The sender of the letter also benefited by placing their letter in the hands of a bearer. John Boyle, Earl of Orrery, wished to write to the bishop of Oxford, but rather than simply slipping his letter in the mail, he wrote to a friend to see if he was acquainted with the bishop. To Boyle’s delight he was and he convinced him to deliver the letter to the bishop for him. Sending the letter in this fashion allowed the letter to come free and it meant that this friend could tell him of the bishop’s response since “a letter from him would be adding an unnecessary trouble to the liberty I have taken.”129 Boyle showed real concern for the bishop’s postal welfare by not requiring him to respond. On other occasions the favor was the choice of bearer. A correspondent of Hans Sloane found that he could “not but count myself more especially ingaged to you for your last of June ye 7th which you oblidgingly contrived should be delivered me by Sir Andrew Fountaine; whose acquaintance I highly value.”130 By sending a letter by a close friend Sloane gifted him not only with his own letter but with a visit by a treasured friend. This favor increased the correspondent’s sense of connection to Sloane himself. Sloane also demonstrated a deep knowledge of his correspondent’s social circle. He knew by whom a letter would be welcome, and this showed the receiver how entangled in his own social network Sloane was, increasing or at least reaffirming his importance.
The use of bearers also eased the strains of epistolary distance by allowing for more immediate interaction. Writers had long used bearers to send verbal messages as well as to deliver letters.131 As Boyle demonstrated with his letter to the Bishop of Oxford, sometimes receiving a verbal response was as desired as a letter. It cost less and, in a way, it was more personal. A young John Perceval delivered a letter and present to his guardian’s friend who, rather than write a letter in return, sent his thanks and services through the protégé.132 This was not only easier but Perceval was a physical being to whom he could extend his thanks, making the exchange feel more personal and immediate. Perceval then sent these thanks on through a letter. Having a letter delivered by an interested bearer also allowed for greater communication. Often the sender had the bearer read the letters they carried because the deliverer could then discuss the information inside with the recipient, which could lead to a more rapid resolution of the issues involved.133 In this fashion three voices echoed in a room with only two discussants. Such an action could give the deliverer the advantage because he knew his own directions from the writer and what the writer had disclosed, or not disclosed, to the recipient. Thus he would have an idea of what to say and what not to say. The presence of the bearer also allowed the recipient to ask the questions left unanswered by the letter itself. A correspondent in Antigua thanked Cassandra Brydges for her letter by a ship’s captain because it gave her “an opportunity of knowing by him more particularly your state of health.”134 Sending a letter by a bearer easily got a letter to its destination, but it also enhanced the level of interaction between the letter writer, the letter bearer, and the letter receiver.
However, there were times when receivers wished the exchange was not quite as immediate because the physical presence of the bearer was also more difficult to ignore. When one of Perceval’s tenants fell on hard times after the death of her husband she did not send a letter by the post to her landlord; she sent it by her youngest son.135 She hoped that by making her suffering visible through the person of her son she might win more leeway from Perceval. Such tactics greatly annoyed Perceval and he once declared to his agent, “when Tenants take that Course, tis only to surprize me into some concessions and impose on me by some melancholy representation of their case, of which I cannot be a competent judge,” but later letters imply that he did talk to the son about the state of the farm.136 As frustrating as Perceval found such tactics, they could work and, on the whole, welcomed bearers outnumbered the unwelcomed.
Sending a letter by a personal bearer was a necessary complement to the developing postal system. In many ways it was the more important system. It was bearers who often got letters to their intended destinations, even those sent through the post originally, and in doing so they increased the sense of personal connection between the sender and the receiver and even the bearer. Charting the way letter writers actually sent their letters insists on the importance 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