SELIM Teresa Sánchez Roura, Selim 10 (2000): 123—143 CONVENTION VS. CHOICE IN SECURING THE GOOD-WILL OF THE READER: THE CELY LETTERS ABSTRACT In the Middle Ages, the popular ars dictaminis, or the art of letter- writing, fluctuated between the principles of applied rhetoric and the freedom of personal choice. The most popular trend was the compromise arrived at by the School of Bologna, with its ‘approved format’ for a letter, which spread throughout mainland Europe from the 11th century onwards. Ciceronian principles were applied to the question of letter-writing, and treatises were written, in which the main concern was not so much theoretical principles, but the presentation of model letters intended to be copied verbatim by the future writer. The situation was slightly different in England, where not many treatises were produced at any one time. Yet letter-writing became increasingly popular there. Modern linguistic research has focused on the study of medieval rhetorical treatises in general (Murphy, Camargo) and on the evolution of the genre in England (Denholm-Young, Richardson) as well as on the analysis of surviving letter-collections in particular (Davis, Whigham, Henderson). Most recently, and particularly thanks to the compilation in Helsinki of the Corpus of Early English Correspondence, current research goes a step beyond purely linguistic analysis, to focus on sociolinguistic and pragmatic issues. The present paper is part of a wider personal project aiming at discovering the interface between language and society as revealed by the Cely letters. In this sense, while providing a purely linguistic description for present purposes, my work follows a sociolinguistic/pragmatic line of analysis. Thus, my ultimate aim is to study the expression of the medieval captatio benevolentiae as a pragmatic tool within the framework Teresa Sánchez Roura 78 of Brown and Levinson’s politeness theory (1987) in the field of historical pragmatics. INTRODUCTION The first aim of this paper, which is descriptive rather than theoretical, is to ascertain the level of linguistic flexibility, in terms of both structures and lexicon, present in the expression of the rhetorical element known as captatio benevolentiae, or the securing of the good will of the reader. The second aim, which is closely connected with the first, is to gauge to what extent captatio is formulaic or unfixed. Norman Davis defined captatio, understood as the opening passage of the letter only, as “a long sequence of conventional phrases and sentences constructed with minor variations upon a regular pattern” (1965: 236). In this paper we shall examine, in the context of the Cely letters, not only that opening passage, which corresponds to the traditional view of captatio as one part of the letter, but also other aspects of captatio embedded throughout the remaining sections of the letter, which relate to the understanding of captatio also as a device, liable to be employed elsewhere. This eclectic combination of both characteristics, along the lines established by Hugh of Bologna in the 11th century, seems to render a more complete definition of what captatio really is, and that is the one adopted here. I propose the following taxonomy of topics dealt with under the heading of captatio benevolentiae:1 (1) address or direct praise of the reader. (2) commendation of the writer himself. (3) expression of gratitude. (4) notification of the health of those near the writer who are very close to the reader; or a desire to hear of the reader’s good health. (5) acknowledgement of having received a letter from the reader. 1 This has been dealt with in detail in Sánchez Roura, T (2001). Convention vs Choice in the Cely Letters 79 (6) notification of the main purpose of the letter, i.e. introduction of the exposition proper. (7) offer of service. (8) apology for finishing the letter at that point, not offering any more news. (9) pious valediction. (10) addition of the apologetic ‘in haste’. It must be noted that not all the above topics, or subsections, are present in one single letter –a matter which seems to be socially determined- but the ordering of these is fairly standard. Some topics are particularly associated with the second part of the letter: these are the commendation, gratitude, health, acknowledgement of receipt and the introduction of the body of the text. However, flexibility of location is apparent in the letters. The corpus of data used here consists of the collection of letters belonging to the Cely family exclusively, covering the period between 1472 and 1488. The number of informants is around 37, all of whom are male, except one. They belong to the family circle as well as collaborators and friends. The corpus was chosen for the following reasons: these letters reflect the daily life of the late medieval English merchant, a position which involved dealings with people belonging to all social classes; the letters deal with a mixture of commercial and domestic affairs, which makes them highly attractive, and finally, the letters are autographed and not the product of the embellishments of a professional scribe. For the purposes of the present study, which aims to focus on the description of linguistic issues only at this preliminary stage, irrespective of social parameters, the letters have not been re-arranged in any way and they have been studied in the same chronological order presented by their last editor. Following the above consideration of what items qualify as instances of captatio, their linguistics description may now be undertaken, in terms of syntactical structure and lexical items. It will then be possible to gauge the extent to which there is flexibility and variation, and this in turn will indicate indicate whether such elements are formulaic in wording or not. Teresa Sánchez Roura 80 SYNTACTIC AND LEXICAL ANALYSIS OF CAPTATIO BENEVOLENTIAE IN THE CELY LETTERS (1) ADDRESS We shall be looking at the address proper which occurs at the very beginning of the letter, and not at the honorifics employed throughout the letter; in any case, the latter are usually simple noun phrases of the type ‘your mastership’ or ‘your good lordship’ functioning as the objects of a verb. Titles of address used as proper vocatives in the opening of the letter offer more interest because the syntactical structure is quite varied, from the simple ‘wellbeloved brother’ to more complicated structures of coordinated NPs, as we shall see now. Titles of address can be divided into two groups, depending on whether the NP is simple or coordinated. The results of the study are reflected in the following tables: Table 1. Syntactic structure of titles of address: simple phrases. Structure Examples i. N Syr, Jorge Cely, bedfelow, brother ii. Adj Wellbeloved iii. Adj + N Wellbeloved brother, worshipful sir iv. [Adj+ and + Adj] + N Honorable and worshipful sir v. [Adv + Adj] + N Right wellbeloved brother, right worshipful sir, right trusty friend vi. (a) [Adv + (Adj +and+ Adj)] + N (b) Adv + [Adj+and+Adj] or [Adv+Adj]+and+ Adj (a)Right reverent and worshipful father, right reverent and wellbeloved brother (b) Right trusty and wellbeloved vii. [(Adv + Adj) + and + (Adv + Adj)] + N Right reverent and heartily wellbeloved brother viii. (a) [(Adv + Adv) + and + Adj] + N (b) [(Adv + Adv) + Adj] + N (a)Right interly and wellbeloved brother (b) Right interly wellbeloved brother ix. (a) [Adv + Adj] + [N1 +and+ N2] (b) Adj + [N + N] (a)Right trusty sir and brother (b) Reverent syr and brother Convention vs Choice in the Cely Letters 81 x. (a) [Poss + (Adv + Adj)]+ N (b) [Poss + (Adj + and + Adv + Adj)]+ (N1 +and+ N2) (a)My full trusty friend (b)My trusty and very trusty friend and lover Table 2. Syntactic structure of titles of address: coordinated phrases. Structure Examples i.{Adj+N} and {Poss[(Adv+Adj) + N]} Worshipful sir and my special friend ii. (a) {[Adv+Adj] + N} and {Poss + [Adj + N]} (b) {[Adv + Adj] + N} and {Poss + [(Adj + Adj) +N]} (a)Right worshipful sir and my reverent master (b) Right worshipful sir and my singular good Lord iii. {[Adv + Adj] + N} and {Adj + N} Right worshipfull sir and wellbeloved cousin iv. {[Adv + Adv] + Adj} and {Poss + [(Adj + Adj ) +N]} Right heartily wellbeloved and my special good brother v.{[Adv (Adj +and+Adj)] + N} and {Poss +[ (Adj +Adj)+N]} Right worshipful and reverent sir and my special good friend vi. {Adj + N} and {Poss + [Adj + (N1+N2)]} Reverent sir and my speciall friend and gossip vii. {[Adj + and + Adj] + N} and {Poss +[Adj+(N1+N2)]} Reverent and worshipfull sir and my special friend and gossip The next step is to see what lexical items are used to fill the categories of adverb, adjectives and nouns. The adverb most often used is right, but interly, heartily, very and ful also occur. The last two are selected only after the possessive my, and when a second adverb is needed in a compound then the first two are selected. The two adjectives by far the most often used are worshipful and wellbeloved, which represent the opposite poles of politeness, followed by reverent; other adjectives, such as special, good and trusty seem to be context-dependent, since they are only selected if following the possessive; the adjectives singular and honorable are very rare in our data. The possessive used is always my, which is very rare in simple NPs but by contrast it is almost obligatory in the second NP of a compound, as can be seen in Table 2 above. The nouns most often used are sir, master Teresa Sánchez Roura 82 and brother, which logically reflect the fact that most letters were written between brothers or from inferior to superior; however, brothers could also be addressed as sir, and close collaborators could address each other as brother. Other nouns used are father, cousin, gossip, friend¸lover, bedfellow and proper names. Occasionally the adjective wellbeloved is nominalised. The most common collocations are between adjectives and nouns which denote either positive or negative politeness, such as wellbeloved brother/cousin/friend and worshipfull sir/ master; however, mixed types also occur, where a positively polite noun, such as father/ cousin /brother is associated with a negatively polite adjective, such as worshipfull; so the collocation worshipfull father is fairly frequent at the end of the 15th century. We may conclude that the titles of address offer a flexible syntactic structure, but with a rather limited set of lexical items, which is due to the reduced number of relationships among the senders and recipients of the letters in this corpus. (2) COMMENDATIONS A prototypical commendation usually opens a letter, with the writer commending himself directly to the reader, as in what we shall label as Type 1: (1) I recomend me wnto you Commendations may occur in other contexts (types 2, 3 and 4), which are usually embedded elsewhere in the text. We can define them as follows: Type 2: the writer commends himself to someone else at the reader’s end, as in: (2) Syr 1 pray you that ye woll recomaund me vnto my master youre fadere Type 3: a third person commends himself to the reader via the writer, as in: (3) Syr, my Lord of Sente Jonys commende hym to you Type 4: a third person commends himself via the writer to someone else at the reader’s end; this is a very rare circumstance, but occurs in: Convention vs Choice in the Cely Letters 83 (4) … say vnto hem that Hary Seyseld recomaunde hem vnto yowre brodere A binary distinction may be established according to whether commendations are realized by means of a verb or a noun, as in the prototypical structures: (5) I recomaund me vnto you (6) afftyr all dew recomendassyon pretendyng The basic formula S+V+O+PP as a simple main clause, which is almost invariably transcribed as ‘I recommend me unto you’ as in (5) above, is used to represent type-1 commendations, direct from writer to reader, as well as type 3, from a third person via the writer to the reader, as in (7) below: (7) Syr, owr cosyn Cowldayll recomendys hym and hys wyffe to you Commendations of the 2nd and 4th types, whereby either the writer or a third person commends himself to a third party at the reader’s end, are embedded as a subordinate clause, typically the object of the verb ‘pray’.1 Fluctuation in how to build this construction is apparent in our data, as we have the same number of instances for ‘pray + bare infinitive’, ‘pray+ to- infinitive’ and ‘pray+ that-clause’, as in the examples below: (8) I pray you recomend me to my brother Robard (9) I praye you to recomend me to owr ostes (10) Syr I pray you that ye woll recomaund me vnto my master youre fadere It may be said that the syntactic variation seen so far does not obey any pragmatic dictates since syntax is simply adapting itself to the message: the basic formula is needed for a direct message to the reader, whereas the subordinate construction is necessary to ask the reader to do something. However, further variations, involving the addition of optional adverbials in the VP, may be seen as choices made for a particular purpose, that is, choices which are pragmatic in the sense of trying to use the language to best effect. It is not a question of semantics only: the idea of ‘heart’, the element 1 There is even an example of type-2 commendation expressed in the imperative form: ‘comende me to Twhessylton and aull good fellows’ Teresa Sánchez Roura 84 most often used as we shall see below, in an attempt to demonstrate closeness and friendship, or positive politeness, is translated into different syntactic options, from a mere adverb to a longer PP with a clause embedded in it; thus, however friendly the overall tone tries to be, it will sound more or less deferential depending on the length of the expression. These variations seem to affect only type-1 commendations, since the clauses exemplifying types 2, 3 and 4 always exhibit the basic pattern.1 From this we may infer that types 2, 3 and 4 are sufficiently sincere by themselves, and that type-1 commendations seem to need extra strengthening elements to make them sound more convincing and less of a formula. The most popular construction by far, outnumbering even the unmarked one, is the addition of an adverb, either before or after the verb, as in2: (11a) I recomende me harttely wnto yow (11b) I louly recommend me vnto yowre masterschypp Phrases of comparison are also attached, the most popular being those introduced by ‘as’, in comparisons of the ‘as….as’ type, as in:3 (12) I recommend me vnto you as hartely as I can The prepositions used to introduce optional PPs are ‘in’ and ‘with’; the former introduces the expression ‘in … wise’ to indicate how the commendation is performed; it is either ‘in the best wise I can or may’ or ‘in as loving/hearty wise as I/heart can (think)’; ‘with’ is invariably used in the expression ‘with all my heart’. The noun ‘recommendation’ is always the head of the PP as in ‘after due recommendation…’, used to represent type-1 commendations exclusively, most often appended before the basic formula seen above (5), with or without variant extensions, the most common being the inclusion of the 1 The exceptions are items 94, 194 and 214, in which a third person commends himself to the reader via the writer (type 3) ‘heartily’. Two of those instances are the only commendations from a woman to the writer. 2 It must be noted that the collocation of the adverb before the verb is subjected in 99% of cases to the inclusion of the phrase ‘after due reccommendations’ before the subject. 3 Other constructions with ‘as’ are: ‘as heart can think’, ‘as lovingly as heart can device or think’, ‘as heartily as I can device or think’, ‘as heartily as I can or may’, ‘as tenderly as heart can think’ and ‘as lovingly as heart can think’. Convention vs Choice in the Cely Letters 85 adverb ‘lowly’.1 The effect created by such relatively verbose phrases is that of a more deferential and distant attitude on the part of the writer. The prototypical unmarked version is: (13) affter dew recommendacyon I lowly recommend me unto yowre masterschypp Variation at this level involves modification of the noun ‘recommendation’ by means of a premodifier, invariably ‘all’, and a postmodifier, as in: (14) afftyr all dew recomendassyon pretendyng / had / precedyng Either modifier may also be omitted, rendering something like “after due recommendation”. Both the basic pattern and the variation are equally popular. The action of commending is invariably represented by the verb ‘recommend’ or its related noun ‘recommendation’, even though the vocabulary might have allowed other possibilities, such as ‘trust’ or ‘charge’ for example. Semantic variation concerns the optional elements around the basic pattern as seen before, characteristic of type-1 commendations. This, in turn, means that types 2, 3 and 4 do not exhibit much semantic variation.2 The elements which are susceptible of variation are the pronouns referring to the reader, the adverbs in the main clause and the lexical items in the PPs. Let us see them in turn: (1) the pronoun of address: the prototypical ‘you’ of ‘I commend myself to you’ may change to an honorific term, such as the usual ‘your mastership’ or ‘your good lordship’, for example. This serves the purpose of enhancing the social distance between correspondents; (2) the adverb used to modify the act of commendation is most commonly ‘heartily’; however, ‘lowly’ is also very much used. This is a particularly interesting dichotomy from a pragmatic standpoint, in that it reveals a different approach on the part of the writer: positive politeness or warmth in the first case, negative politeness or deference, in an act of self-humiliation, in the second; and (3) variation in the PPs revolves around the entity of 1 There are only a couple of instances in which the ‘after’ phrase comes at the end of the main clause (145, 192). 2 There is one instance of the use of the verb ‘beseech’ as a synonym of ‘pray’ in one type-2 commendation. Teresa Sánchez Roura 86 ‘heart’ and its related adjectives and adverbs. In this sense, the ‘as’, ‘in’ and ‘with’ phrases are semantically parallel in so far as they all include terms connected with ‘heart, such as ‘hearty, heartily, loving, lovingly, tenderly’. We may conclude that commendations exhibit little syntactic and lexical variation, but that what little there is seems to be pragmatically determined. (3) GRATITUDE Gratitude to the reader is basically understood as being on the part of the writer himself, although there are instances of the gratitude of other people to the reader conveyed by the writer. A third type would represent the reader’s gratitude to someone else at the reader’s end. We shall label these as types 1, 2 and 3, as in: (15) hertely thankyng yowe of the greht cheyr and we1fayr þat I had wyth yowe (Type 1) (16) and thay thanke yow of your greyt labor in byeng of ther stowe (Type 2) (17) and I pray yow thanke them for me (Type 3) Instances of gratitude of type 1 exhibit two different structures, personal and impersonal, as in: (18) I comaund me to you, and I thank you hertely of the good lodgeng that ye fand vs at Derford (19) I recomande me vnto you as herty1y as I can, thankyng you of your good will shewed vnto me at all seasons Both structures are relatively frequent and the previous clause does not seem to preselect one or the other, unless, of course, the clause containing the gratitude message is a completely independent one, in which case the personal construction is selected, as in: (20) Syr, I thanke you at hyt pleschyd you to leue me Goos Either structure may include the adverb heartily, but it seems to be more popular with the personal construction, which is coherent from a pragmatic point of view, since this personal construction is the more positively polite of the two, as in (18) above. Convention vs Choice in the Cely Letters 87 The verb thank may take two complements (very rarely just one), the prepositional one indicating the cause of the gratitude. There is fluctuation concerning the preposition used, which is either for or of, although of is the one more often used by far, as in: (21) and I thanke you of your grehyte coste and scheyr (22) and I thanke you for the grete coste that 3e dyd on me at your departyng Type-2 instances of gratitude exhibit the personal structure only, as in: (23) and my godfather recomendys hym to yow, and thankys yow for yowr rememberans of hys stofe There is also fluctuation in the preposition which introduces the complement, which again can be either for or of indistinctly. Type-3 instances of gratitude, whereby the writer thanks someone else at the reader’s end, are always embedded in a subordinate clause which is the object of the verb pray, with the verb thank in the bare infinitive form, as in: (24) and I pray yow thanke them for me There is no lexical variation in the expression of gratitude, which relies solely on the verb thank, which in turn may be modified by the adverb heartily exclusively. We can conclude that the expression of gratitude does not exhibit much syntactical flexibility and no semantic variation; it does show, however, instability concerning the choice of the preposition. So far, we have studied pattern and variation from a mere linguistic point of view, regardless of any sociological variable. But if we simply stop to analyse who says what in what way, it is probable that what looked like repetitive formulaic patterns may be the hallmark of one individual writer as opposed to the hallmark of the genre of correspondence. Let us analyse the following topics in this light. (4) HEALTH MATTERS The mention of health matters is an aspect of captatio which seems to be socially constrained in a very marked way, since it is only incorporated in Teresa Sánchez Roura 88 the letters of those correspondents who are very close, and it is generally avoided by writers addressing the socially superior addressee. This can be stated since the basic social network of social relations among the principal correspondents is known, and by analogy the social standing of other writers of whom we know very little can be inferred. In this way, if a writer does not mention health at all, it is clearly the case that he is not close to the reader and vice versa, inclusion of health matters indicates less distance between correspondents. Having said this, another difference between letters of family members and more sporadic writers must be mentioned, concerning how to address the health issue. Close relatives and friends tend to inform each other about the health of those near them, who are close to the reader – whereas sporadic writers more deferentially inquire about the reader’s health. If we analyse the structures employed, patterns seem to emerge, although these are not uniform across letters, which would denote a general formulaic usage, but rather characteristic of certain writers. This suggests a personal style that repeats itself from letter to letter. In this way: a. Richard Cely seems to use the following: (25) (furthermore) informing you or please hyt you to wet / understand…at the making of this our father and mother were (an we all were) in good health, thanked be God. Variations include basically the addition of a coordinated clause, as in …. (26) …and send you their blessings (27)… and desire greatly to hear of yours. (28) … and so we trust that you be. b. William Cely never touches on this topic, except on three occasions: to acknowledge George’s illness, to inform of someone’s death and to let George know of his own sickness. The syntactic structures are all different: (29) be the whych I vnderstond ye be well mendyd off yowre grett sycknesse, wheroff 1 am ryghyt gladel, and I thanke God off yowre goode rekewer, (30) Furdermore, plese hett yowre masterschypp to be enfformyd that Margere ys dowghter ys past to Godd. Hytt was berydd Convention vs Choice in the Cely Letters 89 thys same daye, on whoys sowle Jhesu hawe marsy. Syr, I vnderstond hytt hadd a grett pang: what sycknesse hytt was I cannott saye, (31) I hawe byn a lyku1l dyssesyd, but I thancke Godd I am amendyd and walkynge, and Joysse hathe ben syke allso, butt nowe he ys weIl mendyd, thanckyd be Godd, c. The two other members of the family, the father, Richard, and the more distant brother, Robert, use the same basic structure as George: (32) At the making of this letter we were in good health… Differences appear when thanking God, which the father states baldly, whereas the brother passivizes: (33) I thank God (34) Blessed be God Note however that Richard the elder is not monotonous in his structures but exhibits variation: (35) Desiring to hear of your recovering (36) Youre moder and I desire for to hear of your recovering d. William Maryon, Thomas kesten and the rest of the sporadic authors seem to opt for: (37) Desiring to hear of your welfare which in the more deferential letters is followed by a relative clause which is a prayer to God to preserve health. Thus, (38) Desiring to hear of your welfare, the which I beseech almighty Jesus to preserve and keep unto his pleasure and yours. The nouns used to refer to different aspects of people’s well-being are the following: health and welfare by far, together with sickness, amendment, amending, recovering, prosperity. The adjective most often used to modify health is good, in collocation with the word health; others, used to modify the person himself are: hooll, merry, comforted, amendyd, sick, well mendid, sore sick and strong. Other expressions, used to refer to a medical condition, are fare well, died, had a great pang, past to God, deceased. Pattern and variation are also observable in the pious vocabulary embedded in the Teresa Sánchez Roura 90 relative clause appended to the word health: the deity is usually God, the good Lord, Jesus, almighty God and almighty Jesus, who are thanked or blessed; the deity is asked to keep, preserve, maintain, increase or continue the reader’s health, usually to his pleasure and onto the reader’s heart’s desire, which admits some variation, as in to your heart’s ease and will, to your most profit both of body and soul or to your pleasure. From the above it may be concluded that both pattern and variation are present throughout the letters as a whole, but it is my tentative suspicion that whereas pattern characterises the letters of an individual, variation is apparent between individuals. (5) ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF RECEIPT It must be noted that only frequent correspondents acknowledge receipt of a letter, which they tend to claim to understand, usually repeating its contents. Once again, pattern and variation seem to occur: the former, across letters by the same author, and the latter, across authors. This way, one individual’s mode of expression may be singled out. So, for instance: a. Richard the younger fluctuates between: (39) Sir, I haue ressauyd a letter from yow wrytt at and (40) … informyng you that I haue ressauyd a letter from you wryttyn at The way he finishes this sentence is quite variable, fluctuating between nothing at all and one of the following versions: (41) … the qweche I do whell wndyrstonde / the qweche I wnyrstond riught whell (42) … wherby I wndyrstonde … (43) … wherein I fynd That is, if regurgitation of the previously received letter is included, one of the structures above is selected. Convention vs Choice in the Cely Letters 91 He is not consistent either, in the amount of information he adds regarding the date and place of the letter received. b. William Cely’s letters always conform to the same pattern. His acknowledgment of receipt is another example of this. He invariably introduces it in the following way: (44) Furdermore plese hit yowre masterschypp to vnderstonde that I hawe receyued an letter ffrom yow the whych I hawe redd and weIl vnderstond… If recapitulation of the letter is included, this is introduced by one of the following: (45)… be the tenour wherof I vnderstond… (46) … be the whych I vnderstond… (47) … howe that… Slight variations include: (48) Fyrddyrmore, lyke hytt yowre mastyrschypp to hawe yn knowlege that thys day I hawe receyued yowre lettyr (49) Fyrdyrmore, lyke hyt yowre mastyrschypp to wytt that I hawe receyued yowre lettyr He sometimes includes the name of the bearer and details concerning when and where the letter was sent from. c. Richard the elder is another author who seems to follow the same pattern from letter to letter. He introduces the acknowledgment of receipt abruptly, immediately following the opening greeting, linking it to this by means of ‘and’, as in: (50) …and I haue resayuyd a letter from the wrete (…)the weche letter 1 haue wyll understande euery ponte. He does not offer a recapitulation of a previously received letter, therefore his acknowledgements of receipt end in ‘understand’. Only once does he topicalize the date of receipt, as in: (51) The laste day of Octobor I haue resayuyd a letter from you, wrete at Bregys the xxiij day of Octobor, the weche letter I haue wy1 understand, Teresa Sánchez Roura 92 d. William Maryon introduces yet another structure which he selects quite often in his letters; this is: (52) Ferdermor, and yt plesse yow, ye schall vnderstonde that I haue ressayved a letter from you wreten at Calles the xxviij day of Marche, the wyche letter I haue well vnderstonde that… He also uses to: (53) Ferdermor, plessed you to wete that / Plessed you to vnderstond that e. George Cely also makes use of one and the same structure from letter to letter, along the lines of the one used by William above: (54) Fordyrmor plesyth yt yow to vndyrstonde I resseywyd an lettyr ffrom yow wrytt at London the fforst day of May, the wheche lettyr 1 hawe rede and do whell vndyrstonde f. Other isolated authors show a variety of structures: (55) … Letyng you wnderstond / wit þat I resauyd a letter from you, be the whiche writtyng I ondirstond (56) Certefyng you that I receyved a lettre from you (…). The tenour of which lettre I vnderstode ryght wele and therupon (57) … I haue receiued your kynde and louyng lettre and wel vnderstonde alle þingys þerynne contened as well as the already familiar: (58) Fordyrmor plesythe ytt yower Lordshyp to vndyrstond that Y hawe ressaywyd an lettyr ffrom yowr Lordshyp beryng datte at Napullus the last day of Novembyr derectyd to my broder Rychard and me. Lexical variation in the acknowledgement of receipt of a letter occurs with the ‘informing’ verb that opens the clause and at the end, to introduce the recapitulation, if any. In this way the verb most commonly used to acknowledge receipt is understand in expressions of the type seen above, followed by inform, let wit/understand, certify, have (in) knowledge and to be informed. Recapitulation is also introduced by the verb understand in a majority of cases, in a variety of constructions as seen earlier. On the basis of the above it may be concluded that the syntactic structures exhibited show a constant patterning across letters by the same author, which varies across Convention vs Choice in the Cely Letters 93 authors. As mentioned before, the patterning may well define an author’s style but not the genre as a whole. There is not much lexical variation regarding the items selected to fulfil the different categories and functions in these clauses. (6) INTRODUCTION OF THE EXPOSITION The body of the text is usually introduced in a way similar to the one used when dealing with health matters and the acknowledgement of receipt, namely one of the please it you to understand variations. Now, if an author has already selected this expression earlier in the letter, he might resort to a different one to start the body of the letter proper, usually by means of a shorter form, such as furthermore, also or simply the honorific sir immediately followed by the main point of the letter. Alternatively, he may repeat the same phrase again. The same happens whenever a new item of news is introduced later in the text: the author may either repeat the please it you to know phrase, he may simply use the honorific for each new point or he may simply start a new sentence with no connectors. Concerning this topic, it seems that a pattern across authors pervades the letters, in favour of what may be called a formula; however, there is also a good deal of variation at the syntactical and lexical levels, although in the case of the “please it you to understand” formula it might be a case of unsettled syntax as opposed to true variation. Before we proceed to the analysis of the various forms, it must be said that, once again, a pattern across the letters of one individual author does seem to be at work too, thus characterising his style. In this sense, the letters of Richard the younger introduce the body of the text by means of the honorific sir, because he has already used the other formula to introduce health matters and acknowledgement of receipt. This contrasts sharply with the style of William Cely, who as we know, hardly ever mentions either topic; thus, he feels free to use the “please it your mastership to understand” formula to introduce the body of the text. A formula which, together with the honorific sir and the connectors and, also and as for, he repeats throughout the text. Teresa Sánchez Roura 94 The style of Richard the elder boasts a direct and concise coordinator and, which he uses to link the main body of the text abruptly to the initial salutation. Another form he uses is the open ye shall understand that… The other authors use a variety of resources, in many cases depending on how they have begun the letter. A variety of connectors are employed to link the main body of the text to the second part of the letter; such connectors are also used throughout the rest of the text whenever a new item of news is mentioned. They can be divided into four groups: a. very short ones: adverbs, conjunctions and nouns: also and sir further as for item furthermore as touching (the matter) item sir b. finite clauses: I understand by …. (that) Ye shall understand (that) I lete you wit (that) The cause of my writing is this c. non-finite clauses (gerund): ascertaining you (that) certifying you (that) doing you to wit (that) informing you (that) informing you as for letting you understand / wit/ have in knowledge (that) d. others (with please and like) like it you to wit / to be enformed (that) like it your mastership to understand as for without it: pleased you to wit (that) Convention vs Choice in the Cely Letters 95 pleaseth you to understand / wit (that) with it: please it you please(th) it you to wit / understand / to be informed (that) different word-order: it please you it please you to wit / understand (that) if it please you to wit / understand (that) Variation at the syntactical and lexical level is certainly available; patterning seems to be, once again, a question of stylistic characteristics of the individual writers, who opt for one way of expression and use it throughout their letters. (7) OFFER OF SERVICES This aspect of captatio, as in the case of gratitude, is certainly free in sentiment and only included when it is really meant. There are very few instances of this in the Cely letters. The wording varies from letter to letter, but two patterns seem to emerge, with and without an explicit conditioning undertone in the subordinate clause, as in: a. with explicit condition: (59) And ther be any thytige that 1 can do for yow in Ingelonde… (60) Ande if ther be any theng that 1 can do ar may ffor yow… (61) And yf het ly in my power… b. without explicit condition: (62) and anything pat I cane do vnto pleser… (63) and any servis that 1 can or may do for you here… (64) and sir, eny seruice that I can or may do for your maystership here… The main clause exhibits one of the following variations: Teresa Sánchez Roura 96 (65) 1 wyll do yt wyth all my hartte (66) 1 am ande schal be at yowre comandement, (67) I schall do as moch that: schal be vnto your plesure, (68) ye shal fynde it redy (69) ye shall fynde me as redy to do it and as glad as any man on lyve (70) hyt schall be redde to my powhere (71) shall be r(e)dy atte your desyre, Offers of service tend to end with a pious good wish, which becomes the usual valediction at the end of the letter. This is usually attached by means of a relative clause, as in the following instances: (72) … the weche conowthe God, ho haue yow in ys kepynge, amen. (73) … that knowleth Jhesu, who kepe you. (74) … as knoweth owre Lord, qwou send you good fortune wyth þe accomplichment off your good1y desyrys. (75)… by Godys grace, who euer preserue you. (76) at knowith the blessid Trynyte, whom I beseche to preserve you into good helthe, amen. (77)… be the grase of God, how haue you in ys kepe. (78)… and that God knows, how preserue. (79)… as oure Lord God knowith, who Y beseche to preserue you and youres in felicite long duryng. All instances of this pious valediction are slightly different, showing a wide range of syntactical structures and lexical items, from which it may be argued that this aspect of captatio does not seem to be formulaic. (8) END OF NEWS The announcement that the letter has reached its end is characterised by its abruptness and conciseness in all cases. The basic formula is: (80) No mor to you Convention vs Choice in the Cely Letters 97 This admits very little variation, either syntactic or lexical. Syntactically, this phrase may appear either independently, as in (81) above, or as the direct object of a clause, as in: (81) I wryte no mor to you In either case, the PP at this tyme may be also added, as in: (82) No mor to you at this time (83) I write no mor to you at this time Occasionally, William Cely adds the honorific sir before the phrase and also occasionally the complement to you is omitted, as in: (84) No more at this tym (85) I wryte no more The bare expression ‘no more’ is rarely found. At the lexical level, the only variation present involves the substitution of the pronoun you for the honorific NP your mastership. We may conclude that this part of the letter is certainly formulaic in wording, both syntactically and lexically. (9) PIOUS VALEDICTION All writers include a pious valediction of some sort at the end of their letters. ‘Of some sort’ refers to the actual length of the farewell. Thus, correspondents within and outside the family who are on close terms and write to each other frequently will opt for a short form, whereas writers addressing a socially superior reader, or who write to each other sporadically, will opt for a longer, more deferential form, both of which we can see below: (86) But Jhesu kepe you (87) But almighty Jesus hath you in his blessed keping Another characteristic of pious valedictions is their level of syntactic independence in the text. Short farewells are usually independent clauses, linked to the rest of the text by a mere ‘but’ (in the sense ‘no more news except …). By contrast, longer sequences usually come at the end of a clause, to which they are semantically related, by means of a relative, as in: Teresa Sánchez Roura 98 (88) By the grace of God, who have you… The prototypical valediction, among very frequent correspondents, is: (89) But Jhesu kepe you Variations of this are as follows: (90) But Jhesu / our Lord kepe (you) and all yours (amen) (91) But the Trinity / almighity Jesus have you (and (all) yours) in his (blessed) keping (92) Jesu have you in keping (93) Almighty God have us all in his blessed keping (94) But almighty Jesu save you and kepe you (95) But almighty Jesu preserve (you) and kepe you Further variations include: (96) But the Holy Ghost be with you (97) But the Holy Trinity have you in his keping (98) But almighty Jhesu preserve and kepe you and all yours long in good health and pro (99) Jhesu kepe you and send you good health (100) But I pray to the Trinity send you health and bring you well hither (101) But our Lord send you long life and good to his pleasure and yours (102) But I pray Jhesu that all things may be well conveyed (103) Be the grasse of God, who have you and all yours in his keeping, amen / the which have you in his keping Lexical variation occurs in both the names and adjectives used to refer to the deity (Jhesu, our Lord, the Trinity, almighty God, Holy Ghost, Holy Trinity) and also the actions asked for (kepe, have in keping, send, save, preserve’). The pious valediction of the shortest type is a pattern of individual writers but also across writers, which would point towards its being formulaic; longer versions are based on the prototypical one with extensions that do not imply variation in the core structure of the expression. Lexical items provide a limited degree of variation. Convention vs Choice in the Cely Letters 99 (10) ‘IN HASTE’ The ‘in haste’ phrase seems to be formulaic in the case of Richard Cely the elder, who always includes it in his letters, with the variation ‘in great haste’. There are a few other authors who include it very sporadically, from which we may infer that its use was not stereotyped but of necessity. The ‘in haste’ phrase always comes at the end of the letter, between the attestation and the signature, and on three occasions it is used on the dorse of the letter, as a kind of urge to the bearer. Concerning the reasons for the inclusion of the ‘in haste’ phrase, the writer may be referring to his writing in a hurried, careless manner due to something or other that needs his attention more urgently and will not let him devote more time to the letter; or he may be referring to the urgency to finish the letter because the bearer is waiting on the stirrup ready to depart. CONCLUSIONS Pattern and variation, or conventional formulae versus free choice, are terms which are closely interrelated rather than being mere opposites. In my view, an overall pattern, both at the syntactic and lexical levels, becomes clear when reading the Cely letters. However, far from being the epitome of conventionalism, this pattern emerges precisely because of the choice each individual writer makes from among the possible variables the language offers. These he uses exhaustively throughout all his letters, producing what we could call his own personal formulae. In other words, due to the fact that the number of authors and writing contexts in the Celys is somewhat limited, we become accustomed to certain expressions which we read repeatedly throughout the letters. These are not necessarily conventions of the genre, but rather the personal hallmark of each author, who has acquired a writing style which he exhibits in one letter after another, although depending to a certain extent on whom the addressee is. When such sociolinguistic variables as author and addressee have been taken into account, it has been shown that those writing styles do vary across Teresa Sánchez Roura 100 authors, thus denoting the existence of variation and consequently free choice. A study of the pragmatic use and effect of these expressions (forthcoming) sheds light on this issue, in the sense that it seems to be the case that choices are made by the writer both before deciding whether to include a certain topic or not (e.g. health matters), and at the moment of giving it linguistic shape (i.e. deferential or warm). It is my claim that this also seems to support the hypothesis that such passages, i.e. most instances of captatio benevolentiae, are present for a purpose and not as a customary technique. Teresa Sánchez-Roura University of Santiago REFERENCES Brown, P. and S.C. Levinson 1987: Politeness: Some Universals in Language usage. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Camargo, M. 1991: Ars dictaminis, ars dictandi. Brepols, Turnhout. Davis, N. 1965: The ‘litera troili’ and English Letters. Review of English Studies 16: 233-44. Denholm-Young, N. 1969: Collected Papers of N. Denholm-Young. The University of Wales Press, Cardiff. Hanham, A. ed. 1975: The Cely Letters. Oxford University Press, Oxford. Henderson, J. R. 1993: On Reading the Rhetoric of the Renaissance Letter. In Renaissance-Rhetorik/Renaissance Rhetoric. Ed. H.F. Plett. De Gruyter, Berlin-New York. 143-62. Murphy, J. 1974: Rhetoric in the Middle Ages: A History of Rhetorical Theory from St Agustine to the Renaissance. University of California Press, Berkeley. Nevalainen, T., and Helena Raumolin-Brunberg 1995: Constraints on Politeness: The Pragmatics of Address Formulae in Early English Convention vs Choice in the Cely Letters 101 Correspondence. In Historical Pragmatics. Ed. A.H. Jucker. John Benjamins, Amsterdam. 541-601 Richardson, M. 1984: The Dictamen and Its Influence on 15th Century English Prose. Rhetorica 2/3: 207-26 Sánchez Roura, T. 2001: What’s Left of captatio benevolentiae in 15th- century English Letters? A Study of the Cely Letters. Neuphilologische Mitteilungen 102: 317-38 Sánchez Roura, T. 2002: The Pragmatics of ‘captatio benevolentiae’ in the Cely Letters. Journal of Historical Linguistics 3.2: 253-72 Whigham, F. 1981: The Rhetoric of Elizabethan Suitors’ Letters. PMLA 96.5: 864-82. * † *