CBR: Intersectionality in Digital Humanities. Chapter 8: Revaluating Early Modern Princesses’ Letters as a Source for Cultural History and Corpus Linguistics by Vera  Fasshauer.

Barbara Bordalejo and Roopika Risam (editors). Intersectionality in Digital Humanities. Arc Humanities Press. 2019.

Chapter Reviewed: Chapter 8: Revaluating Early Modern Princesses’ Letters as a Source for Cultural History and Corpus Linguistics by Vera  Fasshauer.

Review by: Jessica Corona, Master Student, Modern Languages and Literatures, University of Texas at San Antonio.

Introduction: 

In recent years, both historico-cultural and linguistic research has become conscious of the significance textual witnesses from women’s hands can bear with respect to gender-conditioned social and educational discrimination as well as for the study of orality, dialect, and language change. (p. 117)

Vera Fasshauer’s chapter, “Revaluating Early Modern Princesses’ Letters as a Source for Cultural History and Corpus Linguistics,” challenges long-standing assumptions about women’s writing by reevaluating letters produced by early modern princesses. She argues that these texts have historically been dismissed as “bad writing” labeled grammatically incorrect, messy, or insignificant largely by male scholars who judged them against standards to which women had limited or no access. Fasshauer reframes these critiques by demonstrating that what has been considered linguistic “faultiness” is, in fact, evidence of structural inequalities in education, access, and power. Rather than being negligible, these letters serve as valuable sources for understanding gender, language, and society between the 16th and 18th centuries. From this perspective, women’s writing emerges not as deficient, but as a rich archival record that reveals the social and linguistic conditions shaping their lived experiences.

Building on this argument, the chapter traces how women’s writing evolved over time, highlighting shifts in language use alongside persistent gendered inequalities in education. The corpus of letters, spanning the 16th to 18th centuries, can be understood across three key historical moments. In the 16th century (1500s), during the Reformation period, early examples of women’s correspondence reflect limited educational access and strong religious influence. In the 17th century (1600s), letter-writing practices became more developed, with women participating more actively in familial and political communication. By the 18th century (1700s), a gradual movement toward linguistic standardization emerged, reflecting broader changes in written language, although women’s writing continues to reveal the effects of unequal access to formal education. Together, these periods demonstrate that language and writing practices are deeply shaped by social structures, particularly gendered inequalities.

Archival Power & Erasure

Fasshauer demonstrates that the archive is not a passive space of preservation but an active site of power. The selective publication, editing, and normalization of women’s letters reveal how historical records are shaped by gendered assumptions about language and value. By correcting and reducing women’s writing, editors not only altered the texts but also erased the very linguistic features that reflected women’s lived experiences. In this sense, the archive does not simply preserve history; it constructs it through processes of inclusion, exclusion, and transformation. Fasshauer reinforces this argument by highlighting the role of the editor, noting that “the editor felt obliged to lend the author his improving hand and rectify her numerous linguistic peculiarities to make her writing digestible (genießbar) to the public” (p. 111). This intervention reveals how editorial practices function as mechanisms of control, shaping how women’s voices are read, understood, and valued. Framed in this way, the archive exposes layered forms of gender inequality embedded within historical knowledge production.

Decolonial Approach to Knowledge

Fasshauer’s analysis also challenges the idea that there is one “correct” or standard form of language, exposing how such standards are historically tied to systems of power. The linguistic norms used to judge women’s letters were developed within elite, male-dominated educational structures to which women had little access. As Fasshauer explains, “the norms from which women’s writing was judged to deviate had been established by a privileged community to which women had no access until the twentieth century” (p. 113). As a result, women’s writing was labeled as incorrect or deficient not because it lacked meaning or complexity, but because it did not conform to these imposed standards. By preserving the original spelling, grammar, and variation in women’s letters, Fasshauer resists this normalization and instead validates alternative forms of linguistic expression. This approach challenges Eurocentric and elite models of language that privilege uniformity, correctness, and institutional authority. In this sense, “standard language” can be understood as a form of control one that disciplines whose voices are considered legitimate and whose are dismissed. By rejecting this framework, the chapter opens space for recognizing linguistic diversity as meaningful and historically significant rather than as error.

Representation vs. Reality

Fasshauer’s chapter also highlights the tension between representation and reality in how women’s writing has been understood historically. Women’s letters were often dismissed as emotional, domestic, or insignificant, reinforcing the idea that they existed outside of meaningful political or intellectual life. This perception is reflected in the claim that their writing “their contents also appeared to be far more tedious, irrelevant, and ordinary … than those of their coequals who were men” (p. 110). However, this representation obscures the reality of what these texts actually contain. As Fasshauer shows, women’s correspondence frequently engaged with political negotiations, legal struggles, and strategies for survival within restrictive social systems. Their writing reflects not only personal experiences but also their active participation in maintaining family, dynastic, and social networks. The characterization of these letters as trivial reveals more about the biases of those interpreting them than about the content itself. In this sense, the gap between representation and reality exposes how historical narratives are shaped by gendered assumptions that devalue women’s contributions. By reevaluating these texts, Fasshauer demonstrates that what has been framed as marginal or irrelevant is, in fact, central to understanding early modern social and political life.

Digital Humanities and Feminist Data

Fasshauer’s chapter also makes an important contribution to digital humanities by modeling what can be understood as a feminist approach to data. Rather than treating women’s letters as texts to be corrected, standardized, or “cleaned up,” this research preserves their original spelling, grammar, and variation, recognizing these features as meaningful rather than erroneous. In doing so, Fasshauer challenges traditional data practices that prioritize uniformity and readability over authenticity. The creation of a digitally annotated corpus that includes multiple layers such as original transcription, normalized versions, and linguistic tagging allows for both close and distant reading while maintaining the integrity of the source material. This approach reflects a feminist data ethic that values care, context, and the preservation of marginalized voices. By resisting normalization and instead foregrounding variation, the project treats women’s writing not as flawed data but as critical evidence of lived experience, linguistic diversity, and structural inequality. In this sense, digital humanities becomes not just a methodological tool, but a political intervention that redefines what counts as data and whose voices are worthy of being preserved and analyzed.

Conclusion

In conclusion, Fasshauer’s chapter not only reevaluates early modern women’s letters but also fundamentally challenges how knowledge, language, and archives have been historically constructed. By exposing how women’s writing was dismissed, edited, and reshaped through systems of power, the chapter reveals that what has long been considered “incorrect” or insignificant is, in fact, deeply meaningful. Through an analysis of archival practices, linguistic norms, and digital methodologies, Fasshauer demonstrates that women’s letters are critical sources for understanding gendered inequalities, language change, and social structures between the 16th and 18th centuries. Moreover, by rejecting the idea of a single “correct” language and preserving linguistic variation, the chapter advances a decolonial and feminist approach to knowledge production. It shows that archives do not simply preserve history they actively shape it by determining which voices are valued and how they are represented. Ultimately, Fasshauer’s work repositions women’s writing from the margins to the center, offering a more inclusive and accurate understanding of the past while opening new possibilities for feminist and digital humanities research.