On this Page Filed elsewhere

Addressee in CLOSER

Source: email
Date: 12 Oct 2004

Query. What do we do with ends of letters that say who they're to (in this case, "To Sir Richard Deane Lord Mayor of London")? The vendor has it in POSTSCRIPT but I don't think that's what we do.

Answer. We leave it loose (i.e. untagged) within CLOSER.

Back to Top

Notary signatures

Source: email
Date: 20 Jan 2004

PFS: Do you all have an established way of tagging the certification of a signature by a notary or witness? Have we talked about this before? For example (invented, obviously):

<DIV1 TYPE="statement">
   <HEAD>Statement of John Smith</HEAD>
    <P>I did it! I did it all!</P>
        <SIGNED>J. Smith</SIGNED>
          <OPENER><DATELINE>Lond. <DATE>14 January 2004</DATE>
            <P>Iurat coram me.</P>
           <CLOSER><SIGNED><HI>B. Jones,</HI> notarius

Is there a better, or a simpler tagging for this?

Back to Top


Source: email
Date: 15 Aug 2002

PFS: I've created a POSTSCRIPT tag, more or less on the model of a DIV, and allowed it *only within CLOSER.* Because it is built on the DIV model, you'll need to add some kind of content-bearing element (e.g. P) in order to put text into a POSTSCRIPT. But also because it is built on the DIV model, it allows (unlike ADD), headers, openers, closers, and trailers of its own. This should handle all the postscripts I can remember seeing; if you meet one that it fails to handle, let me know and we can tweak the definition. The existence of this element should not tempt you to stuff anything and everything into it. In particular, just because something is labelled "postscript" does not mean that you need to put it in a postscript tag. But the new tag should be used in preference to two of the methods being used now, namely: (1) prefer POSTSCRIPT to ADD when what is being ADDed is a postscript. And (2) use POSTSCRIPT instead of using LETTER when the only reason for using LETTER is to allow the placement of a postscript after the closing stuff. I.e., please don't do this:

<DIV1 TYPE="letter">
<P>Your story is awful. You are awful. Never send us another manuscript.</P> <CLOSER><SIGNED>Yours truly, R.E., editor</SIGNED></CLOSER> </LETTER> <P>PS. Have you considered a career in library work?</P> </DIV1>

since now you can do this:

<DIV1 TYPE="letter">
<P>Your story is awful. You are awful. Never send us another manuscript.</P> <CLOSER><SIGNED>Yours truly, R.E., editor</SIGNED> <POSTSCRIPT><P>PS. Have you considered a career in library work?</P> </POSTSCRIPT></CLOSER></DIV1>

On the other hand, do not use POSTSCRIPT when the additional material does not realy belong to the letter (etc.), e.g. editorial commentary by someone who is quoting the letter.

Another example of POSTSCRIPT:

<DIV1 TYPE="letter">
<P>I've met another and his car is newer than yours. Also his hair hasn't fallen out yet. Get lost.</P>
<CLOSER> <SIGNED>Yours sincerely, <HI>Mary</HI></SIGNED>
<OPENER><DATELINE>On the train to Albany,
<DATE>2 days later</DATE></DATELINE>
<P>Don't you still have my Jethro Tull albums? Please give them back ASAP.</P>

Back to Top

Problem CLOSERs

Source: email
Date: 25 Jun 2002

<CLOSER><SIGNED>Your most loving, and assured <HI> Friend</HI>, and <HI>Sonne</HI>,</SIGNED> <SIGNED>Fr. Bacon. <HI>C. S.</HI></SIGNED> <ADD><HI>Gorhambury,</HI></ADD> <DATE><HI>Apr.</HI> 12. 1617.</DATE></CLOSER>

Note the double SIGNED and the unnecessary ADD. Better:

<CLOSER> <SIGNED>Your most loving, and assured <HI> Friend</HI>, and <HI>Sonne</HI>, Fr. Bacon. <HI>C. S.</HI></SIGNED> <DATELINE><HI>Gorhambury,</HI> <DATE><HI>Apr.</HI> 12. 1617.</DATE> </DATELINE> </CLOSER>

<TRAILER>London this <DATE>22 of <HI>May</HI>. 1622.</DATE> </TRAILER>

This is really a classic CLOSER, not a TRAILER. Better:

<CLOSER> <DATELINE>London <DATE>this 22 of <HI>May</HI>. 1622.</DATE> </DATELINE></CLOSER>

<DATELINE><DATE><HI>From</HI> Templaria, <HI>the 18^t^h^. of</HI> December, <HI>1594.</HI></DATE></DATELINE></CLOSER>

This one has more than the date in the DATE. I think I'd also reverse the HIs if time allowed. Better:

<DATELINE>From <HI>Templaria,</HI> <DATE>the 18^t^h^. of <HI>December,</HI> 1594.</DATE></DATELINE></CLOSER>


And this one not only isn't a TRAILER, but really looks like back matter. So though it may look like tagging overkill, I think I'd do this:


Back to Top

Signatures tagged as SALUTE

Source: email
Date: 25 Jun 2002

<CLOSER><SALUTE>Your Worships,</SALUTE> <SIGNED>in all devoted Service and respect, WILLIAM PRYNNE.</SIGNED></CLOSER>

should be:

<CLOSER><SIGNED>Your Worships, in all devoted Service and respect, WILLIAM PRYNNE.</SIGNED></CLOSER>

<CLOSER><SALUTE>MADAME, Your Majesties most Humble Servant</SALUTE> <SIGNED>I. S.</SIGNED></CLOSER>

should be:

<CLOSER><SALUTE>MADAME,</SALUTE> <SIGNED>Your Majesties most Humble Servant I. S.</SIGNED></CLOSER>

<CLOSER><SALUTE>Your Lordships most readie to be commanded </SALUTE> <SIGNED>Matthew Sutcliffe.</SIGNED></CLOSER>

should be:

<CLOSER><SIGNED>Your Lordships most readie to be commanded Matthew Sutcliffe.</SIGNED></CLOSER>


should be:


Back to Top



<CLOSER><SIGNED>Given at Our Court at <HI>York</HI> the fourth of <DATE>Iune, 1642.</DATE></SIGNED></CLOSER>

should be:

<CLOSER><DATELINE>Given at Our Court at <HI>York</HI> <DATE>the fourth of Iune, 1642.</DATE></DATELINE> </CLOSER>

<CLOSER><SIGNED><HI>Christ</HI>'s Coll. <DATE>10 <HI>April,</HI> 1627.</DATE></SIGNED> <SIGNED>Your obliged Friend, Ioseph Mede.</SIGNED></CLOSER></LETTER></DIV2>

should be:

<CLOSER> <DATELINE><HI>Christ</HI>'s Coll. <DATE>10 <HI>April,</HI> 1627.</DATE></DATELINE> <SIGNED>Your obliged Friend, Ioseph Mede.</SIGNED></CLOSER></LETTER></DIV2>

<CLOSER><SIGNED>Christ's <HI>Coll.</HI> <DATE>22 May, 1628.</DATE></SIGNED> <SIGNED>Your Lordship's most ready to be commanded, <HI>Ioseph Mede.</HI></SIGNED></CLOSER>

should be:

<CLOSER> <DATELINE>Christ's <HI>Coll.</HI> <DATE>22 May, 1628.</DATE></DATELINE> <SIGNED>Your Lordship's most ready to be commanded, <HI>Ioseph Mede.</HI></SIGNED></CLOSER>

Back to Top

Correctly tagged CLOSER with DATELINE


Here's another few sample CLOSERs with DATELINEs, tagged correctly, more or less:

<CLOSER> <DATELINE>Portbury, <DATE>Octob. 20. 1698.</DATE></DATELINE> <SALUTE>SIR,</SALUTE> <SIGNED>Your most humble Servant, John Covant.</SIGNED></CLOSER>

<CLOSER><SALUTE>My deare brother,</SALUTE> <SIGNED>Your, &c.</SIGNED> <DATELINE>At <HI>Paris</HI> <DATE>15. Ianu. 1628.</DATE></DATELINE></CLOSER>

<CLOSER> <DATELINE>From <HI>Ipswich</HI> <DATE>November 12. 1636.</DATE></DATELINE> <SIGNED>Thine in the Lord, <HI>Matthew White.</HI></SIGNED></CLOSER>

<CLOSER><DATELINE>E Collegio Christi Cantabrigiae, <DATE>Mense Iulio, Anno <HI>M DC XXXII.</HI></DATE></DATELINE></CLOSER></LETTER>

Back to Top


Source: email
Date: 2003-03-24
File name: apex/S18276

The line between CLOSER and TRAILER is blurred in this text because so many of the sections ended with "Finis" followed by the author's name or initials. They had been tagged TRAILER and I let that stand whenever the word "Finis" was used.

PFS: I split these up into TRAILER CLOSER/SIGNED and (for the Latin tag lines) EPIGRAPH/Q, like this:

<EPIGRAPH><Q>Dum spiro spero.</Q></EPIGRAPH>

Back to Top

Using CLOSER, SIGNED for "quoth x".

Source: email
Date: 2003-06-13
File name: apex/S12914

On pp 24 and 26 there are some stanzas ending with things like "quoth A.N.Carter". I have put these just in closers, but wondered about using speaker tags. Would that have been better?

PFS: This "quoth x" (or often "&abquod; x") formula appears elsewhere at the close of poems (?or other pieces) as a statement or claim of authorship. We've generally tagged these as <SIGNED>.

Back to Top

Unusual CLOSERs in LETTERs

Source: email
Date: 2004-05-28
File name: pdcc/Ws6344

This is a collection of letters, mostly from Charles I to parliament. They tend to end with a paragraph of info about who the letter is for (originally the bit folded over to show the addressee??). I've just put these in the closer:

<CLOSER><DATELINE><HI>Given at</HI> Carisbrook-Castle <HI>in the</HI>
Isle of Wight, <DATE>Decemb. 28. 1647.</DATE></DATELINE> <HI>For the
Speaker of the Lords House</HI> pro tempore&punc; <HI>to be
communicated to the Lords and Commons in the Parliament of</HI>
England <HI>at</HI> Westmin|ster, <HI>and the Commissioners of the
Parliament of</HI> Scotland.</CLOSER></LETTER>

But it looks a bit lumped-in like this; in the image it's quite separate from the other closer information, but it doesn't feel like a postscript.

PFS: if this is a typical example, I agree that it doesn't look like either an (authorial) postscript or an (editorial) comment. The former could be dealt with as a <POSTSCRIPT>; the latter by placing the rest of the letter in <LETTER> tags and leaving only the comment as free text within the DIV.

No, it looks like part of the letter itself, the address or commission attached to it. When such things occur at the beginning, we sometimes include them in the head

<HEAD>A letter to be communicated to the Lords and Commons in Parliament</HEAD>

so a <TRAILER> is not out of the question, on the grounds that whatever can go in a HEAD can go in a TRAILER. But it seems long and a little forced for TRAILER, so I think I'd leave the material in CLOSER as you have it, for want of a better idea.

Back to Top

DATELINE or SIGNED for descriptions of person or place?

Source: email
Date: 16 Dec 2002

A subtle difference sometimes, but when a place or institution is associated with a person's name (or even when it isn't) in a closer, if it describes the place at which the writing was done, it goes in DATELINE (usu. within CLOSER); if it describes the person doing the writing, it goes with the name inside of SIGNED. I.e.:

<CLOSER> <DATELINE>University of Michigan, <DATE>16 Dec 2002</DATE></DATELINE> <SIGNED>pfs</SIGNED> </CLOSER>


<SIGNED>pfs (MA, Cantab.; MILS, University of Michigan)</SIGNED>

Sometimes it is not clear which is meant. For example, in Wl3451:

(1) this:

<SIGNED>Cath. Hall, Cambridge, <DATE><HI>May</HI> 16. 1700.</DATE> W. Worts.</SIGNED> </DIV2>

should clearly be done this way:

<CLOSER><DATELINE>Cath. Hall, Cambridge, <DATE><HI>May</HI> 16. 1700.</DATE></DATELINE> <SIGNED>W. Worts.</SIGNED></CLOSER> </DIV2>

(2) this:

<SIGNED>Doddershall <HI>in Com.</HI> Bucks, <DATE>May 28th. 1700.</DATE> A. M.</SIGNED>

should be done thus:

<CLOSER> <DATELINE>Doddershall <HI>in Com.</HI> Bucks, <DATE>May 28th. 1700.</DATE></DATELINE> <SIGNED>A. M.</SIGNED> </CLOSER>

(3) but this:

<SIGNED>Hen. Hoyle&punc; <HI>A. M.</HI> Trin. Col. Cantab.</SIGNED>

I think is probably right as is, i.e. Trinity College Cambridge describes not the place of writing (in which case it would be DATELINE) but the place of Henry Hoyle (or of his degree), in which case it remains in SIGNED.

Likewise these (not entirely sure about the third one, on account of the ambiguous nature of "ex"):

<SIGNED>P. W. <HI>Trin. Coll.</HI> Cant.</SIGNED>

<SIGNED><HI>Ioannes Phillips,</HI> Interioris Templi Alumnus.</SIGNED>

<SIGNED>D. A. <HI>Ex Aede Christi</HI> Oxon.</SIGNED>

<SIGNED>B. K. <HI>Trin. Col.</HI> Cantab. Alum.</SIGNED>

<SIGNED><HI>I. Blyth.</HI> One of the Senior Scholars in <HI>Merchant Taylors</HI> School, Aged 15.</SIGNED>

Back to Top

"Directions" after CLOSER in letters

Source: email
Date: 26 Feb 2002
Vid: 55322
Page ref: 3

Query. If you have the SIGNED bit, then adjacent to it something like <P>For the Earle of Lowdon</P>, how should this be tagged? Its a direction, or address bit that comes at the end.

Answer. I do not recall meeting one just like this, so though there are options, I am not sure that there is precedent. I do not think that it is a SALUTE. I do not think that it is an ADDRESS in the sense that TEI uses the term. You are left with including it as plain text within the CLOSER (untagged), or as treating it as a kind of title for the letter, in which case it may be tagged as TRAILER. Given these two examples, I think that I would go with TRAILER.

Your examples are slightly complicated by the question of sequence. Though it is placed on the left side, as if it preceded the signature on the right, it seems to belong AFTER it. Like this:

<P>... I shall e|ver remaine</P>
<SIGNED>Your Lordships most humble servant, <HI>PATRICKE MAULE.</HI></SIGNE> </CLOSER> <TRAILER>For the Earle of <HI>Lowdon.</HI></TRAILER>

<SIGNED>Your loving Father in the Lord Iesus. <HI>J. Meldrum.</HI></SIGNED> </CLOSER> <TRAILER>To <HI>William Gray</HI> Preacher to Coll: <HI>Dowglas</HI> Regiment in <HI>France.</HI></TRAILER>

Back to Top