Books and Persons | Page 4

14s. 2d. Thirdly, he said that his own profit was £600. Hence £600 is
the half of £5592 14s. 2d. I have no doubt that there exists some quite
simple explanation of this new arithmetic; only it has not occurred to
me, my name not being Colenso. The whole enterprise was regal, as
befitted. Proof-corrections cost twice as much as the original setting up!
A mere man of letters would be inclined to suspect that the printing
was begun too soon; it is usual to postpone setting-up a book until the
book is written. Balzac partially beggared himself by ignoring this rule.

Balzac, however, was not published by Mr. Murray. £950 was paid to
the amanuensis! Oh, amanuensis, how I wonder who you are, up above
the world so high, like a fashionable novelist in the sky! And so on.
* * * * *
The attitude of Tunbridge Wells (the most plutocratic town in England,
by the way) towards the book was adorable. "Mr. Daniel Williams, a
bookseller and librarian, of Tunbridge Wells, said that after the review
by 'Artifex' people complained that the price of the book was too high.
No complaints were made before that." They read their Times Literary
Supplement at the Wells, and they still wait for it to thunder, and when
it has thundered--and not before--they rattle their tea-trays, and the
sequel is red ruin! Again, Mr. Justice Darling, in his ineptly decorated
summing-up, observed that it was hardly too much to say that "the
plaintiff's house--the house of Murray," was a national institution. It
would be hardly too much to say that also the house of Crosse and
Blackwell is a national institution, and that Mr. Justice Darling is a
national institution. By all means let us count the brothers Murray as a
national institution, even as an Imperial institution. But let us guard
against the notion, everywhere cropping up, that such "houses" as the
dignified and wealthy house of Murray are in some mysterious way
responsible for English literature, part-authors of English literature, to
whom half of the glory of English literature is due. It is well to
remember now and then that publishers who have quite squarely made
vast sums out of selling the work of creative artists are not thereby
creative artists themselves. A publisher is a tradesman; infinitely less
an artist than a tailor is an artist. Often a publisher knows what the
public will buy in literature. Very rarely he knows what is good
literature. Scarcely ever will he issue a distinguished book exclusively
because it is a distinguished book. And he is right, for he is only a
tradesman. But to judge from the otiose majesty of some publishers,
one would imagine that they had written at least "Childe Harold."
There is the case of a living publisher (not either of the brothers Murray)
whose presence at his country chateau is indicated to the surrounding
nobility, gentry, and peasantry by the unfurling of the Royal standard
over a turret.
* * * * *
To return to the subject, the price at which the house of Murray issued

the "Letters of Queen Victoria" was not "extortionate," having regard to
the astounding expenses of publication. But why were the expenses so
astounding? If the book had not been one which by its intrinsic interest
compelled purchase, would the "authors" have been remunerated like
the managers of a steel trust? Would the paper have been so precious
and costly? Would the illustrations have so enriched photographers?
And would the amanuensis have made £350 more out of the thing then
Mr. Murray himself? The price was not extortionate. But it was farcical.
The entire rigmarole combines to throw into dazzling prominence the
fact that modern literature in this country is still absolutely
undemocratic. The time will come, and much sooner than many august
mandarins anticipate, when such a book as the "Letters of Queen
Victoria" will be issued at six shillings, and newspapers will be fined
£7500 for saying that the price is extortionate and ought not to exceed
half a crown. Assuredly there is no commercial reason why the book
should not have been published at 6s. or thereabouts. Only
mandarinism prevented that. Mr. Murray's profits would have been
greater, though "authors," amanuenses, photographers, paper-makers,
West-End booksellers, and other parasitic artisans might have suffered
slightly.

FRENCH PUBLISHERS
[_23 May '08_]
It has commonly been supposed that the publication of Flaubert's
"Madame Bovary" resulted, at first, in a loss to the author. I am sure
that every one will be extremely relieved to learn, from a letter recently
printed in _L'Intermédiaire_ (the French equivalent of _Notes and
Queries)_, that the supposition is incorrect. Here is a translation of part
of the letter, written by the celebrated publishers, Poulet-Malassis, to an
author