which, like many causes of dispute, derives importance from the
ingenuity and warmth of the discussion which it provokes. Amongst
other points that await judgment, the squabble has raised a
question concerning an English novelist who would act prudently
in publishing without delay her part in the transactions that
have raised a Grub Street tempest on the other side of the
Atlantic. At this present time the proprietors of the New
York _Sunday Mercury_ are publishing in their paper a novel,
entitled ‘Nobody’s Daughter; or, the Ballad Singer of Wapping,’
which they announce in highly sensational advertisements as an
original work from the pen of Miss Braddon, of whom they observe,
with characteristic magniloquence and capitals:--“_Two Worlds_
have indorsed Miss E. Braddon as a novelist of transcendent
power,--the Old World and the New. The English reviews have
carped at her works--probably because they had not soul enough
to appreciate them; but the very magazines in which their
petti-fogging criticisms are published have since found it to
their interest to beg for stories from her pen, paying her such
price therefor as she thought fit to demand, and she queens
it to-day in the department of _Sensational Romance_ wherever
the English language is spoken.” Whilst they thus proclaim
Miss Braddon’s royal status, these same masters of sensational
advertisement speak tall words about their own merits, stating
very distinctly that they are citizens of whom the Union has
reason to be proud, and that their _Sunday Mercury_ is “the
newspaper that _occupies the throne_ of Sunday journalism.”
Next to personal possession of a throne, the sole and unlimited
possession of that which occupies a throne may be regarded as
the highest object of mere worldly ambition; and we congratulate
their Majesties one-degree removed of the New York _Sunday
Mercury_ on their tenure of royal rank,--although their throne
is nothing more splendid than the editorial chair of a Sunday
newspaper. Nor do we warmly censure the enthusiasm, though we may
question the judgment which they display in fighting for Miss
Braddon’s crown. Since they have “soul enough” to admire her
novels, by all means let them put to shame those English reviews
“which carped at her works, probably because they had not soul
enough to appreciate them.” But if upon inquiry it should be
ascertained either that they have been induced to regard as Miss
Braddon’s work a story of which she never wrote a line, or that
they have conspired to hoax the public for their own private
advantage, what will be thought of these several occupants of
thrones?
On one side it is asserted that in assigning ‘Nobody’s daughter’
to Miss Braddon, the proprietors of the _Sunday Mercury_ are only
endeavouring to draw attention to their paper by an impudent
fabrication; and those who take this view of the case argue
thus:--‘Nobody’s Daughter’ is merely a reprint, under a new
title, of ‘Diavola,’ a story that is now being published in the
_London Journal_, by the author of ‘The Black Band.’ So far, a
London reader can safely follow the New York disputant; for the
current number of the _London Journal_ (Feb 16, 1867,) contains
chaps. 37-39 of the story called ‘Diavola,’ by the author of ‘The
Black Band.’
It seems clear, therefore, either that Miss Braddon is the author
of ‘The Black Band,’ or that she is not the writer of ‘Nobody’s
Daughter.’ Which of these two? Against the first supposition the
New York Critics bring forward the following evidence. They say
that in the summer of last year, when ‘The Black Band,’ which
originally appeared in the _London Journal_, was republished in
New York by Messrs. Hilton & Co., under the new name of ‘What is
this Mystery?’ Miss Braddon indignantly denied the authorship of
the story, and protested against the conduct of the publishers
who advertised the book as a production of her pen. How then,
it is urged, can Miss Braddon, who has explicitly disclaimed
the authorship of ‘The Black Band,’ be the writer of ‘Nobody’s
Daughter,’ _alias_ ‘Diavola,’ which is announced in the _London
Journal_ as written by the author of ‘The Black Band?’
On the other side, the occupants of “the throne of Sunday
Journalism” reiterate their assertion that ‘Nobody’s Daughter’
is from Miss Braddon’s pen, and that they paid the lady a
“munificent price” for early sheets of the work, together with
permission to publish it under a new title. They denounce all
journals that venture to express incredulity of their statements,
as “concerns on their last legs, and destitute alike of brains
and principle.” Moreover, a gentleman acting for the proprietors
has exhibited, in New York, papers that are represented to be
Miss Braddon’s receipts for two sums of £75. each, instalments of
the sum of £250., which was the munificent price spoken of in the
advertisements of the work. This same person has also exhibited
letters which he says were written to the proprietors of the
_Sunday Mercury_ respecting the early sheets of ‘Diavola,’ by Mr.
Maxwell, of London. If we felt ourselves justified in accepting
the statements thus put forth by the proprietors of the _Sunday
Mercury_ as unquestionably true, we should regard them as
settling the question respecting the authorship of ‘The Black
Band’ and ‘Diavola.’ But the gentlemen who act for the throne of
Sunday journalism use language with such singular freedom that
we hesitate to put unqualified reliance on their assurances.
A certain measure of distrust is surely due to men who have
the astounding impudence to say that the English reviews which
criticized Miss Braddon with severity have been glad to make
friendly overtures to her, and buy her tales at her own price!
With respect to Miss Braddon our counsel is that she should lose
no time in giving her explanation of facts that may be unfairly
used to her disadvantage.
Tremadoc, Feb. 26, 1867.
As Miss Braddon does not seem inclined to “give her explanations”
as to whether she is or not the author of ‘The Black Band’
(‘Diavola,’ I believe, is not denied), but is content that Lady
Caroline Lascelles (whoever she may be) should have the credit of
it, I think, on looking at the facts, there will be no difficulty
in setting this vexed question at rest. It appears that ‘The
Black Band’ originally appeared in the _Halfpenny Journal_, the
proprietor of that journal being Mr. Maxwell. ‘Diavola’ is now
being published in the _London Journal_, as by the author of
‘The Black Band,’ early sheets of which Mr. Maxwell negotiated
for sale in America. Finally, Mr. Maxwell is the proprietor of
_Belgravia_, edited by Miss Braddon.... Surely in the interests
of literature it behoves Mr. Maxwell that he should lose no time
in giving his explanation of this scandal, which may be used to
Miss Braddon’s disadvantage.
HUGH MORGAN.
Concerning “The Black Band Scandal,” Mr. John Maxwell--in a
letter published in last week’s _Athenæum_ [March 11]--makes some
strange admissions, though he seems to be under the impression
that he reveals nothing of importance. The proprietor of the
_Halfpenny Journal_, and the confidential agent who negotiated
between Miss Braddon and the New York Sunday Mercury, Mr.
Maxwell writes, “If the ‘interests of literature’ were in any
way involved in my revealing _who suggested, who planned, and
who wrote the romance of ‘The Black Band’_ and other serials
under the same _nom de plume_ which appeared in the _Halfpenny
Journal_, I should be happy to name _the authors, as soon as I
had obtained their permission, and could apportion the shares of
merit to which their respective ingenuity and industry entitle
them_; but as the ‘interests of literature’ do not appear to me
to be, in the slightest degree, affected, I shall not take any
trouble to destroy the anonymous reserve under which these tales
were written.” Here is an instructive peep into a factory of
novels for the halfpenny press, the showman of the sight being
himself the master of the mill. The operatives of the workshop
are duly classified as suggesters, planners, writers; and it
appears that, though the novels thus turned out are the patchwork
of many “hands,” the watchful director of the factory could, if
it pleased him to do so, “apportion the shares of merit to which
their respective ingenuity and industry entitle them.” With
discreet reticence, that stands in strong contrast against the
indiscretion of his frankness, Mr. Maxwell says nothing about
his plans for distributing the goods made in his factory. He
does not tell us how it came to pass that one of the novels thus
manufactured was called ‘The Black Band’ in England, and ‘What is
this Mystery?’ in America; how it came to be falsely attributed
to Lady Caroline Lascelles in this country, and (Miss Braddon’s
denial of its authorship being our evidence) no less falsely
attributed to Miss Braddon on the other side of the Atlantic;
how ‘Diavola’ came to be attributed to “the author of ‘The Black
Band’” in the _London Journal_, whereas early sheets of the tale
appear to have been sold through Mr. Maxwell’s agency in New
York as early sheets of a new tale by Miss Braddon; and how it
comes that the proprietors of the New York _Sunday Mercury_ can
exhibit papers that purport to be Miss Braddon’s receipts for
money paid to her for early sheets of this novel _by_ the author
of ‘The Black Band,’ though she has indignantly repudiated the
authorship of ‘What is this Mystery?’ _alias_ ‘The Black Band.’
All these and other like matters are mysteries, and we are
content that they should remain so. We concur with Mr. Maxwell in
thinking that the interests of literature do not require him to
publish the names of all the suggesters, planners, writers, and
other journeymen who ply their craft in his factory. He has told
everything that persons immediately concerned in the interests of
literature can need or care to know about the matter.
March 14, 1867.
I have this day received a copy of a New York paper, the
_Sunday Mercury_, dated February 27, in which are three or four
chapters of a serial tale, entitled ‘Nobody’s Daughter; or the
Ballad-Singer of Wapping,’ by Miss M. E. Braddon, together with
an abstract of published chapters; and as these are identical
with the tale now publishing in the _London Journal_, under the
title of ‘Diavola,’ by the author of ‘The Black Band,’ I think
with Mr. Morgan, there can be no difficulty in identifying under
the _nom de plume_ of Lady Caroline Lascelles the Miss Braddon of
_Belgravia_.
M. B.
4, Shoe Lane, Fleet Street, March 18, 1867.
It is sometimes easy and sometimes difficult to raise a tempest
in a tea-pot; and, it appears to me, that under the title of
“Manufacture of Novels,” you are trying to solve the difficulty.
In last Saturday’s _Athenæum_ you ask “how it comes that the
proprietors of the New York _Sunday Mercury_ can exhibit papers
that purport to be Miss Braddon’s receipts for money paid to her
for early sheets of this novel (‘Diavolo’)” by the author of ‘The
Black Band’? Allow me to say that the proprietors of the New York
_Sunday Mercury_ do not exhibit any paper whatever purporting to
be Miss Braddon’s receipt, although they can exhibit mine, and
that most honourably too, for they have honestly paid to me the
amounts for which I have given them receipts; and, I regret to
add, they have not always been left in peaceful possession of
their advance-sheets by rival American publishers, who live on
the policy of stealing as much literature as they can, reckless
of all considerations beyond their own expectations of gain. As
illustrating this latter class of sharp practitioners, it is
necessary to recall Messrs. Hilton and Co., of New York. These
people announce ‘What is this Mystery?’ as reprinted from Miss
Braddon’s advance-sheets, when it was reprinted from nothing of
the kind; and they advertise the work as being Miss Braddon’s
“latest and best,” when they well know it is neither the one nor
the other. Against this Miss Braddon protested. Had she no right
to do so? Was everything quite as it should be on the part of
Messrs. Hilton and Co.? And was Miss Braddon altogether wrong in
intimating that she knew nothing whatever about Messrs. Hilton
and Co.’s enterprise beyond their advertisement; she never had,
directly or indirectly, the smallest approach to a communication
from or with them? If you think Miss Braddon in the wrong, and
Messrs. Hilton and Co. in the right in this transaction, let it
be so; others may differ from you.
Another point--the “inconvenience to readers, and perplexity,
if not substantial loss, to ‘the trade,’” as the result of
republication. Of course, if no republication has happened, no
inconvenience to readers, and no perplexity and loss to “the
trade” can arise. Now this is precisely the case with the tales
assumed to be by the author of ‘The Black Band’--a series which
I hope will one day challenge criticism as romances of strong
and popular interest, quite as worthy of republication as any
of the tales reproduced from halfpenny and penny journals by
Messrs. Hurst and Blackett, and by other equally well-esteemed
novel-publishers. Although these tales are not reprinted, you use
against them the word “convicted,” and you apply that term to
them in common with “the system” of Mrs. Wood and Mr. Wills, both
of whom admit, and rather defend, the republication of reprints
with emendations. Is this fair on your part? You are wholly
unsustained in the use of the word, and its application is alike
unnecessary and uncalled for.
Next as to the _nom de plume_ of Lady Caroline Lascelles. This
title was suggested by my late literary colleague, who was also
at the time a writer in the _Athenæum_, poor Sir C. E. Lascelles
Wraxall, Bart. He claimed a family right in the names. For five
weeks the _nom de plume_ was adopted. At the end of that time
it was discarded, as it was found that “fine words butter no
parsnips;” and the tale of “The Black Band” was thenceforth
published anonymously, and its publication, and that of the
series of tales which succeeded, went on uninterruptedly for
years. In all this, what deduction is to be drawn? simply that
a series of tales have been written for the cheap periodical
press so very attractive as to occasion their reprint in America,
and so very profitable as to induce both literary pirates
and purchasers of advance-sheets to make the most of their
adventures. Surely in this there is little to excite acrimonious
controversy.
JOHN MAXWELL.
[It is difficult to understand why the following letter should
be written in such a vulgar tone. We regret the necessity of
inserting it here.]
ENGLISH AUTHORS IN AMERICA.
128, Nassau Street, New York, April 25, 1867.
Our attention having been called to a communication in your
issue of March 23, wherein one “John Maxwell” has been pleased
to stigmatize us as “sharp practitioners,” as well as to bestow
upon us other not very complimentary epithets, in relation to
the manner in which the immaculate trader in Miss Braddon’s
productions conceives we have maltreated that lady’s reputation,
we deem it incumbent upon us to ask your indulgence in placing
the true facts of the case before your readers, inasmuch as your
correspondent has managed adroitly to dodge the real offence
attempted to be fastened upon us in our business capacity.
We do not pretend to justify our custom of the American trade
in appropriating Transatlantic literature without rendering
some recompence to the original authors. Still, in the absence
of an international copyright, publishers are not inclined
to court extra risks, as they cannot be protected against
ruinous competition in any enterprise undertaken on a basis of
remuneration. It may suit the purpose of a newspaper with a
stable circulation to secure the advance sheets of a story from
the pen of a popular English writer, but in the matter of a cheap
publication of a completed romance, there can be no guarantee
against its reproduction by a competing house, possibly from
a copy secured at a rational cost within a few days after its
emission.
In our series of cheap publications, we saw fit to reprint,
under the title of ‘What is this Mystery?’ a romance originally
published in London as ‘The Black Band.’ A similar designation
had been bestowed upon a local romance, written in this city
some years back, and of which we hold the copyright. To prevent
confusion, we took the liberty of changing the title of Miss
Braddon’s work, but affixed her own proper name to maintain
identity as to authorship. Almost instantly, we were assailed
by the city journals, and charged with having imposed upon the
reading public, through palming off, as a work of Miss Braddon’s,
the production of some obscure novelist. The lady herself,
or some person representing her interests, thought proper to
encourage presumption of fraud until this period, when the Sunday
Mercury advertising under precisely similar circumstances,
‘Diavola,’ avowedly from the same source as ‘The Black Band,’
Miss Braddon hastens to the rescue of its editors, and
reluctantly acknowledges authorship of both romances, the latter
one of which Mr. Maxwell contends to have been “honourably”
obtained through purchase of so-called “advance sheets;” whereas
our offence appears to have consisted in the fact of reprinting,
without her express sanction, from a London publication, a work
for which the London publisher had, as we presume, paid its
market value. Assuredly, if any party be entitled to recompense
for “advance sheets,” it should be the individual purchasing
Miss Braddon’s literary wares, and seeking repayment through
their publication. Besides, we are frank enough to consider it
as a poor compliment to the manager of a periodical, investing
in goods of that nature, to suggest that the “latest” published
productions of any author are not the “best,” especially when a
multiplicity of similar commodities are in the field. We regret
that Miss Braddon or her friend should be compelled to protest
against our critical judgment as to the work reprinted by us
being her “latest and best;” but must extenuate our interested
opinion on the ground that a declaration to the contrary might
prove detrimental to the reputation of the fair authoress, and
decidedly inimical to her future chances of disposing of “advance
sheets.”
HILTON & CO.
4, Shoe Lane, Fleet Street, May 11, 1867.
To judge from the tone of their letter in this day’s _Athenæum_,
Messrs. Hilton & Co. appear to think that, by adding insult to
injury, they can extenuate their conduct and cast aside the
opprobrium which their dishonesty should entail. They do not
attempt to deny the charges made against them, which may be
briefly stated as follows:--
1. That they appropriated a tale, changed its name, and announced
it as reprinted from the author’s “advance sheets,” when they
well knew the reprint was from nothing of the kind, and that,
in fact, they never had, either directly or indirectly, the
slightest communication from or with the author or the publisher
of the tale they so “smartly” laid their hands upon.
2. That they described this tale as Miss Braddon’s “latest and
best,” when they well knew it was neither latest nor best; and
that, beyond their own audacity, they had no justification for
ascribing the authorship to Miss Braddon.
For their own purposes Messrs. Hilton & Co. did all this; and
as they advertised the tale to have achieved a sale of 18,000
copies within a week of publication, Messrs. Hilton & Co. might
have been content with the gains of the operation. No one here
expected anything from them. Instead, however, of being satisfied
with the fruits of their rapacity, Messrs. Hilton & Co. have
thought fit to turn round upon Miss Braddon, whose name they most
unfairly used for their own dishonest purpose, and now they try
their best to insult her by declaring “assuredly, if any party
be entitled to recompense for ‘advance sheets,’ it should be the
individual purchasing Miss Braddon’s literary wares, and seeking
repayment through their publication.” The sheer insolence of this
declaration transcends the old story of the attorney who had
no defence to an action, and therefore instructed counsel--“No
case; abuse plaintiff’s witnesses.” In England the value of Miss
Braddon’s literary wares is well understood; and in America
the importance of her “advance sheets” commands an adequate
recompense, a circumstance with which the “business capacity” of
Messrs. Hilton & Co. cannot make them acquainted. I refrain from
noticing the other statements in Messrs. Hilton & Co.’s letter,
because they are, so far as the matter in issue is concerned,
simply untrue.
JOHN MAXWELL.
‘Rupert Godwin, by Miss M. E. Braddon,’ it appears was originally
published in the _Halfpenny Journal_, under the title of ‘The
Banker’s Secret,’ by the author of ‘The Black Band.’
C. R. Jackson, Athenæum, 2073, p. 82.
The manufacture of Novels now occupies so many writers, and is a
system that so deeply concerns the public, that we have devoted a
large space to the above exposure: larger, in fact, than we wished;
but fairness demanded that the whole or none of the controversy
should be inserted.
LATHY (T. P.) Esq., _plagiarist_.
The Angler, a poem, in ten Cantos. With proper instructions in the
Art, Rules to Choose Fishing Rods, Lines, Hooks, etc. 1819.
This poem is only a rifacimento of the Anglers’ Eight Dialogues
in verse, without acknowledgment; some copies are dated 1819,
with the following title, ‘The Angler, a Poem, in ten Cantos, by
Piscator.’
J.R.S.
See Westwood Bib. Piscatoria, 1861.
LAUDER (William) _literary forger_.
“Mr. Isaac D’Israeli, in his ‘Curiosities of Literature,’ has
remarked that some of the most sinister literary forgeries
in modern times have been perpetrated by Scotchmen, and he
instances Lauder and Bower--two of the _blackest_ sheep of the
world of letters. The disgraceful fraud of which the former
stands convicted, so unparalleled for its meanness, baseness,
and dishonesty, has justly condemned him to eternal infamy, and
rendered his name a by-word of contempt. To the credit of English
literature, it did not indeed long remain undiscovered, and it
may at least be said to have had one beneficial result--that
of placing the unwary on their guard against an unscrupulous
disputant, and of demonstrating the importance and necessity
of occasionally verifying a quotation and testing a doubtful
assertion.
“In 1747 he commenced his attack on the reputation of Milton in
various communications to the ‘Gentleman’s Magazine,’ in which
the great poet was denounced as an unprincipled plagiarist.
“These papers having led to some controversy, and excited some
attention, Lauder was induced to collect them, and in 1750 he
republished them in a volume, entitled ‘An Essay on Milton’s Use
and Abuse of the Moderns in his Paradise Lost;’ with the motto
taken from Milton, “Things unattempted yet in prose or rhyme.”
The work is preceded by a characteristic advertisement from
Lauder, which states that “Gentlemen who are desirous of securing
their children from ill example, or are themselves disposed to
gain or retrieve the knowledge of the Latin tongue, may be waited
on at their own houses by the author of the following Essay,” an
announcement certainly calculated to convey the idea that the
“canny Scot” regarded his erudite performance as an excellent
mercantile speculation, and favorable medium of publicity. To
render the work more remarkable, the preface and postscript were
contributed by Dr. Samuel Johnson. Johnson contributed prefaces
and postscripts to works he had never read with the greatest
ease, as his collected works show.
“The authors from whom Lauder accused Milton of borrowing without
acknowledgment, were some of them all but unknown in what was
then called the learned world. Among them was Masenius, a Jesuit
of Cologne, Taubmann, a German, and Staphorstius, a learned
Dutchman. From these and other authors passages were quoted in
some of which there was a general resemblance, and in others a
close similarity to the most admired portions of ‘Paradise Lost.’