The Opened Letter. Lindsay O'Neill

Чтение книги онлайн.

СКАЧАТЬ to bearers because they were easier to send a letter by, they deepened the emotional worth of the letter, and they allowed for more immediate forms of interaction. Personal postal intermediaries were an integral component of the postal process.

      Many writers were seemingly unable to pass up a convenient bearer. As late as 1765 John Eliot could not resist taking, as he put it, “the opportunity” proffered by a traveling acquaintance to send a letter to his estate agent in Cornwall.¹²⁰ But it was Peter Collinson who, according to his letters, could not let a convenient opportunity pass. In 1739 it was his friend Dr. Filenius who gave him “so convenient an opportunity,” in 1741 it was Mr. Biork, and in 1754 it was Mr. Smith.¹²¹ All these hands were convenient because they were carrying letters to correspondents off the major postal routes of the world. Filenius and Biork carried their letters to Karl Linnaeus in Sweden and Mr. Smith to a friend in Connecticut. Like sending a letter across the Atlantic, the opportunity to send a letter to Sweden, as one correspondent stated, “don’t occur often.”¹²² In many ways, these convenient bearers were merely that, easy means for getting a letter from one point to another where the postal system failed.

      As they surface in Collinson’s letters these bearers appear to be the product of kismet. To an extent this was probably true, but letter writers and letter bearers also created these convenient opportunities because they strengthened the web of social connection that bound them all. William Byrd II asked his friend to call on an acquaintance to see if he had a letter for him because he “is such a Philosopher that he needs a Moniter to put him in mind of his Friends.”¹²³ By sending a prospective bearer Byrd reactivated a correspondence that had seemed to stall. Traveling friends often acted as informal postmasters and collected letters before their departures. They would come to take their leave and gather letters for brothers, sisters, and friends.¹²⁴ Here the increased mobility of the British elite helped since they had more opportunities to deliver letters. Collecting letters demonstrated a polite concern for the postal needs of a friend or acquaintance. It offered their letter a safe conveyance, saved them a trip to the Post Office, and made their letters free of charge. When the writer could not depend on the postal system a bearer who came for a letter was doubly appreciated. William Byrd II waxed poetic about the bearer of his letter to Mrs. Pitt in Bermuda who was “so very kind as to call for it, which few of his Countrymen can be perswaded to do.”¹²⁵ Sending a letter by a bearer was convenient, but it was also a valued service.

      Bearers fell into three categories: servants, individuals already known to the receiver, and those wishing to be known to the receiver. Servants usually received little from the exchange except perhaps a bit of change in their pocket. Unknown bearers often gained the most for they did not remain unknown for long. Bearing a letter allowed one to enter into a charmed circle of acquaintances. Often the writer was attempting to unite two individuals of similar interests. A correspondent of Hans Sloane in Amsterdam sent a letter by an “Ingenious Gentleman” who looked to Sloane for entrance into the world of London intellectuals.¹²⁶ This writer was not just looking to assist the bearer, but to help Sloane by connecting him with an individual who might serve him at a later date or enrich the quality of his intellectual conversation. But such letters most certainly also helped the bearer, especially those looking for assistance. Bearers were not shy in using letter delivery as a gateway to greater opportunity. John Perceval just happened to receive a letter from the hands of the brother of one of his agents when that young man was looking for a vicarage, and another of his acquaintances sent a letter by a young man who was looking to become Perceval’s secretary.¹²⁷ Bearing a letter provided these individuals with a reason to wait on their prospective patron, giving them access that might otherwise be denied. One of Sloane’s correspondents playfully admitted in a letter that he “dread[ed] the severitie of yr censure” for not responding sooner, but that his good friend Mr. Sherard had the “earnest desire to kiss yr hand, [and] desired me to favour him with some occasion of waiting on you.”¹²⁸ By delivering a letter, bearers were able to serve the recipient before requesting assistance for themselves.

      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. СКАЧАТЬ