"long" and "bigness" in 1694

[Joel S. Berson]

At 9/2/2010 11:21 AM, Jonathan Lighter wrote:

>Sounds like its just a way of saying "two inches high and not backed
>or elaborated with snazzy embroidery that might distract the eye from the
>fatal letter."
>
>Most pictures of Hester Prynne show a giant letter A. Tsk.

Hawthorne incorrectly describes the letter as "each limb proved to be
precisely three inches and a quarter in length".

I am not up to estimating the angle of the legs of a capital letter
A, nor using the trigonometric functions to determine the
"length".  Except for an angle of 45 degrees:  In that shape,
Hawthorne's letter would be 2.3 inches "long" (and "of a
bigness").  This being the shortest "length" possible for the
triangle, Hawthorne's could not possibly have been "of two inches long".

In the probably more acute form of an A, the "length"would be
slightly more than 2.3 inches.  But of course never as long as 3 1/4
inches.  How big are the "giant letter[s] A"?  (Jon, you don't need to answer.)

I don't imagine we have any illustrations of persons sentenced to
wear an I for incest, although I am aware of three such cases.  (In
the 18th century; two males, one female.  And the cases of wearing a
cloth A -- five -- were also in the 18th century; three males and
five females were so sentenced.)

Joel

------------------------------------------------------------
The American Dialect Society - http://www.americandialect.org