A blog about a database I've compiled from a dinner book kept @BL_ModernMSS. The project started in 2018 & it launches today. If you're interested in dining, sociability, whig culture, etc. you can find the manuscript introduced, digitised, & indexed at https://t.co/TOqzS0vAUM
Job opportunity to come and work as a MHRA Research Fellow on P. B. Shelley's letters @QMUL.
Details here,
https://t.co/Qr8ZojSvBE
Applications close on 12 June.
We are so looking forward to hearing Eliza Haughton-Shaw (Cambridge) talk to us TODAY about 'Rationality and Eccentricity in Sarah Fielding’s and Jane Collier’s The Cry (1751)'.
All welcome IN PERSON or ONLINE.
Sign up online here
https://t.co/w5hFirftkz
@TomCook24 I get that underlining in print is ugly and I’m fine with an argument that just says that. I guess I’m more bothered by an argument that thinks there’s something “correct” in doing italics over it though.
@TomCook24 Hang on. My issue is with your claim that italicization is “nearly always what underlining meant”, but I think now concede that it isn’t? That it means emphasis? And that you’re in favour of translating that emphatic meaning from a convention of ms into a print convention?
@TomCook24 It’s not that uncommon in c18th and c19th letters, nor is a really strong single underlining. My objections to italics/roman in print are that it’s a) a translation of the ms b) it’s binary where as with underlining you can be both faithful and express a larger range of mark.
@TomCook24 An author underlining a phrase in their notebook or letter was using that underlining to say “were this to be printed, I should like this to be italicized”? Hokum. This is a mixing up of conventions: one in preparation of a ms for print (italics) and one for an ms (underlining).
LGHG 7th May 2024 IHR A panel discussion of Lucky Valley: Edward Long and the History of Racial Capitalism (2024) by Catherine Hall https://t.co/XHr3jDZOTv