of personal networks. Writers depended on networks to uncover addresses, to follow the movements of their correspondents, and to know who was the correct bearer to send. They also personalized the letter. These epistles flowed along deeply worn grooves of connection that held long-standing networks together. James Brydges, the eventual Duke of Chandos, received a letter from one cousin via another; John Eliot sent a letter by his sister to his uncle; and Sloane received one from his Oxford acquaintance via another intellectual connection.137 These letters circulated through these dependable networks to reach their final destination. But to truly understand the functioning and shape of the networks that undergirded postal exchange, the way individuals circulated letters after their arrival requires examination.
Trusted Networks
Arriving at an initial destination was only the start of many letters’ journeys. Bearers show the importance of personal networks in the dynamics of letter delivery and an examination of their continued circulation reveals what networks individuals depended upon.138 After letters arrived they passed from hand to hand within a household. When discussing an affair of the heart John Perceval declared to a correspondent, “I imparted your letter to my wife, & we are at a loss what to think of the Lady’s behaviour.”139 Obviously the tale puzzled Perceval and he passed the letter on to his wife and they discussed it. At times permission had to be given for such sharing. Perceval’s brother told him in a letter that he could show it to their cousin. In fact, he sent the cousin over to see it and receive its news.140 Writers knew the networks of others well enough to use them: Perceval’s brother knew their cousin came by Perceval’s house on a regular basis and that by sending a letter to Perceval he could also include the cousin. The sharing of letters was an acknowledged fact. Letter writers knew that the entire family read the letters sent to a single member.141 The extended Perceval family read letters out loud among themselves. Perceval’s cousin, who often watched over his children, told Perceval, “Your Proverb made us laught heartily.”142 It did not just amuse his cousin; it amused us. One can almost picture him sitting around the fire with his wife and Perceval’s two children laughing at the proverb Perceval had sent them.
Letters were often the creations of many hands. Husbands and wives would sign a single letter to a correspondent.143 If there was room at the end of a letter, a writer would allow another to add to it. Peter Collinson’s correspondent eagerly accepted the opportunity of adding a few lines to the end of a friend’s letter.144 Some writers even thanked correspondents for these short notes of remembrance, even if they preferred a longer letter.145 Close correspondents, especially family members, were the most frequent practitioners of joint letters. Since they saw each other frequently or lived together they had the most access to each other’s letters. Daniel Dering and his wife often wrote letters together to John Perceval and his wife. Many conclude with Dering stating, “I leave my Letter open for my Wife to give an Account of her self.”146 The Derings and the Percevals were a deeply interconnected family. Daniel was John’s cousin and his wife was John’s wife’s sister and the couple often lived with the Percevals. Thus, it seems natural that they would share communal letters.
Often correspondents simply assumed that an acquaintance’s letter would stand in for their own. It was understood that close friends, family members, and other trusted eyes had access to letters. Writers would ask a correspondent to assure an acquaintance that they did not send them a letter because they knew they had access to the other letter.147 Dering often took this route and put off writing to Perceval when he knew his wife had written either of the Percevals a long letter.148 Perceval’s other cousin assumed that one letter to the family was sufficient. She told Perceval, “I thought reading one letter at a time from one so dull as my self was a sufficient penance for the whole Family.”149 Letters were communal possessions of certain circles, especially family circles, and a letter to one was seen as a letter to all. Thus sending them by members of this circle only seemed natural and often extended the conversation.
Letters circulated beyond the family fireside as well; receivers mailed them to others who might be interested in their contents. Writers often mention returning letters composed by others and forwarding amusing or intriguing letters to other correspondents.150 Peter Collinson sent Hans Sloane a letter “from a Curious Gentleman at Plymouth” as a present.151 While such exchanges were an accepted practice they did cause problems, especially when receivers forgot to return letters. Collinson had to remind Sloane to return his letter from a Russian doctor on crabs’ eyes because “I must write to the Doctor answer.”152 He needed the letter by his side to compose the correct response. Sloane returned the letter with thanks and enclosed a letter for the doctor.153 Collinson inserted this reminder not because of unauthorized sharing, but because of the logistics of sharing. In fact, such an exchange increased Sloane’s own network since he added his own reply and let Collinson deliver it.
There were limits to letter circulation, however, and letter passing was more prevalent within certain networks. Identifying these networks pinpoints what groups letter writers trusted and what networks they depended upon. The three that surface most prominently are family networks, estate networks, and intellectual networks. One of the main purposes of this book is to explore the functioning and interaction of these webs of connection. Family members were quite casual about passing each other’s letters around and about depending on a letter to one to account for the whole. They often lived together, socialized together, and sympathized together, so the bonds of affection, duty, and support were strong. The result of this close proximity, economic and social dependence, and affection was trust. Letters could be passed among family members and be sent by family members because they could be trusted to put letters into careful hands.
Members of the British elite had long trusted and utilized family networks, but as the circulation of letters suggests other networks were rising in importance during this period. Landlords, their agents, and their tenants often circulated letters among themselves as well. These correspondents did not inherently trust one another, but letter circulation helped create trust or at least the appearance of transparency. It also made the business of running an estate from afar function more smoothly. The same held true for absentee colonial plantation owners. The only way the increasing number of absentee landlords could keep in touch with their estates, whether they were in Ireland or Virginia, was through letters from their agents. Enclosing and passing letters helped landlords and agents stay on the same page in estate affairs: Perceval wanted to be sure that his agents in Ireland knew exactly what he wrote to his tenants so the tenants could not take advantage of the agent.154 Agents would often show tenants their landlord’s letters to prove they were not twisting his words and tenants often insisted that landlords saw their original letters, not just the agent’s interpretation of them. As Perceval’s slightly aggrieved agent wrote to him regarding a tenant’s letter, “he desires me to forward the orginall thinking I suppose that no extract cou’d do his request justice.”155 The letters sent, passed, and enclosed by landlords, agents, and tenants illustrate the trust, strained but extant, between them: tenants had to believe that agents would pass on letters and landlords had to trust that agents would give them a fair picture of affairs on their land, a belief that was often tried by untrusting tenants. While estate letters circulated in a different fashion and for a different reason than family letters, there was a sense that such passing was allowable because the extent of circulation was known and letters could help this strained community function.
The practice of exchanging letters was even more common among members of intellectual networks like the Royal Society who, to promote their scholarly interests, were constantly circulating each other’s letters. Together two members might peruse a single letter by another member and then send it on to a third.156 At times they even lost track of who had seen a letter it had been passed around so much.157 This kind of exchange would reach its fullest extent with the publication of Philosophical Transactions, the journal of the Royal Society, which drew on letters sent to the Society. Scholars had to depend on one another’s knowledge and this sense of trust extended beyond experiments
