Part 14
“We have been informed that when Mr. Warden had left St. Helena, it was well known to all the French that he was carrying home notes for publication: and that, on the arrival of a ship from England which brought newspapers and books, Buonaparte heedlessly asked if _Warden’s book_ was come. Unluckily, Mr. Warden’s book was only published in London about the time when Buonaparte asked the question, and was not known at St. Helena for six weeks after. Whether it was by Buonaparte’s desire that Warden gave his publication the shape in which we see it, or whether the surgeon acted from a natural tendency to sophistication, we cannot pretend to say,--it is enough for us to repeat, that his book is a gross imposition; the substance of which are the falsehoods of Las Cases and Buonaparte, and the shape of which is the fabrication of the anonymous editor.”--_Quarterly Review_, xvi. 486.
* Letters from the Cape of Good Hope, in reply to Mr. Warden; with Extracts from the great work now compiling for publication under the inspection of Napoleon. 1817; 8vo; 206.
It is just as we expected--and our readers will have been prepared by the ninth article of our thirty-second number for this publication. We have here another of the series of tricks with which Buonaparte endeavours to keep himself alive in the recollection of Europe. It is, like all the rest, fraudulent in its title, shape, and pretensions; false in its facts; and jacobinical in its object. But it has this claim to consideration beyond its predecessors, that it comes from a source so nearly connected with Buonaparte as to give it in some degree the authority of being his _own apology made by himself_. It tells us, indeed, little or nothing in the way of fact that is not familiar to our readers; but it speaks in a more decisive tone--it shows by the subjects on which it attempts its apologies whereabout (to use a vulgar phrase) the _shoe pinches_; and it proves by the futility of them....
We have said that the very form of this publication is fraudulent. The author has, in this particular, closely imitated Mr. Warden. It pretends to be a series of _Letters_: no such letters were ever written. It is addressed to a Dear Lady C----: the Dear Lady C---- is not in existence. It affects to be originally written in _English_: it was written in _French_, and the pretended original is only a translation; and to crown the whole, the author assumes the character of an Englishman, while in fact he is a Frenchman, and no other, we are satisfied, than the notorious Count de las Cases, of whose veracity and honour our readers have already had some tolerable specimens.
We shall not waste much time in explaining the _ear-marks_ by which (in addition to their own solemn and repeated assertions to the contrary) we recognize these Letters to be a translation from the French. The most careful and adroit translator cannot always escape the intrusive treachery of gallicisms: but every page of this work abounds, with them; half a dozen out of as many hundreds will more than suffice to convince our readers....
The facts, or rather, the falsehoods, might indeed have been put together by Montholon, or any other of the clique; but the style of the pamphlet, and several circumstances connected with Las Cases, leave, as we have said, little doubt in our minds that he is, immediately or remotely, the author of it. But, whoever be the writer, it must be considered as coming from Buonaparte himself; and assured, as we are, that it is derived from him, and published, if not with his knowledge, at least in concurrence with his wishes, we shall persist in considering it as the _apology_ of the ex-emperor dictated by himself.
Our readers will have observed that the work is entitled “a _Reply_ to Mr. Warden.” We find in the outset a complete substantiation of our charges against that person....
But though this work is thus announced as a _reply_ to Mr. Warden, our readers will smile to hear that there is hardly one _substantial_ contradiction of his statements; in fact the book is merely a postscript to Warden’s, repeating all his apologies for Buonaparte, but with greater care and skill--softening down passages which had excited indignation--strengthening points which had been found weak--reconciling contradictions which had been detected--supplying eulogies and panegyrics upon themselves which had been omitted--and, in short, publishing Mr. Warden’s letters as Buonaparte and Las Cases originally intended that they should have been published by him.--_Quarterly Review_, 1817, xvii. 507, _et seq._
Allowance must be made for the political bias of the reviewer.
WAUCH (Mansie) _fictitious name_ [D. M. MOIR].
The Life of Mansie Wauch, Tailor in Dalkeith, written by himself. Edin., 1828.
“Part of this autobiography originally appeared in Blackwood’s Magazine.”
WAVERLEY (Edward Bradwardine) _pseud._ [JOHN WILSON CROKER].
Two Letters [in reply to Malachi Malagrowther, Esq., _pseud._ q.v.]. Lond., 1826.
W. B. D. D. T., _initialism_ [TURNBULL].
Remarks on the Hussey Peerage. Edin., 1842.
W. C., _init._ [WILLIAM COWLEY?]
Don Juan Reclaimed; or his Peregrination continued from Lord Byron. Sheffield, 1840.
W. C., _init._ [WILLIAM CHAMBERS].
Poems for Young People. Edinburgh, 1851; 16mo.
W. C. C., _init._ [WILLIAM C. COWARD].
Victoriaism; or, a Re-organisation of the People. Lond., 1843.
W. D. _pseudonym_ [RICHARD DERBY NESS].
For many years a _letterist_ in Notes and Queries (3 S. xii. 326) under the signatures of P. H. in the early numbers, and W. D. in the latter.
WETHERELL (Elizabeth) _pseud._ [Miss SUSAN WARNER].
The Wide Wide World. New York, 1852.
Queechy. New York, 1853. London editions also.
W. F. T., _init._ [TAYLOR].
Suitable Bathing Dresses, as used in Biarritz, with instructions, whereby any lady (self-taught) (sic) may learn to swim. Windsor, 1864.
WHARTON (Grace) _ps._ [Mrs. KATHERINE THOMPSON].
The Wits and Beaux of Society, by Grace and Philip W. [J. C. Thompson]. 1860.
The Queens of Society. 1860.
The Literature of Society. Lond., 1862, 2 vols.
WHATSHISNAME, _pseud._ [E. C. MASSEY].
The Green-Eyed Monster; a Christmas Lesson. Lond., _Cooke_, 1854.
He is also said to have been editor of the _Amateur_, which had an existence of 9 months, 1855-6, eight numbers.
Cuthbert Bede, N. & Q.
WHIPEM (Benedick) _phrenonym_ [RICHARD HARRIS, Barrister-at-Law].
New Nobility; a Novel. _Newby_, 1867, 3 vols.
WHISTLECRAFT (Deuteros) Gent., _phren._ [ ].
The Origin of Rome, a poem, translated from the Italian of G. B. Casti, 1860.
WHISTLECRAFT (Nathan), _phren._ [ ].
The Reform Ministry, &c., in verse. Lond., 1834.
WHISTLECRAFT (William and Robert, of Stow-Market, in Suffolk, Harness and Collar Makers) _phren._ [Rt. Hon. JOHN HOOKHAM FRERE].
Prospectus and Specimen of an Intended National Work. By, etc. Intended to comprise the most interesting particulars relating to King Arthur and his round table. 1818.
“Doubtless suggested to Lord Byron his disreputable poem of Don Juan.”--_Allibone._ Frequently reprinted.
WHITE (Babington) _pseudonym_: _plagiarist_.
The plagiarism committed by “Mr. B. White” is in a novel first published in a serial form in _Belgravia_, a monthly magazine, of which Miss Braddon is “conductor,” and Mr. Maxwell proprietor. No sooner was “Circé” republished in the usual form by Messrs. Ward, Lock, and Tyler, the publishers, than the press exposed the plagiarism. The _Pall Mall Gazette_ of the 16th September, 1867, in an article entitled “Dalila” and “Circé,” after noting that “Dalila,” by M. Octave Feuillet, was published in 1855, gave parallel passages, which completely proved the theft from “Dalila”:
“Even the title of the English book is due to a suggestion of M. Feuillet: ‘Omphale, CIRCÉ Dalila! ces noms de magiciennes qui flamboient comme des phares dans la tradition du monde, comment ne m’ont-ils pas éclairé’? One can fancy the English author divided between the merits of the titles ‘Omphale’ and ‘Circé,’ and ultimately deciding in favour of the shorter one; especially as there could be little question about the method of pronouncing it--‘Omphale’ suggesting difficulties of quantity to many. And then the author has had the effrontery here and there to head his chapters with garbled quotations from the French work, taking care of course to suppress all mention of the source of his extracts!
“The crying offence of the book, however, is its absolute dishonesty. Its adapter is simply attempting to palm off upon the English public as an original novel a book stolen from the French, altered in some respects, lengthened and much maltreated altogether, but with its origin still clearly to be traced by those who will trouble themselves to examine into the matter. We claim a right to protest against a proceeding so fraudulent. In all cases of adaptation--let it be a play from a play, as ‘The Streets of London,’ from ‘Les Pauvres des Paris’--or a play from a novel, as ‘Still Waters Run Deep,’ from ‘Le Gendre’--or a novel from a novel, as ‘The Doctor’s Wife,’ from ‘Madame Bovary,’ and ‘Circé’ from ‘Dalila’--it is the merest justice that the obligation to the foreign and original author should be publicly acknowledged and formally placed upon record.”
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.