On 27 February 1910 newspapers in Boston and elsewhere reported on what contemporaries described as a ‘‘romance hoax’’ involving a series of intimate letters and telegrams exchanged between local residents. The matter drew attention because the correspondent who had written in a feminine voice and claimed genteel social standing was revealed to be a man using female affectations and a false name. The revelation provoked public discussion about trust, privacy and the vulnerabilities of written correspondence — concerns that historians now recognize as an early analogue to what modern commentators call "catfishing." Context and actors Primary reportage appeared in regional newspapers, which relayed accounts from civic leaders and socialites whose reputations were implicated. The letters had circulated within a network of acquaintances and courtship circles that relied heavily on written communication; telegraph and mail were the standard channels for long-distance and discreet exchanges. Social norms of the era gave weight to gendered expectations in courtship, so a correspondent adopting a female persona could gain confidences and alter social dynamics. What happened According to contemporaneous reports, the male correspondent adopted a feminine pen name and wrote in a tone and style intended to appear that of a respectable young woman. Over time, recipients came to trust and confide in the persona. Suspicion arose when details in the letters conflicted with observable facts, and an investigation — by private inquiry and press reporting rather than formal law enforcement action — exposed the writer’s true identity. The exposure caused embarrassment for those who had been deceived and fueled sensational coverage in the local press. Impact and significance The incident provoked debate about the ethics of impersonation, the limits of privacy, and the reliability of written testimony in social relations. Newspapers used the case to critique perceived moral laxity and to warn readers about deception in correspondence. Although the episode did not produce landmark legal changes, it became an oft-cited example in etiquette columns and advice literature about verifying claims and exercising caution in trust. In hindsight, scholars of communication and social history note the case as an early documented instance of identity deception conducted for personal motives within interpersonal networks — a historical analogue to modern online impersonation. Limitations and sources Detailed archival records of the affair are limited to newspaper accounts, social columns and a few surviving private correspondences cited by period reporters. Because coverage relied on contemporary journalists and gossip columns, some details remain uncertain or framed by moralizing language of the time. No reliable court records or full collections of the letters survive in widely accessible public archives to fully reconstruct motives or all participants’ perspectives. Why it matters today The 1910 Boston correspondence hoax illustrates continuities in human behavior across media: people have long used available communication technologies to create misleading identities for varied purposes, from flirtation to manipulation. Studying such episodes underscores how social trust is negotiated and how technological and cultural contexts shape the forms and consequences of deception.