Braddon,” expressing regret that she should have been imposed
upon. This letter, Miss Braddon wrote to say, was a forgery. In
addition to this, she offered to add 100 guineas to any reward
the _Pall Mall Gazette_ might offer for the discovery of the
forger. The _Pall Mall Gazette_ declined to offer any reward, and
thus placed itself in a false position; and general opinion, we
believe, considered that it was wrong in not carrying out Miss
Braddon’s proposal.
The _Spectator_ wrote upon the subject, and its remarks were
commented upon in the _Pall Mall Gazette_ of the 28th Sept.,
1867. In the same number it also published an advertisement
extracted from a Dutch newspaper, of
“A new novel of Miss Braddon’s, derived from the French of
Octave Feuillet, by Babington White.”
This, Miss Braddon contended, was spurious. The _London Review_
(Oct. 5), in an article entitled “Miss Babington,” plainly said
it believed this to be another of Miss Braddon’s pseudonyms.
We will conclude with one or two passages from an article
entitled “Good-Natured Criticism” in the _Pall Mall Gazette_:--
“Not for the purpose of recurring to the particulars of the
significant ‘Circé’ business, but to show how the regular
manufacture of such productions is fostered by good-natured
critics, do we notice the matter now. The case itself is
thoroughly and indisputably bad. The author of the imposture
was not indebted to a contemporary writer for an idea or a
situation merely--what he did was to steal by wholesale--plot and
language, body and bones. And (this is particularly significant)
he plundered on system, and where one author failed fastened
on another. Having exhausted Feuillet, he turns to Balzac, for
instance, and ekes out the incidents of his second volume by a
scene taken bodily from that writer’s ‘Chef d’Œuvre Inconnu.’ The
story produced in this artistic way was printed in a magazine
generally considered to be respectable. It was afterwards
republished, and the publisher announced by advertisement that
it had won the favourable opinion of the _Edinburgh Review_.”
[Mr. Maxwell had struck out the word “Daily” in the _Edinburgh
Daily Review_, a practise which he defended in a letter to the
_Morning Star_. _See P. M. G. Sept. 27th._] “This was dishonesty
heaped upon dishonesty. The _Edinburgh Review_ had no more
noticed the story than Mr. Babbington White had invented it. That
person unknown had filched from M. Feuillet, from Balzac, from
Heaven knows whom beside, and his publisher ticketed the stolen
goods with a false warranty. Is there nothing reprehensible in
that--nothing deserving of exposure and reprobation? One would
think so who cared to maintain the integrity of literary men as
a body, to elevate, and not yet further to degrade, the standard
of literature, and to expose the tricks of unscrupulous traders.
It seems, however, that opinion may differ even upon such a
matter as this; that the offences we have permitted ourselves
to make known, though acknowledgedly indefensible, are yet not
such as a discreet critic would notice with asperity; in fact,
that asperity in such a case is itself improper, and subject to
suspicions of private malice. Nor is this view of the matter held
only by shoddy novel writers themselves, nor by those who employ
them, nor by such journals as are governed by the golden rule,
‘Never offend a publisher.’”
“... It [the manufacture of novels] is founded on the beautiful
modern principle of division of labour, and this is the method
of it. You catch a literary man who has failed in making either
a reputation or a fortune in writing stories. He must, however,
have some literary skill, and the sort of invention which in
one chapter blows up all the characters in a steamboat, and
in the next brings them down miraculously escaped. He must be
facile in French, and have a good acquaintance with novels in
that language. To these novels, guided by his own fancy, if
he happen to have any, he goes for ideas, situations, plots
complete; and then, at hack pay, sketches out his work, and
fills it in, to the best of his ability. The work is now ready
for an ‘eminent hand.’ A touch here by the eminent hand, a
touch there, a chapter rewritten, an incident subordinated, a
scene heightened--behold your new novel, turned out with the
rapidity of machine work, and with about as much pretension to
be ‘English literature.’ ‘Favourable notices’ can always be got
from journals of the starved apothecary stamp, and the trade
pays. Of course we know what the observation upon that will be:
Michael Angelo painted pictures on a similar plan, and Alexandre
Dumas is said to have fabricated his romances in like manner.
But there is a distinction between a combination of various
kinds and degrees of skill, and a conspiracy to blend into a
new shape selected plunder from the produce of other people’s
skill; and this distinction is one which cannot be bridged by
the most good-natured criticism in the world. However, we only
refer to the existence of this new branch of industry as an
additional reason for giving no encouragement to _industriels_
of Mr. White’s order, and to show that there are general as well
as particular reasons for objecting to him. It is upon general
grounds that we write now, thinking not so much of one offence
as the danger to an already enfeebled literature of tolerating
the offenders. Our contemporary the _Spectator_ not only
tolerates--it defends them; and we hope we have done no wrong in
protesting against the use of its influence in that way.”--_Oct.
3, 1867._
A writer in _Belgravia_, under the pseudonym of Captain Shandon,
attempted, in a somewhat coarse and vulgar article, to defend
literary piracy, and Mr. G. A. Sala also made some intemperate
remarks in an article that might have been excellent if it had
advocated a good cause. On both the above the _London Review_
commented in an article entitled “The Knight of Belgravia.” The
_Pall Mall Gazette_ vouchsafed no reply: probably considering the
tone of the articles too coarse to deserve notice.
See also the _Globe_, the _Evening Star_, and several other
newspapers during September, October, and November, 1867.
It affords matter for reflection when we find two of the most
popular novelists of the day--Miss Braddon and Alexandre
Dumas--continually having accusations brought against them of
literary _supercheries_.
W. H. R., _init._ [WILLIAM HARRIS RULE].
The Wesleyan Methodist Sunday Hymn-Book. Lond., [1851].
Religion in its relation to Commerce, 1852. The Law of the House, by
E. Henderson [with a preface by W. H. R.]. 1858.
W. H. R., _init._ [ROYSTON].
The Rowing Almanack. Lond., 1861-8.
WILKINS (Peter) _fictitious name_ [ROBERT PALTOCK, of Clement’s Inn,
Gentleman].
The Life and Adventures of Peter Wilkins, a Cornish man, taken from
his own mouth, in his passage to England, from off Cape Horn in
America in the ship Hector. By R. S., a passenger in the Hector
[_apocryph_]. Lond., 1750, 2 vols. Frequently reprinted. The
dedication is signed R. P., [_initialism_, Robert Paltock].
R. S. is probably a _telonism_ of Peter Wilkins. Nothing is known
of the author of this delightful little fiction: he was probably
a lawyer. The note of sale of the work is printed in Notes and
Queries, 1 S. See also 3 S., xii. 445.
WILKINS (Peter) _ps._ See TOMKINS (Isaac) _ps._ 1839.
WILLS (W. G.).
Having written an exposure of the “hashing up” of novels system,
with regard to the novels of Mrs. Henry Wood (q.v.) the Pall
Mall Gazette next took a novel called “The Wife’s Evidence”
in hand, and called attention to a similar enterprise on the
part of Mr. W. G. Wills, its author. “In 1859 Messrs. Hurst and
Blackett published a novel called ‘Life’s Foreshadowings.’ A few
weeks ago Messrs. Tinsley published a new novel entitled ‘The
Love that Kills,’ by W. G. Willa. This book is simply ‘Life’s
Foreshadowings’ reproduced. The names of the _dramatis personæ_
are changed, and possibly--for we must own that after closely
comparing the first two volumes of both publications we wearied
of the task and abandoned it--there may be some variation in
the catastrophe; but otherwise the plot is the same, the scenes
are the same, the characters are the same, page after page and
chapter after chapter being reprinted verbatim. In a preface to
‘The Love that Kills,’ the author notes down certain objects he
had in view in that work; he is careful, however, to give no
hint that he was reproducing an earlier book, which he probably
conceived was altogether forgotten.” [It then gives parallel
passages.]
“Upon the fairness of this system of publication--and it would
really seem to have become a system--it is scarcely necessary to
comment. It is to our minds just as culpable as the practice of
the dog-fancier who, after selling you a dog, steals it, trims
his ears and otherwise disguises him, and then sells him to you
again. We may also be permitted to ask how far the publishers
of these books are acquainted with their origin, history, and
constitution; for of course the publishers are equally with the
author responsible to the public.”
[Mr. Wills’ reply we quote in full.]
Sir,--I beg some space in your paper to reply to a charge which
your industrious contributor has preferred against a novel of
mine entitled “The Love that Kills.” His attack is short, but
contains mis-statement. I beg therefore to offer to your readers
the following justification:
1st. The whole bent of the work is altered--the first volume
being wholly reconstructed, not “page for page the same,”
but full of new matter. The third volume is almost wholly
new, containing the rising and rebellion of ’48. In “Life’s
Foreshadowings” the leading character is a scientific man, whose
end is to discover a certain planet, the presence of which he
suspects. In “The Love that Kills,” the leading character is an
Irish agitator, who takes part in the rebellion of ’48, from its
first rising to its close; and this change is radical throughout
the book.
2nd. The material I have employed was taken from an obscure and
ephemeral work, my first crude effort, in the three-volume form
for which I never received a shilling, and which with the reading
public was a failure.
I believe I was thoroughly justified in using such material,
and endeavouring to throw it into a readable mould; and also I
believe that the work is newer than many a new drama.
In no conceivable way have I wronged my late publishers, Messrs.
Hurst and Blackett, who have had from me the best I could offer
in literary work.
Finally, I have to exonerate Mr. Tinsley from any knowledge
whatsoever of the imported materials in the work, and if there be
blame in what I have done, I take the whole responsibility.--I
am, Sir, yours obediently,
W. G. WILLS.
* * * * *
OUR NAUGHTY NOVELISTS.
II.--MR. W. G. WILLS.
This gentleman is in rather a worse case than Mrs. Wood. In the
first place he has not the advantage of being a woman. In the
next place he has the extraordinary disadvantage of having “taken
in” his publisher as well as the public. Mr. Tinsley informed
us yesterday that every line of “The Love that Kills,” when he
bought the copyright was _in manuscript_; though to give it that
marketable appearance Mr. Wills must have copied page after
page--whole chapters verbatim--from “Life’s Foreshadowings,” a
book which he had already sold to Messrs. Hurst and Blackett. The
“explanation” which Mr. Wills favours us with to-day can have
no weight, however, with anybody who has had an opportunity of
comparing the two books. His own view of the matter is better
explained in a second letter (addressed to us), which runs as
follows:
To assist your critic in detecting the perfectly new matter in
Vol. 1.--_apart from reconstruction and the many modifications_
by which I have endeavoured to obtain story interest--I give the
pages herewith:--
From page 1 to 7
” 17 -- 35
” 57 -- 90
” 112 -- 120
” 146 -- 160
” 211 -- 216
Making up 82 pages, nearly one-third of volume of absolutely new
matter.
This is the best Mr. Wills can say for himself.--_Pall Mall
Gazette_, March 6th, 1867.
W. J. F., _init._ [WILLIAM JOHN FITZPATRICK].
Who wrote the Waverley Novels? Lond., 1856.
See N. & Q., 2nd S.
W. K., _init._ [WILLIAM KINGSFORD].
Impressions of the West and South. Toronto, 1858.
W. M., _init._ [MARSH].
Jehovah’s Ancient Temple, City and Land. Dublin, 1863.
W. M. R., _init._ [RUSSELL].
The Truth, comprising an Inquiry if Man is justified in proving the
Truth of his Religious Tenets? London, Nottingham [printed 1852].
WORDSWORTH (Walter) _phren._ [ ].
Every One’s Book: or Weeds of Wit from Worldly Ways wove in one.
Lond., 1858.
W. P. P., _init._? [ ].
Jottings on Currer, Ellis, and Acton Bell. London, _Longman_;
Stamford, _Newcomb_, 1856.
W. R. [ ] and B. [B. BAILEY?]
Lines addressed to W. WORDSWORTH, Esq. Colombo [Ceylon] 1835.
WRAXALL (Lascelles) _abbreviation_ [Sir F. C. LASCELLES WRAXALL,
Bart.].
A prolific author. He also translated a number of Gustave Aimard’s
works, to some of which he signed his initials.
WRITEWELL (A. M.) _phren._ [JOHN CLOSE].
See Dowell (S.), _pseud._
W. S., _allonym_ [ ].
Moredun, a Tale. See SCOTT (Sir W.).
W. S., _init._ [Professor SPALDING].
Letter on Shakespeare’s authorship of the Two Noble Kinsmen, a Drama,
commonly ascribed to John Fletcher. Edinb., 1833.
W----s, _disguised-author_ [WILLIBALD ALEXIS, _pseud._ G. W. H.
HAERING].
Walladmor, 1824. See SCOTT (Sir W.)
WOOD (Mrs. HENRY).
Lady Adelaide’s Oath. By, &c., Author of East Lynne, The Channings,
&c. London, _Bentley_, 1867.
The Castle’s Heir; a Novel in Real Life. Philadelphia, _T. B.
Peterson and Brothers_.
[_From the Pall Mall Gazette._]
NOT AT ALL A NEW NOVEL.
The rapidity with which certain novelists produce what are
called their “works” has long been a matter of astonishment. To
write two, three, or four stories a year has become a common
achievement, though not so common yet that we have ceased to
wonder at the facility of a Braddon or the fertility of a
Wood, and to tremble lest the fine brains of those esteemed
writers should suffer through their feverish anxiety to keep on
amusing, and elevating, and instructing mankind. Never without
a pang have we read that a “new novel” from the author of “Lady
Audley’s Secret” or of “East Lynne” was in the press--confident
as we are that those ladies write more than they ought, really.
Nor have their best friends been silent on the subject. Again
and again have the most favourable critics suggested that such
rapid workmanship imperilled the writers’ reputation, and must
inevitably tell upon their faculties.
But it is not our object now to expatiate upon the inevitable
mischief of over-production. On the contrary, our glad task
is to show that the most fertile novelist may be contemplated
without the slightest apprehension that the clever creature is
killing herself. It may be, of course, in any particular case,
that a constant and abounding efflorescence of genius is tending
to early exhaustion. Nevertheless, he is not human who will
not rejoice with us in the discovery that there is no necessary
connection between producing three novels a year and descent to
an early tomb. No, not even in the case of female novelists--of
weak woman. Nay, less in their case apparently; a bit of
information which will cause every manly breast to swell with
satisfaction.
The explanation of all this is curiously simple. There is a
modest little domestic virtue known as _management_--a virtue
which has hitherto been thought to culminate in such a revival
of cold mutton as will please a palate tolerably dull. It is
pre-eminently a female virtue; and, from constant exercise
throughout the round of woman’s life, is often brought to a high
pitch of perfection. Now, strangely enough, it seems never to
have occurred to the critics that a quality which in female hands
performs wonders in the kitchen, miracles in the wardrobe, may
(also in woman’s hands) be turned to good account in literature.
Nobody seems to have reflected that management, a dexterous
dealing with cold characters as with cold mutton, may explain
the surprising number of stories which our most admired female
novelists turn out. To be sure, we have seen some such suspicion
set down in black and white in the case of Miss Braddon lately,
but there is a good deal of confusion here; and no adequate idea
of what may be done by management in novel-making seems to have
been caught. We are fortunate in the discovery of another case,
which is not only beautifully clear in itself, but one that may
be found to illustrate the whole art and mystery of the matter.
We have before us two novels. One is ‘Lady Adelaide’s Oath,’ by
the Mrs. Henry Wood, a story which is only this month concluded
in a London magazine, and which also has just been published as
a new novel. The other is the “The Castle’s Heir,” by Mrs. Henry
Wood, published in Philadelphia “from the author’s manuscript”
five years ago. ‘Lady Adelaide’s Oath’ is issued in three
well-printed volumes, for which the public is charged thirty-one
shillings and sixpence. ‘The Castle’s Heir’ is published in
two volumes at fifty cents apiece; and this “entire new and
copyright” work is illustrated into the bargain. No doubt the
volumes are stitched in a horrible paper cover; no doubt the work
itself is printed in the large-page double-column form which
has been hideously vulgarized in England by the ‘Mysteries of
London,’ ‘Ada the Betrayed,’ and scores of other publications
which have been the delight and the destruction of factory girls
for a long generation. Moreover, it must be conceded that the
illustrations are of the wretchedest kind--of precisely the
same character, in fact, as those which appear in our own penny
romances, only a little more feeble, a little more vulgar. But
consider the difference in the price! Both, be it remarked,
are by the same author; and what is more, they are the same
story! ‘Lady Adelaide’s Oath,’ the new novel just published by
Mr. Bentley, is ‘The Castle’s Heir,’ originally published in
Philadelphia five years ago. The plot is the same, the scenes are
the same, the characters are the same. There is no difference but
the difference which comes of “rewriting”--that is to say, of
padding out here, touching up there, curtailing in another place:
the padding being by far the most obvious operation.
[The Reviewer here quotes parallel passages].
However, we never intended to enter into any criticism of the
story. All we proposed to do we have done, in showing that the
wonderfully “fertile resource” and the astonishingly “facile
pen” may, in some cases at any rate be explained by a knack
of furbishing up old trash and selling it on the strength of
a reputation. About the honesty of this mode of business we
express no opinion; an admiring public may decide for themselves
whether it is fair dealing to pass off to-day as a “new novel,” a
réchauffée of rubbish written for the readers of penny romances
years ago. We simply note the fact--and utter the warning. Who
will guarantee that Mrs. Wood has not managed her publishers
and her public in this way before? Who will undertake to say
that she will not attempt the operation again? Here is a story,
‘The Castle’s Heir,’ which was unknown in England till it was
re-issued as something else and as quite new. Now we observe that
on the title-page of the American edition Mrs. Wood is set down
as the author of three other stories which also, we believe, are
unknown in England: by which we mean that they are not inscribed
under their original titles in the publisher’s list of her
productions. These are--‘Life’s Secret,’ ‘The Mystery,’ ‘Earl’s
Heirs.’ The question now arises, Have we had these books also
under other names? Is “Life’s Secret” “Elster’s Folly” perchance?
Is “The Mystery” “Oswald Cray?” We have a right to ask these
questions--a right which the authoress cannot deny. Should she,
happily, be able to answer them in the negative, we may then
perhaps venture to demand that those stories shall not be foisted
upon the public at any _future_ time as “new novels” by the
author of “East Lynne.”--_Pall Mall Gazette, Feb. 28, 1867._
We have devoted a great deal of space to this matter, as coming
under the head of “Literary Frauds” (we are aware the term is
severe). If it admitted of more abbreviation, we should have been
better pleased; after all, it is a most disagreeable task.
The lady defended herself in a long letter, which revealed some
interesting particulars, but, as the reviewer (P. M. G., March 6)
observed, left the matter much in the same state. The letter was
answered in the same paper. The answer concluded thus:--
“Therewith we dismiss the whole subject, in the enjoyment of a
tolerable confidence that Mrs. Wood may think it worth while in
future to tell the world whether any work of hers really is new
or not. If anything remains to be said it is this: that when a
woman takes to writing for the public, she must be dealt with as
a writer alone. We must always be sorry when to do justice upon a
woman’s works is to be severe, but justice must be done all the
same.”
W. U. R. _init._ [WILLIAM UPTON RICHARDS].
Familiar Instructions on Mental Prayer, by Courbon, with a Preface by
the Editor [W. U. R.]. Lond., 1852.
The Great Truths of the Christian Religion, 1862. Edited by ----.
WYSEMAN (Demetrius) Gent. _phrenonym_ [DUKE WILLIS, an Articled
Clerk. He never practised, but went to America].
The Quality Papers, edited [written] by, &c. 1827.
W. C. in N. & Q.
X.
X. Y. Z. _alphabetism_ [ ].
Spain, Tangier, &c., visited in 1840 and 1841. Lond., _S. Clarke_,
1845.
Y.
YENDYS (Sydney) _anastroph_ (of the Christian name) [SYDNEY DOBELL].
The Roman; a Dramatic Tale. Lond., 1850.
YORICK (Mr.) _pseud._ [Rev. LAURENCE STERNE].
A Sentimental Journey through France and Italy. Lond., 1768.
Frequently reprinted.
YORKE (Oliver) _pseud._ [FRANCIS SYLVESTER MAHONY].
Originally assumed by him to edit Fraser’s Magazine, and under which
it is still edited.
Y. S. _pseud._ [ ].
Sketches and Scraps. Lond., _Simpkin_, 1854.
Z.
Z. _pseud._ [HANNAH MORE].
The Lady and the Pye, &c., and the Plumcakes. Lond., 1800.
Cheap Repository: the Carpenter, or the Danger of Evil Company, 1800.
And numerous others before 1800.
Z. _pseud._ [Colonel G. W. PROSSER].
A Letter, &c., on the Royal Military College at Sandhurst, 1848.
Signed Z.
ZADKIEL, the Seer, _pseud._ [Lieut. RICHARD JAMES MORRISON].
The Horoscope. Edited by ----. Lond., 1834 and 1841.
ZADKIEL, Tao Sze, _pseud._ [same].
Zadkiel’s Almanack for 1851, &c.
The Handbook of Astrology; by which every question of the future on
which the mind is anxious may be answered. 1861, &c.
ZADKIEL, _pseud._ [same].
An Essay on Love and Matrimony, 1851, 24mo.
On the Great First Cause, his Existence and Attributes, 1867.
ZETA, _ps._ [ ].
Mary Dhu, ballad [begins, “Sweet is the Rosebud”], the words written
by D. Moir [_anagram_, Mori?] (Delta), set to music by Zeta. Lond.
[1856].
Zeta has written several songs.
Z. P. _pseudo-initialism_ [L. W. MANSFIELD].
Up-Country Letters, edited by Prof. B----, National Observatory. New
York, 1852.
ADDENDA.
A.
A CITIZEN OF THE UNITED STATES, _geonym_ [A. H. EVERETT].
Europe; or, a General Survey of the present situation of the
principal powers, with conjectures on their future prospects. Boston
[U. S.], 1822. London, 1822, another edition.
A CLERGYMAN, _titlonym_ [Rev. JOHN MORRISON].
Australia as it is. Lond., 1867.
A CLERGYMAN OF THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND, _phras._ [Rev. LEGH RICHMOND].
The Dairyman’s Daughter; an authentic and interesting narrative.
Communicated by ----. 1822.
Two Russian Translations, 1815 and 1831. The Funeral of the,
etc., being the fifth part of her history [1820?]. It was
severely ridiculed in Blackwood’s Magazine, 1822.
A CLERGYMAN OF THE CHURCH OF SCOTLAND, _phraseonym_ [W. PEEBLES].
The Crisis; or, the progress of Revolutionary Principles, a Poem.
Edinb., 1803.
A CLERGYMAN’S DAUGHTER, _demonym_ [Mrs. ELLEN CLACY].
Wonderful Works, or the Miracles of Christ. [1864].
A CLERGYMAN’S DAUGHTER, authoress of Chapters on the Shorter
Catechism [Miss ELIZA SMITH].
The Battles of the Bibles. Edinb., 1852.