“commercial” correspondence, in the sense that naturalists gathered information, financed books, and exchanged specimens for money through their correspondence.
Among British naturalists, face-to-face interaction was usually the basis for correspondence. That is, correspondence began between two or more people who knew each other, initially at least, through local, face-to-face relationships. “Weak ties” were still important for the communication of topographical knowledge of Britain, especially when it came to information exchange between the metropolitan center and Wales, Scotland, and Ireland. Yet even these kinds of ties often got their start when Scottish, Irish, and Welsh naturalists traveled to London, Oxford, and Cambridge and then met in person. The Aberdeen naturalist George Garden opened his first letter to Henry Oldenburg by fondly recalling their meeting in London the summer before: “I am very sensible,” Garden wrote, “of the great civility, wherewith you were pleased to entertain Master Scougall and me, when we waited on you last Summer; and shall be ready on all occasions to give you that account you then desired of things philosophical that may occur here, to promote that noble design you have in hand.” Garden went on to give an account of a man with something “peculiar in his temper, that inclines him to imitate unawares all the gestures and motions of those with whom he converseth,” whom he and Oldenburg had discussed when they first met.14
Naturalists regarded correspondence as a poor substitute for direct interaction, especially when it came to establishing a relationship. Introducing oneself by letter to someone whom one had not met in person was generally regarded as rude. In 1676 John Aubrey recommended to Robert Plot that he consult with Sir Jonas Moore on some matter. Plot, however, begged off: “As for S{i}r Jonas Moore’s assistanse in my affaire,” he wrote to Aubrey, “as I doubt not but it will be very considerable, so I take it as a very great Honour that He will bee pleased to afford it me: but to write to Him in my owne behalfe, especially being altogether unknown to Him too, I must confesse I have not the confidense: I must therefore only begg of you, that you would be pleased to preserve some memory of me in Him till opportunity shall give me leave to waite on Him in London which I hope may be within a little time.”15 It was preferable to approach a potential patron first in person rather than through a letter, though an intermediary might make one known, or “preserve some memory of” one in the person one sought to meet, before that meeting took place.
Despite this preference for face-to-face relationships, gentlemen “personally unknown” to each other could be united through correspondence, after a fashion. Correspondents distinguished, though, between personal acquaintances made face-to-face and those made through letters. Robert Plot and John Ray corresponded in 1691, yet in a letter to Edward Lhuyd, Ray disclaimed acquaintance with Plot’s character, writing in response to Lhuyd’s negative report, “He is a Gentlema{n} personally unknown to me.”16 Because he so trusted Lhuyd’s “judgmt & Charity” (and because Lhuyd’s judgment confirmed Ray’s experience), Ray was inclined to trust Lhuyd’s estimation of Plot, which was generally negative. (To his former assistant curator, Plot was a tight-fisted, grasping creature, eager for preferment but stingy toward those below him.) Letters between two gentlemen personally unknown to each other might be transmitted by a third person acquainted with both parties. Sometimes this occurred even when two people ran in the same circles but were perhaps not great friends. For example, in February and March 1680/81 Aubrey funneled multiple requests for stacks of Robert Plot’s natural history queries through Edward Tyson, who acted at the time as Plot’s informant on the goings-on of the London scientific virtuosi.17
Correspondence was also a means of creating or maintaining “virtual” face-to-face presence. Writing to Lhuyd in the fall of 1692, John Ray noted, “I presume Mr Aubrey is by this time returned to London, though I have not as yet received any notice thereof from him.”18 Recall also Robert Plot’s request to John Aubrey to “preserve some memory of me in” Sir Jonas Moore until such time as he was capable of introducing himself. In this way letter writers attempted to insert themselves as virtual presences in others’ in-person interactions.
They also used their correspondence to spark and frame further conversations. With an extensive correspondence, a naturalist could multiply his presence by gaining access to other people’s connections, which might be very distant from him in geographical or social terms (or both). Edward Lhuyd disseminated the printed proposals for his study of British languages, natural history, and antiquities through his correspondence, asking that his friends personally distribute proposals among their acquaintances, both in face-to-face meetings and in their correspondence. To Martin Lister, he wrote, “I’ll send you more papers to morrow, but I would have them onely put into such hands as are proper. For my Paper is not calculated for a bookseller’s shop, nor to lye in a Coffee; because people that understand not the matter, will think it unreasonable.”19 Because the project was so large (in the end there were almost two hundred subscribers distributed across Wales and England), Lhuyd was unable to seek out and talk with each and every potential supporter; however, he still felt it important that proposals be disseminated via personal contacts. If encountered by the general run of customers in a coffee shop or a bookstore, his project might be misunderstood and its chances for success damaged. Working through individuals, one was surer of approaching someone who would already be kindly disposed to the undertaking. Lhuyd’s associate could appropriately frame it and its value (both to the individual subscriber and to the larger community of the learned) in a conversation or a letter. In this case building financial support for the project was as much about limiting the wrong kinds of conversations, such as the mocking and dismissive kind one often saw in coffee shops, as it was about fostering the right kinds.
Lhuyd’s example also suggests that when seeking support for a project, naturalists worked through textual and conversational channels simultaneously. This may have been particularly important when working through intermediaries, as they might forget or misstate the details of a project. The presence of the printed or written text had the potential to communicate the original author’s meaning more clearly and accurately. But it would not do for potential patrons to encounter the text unless it was appropriately framed in a conversation or a letter: establishing the right social context for the reading of a text was just as important as clearly conveying information in that text.
Going Postal
The material foundation of “an active and large correspondence” was the government-run postal system. This system, which allowed naturalists to send and receive letters in a regular and timely manner and with reasonable confidence that they would arrive at their destinations, developed over the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries.20 Although the royal post was established early in the reign of Henry VIII, it was primarily designed to carry official correspondence until 1635, when Charles I opened the royal mailbags to private communications. Under Henry VIII postal routes were laid along major thoroughfares, such as the road from London to Dover, with horses and riders ready at intervals to relay the mail.21 The precise routes that were laid fluctuated, however, with the needs of the Crown; posts along the road to Ireland were more carefully staffed during times of political trouble and rebellion, for example.22 The royal mail sometimes carried private letters, especially toward the end of the sixteenth century, but official correspondence was always prioritized.23 Private postal services were established as well; for example, English merchants organized the Merchant Adventurers post in the mid-sixteenth century. London immigrant or “Stranger” communities organized their own posts for communication with friends and associates on the Continent.24 Much letter carrying, however, went on according to no organized system, as servants, family members, private carriers, and even travelers headed in the right direction would be pressed into service to deliver letters. There was no unified postal system to which all had access. Correspondence could easily miscarry and be opened by someone other than the intended recipient(s), for good or for ill. Correspondents carefully crafted the missives they sent through this insecure, patchwork system with these expectations in mind. Individuals relied on personal relationships to secure delivery of letters: the name and identity of the individual letter carrier—say, a trusted servant—could be an important
