LHMP #564h Orr 2006 A Sojourn in Paris - Anne’s Intertextuality

This section looks more closely at the interplay between the journal and the correspondence. The two neither duplicate content exactly nor represent entirely distinct content.

Letters received or sent were recorded in the correspondence index at the beginning of the journal volume. This also kept track of the reciprocity of the letters – all were answered, those to Aunt Anne and Mariana within a few days, others less promptly. The index (if I’m understanding correctly) was relatively bare-bones, simply including the date and correspondant. Then within the daily journal entries themselves, the existence of the letter was flagged with an “L” in the margin and the letter would be summarized, with more important content being transcribed in quotation marks. This was the case for both letters received and sent. In many cases, these extracts and summaries are the only evidence for the content of the letters that have not survived. (More on this later.) Examples are given of the interplay between the letters and journal entries covering the same events and topics.

None of the surviving letters use the crypt hand, but the journal extracts from them may use it. This complicates conclusions about the purpose of the crypt hand as it clearly does not always signify things kept secret, if those matters were written openly in the letters. Crypt hand extracts included discussions of clothing, finance, servants, and relations with other residents at Place Vendôme – though all these matters might also appear in plain hand.

As noted in a journal entry, letters to Mariana were (always?) written in crypt hand. (See the previous note about her husband reading their correspondence.) Lister was selective about who she shared the key to the crypt hand with. She had previously given it to another lover, Miss Valance, but there is no indication she ever shared it with Mrs. Barlow.

Destruction of letters was a regular and systematic aspect of correspondence. When they parted, Lister obtained a promise from Mrs. Barlow that she would destroy her letters after reading. Lister sometimes comments about reviewing older correspondence and sorting out some for destruction, especially letters that she felt might reflect badly on her – those from romantic contacts she no longer had relations with, poetry from a rejected male suitor. This process, combined with the journal extracts and the selective use of crypt hand, enabled her to retain content of interest while managing access to knowledge about her sex life.

In a few instances, Lister kept a full copy of letters she sent as a separate document from the journal, and in rare cases she notes keeping the original of a letter received, as well as extracting it to the journal. In one case she notes “I shall keep and read it by way of stimulus” suggesting the possibility that reading it was an erotic act.

The pact with Mrs. Barlow about burning letters gave Lister more freedom to be candid and explicit in their contents. She records:

“I should then write more at my ease assured that she would destroy all that it might be imprudent to keep this is sanction enough to my writing what I like observed that many things I said it would not be prudent to write if she kept my letters.” [Note: as this is written in crypt hand, there is no internal punctuation therefore I have not added any.]

The active role of letters within a relationship is evidenced in multiple ways, in addition to those noted above. The sharing of letters from and to third parties to the Lister-Barlow relationship formed complex literary romantic triangles, shaped by management of which letters to share and which to withhold or delay sharing. Lister regularly shared quite personal letters from Mariana with Mrs.Barlow. It’s unclear if Mariana knew her letters were being shared (though it appears this was an expected practice) but she was clearly aware of the relationship from Lister’s correspondence with her. Mrs. Barlow, on her side, had been engaged in an amorous correspondence with a male suitor, whose tone shifted to an offer of marriage. Lister was aware of the correspondence, but the specific content was not shared initially. Mrs. Barlow kept her suitor dangling without a clear yes or no up through Lister’s departure, but the existence of the continuing relationship (and Lister’s disapproval of the man’s character) contributed to the disruption of their partnership.

This section concludes with a summary of the main themes covered.