ABSTRACT

Reading in the early modern period was not an innocent activity – nor is it in any other historical period perhaps. On the one hand, the reception and interpretation of texts mattered because of the power that books supposedly exerted over readers, at worst corrupting them physically, morally and spiritually. On the other hand, reading was not only dangerous for readers, but also potentially threatening to authors and publishers because, as James D. Raven, Helen Small and Naomi Tadmor remark, there was “a clear recognition that – once in the hand of the individual reader – the respectful reception of the written word was far from guaranteed” (14). Considering that “it was not readers but authors who were held responsible for subversive ‘meanings’” (Sharpe 43), it is not surprising that many preliminaries simultaneously seek to promote and control the reading of texts. According to Brayman Hackel, early modern paratexts display a number of strategies (101-125), that “pushed [readers] towards a single reading posture of sympathy, pliability, and friendliness” (69). They fashion the reader in their address as “gentle” – as opposed to a “vulgar” reader – “with ‘gentle’ shifting from a description marking class status to a prescription framing readers’ behavior” (Brayman Hackel 71).1 Other descriptive adjectives were used interchangeably like for instance “discreete,” “Impartial,” “Judiciall” (Dobranski 106) or “courteous” (Brayman Hackel 116), and Sharpe notes the frequent addresses to “Christian” and “understanding” (54) readers in dedications. In addition to prescriptive preliminaries outlining an ideal reader and ideal readerly practices, Brayman Hackel sees printed marginalia as an attempt to extend control over the reading process further into the text (69, 86, 90, 127-135). In the case of the Urania all such paratextual guidance is limited to and implicit in the elaborate frontispiece.