name of your husband and yourself? Surely your husband will know your name?
• Nothing more on this occasion than commend to the Lord?

If you’re married to Roelandt (written as Roellant, which I’m quite sure is misspelled), why write such a cold an distant contents? She’d “regret to hear it” if he wasn’t in good health anymore. I think my wife would kill me if I’d write like that, thinking there must have been a very suspicious reason for my aloofness. She must have made up for that by ending it lovely: a hundred thousand times good night by me—but just to be sure, write your full name again. It is I, Leclerc!

Some expressions, such as a way of ending the letter, were so common that they were abbreviated: uwe dienstwillige vrient (your faithful/obedient friend) would become U.E.D.W.. The most funny one most certainly is ick sal onse kijndt eens soenen voor u (I’ll kiss our child for you). It only appeared a couple of times so the writer must have been a creative one.

The use of a very formulaic structure was extremely common in the 17th century, which gradually disappeared in the 18th century and onwards. The authors of the research also discovered that this greatly varies between classes: lower class and female writers are much more likely to write like this, while upper class and male writers seem to skip this entirely.

It hadn’t occurred to me that this is largely due to (il)literacy. Letter writers having difficulty writing will stick to copying example letters from letter-writing guides. The authors make the distinction between more elite manuals, the very popular school books, and Jacobi’s Gemeyne zeyndt-brieven from 1645 that was reprinted well into the 19th century. Most of these books came with example letters and offered formulas for starting a letter, expressing regret, how to end it, how to note the date, and so forth. Kloek en gezond (strong and healthy), laat u weten dat (to let you know that), blijft hiermede den here bevolen (stay with this the Lord recommended) and so forth are all examples from Jacobi’s book².

If we look back at Angenieten Cornelis’ letter, you can easily discern some basic structure and delete all the junk to filter out what Angenieten actually wanted to tell her very respected and devoted husband. Here’s how I imagine that letter might be written nowadays:

15th September, Rotterdam.
Dear husband,
I hope you are well. Our family back home is still doing good. Except for my godfather's wife who died but we're expecting a nice cut from the inheritance. More info soon, it can take up to three months.
I miss you! When are you coming home? Here are two new shirts, a few stockings with a comb and knife, three handkerchiefs, a scarf, and a pillow slip just in case.
That's all for now. Anticipating your return!
With love, Angenieten.

How much formulaic sentence and paragraph structures do we use nowadays? Barely any, and yet, the main form of the letter hasn’t changed since the 17th century: there’s still an opening (date, addressing to), a short formulaic exchange of pleasantries (hope you are well, how’s things), the bulk contents of the reason for sending the letter (here’s some stuff), and a closure (cheerio or as M.I.A. would write, XXXO). As the time went on, the strict use of formulaic structure disappeared. Thank God for not having to thank God a thousand times good night anymore.

Most letter writers, including me, would start a letter with the date & location, but most older letters would switch this up and end with it. Also, the address we now place on the envelope would be the beginning of the letter, integrated as part of the text. This, together with the formulaic weirdness, would make it easy to spot if a piece of paper with scribblings on it was in fact, a letter, and not some customs clearance notice, tax slip, or worse, declaration of Independence.

In sum, for the Dutch history nut into letter writing, this bottom-up research of the “Sailing Letters” by Rutten and van der Wal is a gold mine. I didn’t even touch the importance of these letters to the etymological history of written versus spoken words in Dutch. The digital version is freely available. Don’t let the dry text discourage you; just scroll through it to find a cool photo and read a few bits here and there.

Time to buy a good brown ink. Looft God Booven Al!

learning   letter writing