Citing a personal copy of a letter

By sboerner on Sat, 03/15/2025 - 15:19

Forums

My question concerns a citation issue that I run into frequently, but I cannot find any specific guidance in EE or in the Chicago Manual.

While going through historical archives I often come across autograph (original manuscript) copies of letters made by the letter writer. These were (presumably) made at the time the letter was sent and retained as part of the writer's personal records. Many are labeled "Copy" in the writer's hand.

I want to be clear that these documents are not the actual letters, but instead contemporaneous copies penned by the original sender. Here is my attempt at an endnote:

1. Nathaniel Rochester, autograph copy of letter to Enos Stone, 11 August 1811; folder: “Letters of Nathaniel Rochester to Sundry People,” box: “People—Rochester”; Rochester Historical Society, Rochester, New York.

As an alternative, the citation could use the writer's own notation as a title:

2. Nathaniel Rochester, "Copy letter to Mr. [Enos] Stone at Rochester," 11 August 1811; folder: “Letters of Nathaniel Rochester to Sundry People,” box: “People—Rochester”; Rochester Historical Society, Rochester, New York.

I prefer the second version, but not all of the copies are so clearly labeled.

For comparison, I would cite an actual letter like this:

3. William Fitzhugh to Nathaniel Rochester, 12 February 1814; folder: "Group V/Jan. 7, 1814–Nov. 11, 1814," box: "Nathaniel Rochester Papers, 1776–1819"; Rochester Historical Society, Rochester, New York.

Any comments or guidance would be appreciated. Thank you!

Steve

 

Submitted byEEon Sun, 03/16/2025 - 10:24

Steve, you do not say which edition of EE you have, but historic letters (in both archives and private possession) have been covered in every edition, all the way back to the first in 2007.  Specifically, in the last two editions:

  • EE4 §4.12, 4.22, 4.34, and Template 7
  • EE3 §3.7, 3.8, 3.10, 3.14, 3.35 and QuickCheck model on p. 95

Either of your two proposed citations is appropriate to the situation you describe, although your second one might be clearer if you add one word in editorial brackets.

2. Nathaniel Rochester, "Copy [of] letter to Mr. [Enos] Stone at Rochester," 11 August 1811; folder: “Letters of Nathaniel Rochester to Sundry People,” box: “People—Rochester”; Rochester Historical Society, Rochester, New York.

Submitted bysboerneron Mon, 03/17/2025 - 07:25

I am using the third (revised) edition, and did locate most of the references in your list. What I couldn't find was a model that distinguished a letter from a personal copy of a letter. There's probably no need -- a personal copy is just a document.

But it seems to be an important distinction that should be noted in the citation . . . I guess we could assume that it's in the sender's interest to make an accurate copy. But sometimes there are slips of the pen or legibility issues. And I wonder if in some cases the "copy" might actually be a draft used to make a clean version to send by post.

Thank you for taking a look. Much appreciated!

Yes, indeed, that is an important distinction to make, because it alerts everyone (including us, after our recollection of that piece of research has gone cold) that there's a possibility for transcription errors. But, citation wise, it follows the same pattern. We just ensure that somewhere in the citation we note the fact that it is a copy and not the original.