SUSAN E. WHYMAN. The Pen and the People: English Letter Writers 1660-1800.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This is a richly researched book on English letter writers of the middling and lower orders from 1660 to 1800. Drawing on an extensive series of family archives, Susan Whyman has woven a history of the importance of letter writing at this time, and a portrait of a people being formed through a democratizing popular culture of letter writing. Examining over 60 archives and closely studying 15 families spanning at least two consecutive generations, she is able to portray the extent of the use of letters and the depth of its relation to identity formation, psychological needs, social mobility, public affairs and business interests. In short, the book is successful in demonstrating the relation between letter writing and the formation of the modern subject. The discovery of such extensive archives of non-gentry families determined the focus of this research. The book does not dispute the quantitative methods used to ascertain basic illiteracy levels in the middling and lower orders. Nevertheless, Whyman sets out to reveal the qualitative depth of literacy that some did achieve. So she proposes a new indicator—not just the ability to sign one's name, but one that would capture sustained manual and rhetorical handling of communication on the page. ‘Epistolary literacy’ would apply to those who were able to manage paper, ink, line and penmanship, but also ‘strategic use of language, and literary techniques’ (p. 220). It applied to those who ‘could write coherent prose and engage in accepted epistolary conventions … .[They] were able to conduct business and construct personal relationships’ through letters (p. 76). This definition, the varying levels of epistolary literacy and the variables of gender and religion are given specificity and depth in the series of 15 case studies of family archives.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.048 | 0.021 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".