Was there self-censorship in private correspondence in the early 19th Century?

Question

I've been reading collections of letters and journals (generally relating to the Napoleonic Wars) published in the first half of the 19th century. Often these contain words that have been partially censored.

Lord Wellington when he came back, only said, "I am glad to see you safe Crauford." The latter said, "Oh, I was in no danger, I assure you." "But I was, from your conduct," said Lord Wellington. Upon which Crauford observed, "He is d____ crusty to-day."

^{The Private Journal of F. Seymour Larpent, Vol 1, Pg 133}

While censorship of potentially blasphemous or othewise rude words is not unexpected, it also happens in people's names. In many cases, this is where the reference could be considered as unflattering but other times the reason is much less obvious.

So, in the following example, the reference to illness could be seen as a personal weakness which required some censorship to maintain the Deputy Paymaster-General's dignity;

I have taken a ride to Malliarda de Sorda, and found the Deputy Paymaster-General H_____ very unwell, with an attack of fever.

^{The Private Journal of F. Seymour Larpent, Vol 1, Pg 103}

However, in the next example, the person whose name is omitted is not referred to again and no further insight into the person or their status is given. So there must have been some other reason for this censorship.

I sat at the grand dinner directly opposite to E_____ who introduced himself to me afterwards in the ballroom.

^{The Private Journal of F. Seymour Larpent, Vol 1, Pg 118}

[NB: While the quoted document is described as a 'private journal', it is actually a collection of letters written home to his family. Also while these examples all come from the same volume, I've seen the same style used in many other publications of the period.]

Was this style of censoring words purely a publishing convention or would a similar form of self-censorship have been expected in private correspondence, between respectable members of polite society? That is, did this form of censorship, which appears in published works (of both fact and fiction), simply mirror conventions that would also be seen in personal letters?

Please note: I'm not asking to have these particular examples explained and I'm fully aware of the reasons for their use in published works.

Answer 1

Your example text is private correspondence showing several abbreviations to the initial (radical apocopes). These are so short that they all look alike. However, some had different motivations. In the 1800s as today, there are at least three reasons texts might abbreviate like this: politeness, cost savings, and the reduction of liability. These apply in varying degree to public and private texts.

First, to preserve formality, writers might seek to avoid shocking their audience with crude language. The presence or absence of slang is a major factor in establishing linguistic register. Eliding all but the first initial can leave curious readers a means of reconstructing the forbidden term, especially if the number of blanks is apparent. The example "d____" shows such an elision. Did the author see this first in published text? It's possible, but I doubt very much low-register speech was republished in high-register outlets in the 1700s.

Second, abbreviation and shorthands are attractive when the handwriting act is a bottleneck to composition. By comparison, editorial style guides and composition advice tend to avoid bespoke abbreviations, so that the published product appears clear and complete. Describing the Deputy Paymaster-General of Malliarda de Sorda as "H_____" does little to obscure his identity, so it was probably used to save time. "E_____" was also someone who needed no further introduction; writing out the name wouldn't have paid off. This style wouldn't have been copied from published works since published works have no need of it.

Third, and similarly, discretion is advised when a text might be widely read. Newspapers get sued for defamation after publishing information that might have gone unnoticed in a personal letter. Similarly, court filings may mention an Individual 1 or a John Doe when someone's identity would be counterproductive to disambiguate. Since noone here is being criticized and the letters were not meant for publication, I don't see any evidence of this case in your examples.