Category-Crossing Forms of Address

In light of how complete letter-writer manuals provided model romantic letters, the first genre convention already discussed for heteronormative epistolary address was susceptible to queer challenge. Although manuals marked the gender of letter writers and readers such that romantic epistolary address was heteronormative, these same manuals provided at least some resources for composing queerly category-crossing forms of address. Certainly models indicated to learners what was considered appropriate, or how manual users should address their letters based on gender. But manuals could not guarantee how learners would use the models. Indeed, because of how models were presented as resources for invention—not merely as models of writing from the heart, but as models with the potential for invention through copying and adaptation—these same model letters were susceptible to being copied and adapted in ways that crossed gender categories.

Part of what rendered the generic conventions for romantic epistolary address susceptible to gender crossing was how manuals made the same models available to all learners regardless of gender. There were some manuals, and especially conduct and etiquette guides, titled specifically for either men or women. But most complete letter-writers, in their bid to be “complete” by providing models for all letter writers in all situations, offered the same set of models to both men and women. Complete letter- writers even emphasized the usefulness of their models to “both sexes.” For example, the preface to The Complete Art of Polite Correspondence (1857) states that the “volume is particularly recommended to…both sexes” (10). Similarly, The Complete Letter Writer (1811) and R.

Turner’s Parlour Letter-Writer (1835) both include in their subtitles the following phrasing: Containing Letters…Adapted to the Use of Both Sexes. Complete letter-writer models were to be of “Use,” then, by “both sexes.”

Manuals not only made the same model romantic letters available for use across sex or gender, but also hinted at the possibility of uses involving gender-crossing adaptation. In the above subtitle, for instance, reference to “the Use of Both Sexes” is preceded by the action word, “Adapted.” In terms of romantic epistolary address, learners in same-sex romantic relationships would be especially likely to pursue possibilities for using and adapting models regardless of how manuals marked the gender of letter writers and readers. In short, such learners could use the models made available by manuals, copying the models suited to their purposes, but adapt those models by crossing gender categories in order to compose same-sex romantic epistolary address.

Consider, for example, how such a hypothetical learner might use a model from The Complete Letter Writer (1811). Imagine this learner as a woman in a same-sex, cross-class relationship with another woman from a wealthier family. Much like Chesterfield’s example of the hypothetical letter writer Jemima, who finds no model for how to accept Joseph “on condition that he will at once shave off his moustache” (7), our imagined learner searches the table of contents of The Complete Letter Writer for a model of how to address another woman. Though no such model is provided, she would find the letter, “From a Gentleman to a young Lady of a superior Fortune” (vi, 102). This model is intended for letter writers who are gentlemen, but because all complete letter-writer models are available for use and even adaptation by “both sexes,” the hypothetical manual user could select this model from the table of contents. She could then use the model as a resource for inventing her own letter,

copying from the model yet adapting it by crossing gender in order to compose romantic epistolary address to “a young lady of superior Fortune.” Through this sort of model adaptation, gender-crossing forms of romantic epistolary address “can detach subjects from gender and sexual subjectivities that then reattach to queer effect” (Thomas 37).

Some manuals even suggested, as opposed to merely hinting at possibilities for, such detaching and reattaching, with its potentially queer effects for romantic epistolary address.⁴¹ As already discussed, Chesterfield’s is critical of how complete letter-writers provide models, claiming, “it is impossible to give…‘ready made’ letters” (8). But the same manual does provide what it calls “skeletons of love letters” (58a). These ready-made skeletons include an introductory paragraph and a closing paragraph to be copied, and readers are advised to “fill up between the bones to suit themselves” (58a). While most of the skeletons are written by men, presumably because romantic letter writing comes more naturally for women, and they thus need less instruction, “Nevertheless, some of the above skeletons, or parts of them, could be adapted by ladies into letters to their lovers, if they were hard up for ideas” (61a). Chesterfield’s thus encourages learners to copy from and adapt models “to suit themselves,” including by crossing gendered subject positions for writers and readers. While most manuals did not directly encourage such gender crossing, all of them at least provided an extensive array of model romantic letters. These models were available for invention through copying and adaptation, rendering the genre conventions for romantic epistolary address subject to queer challenge through gender-crossing forms of address.