Did Lord Chesterfield Use a Secretary?

Question: Lord Chesterfield's Prolific Correspondence – Did He Use a Secretary?

I am incredibly impressed by the verbosity and volume of text produced by Lord Chesterfield as seen in this book of letters to his son. Given that these would have originated as hand-written correspondence, and considering the nature of the presumed author and other correspondents implied by the text of the letters, it seems improbable that Lord Chesterfield would have manually written the finished letters by himself. I would presume that he would have a secretary or secretaries taking down his verbal dictation of the letters and subsequently editing and finishing them before they were sent. Is there any historical evidence of this type of thing happening with respect to correspondence in the Eighteenth Century?

Answer:

Yes, you’re correct in suspecting that the prolific and polished correspondence of an 18th-century aristocrat like Lord Chesterfield was unlikely to have been entirely handwritten by himself. In that era, it was common for prominent figures, especially those of Chesterfield’s standing, to employ secretaries, amanuenses, or scribes to assist with their correspondence.

Historical Context of 18th-Century Correspondence

1. Secretarial Assistance: Many aristocrats, politicians, and authors employed secretaries who handled much of their written output. A secretary would often take down dictation, sometimes verbatim, but in many cases, they also acted as editors, refining the prose before the final version was sent out. This was particularly true for long, elaborate letters, where the content needed to reflect the polish and wit expected of the sender.
2. Dictation as Common Practice: It was typical for people like Lord Chesterfield to dictate letters. The process involved speaking aloud to a secretary, who would write down the initial draft. The author might review and make corrections, but much of the labor of writing, especially for lengthy correspondence, was delegated.
3. Editing and Drafting: Secretaries often played a role beyond simple transcription. They could edit for grammar, style, and clarity. While the thoughts and arguments were the author's, the final text might be smoothed out by the secretary. Given Chesterfield’s reputation for eloquence and precision, it’s reasonable to assume he would have had high expectations for the quality of his letters, potentially requiring multiple drafts.
4. Evidence from Chesterfield’s Own Letters: While specific records of Chesterfield’s secretarial staff might not be abundant, it’s known that he was deeply involved in politics and public life, leaving him little time for laborious writing tasks. Additionally, his letters reflect a level of polish that suggests more than just off-the-cuff writing. Chesterfield's instructions to his son also indicate an appreciation for clear, concise writing — something that might have involved collaboration with a skilled secretary.

Broader Evidence of Secretarial Roles

• Alexander Pope and other writers of the period also employed secretaries or assistants for their correspondence, especially in later life when writing by hand became more difficult.
• Samuel Pepys, a contemporary figure, had several clerks who helped with his voluminous work, though he was known to be very particular about his records.
• Horace Walpole, another prolific letter writer of the 18th century, often used secretaries, particularly later in life when his eyesight began to fail.

Conclusion

It’s very plausible that Lord Chesterfield dictated much of his correspondence, particularly letters to his son, and relied on secretarial support for drafting, editing, and copying the final versions. The polished nature and sheer volume of his letters align well with the practices of the time, where secretarial assistance was a standard part of managing the daily flow of correspondence for a busy aristocrat.