PSEUDONYMS. (continued 4)

The very severe remarks made by the Pall Mall Gazette excited much controversy.

A letter appeared the next day (17th Sept.) signed “M. E. 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.