Strange Use Of Third Person In Civil War Essays And Diaries

Poorlaggedman

Private
Joined
Sep 5, 2019
I've encountered a couple odd occasions of the third person in essays and articles. There aren't a lot of them to convince me it was commonplace but two examples that bother me:

A Captain X's diary describes the actions of the regiments and then casually notes that "Capt X is in command of the regiment." So now I'm not entirely convinced the scanned diary excerpts I have scanned are even from Capt X's diary though they supposedly are.

Separately an essay written by a Sergeant Y decades later describes an action on the battlefield and then says "The writer at this time was on the left of the regiment looking backward to check for casualties." But there's no use of quotation or dialogue anywhere so presumably he's talking about himself and what he personally saw.

So would it be 19th century acceptable to write something and refer to yourself as "The writer"? Or would someone refer to themselves in the third person in a diary form? Both seem very odd to me to the point I'm questioning that the true authors are confused or garbled in either case.

Thanks
 
I've encountered a couple odd occasions of the third person in essays and articles. There aren't a lot of them to convince me it was commonplace but two examples that bother me:

A Captain X's diary describes the actions of the regiments and then casually notes that "Capt X is in command of the regiment." So now I'm not entirely convinced the scanned diary excerpts I have scanned are even from Capt X's diary though they supposedly are.

Separately an essay written by a Sergeant Y decades later describes an action on the battlefield and then says "The writer at this time was on the left of the regiment looking backward to check for casualties." But there's no use of quotation or dialogue anywhere so presumably he's talking about himself and what he personally saw.

So would it be 19th century acceptable to write something and refer to yourself as "The writer"? Or would someone refer to themselves in the third person in a diary form? Both seem very odd to me to the point I'm questioning that the true authors are confused or garbled in either case.

Thanks
"Indirect discourse" had been popular since the time of Julius Caesar in military accounts. Referring to oneself in the 3rd person was acceptable to many and preferred by many. The sort of education generally available today is different from that of the 19th Century.
 
Oh, there's also a whole, different and delightful style by writers we don't see as much of today. " The writer was on the left..." It's only an opinion but I wouldn't worry about the author being garbled or your examples not being genuine. Maybe pull up newspapers from the era, in letters back to home editors, you'll see a lot more.

There's also a ton of self deprecating, tongue in cheek, funny stuff. Mark Twain and Jerome K. Jerome might be the best examples and boy are there now unknown letter and journal writers who were just as fall-down funny. " Capt X is in command of the regiment " - I took that as the author just being a funny guy or at least being creative.

It's only an opinion, if it were me, I'd take these as further proof the journals and diaries are genuine.
 
Hypercorrection is very common in Civil War letters, that results in some decidedly odd sentence structure. The oratorical speech of that day was very flowery. Like all things Victorian, if two words is sufficient, then twelve would be wonderful. What I have found to be the best way of deciphering letters & journals is to read them aloud or have someone read it to you. The phonetic spelling & odd syntax will often come to life. You actually get a feel for the accent the writer spoke with. On a recent occasion, a friend asked me if I would look at a bound collection of letters that belonged to his wife's family. It was written with beautiful calligraphy & the vocabulary was of an educated person. However, the spelling was decidedly strange. It only took a couple of sentences read aloud for me to recognize that the writer spoke German. I looked up his unit & sure enough, he was in a German speaking regiment in the Army of the Cumberland. That was a unique experience, but you never know what convoluted rhetorical flourishes you are going to run into, so reading aloud really helps.
 
Last edited:
I think I'm beginning to understand. Some of these diaries seem less like diaries and more like record-keeping. Another Captain, captured at a battle, writes basically the same account as two other diarists in his unit at that battle, including matter-of-fact movements of the unit and marching movements all going on while he's being paroled and in charge of a parolee detachment. He makes literally no mention of the fact that he is a prisoner or anything of his short time in captivity, he just continues on the narrative of the unit and it's placement. Bizarre
 
So would it be 19th century acceptable to write something and refer to yourself as "The writer"? Or would someone refer to themselves in the third person in a diary form? Both seem very odd to me to the point I'm questioning that the true authors are confused or garbled in either case.
From what I've read, writers of earlier times used "I" mainly in personal correspondence. In reports, books and longer pieces, they tried to avoid using the first person singular. I have read the biography of one local worthy in which he describes the doings of an entire lifetime without a single "I".
 
At times in correspondence, soldiers were very well aware of the historical significance of what they were writing. In the 318 exquisitely detailed letters from Randolph Marshall to his wife Elizabeth he mentions that he always purchased the best paper and ink available, and at times specifically asked Elizabeth to keep the letters safe, in order to document the experiences of his Regiment.
To that point, writing about victories or events in third-person would make it clear to the reader even if only a fragment of the paper (missing heading or signature) were found.
 
So would it be 19th century acceptable to write something and refer to yourself as "The writer"? Or would someone refer to themselves in the third person in a diary form? Both seem very odd to me to the point I'm questioning that the true authors are confused or garbled in either case.

Thanks
It would not only be "acceptable", it would be in the best possible taste; one wasn't supposed to go around blowing one's own horn! That was one of the most annoying things I found when not too long ago I read Louisa May Alcott's memoir Hospital Sketches describing her work briefly as a nurse, in which she called herself Tribulation (Trib for short!) Perriwinkle. They probably wouldn't go thart far in a truly private diary, but changed it when it was published.
 
Back
Top