[_16 May '08_]
The result of _Murray_ v. _The Times_ is very amusing. I don't know why
the fact that the _Times_ is called upon to pay £7500 to Mr. John Murray
should make me laugh joyously; but it does. Certainly the reason is not
that I sympathize with the libelled Mr. Murray. The action was a great and
a wonderful action, full of enigmas for a mere man of letters like myself.
For example, Mr. Murray said that his agreement with the "authors" (I
cannot imagine how Lord Esher and Mr. A.C. Benson came to be the "authors"
of the late Queen's correspondence) stipulated that two-thirds of the
profits should go to the "authors" and one-third to Mr. Murray. Secondly,
Mr. Murray said that he paid the authors £5592 14s. 2d. Thirdly, he said
that his own profit was £600. Hence £600 is the half of £5592 14s. 2d. I
have no doubt that there exists some quite simple explanation of this new
arithmetic; only it has not occurred to me, my name not being Colenso. The
whole enterprise was regal, as befitted. Proof-corrections cost twice as
much as the original setting up! A mere man of letters would be inclined
to suspect that the printing was begun too soon; it is usual to postpone
setting-up a book until the book is written. Balzac partially beggared
himself by ignoring this rule. Balzac, however, was not published by Mr.
Murray. £950 was paid to the amanuensis! Oh, amanuensis, how I wonder who
you are, up above the world so high, like a fashionable novelist in the
sky! And so on.
* * * * *
The attitude of Tunbridge Wells (the most plutocratic town in England, by
the way) towards the book was adorable. "Mr. Daniel Williams, a bookseller
and librarian, of Tunbridge Wells, said that after the review by 'Artifex'
people complained that the price of the book was too high. No complaints
were made before that." They read their _Times Literary Supplement_ at the
Wells, and they still wait for it to thunder, and when it has
thundered--and not before--they rattle their tea-trays, and the sequel is
red ruin! Again, Mr. Justice Darling, in his ineptly decorated summing-up,
observed that it was hardly too much to say that "the plaintiff's
house--the house of Murray," was a national institution. It would be
hardly too much to say that also the house of Crosse and Blackwell is a
national institution, and that Mr. Justice Darling is a national
institution. By all means let us count the brothers Murray as a national
institution, even as an Imperial institution. But let us guard against the
notion, everywhere cropping up, that such "houses" as the dignified and
wealthy house of Murray are in some mysterious way responsible for English
literature, part-authors of English literature, to whom half of the glory
of English literature is due. It is well to remember now and then that
publishers who have quite squarely made vast sums out of selling the work
of creative artists are not thereby creative artists themselves. A
publisher is a tradesman; infinitely less an artist than a tailor is an
artist. Often a publisher knows what the public will buy in literature.
Very rarely he knows what is good literature. Scarcely ever will he issue
a distinguished book exclusively because it is a distinguished book. And
he is right, for he is only a tradesman. But to judge from the otiose
majesty of some publishers, one would imagine that they had written at
least "Childe Harold." There is the case of a living publisher (not either
of the brothers Murray) whose presence at his country chateau is indicated
to the surrounding nobility, gentry, and peasantry by the unfurling of
the Royal standard over a turret.
* * * * *
To return to the subject, the price at which the house of Murray issued
the "Letters of Queen Victoria" was not "extortionate," having regard to
the astounding expenses of publication. But why were the expenses so
astounding? If the book had not been one which by its intrinsic interest
compelled purchase, would the "authors" have been remunerated like the
managers of a steel trust? Would the paper have been so precious and
costly? Would the illustrations have so enriched photographers? And would
the amanuensis have made £350 more out of the thing then Mr. Murray
himself? The price was not extortionate. But it was farcical. The entire
rigmarole combines to throw into dazzling prominence the fact that modern
literature in this country is still absolutely undemocratic. The time will
come, and much sooner than many august mandarins anticipate, when such a
book as the "Letters of Queen Victoria" will be issued at six shillings,
and newspapers will be fined £7500 for saying that the price is
extortionate and ought not to exceed half a crown. Assuredly there is no
commercial reason why the book should not have been published at 6s. or
thereabouts. Only mandarinism prevented that. Mr. Murray's profits would
have been greater, though "authors," amanuenses, photographers,
paper-makers, West-End booksellers, and other parasitic artisans might
have suffered slightly.