Composing about Language of the Heart from the Novel

Brown’s rhetorical strategies of invention included not only composing with the language of the heart as copied and adapted from poetry, but also composing about the language of

the heart as copied and adapted from the novel. Most interesting is Brown’s writing on Grace Aguilar’s domestic novel, Women’s Friendship (1850), about the relationship between middle class Florence and aristocrat Lady Ida. Whereas Brown copied from poetry without attributing her sources, she cited this novel. In her first letter to Primus about the novel, Brown prefaces the language she copies with a direct reference to the novel’s title and author. Brown writes, “O my Darling I read a book called women friendship it was a [splendid?] book I wish I could sent it to you for to read…the author of it is Grace Aguilar”

(January 30, 1862). Brown further marks her practice of copying with, “I will give you little idea of it.” In this way, Brown distinguishes between Aguilar’s language and her own. As with her copying from poetry, however, Brown copied from Aguilar’s novel in order to invent romantic letters to Primus. In copying from the novel, Brown not only relayed its story to Primus, but also reframed that story with direct epistolary address in order to prompt an ongoing exchange with Primus about friendship, marriage, and the nature of their own same-sex romantic relations.

On the one hand, Brown quite predictably copied from Women’s Friendship in order to share with Primus a version of the novel’s story. In Brown’s first letter about the novel, the text she copies amounts to a total of three and a half pages of her eight-page letter. She begins her retelling by copying directly from the opening of the novel (January 30, 1862).

Here Florence’s mother offers a “warning address” about her “warm attachment” to Lady Ida when, “on the receipt of a note” from Ida, Florence becomes “animated” with “its rapid perusal,” “bound[ing] toward her mother with an exclamation of irrepressible joy” (Aguilar 1). The mother warns that, “friendship even more than love demands equality of station”

(1). Later in Brown’s letter, she begins to copy more selectively from portions of the novel,

especially Chapters Two and Seven, and she combines this copied language with her own summary of the novel’s plot (10, 39-40). Brown describes how Florence is continually cautioned against expecting anything other than disappointment from her relationship with Ida: not only will they be separated for a time by distance, when Ida is away from England in Italy, but also Ida will marry. Part of what Brown copies is Ida’s insistence that

“I may still be Florence’s friend,” and Brown emphasizes Ida’s promise to be there for Florence in case of any difficulty (January 30, 1862). Through a combination of copying and summarizing, Brown thus retold the novel’s story, sharing it with Primus.

On the other hand, Brown did more than simply retell the novel’s story. She reframed this retelling through her insertion of epistolary address, in order to make explicit connections between herself and the middle class Florence, between Primus and the aristocrat Ida, and between the two pairs’ relationships and feelings.⁷³ In copying language from the novel’s opening, for example, Brown first interrupts with, “my Darling I’m writing this miscellaneous I know you will understand it.” Here Brown directly addresses Primus with the salutation-like “my Darling,” and Brown signals that Primus’

understanding of what is copied from the novel depends on the larger context of their ongoing romantic epistolary exchange and relationship. In another interruption to the language copied from Women’s Friendship, Brown claims, “Florence and Lady Ida became warm friends Florence love her as I do you.” In this case Brown is more direct about how Primus might take the “little idea” Brown “will give” of the novel: Brown intends for the story of Florence and Ida’s friendship to speak to the ongoing narrative of Addie and Rebecca’s relationship. Interrupting copied language with direct epistolary address, Brown

initiates an ongoing epistolary exchange with Primus about relationships in general and their romantic relationship in particular.

Even without Primus’ written responses, it is clear from a later letter that Brown’s invention strategy affected just such an exchange about friendship and love. In spite of Brown’s earlier insistence, that “I know you will understand it,” it turns out Brown’s writing about Women’s Friendship was anything but clear to Primus. Instead, Brown’s writing prompted a back and forth questioning about these women’s own friendship. Three weeks later, after two other letters and an “unexpected visit,” the exchange continues:

you say that you have suffered for the last few months yes I now do credit your words and never again will you suffer if I can help it then you ask me if I believe that you love me or did I ever believe you did yes I did think you love me and truly think you do now you ask my forgiveness for the pain that you have cause me my Darling my Sweet Friend you have my forgiveness my Darling you friendship is ever been pure to me Rebecca when I spoke of that book I did not mean in that light that you think you did but some day I may be more capable of making you understand what I had reference too no Rebecca you never did anything [? ly] to me no anything else that way my only beloved friend I will not agree with you in this point you say I need never name the tie which exist between us Friendship this term is not [? ble]

to you and you even say that you are not worthy of it call it any thing else but this O My Darling is that you no no never well call it any thing else as long as God is my witness it pure and true Friendship and you are worthy of it and more so never again pen such thought if love me. (February 23, 1862)

With Brown’s references to both “the book” and what Primus “say,” this letter evidences an ongoing epistolary exchange prompted by Brown’s writing about Women’s Friendship. In conversation with each other and the novel, Brown and Primus trade expressions of suffering, apologies, and assurances. Brown refuses to agree with Primus on at least some points. They explore questions about their relationship: Is it “pure”? Is it “true”? Is it best called “friendship”? What makes one “worthy” of pure and true friendship? What thoughts may one who truly loves “pen” within a same-sex romantic letter?

Had Brown turned to the model letters in complete letter-writers manuals, she would not have found a “name” specific to her love for and relationship with Primus. But Brown instead crossed generic lines, drawing on the model offered by a novel. Brown both copied language from Women’s Friendship and wrote about the novel, in order to invent her romantic letters to Primus. In addition to Brown sharing with Primus the story of the novel, Brown reframed that story with direct epistolary address, developing an ongoing exchange about friendship, love, and marriage. Moreover, Brown crossed generic lines by copying language from poetry. Also reframing poetic language with direct epistolary address, Brown took ownership of the copied language. She actively selected specific lines to copy, and she used the copied language to initiate her romantic letters and develop expressions of romantic sentiments. Brown thus practiced rhetorical strategies of invention that, while not learned from letter-writing manuals, relied on adapting language copied from others’

hearts.