Part 7

J. R. L., _init._ [LOWELL]. The Poetical Works of J. Keats, with a Life (signed J. R. L.) Boston, 1854.

J. R. M., _init._ [MACCULLOCH].

Tracts ... on Metallic and Paper Currency, by S. J. Lloyd (edited by ----). 1858.

JUNE (Jennie), _phrenonym_ [Mrs. JENNIE CROLY].

JUNIUS, _pseudonym_.

The Letters of Junius and Philo-Junius, 1769-1772.

First published in the “Public Advertiser.” They are often talked about, but seldom read, only the mystery about the author has kept up the excitement. We cannot do more than say that nearly every celebrated man of the time (and some obscure ones too) has had these letters attributed to him. The author is not authoritatively ascertained. A full account will be found in S. Austin Allibone’s Critical Dict. of English Literature, 1859, under Junius, etc. See Lowndes by Bohn.

There is also: Junius Redivivus, Junius Secundus, Philo Junius; and Junius has been constantly used as a mask since it was made celebrated, though chiefly by writers in periodical publications.

J. W., deceased, in usum Amicorum, _init._ [JOHN WILSON, of Islington].

The Music of the Soul, etc., in verse. Lond., 1829.

Privately printed, see Martin.

J. W., _initialism_. See L * * * (Mrs.)

J. W., _init._ [JOHN WADE, Barrister-at-Law].

The Cabinet Lawyer, a popular digest of the Laws of England. 22nd edit. _Longman_, 1866.

Semi-anonymous, the preface is signed J. W.

J. W. H. M., _init._ [JOHN WILLIAM HENRY MOLYNEAUX].

Private Prayers ... selected from Bishop Andrewes’ Devotions (by ----). 1866.

K.

K., _initialism_ [JOHN COLLYER KNIGHT].

Queried Tracts, from Kitto’s Journal of Sacred Literature. Lond., 1851.

KATE (Cousin) _prenonym_ [CATHERINE D. BELL].

Set about it at once, or Cousin Kate’s Story. An Autumn at Karnford, a sequel to, etc. Edinburgh, 1847. Georgie and Lizzie, 1849. What may I learn, or Sketches of School-girls, 1849. The Douglas Family [1851]. Margaret Cecil: or, “I can because I ought,” 1851. Arnold Lee: or, Rich Children and Poor Children [1852]. Lily Gordon, the Young Housekeeper, 1853. Hope Campbell, or, know thyself [1854]. Mary Elliott, or be ye kind to one another. 2nd edit. [1856]. New Stories [1861]. My first Pennies. Boston [U. S., 1864].

KERR (Orpheus C.), _phrenonym_ (Office Seeker). [R. H. NEWELL, of New York].

What the satire of “Hudibras” was to the great civil war of the time of Charles I. and Oliver Cromwell, it is pretended the “Orpheus C. Kerr Letters” have been to the recent American struggle.

Avery Glibun; or between Two Fires: a romance. New York, 1867,

Is his latest production; as the preface is not lengthy, we will give it:--“Avery Glibun being my first essay in sustained fiction, it seems remarkably prudent to say no more about it.”

KETCH (John) _pseud._ [ ].

The Autobiography of a notorious Legal Functionary (J. K.) with 14 illustrations from designs by Meadows. Lond., 1836.

K. H., _initialism_ [ ].

Sketches in Prose and Poetry. _Smith & Elder_, 1838.

KIRKE (Edmund), _pseud._ [JAMES R. GILMORE].

Life in Dixie’s Land, etc., 1863. My Southern Friends, 1863. Down in Tennessee, and back by way of Richmond. New York, 1864. Among the Guerillas, 1866. Patriot Boys. Boston, 1866.

KIRWAN, _pseud._ [Rev. NICHOLAS MURRAY].

Romanism at Home. 6th edition. New York, 1852. Men and Things as I saw them in Europe, 1853. The Happy Home, 1858.

KNICKERBOCKER (Diedrick) _pseud._ [WASHINGTON IRVING].

The History of New York, numerous editions.

One of the wittiest works of this brilliant author. “The first part was sketched in company with Dr. Peter Irving.”--_Allibone._

L.

L., _ps._ [CATHERINE SWANWICK].

Poems. London, 1858, etc.

L., _init._ [JAMES LENOX].

Shakespeare’s Plays in folio, Bibliographical Notices of the same. New York, 1861.

L---- (Lady), _disguised-author_ [Lady LYONS].

Olivia; a tale, etc. Philip Hetherington. The Lover upon Trial. All 1847.

L * * * (Mrs.), _disguised-author_ [LEFEVRE].

An extract of Letters, by ----, edited by J. W. [John Wesley]. Dublin, 1808.

Several editions before this year.

L. A. D., _pseud._ [ILFRACOMBE].

Prince Ahmed and the Fairy Pari Banon, a Drawing Room piece, 1859.

LASCELLES (Lady Caroline) _pseudo-titlonym_ [M. E. BRADDON?]

The Black Band, first published in the Halfpenny Journal.

The following, from the Athenæum, requires no explanation from us:--

THE MANUFACTURE OF NOVELS.

The literary people of New York are wrangling over a matter 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:--