Tuesday, 11 July 2017

Macmillan's New Cranford Series and Illustrated Standard Novels in Dust Jackets

In 2011, I posted images of the dust jacket of my 1896 copy of Thomas Love Peacock's Gryll Grange here and here; that copy has now been donated to the Monash Library, as a part of my Thomas Love Peacock collection, but is yet to be catalogued.

Before I gave up my Peacock collection last year, I had been keeping an eye open for any more Peacock volumes from Macmillan's New Cranford Series and Illustrated Standard Novels in dust jackets or wrappers, but without any luck. I did, however, occasionally find other volumes from Macmillan’s New Cranford Series (1890–96) in dust jackets, so I thought I should do a post on them, add any images to that post which I might find in future.

Here today are the two jackets that I collected images of (two titles, two copies of the first), plus a few pictures of my old copy of Gryll Grange. The prices being asked for Cranford are eye-watering (approaching two thousand pounds), so it is not surprising that the books remain available two years after I spotted them! But the copy of Coridon’s Song is only a USD245—a bargain—I don't understand why nobody has snapped it up!

* * * * *

[1] Elizabeth Gaskell, Cranford, With a Preface by Anne Thackeray Ritchie, illus. Hugh Thomson (London: Macmillan, 1891), large paper copy, ltd. to 300 copies; in plain red publisher's cloth with paper spine label.




[2] Austin Dobson, Coridon’s Song and Other Verses from Various Sources, Introduction by Austen Dobson, illus. By Hugh Thomson (London: Macmillan, 1894), pictorial black cloth with titles and illustration stamped in gilt, a.e.g.



[3] Thomas Love Peacock, Gryll Grange, Introduction by George Sainsbury, illus. F. H. Townsend (London: Macmillan, 1896), red cloth.


Wednesday, 5 July 2017

The Scale of Female Literary Merit, 1792

On 4 June 2014, Dr Jennie Batchelor did a Tweet (here) about a 1792 "Scale of Female Literary Merit" that appeared in The Lady’s Magazine; and on 15 December 2014, she did a Blog post (here) about it. The Tweet provided the year (only), the blog entry, the name of the journal plus the year and month (only). The Blog was an improvement on the Tweet, but — since the list looks useful — I wanted to know little more. So here is the "Scale" and a little more information.


The full reference for this is: "The Scale of Female Literary Merit," The Lady’s Magazine, 23 (June 1792): 290; online here. (NB: the caption in Batchelor's blog entry provides the wrong volume number.)

Batchelor's tweet seems to have prompted Melissa Sodeman to post this February 2015 blog entry titled "Measuring Up: On the vexing history of assessing women’s literary achievements", which cites an earlier newspaper article —itself a response to a yet-earlier "Scale of Genius" that had ranked male writers (full citatation: "Scale of the Female Genius of this Country in the Year MDCCXCII”, The Star (2 April 1792); not online). In fact, Sodeman had cited and reproduced The Star "Scale" in her Sentimental Memorials: Women and the Novel in Literary History (Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 2014), 125–26, which was published in November 2014, so she appears to have been mining her own book in response to Batchelor.

Although Batchelor undoubtedly located this "Scale" herself, as her Tweet claims, the Lady’s Magazine "Scale" was cited by Monica Cristina Soare in the same year in The Female Gothic Connoisseur: Reading, Subjectivity, and the Feminist Uses of Gothic Fiction (PhD, thesis, UC Berkeley, [Northern] Spring 2014), 136; and had been reproduced eight years earlier in the facsimile collection Women and Romanticism, 1790–1830, ed. Roxanne Eberle, 5 vols. (London: Routledge, 2006), 3.18.

So, unless I can find an even-older reference, the credit for the re-discovery and earliest mention of the "Scale" goes to Roxanne Eberle, Associate Professor at the University of Georgia.

Monday, 3 July 2017

Tell me, O! Eliza Haywood!

The following quote is from the long-forgotten Richard Savage, edited, with occasional notes by Charles Whitehead, Illustrated by John Leech, Bentley’s Miscellany, vol. 8–10 (London: Richard Bentley, 1842), 9.38–39 (here):

I was silent. To say the truth, I managed that scene — for, after all, it must be so called — very awkwardly. And yet the case itself was scenic; and upon a little reflection it will be admitted that the manner of performance ought to have very little to do with the question. Tell me, O Eliza Haywood !* thou great genius of modern fiction! thou, who knowest, or sayest thou dost know, all the passions and feelings that work or play in the bosom of mankind, (would that thou wouldst depict them better!), tell me what ought to have been done upon that occasion, and how?
  I was silent, I have said; but at length I answered …

* Eliza Haywood, although now nearly forgotten, attained during her life-time to an enviable celebrity. Pope, in his Dunciad, has heaped terrible infamy upon her head. Her plays I have not seen; but I have looked into her novels — of which ‘The History of Betsy Thoughtless’ and ‘Jenny and Jemmy Jessamy’ are the most considerable. They possess no common degree of merit, but are altogether unfit for modern perusal.


Whitehead's serialised novel, the Introduction to which claimed that is was an "autobiographical memoir" (8.20), was reprinted in Bentley's Standard Novels, without notes, re-written and with the ending changed (!—according to Royal Gettmann here), as Richard Savage. A Romance of Real Life, 3 vols. (London: Richard Bentley, 1842), with the quote at 2.63–64 (here); it was reprinted, again without notes, and with further edits, including the removal of the paragraph mentioning Haywood, Richard Savage. A Romance of Real Life, A New Edition, with an introduction by Harvey Orrinsmith (London: Richard Bentley, 1896), with the relevant section on page 185 (here).

In a biography of 1884 (in the title of which he was already being described as "A Forgotten Genius"), H. T. Mackenzie Bell describes Richard Savage as "unquestionably Whitehead's greatest work" and repeats the claim of one "Miss Hogarth … that she had often heard Dickens speak with 'great admiration' of the novel Richard Savage" (H. T. Mackenzie Bell, A Forgotten Genius: Charles Whitehead: A Critical Monograph (London 1884; 2nd ed., with some additional material, 1894), 24; online here).

Charles Whitehead was born 4 September 1804, left for Australia 1857 and died in Melbourne Hospital, 5 July 1862. Since this makes Whitehead an honourary Australian, a Melbournian in fact, the Australian Dictionary of Biography contains an entry for him (here), but the National Library of Australia contains only one, incomplete poem of his in manuscript (an attack on H. F. Watts, editor of the Melbourne Argus, sent to Bell by James Smith, editor of the Australasian) and copies of his "greatest work" are scarce in Australian libraries (only three copies of each of the 1842 and 1896 editions). According to the ADB, Whitehead was an alcoholic, impoverished and sometimes homeless; his wife was "mentally deranged" and had died in 1860, he "was picked up exhausted in the street," died (at aged 58) and "was buried in a pauper's grave."

Whitehead's romantic biography of Savage is one of many fictionalised accounts of the writer but—as far as I know—the only one which mentions Haywood, even in passing. Although Whitehead was probably right that, in 1842, Haywood was "now nearly forgotten"—it is nevertheless amusing that he refers to her as such, since even the great John Leech and the justly celebrated Bentley's Standard Novels have not kept his own work from being even more forgotten than Haywood's works were at the time. Likewise, although it is nice to have a record of a Haywood reader from this period ("I have looked into her novels … They possess no common degree of merit"), his peroration (that they are "altogether unfit for modern perusal") is what has landed him a place on my Wall of Shame.

Sunday, 2 July 2017

Books I never considered indecent, 1836

On 24 October 1836, Selim Cohen was again indicted for stealing at least a dozen books from William Holmes. During his cross-examination, Holmes (who been a bookseller for twenty-six years, and had two shops) reveals his thoughts concerning books which he considered indecent, or not: mostly not.

It seems that Holmes was familiar with a great many books that were usually concidered obscene at the time, and had twice been imprisoned for seditious libels, which may be why Cohen was found not guilty, though it is clear that he stole the books. Since each dash indicates an omitted question, it is quite difficult to understand exactly what was going on in the Old Bailey Proceedings, and how deep a hole Holmes was digging for himself by lying about his past, his activites, being corrected in questioning etc. But I am guessing that, in the same that the copyright laws at the time would not protect you from piracy, if the work concerned was judged to be obscene (which is what happened with Byron's Cain), property laws did not protect you from theft of books judged to be obscene, and the judge may have let Cohen off for this reason.

* * * * *

Testimony of WILLIAM HOLMES: The house I live in and rent is in Holywell-street—the other shop is in Princess-street … memorandum-books are sold in the shop in Princess-street, but no indecent publications—there are not more than one or two engravings there [Princess-street]—in the Holywell-street shop there are some engravings, decent ones, such as may be shown in any window with perfect safety to the morals of the community—that I swear—I dare say the Adventures of an Irish Smock has been sold—I do not know whether I have it for sale—there may be books in that shop that I do not know of—I know a book called Fanny Hill—I believe there is a copy of it in the shop—I have seen a more indecent publication than that, it is a book called Frisky Songs—I bought a copy of that from the prisoner for 1s., to sell again—I cannot mention a more indecent book, and that I sold, but it was not in the shop—it was in my pocket, and not in the shop—I have sold about two or three dozen copies of Fanny Hill—the one I sell is not the most indecent book next to the one I mentioned—I sold the Frisky Songs because I did not with to keep it—I bought it to sell to another bookseller—I know a book called the Female Husband—it is not an immoral book—it is a woman who personated a man, and married several woman—a narrative of what she did is given in it—I should call it her amours—I do not think they are indecent—I do not consider that or the Fanny Hill I sell, are indecent works—I sell Aristotle's Masterpiece—that is considered a medical book—I never considered it indecent—it treats of the differences of the sexes, and of the operations in the womb—I think it does not treat of the operation of getting children—I have read it—I do not think it more indecent than any other medical book—I sell a work called The Poet—I think there are some in the shop—I think it is not an indecent book—it treats of the amours of a Frenchman and woman—there is a frontispiece to the Female Husband—it is a male and female in bed, covered up, and person entering the room.

In sum:

  • Frisky Songs—"I cannot mention a more indecent book"; it is "more indecent" than Fanny Hill
  • Fanny Hill—"I do not think [it is] indecent"
  • Female Husband—"not an immoral book"; "I do not think [it is] indecent"
  • Aristotle's Masterpiece—"I never considered it indecent", no more "indecent than any other medical book"
  • The Poet—"I think it is not an indecent book"
  • Adventures of an Irish Smock—[not characterised]


  • A few notes: Fanny Hill requires no explanation; The Female Husband is Henry Fielding's account of a notorious 18th-century case of lesbian cross-dressing; Aristotle's Masterpiece is a popular sex manual and midwifery book; I am not familiar with The Poet, and it is the sort of title that defies Google-searching!

    Frisky Songs could be any one of a number of similarly-titled (and now, mostly lost) songsters of the variety included in my Bawdy Songbooks of the Romantic Period (2011). The closest title-match is one we did not include: Wilson's frisky songster: the most spicy collections of all the new double entendre, flash and spreeish songs, now singing at the cidar cellars, Coal Hole, Evans's, and all convivial parties (London: John Wilson, n.d. [ca.1830]), which is held in the library at Bateman's, a 17th-century house in East Sussex where Rudyard Kipling lived, and which was bequeathed to the National Trust in 1939.

    Adventures of an Irish Smock (1782) is a mysterious erotic work, which I have recently located a copy of in an obscure German library. The full title given in the following advertisement gives a better idea of its contents:

    The Adventures of an Irish Smock. Interspersed with ludicrous Anecdotes of a Nankeen Pair of Breeches. Containing, among a great variety of curious connections between the most celebrated Demi-reps and Beaux Garçons upon the Ton. private Intrigues of Lady W—y and Mrs. N—n, never before published; with the whimsical Frolicks of Boarding School Misses, and the Christmas and other Gambols of Maids of Honour. Being a proper companion, particularly at this season, for all men of taste and gallantry, and all females of spirit and intrigue.

    And this is what the reviewers had to say:

    The Critical Review: One of those pernicious incentives to vice that are a scandal to decency. A common pander, who confines his infamous occupation to the service of the stews, is less injurious to society than such prostituted miscreants as devote their time and attention to corrupt the imaginations of youth. The most ignominious punishment prescribed by our laws is infinitely too slight for offences of so heinous a nature; The English Review: The volume is an indecent and impure farrago; and it would be of service to the community, could a summary method be invented to suppress publications calculated to inflame the youth of both sexes and encourage vice, sensuality, and licentiousness; The Monthly Review: This publication is equally remarkable for its stupidity and obscenity.

    It is enough to make you want to read the book, no?

    * * * * *

    The following section of testimony provides some details of Holmes's scrapes with the law; if you want to read more, see here for the full Old Bailey Proceedings.

    Testimony of WILLIAM HOLMES: I have not been all that time [23yrs] in London—I travel in the country—I go to Lincoln sometimes … I have always lived in my own house, or my mother's or my master's, at Lincoln—I was once taken, and slept in jail, but a thing may slip one's memory—that slipped my memory—it was so trifling—I was in jail about a fortnight, till I could procure a sum of money—I was sent there for deserting my wife—I was in jail in town for publishing seditious libels—the first was a letter to Lord Castlereagh, published by Griffiths, in Holborn—I went to jail for six months for that—the second was a letter to the Reformers of England, published by Carlile—I staid in jail two years for that—I think there is no other time—I will swear I have never been in any other jail, or on any other charges than those you have mentioned—nor taken up for any thing else—I am not one of Mr. Carlile's disciples—I believe the Scriptures, and read them in jail the first time I was there—I got into jail again for selling in Mr. Carlile's shop—I always said it was my wife's fault that I got into jail the first time—the Magistrates were kind enough not to commit me, but not gave me time to raise the money—they sent me to Lincoln jail—I did pay the money—because I was too poor—I know perfectly well my wife could procure nutriment from my friends at Lincoln.

    In sum: Holmes was in gaol for

  • "about a fortnight" six months in Lincoln gaol for "for deserting my wife" publishing "a letter to Lord Castlereagh, published by Griffiths, in Holborn"
  • two years for selling, in Mr. Carlile's shop, "a letter to the Reformers of England, published by Carlile"
  • Tuesday, 9 May 2017

    Eliza Haywood Unpopular in the UK

    It pains me to say this, but Eliza Haywood appears to be unpopular in the UK.

    Early one Saturday morning, shortly after I did my most recent update of this page (which lists Haywood scholarship online), it occurred to me that most of the major Haywood critics seem to be based in the US. Since it was cold, and daylight was still hours away, I started flicking through my mental card file to identify anyone from the UK who has made a name for themselves in the last century or so, by writing about Haywood, or editing her works.

    George Frisbie Whicher? No.
    Mary Anne Schofield? No.
    Christine Blouch? No.
    Toni Bowers? No.
    Patricia Meyer Spacks? No.
    Kirsten T. Saxton? No.
    Juliette Merritt? No.
    Jerry C. Beasley? No.
    Deborah Nestor? No.
    Alexander Pettit? No.
    Kathryn R. King? No.
    Margaret Case Croskery? No.
    Tiffany Potter? No.
    Me! No.

    The only Haywood scholar from the UK that I could think of, off the top of my head, was Kim Simpson. I wish Kim enormous success, but I am sure she would agree that she is still establishing herself in the field. Which got me thinking: how would you quantify, empirically, the extent to which other UK (or British) scholars have contributed to the field. As soon as I had worked something out, I jumped up and set to work.

    It took all day—from dark to dark—but I managed to establish to my own satisfaction that British scholars have made no significant impact on recent Haywood studies. I set out my reasoning and results below, and the limit I set myself concerning how to define "recent" and "impact", but the searches that I conducted which go beyond the limits I set reinforce the impression of those results. That is, British scholars have not made a significant impact on Haywood studies generally.

    Another impression I have is that many (perhaps "most") of the scholars, who have made an impact on Haywood studies, are not from top-ranked universities. University rankings are an unhealthy obsession of administrators, but the fact that I had not heard of a very large number of the institutions in question cannot be dismissed solely on the basis that I am an antipodean. I visited every library in the States with more than ten Haywood items in their collection: west-coast, mid-west, north-east and east coast. If I find myself with another day on my hands I might correlate scholars with original editions of her works. I suspect the relation is an inverse proportion.

    It is quite likely that my revelation is no revelation to US-based scholars, who regularly attend conferences, and see few outlanders. If any such are reading this, I hope you enjoy finding that the evidence below supports your general impression, that Haywood studies are unpopular in the UK. If you have any theories concerning why that may be the case, I'd love to hear them.

    * * * * *

    I decided to use citation statistics to establish which essays are most frequently cited. I also decided to omit monograph books because there are very few of them, and none that I could think of had UK authors (Whicher, Schofield, Merritt, me, King). The best citation-indexing of literary Studies is by Google scholar (GS), so I used it, and compared Google to its competitors, focusing on citations from 2000 onwards.

    Since I was primarly interested in literary studies scholars who had contributed to the study of Haywood's works as literature, I excluded biographical essays like Blouch's “Eliza Haywood and the romance of obscurity" [48 citations on GS], Backscheider's “The shadow of an author: Eliza Haywood” [27] and King's “Eliza Haywood, Savage Love, and Biographical Uncertainty” [13]. I also excluded comparative essays like H. Thompson, “Plotting materialism: W. Charleton's The Ephesian Matron, E. Haywood's Fantomina, and feminine consistency” [15] and M. N. Powell, “Parroting and the Periodical: Women's Speech, Haywood's Parrot, and Its Antecedents” [14].

    The citation-indexing by MLA is less complete than GS, but the coverage is very good: all of the top eleven GS articles are indexed by MLA, but the total citations are 80 versus 161 citations on GS (i.e., it records around half the citations).

    The citation-indexing by Web of Science [WoS] is, in general, pitiful: no article about Haywood has more than eight citations on WoS, and none of the six essays with more than five citations are among the eleven with the highest citations on GS. Likewise, only six of the top eleven Google-listed articles appear on WoS, and these listings capture less than fifteen percent of the total citations for the same articles, as recorded by GS (18 versus 125 citations).

    The citation-indexing of by Scopus is only slightly better than WoS: no article has more than eight citations on Scopus, and only three of the essays with more than five citations are among the dozen with the highest citations on GS. Likewise, while nine of the top eleven Google-listed articles appear on Scopus, these listings capture only about one quarter of the total citations for the same articles, as recorded by GS (44 versus 161 citations).

    With these limits in mind, I was able to establish a list of the top eleven essays—eleven, because there was a tie for tenth place! These essays, with their citation statistics, are:

    Lubey, K., “Eliza Haywood’s amatory aesthetic” (2006) [30; 13 on MLA; 8 on Scopus; 3 on WoS] ¶ focus on Lasselia
    Anderson, E. H., “Performing the Passions in Eliza Haywood’s Fantomina and Miss Betsy Thoughtless” (2005) [24; 12 on MLA; 6 on Scopus; 2 of WoS]
    Kvande, M., “The Outsider Narrator in Eliza Haywood’s Political Novels” (2003) [22; 12 on MLA; 5 on Scopus] ¶ focus on Memoirs of Utopia
    Stuart, S., “Subversive Didacticism in Eliza Haywood’s Betsy Thoughtless” (2002) [19; 7 on MLA; 5 on Scopus; 4 on WoS]
    Drury, J., “Haywood’s thinking machines” (2008) [14; 4 on MLA; 4 on Scopus; 0 on WoS] ¶ focus on Love in Excess
    Girten, K. M., “Unsexed Souls: Natural Philosophy as Transformation in Eliza Haywood’s Female Spectator” (2009) [14; 6 on MLA; 3 on Scopus; 2 on WoS]
    Mowry, M. M., “Eliza Haywood’s Defense of London’s Body Politic” (2003) [14; 7 on MLA; 4 on Scopus; 0 on WoS] ¶ focus on Fantomina (1725) and The City Jilt (1726)
    Pettit, A., “Adventures in pornographic places: Eliza Haywood’s Tea-Table and the decentering of moral argument” (2002) [13; 1 on MLA; 7 on Scopus; 5 on WoS]
    Black, S., “Trading Sex for Secrets in Haywood’s Love in Excess” (2003) [12; 6 on MLA; 0 on Scopus; 0 on WoS]
    Potter, T., “The language of feminised sexuality: gendered voice in Eliza Haywood’s Love in Excess and Fantomina” (2003) [11; 6 on MLA; 0 on Scopus; 0 on WoS]
    Hultquist, A., “Haywood’s Re-Appropriation of the Amatory Heroine in Betsy Thoughtless” (2006) [11; 6 on MLA; 2 on Scopus; 2 on WoS]

    The affiliations of these scholars are:

    Kathleen Lubey, St. John’s College of Liberal Arts and Sciences, NY
    Emily Hodgson Anderson, University of Southern California's Dana and David Dornsife College of Letters, Arts and Sciences, CA
    Marta Kvande, Texas Tech University, TX
    Shea Stuart, Gardner-Webb University, Boiling Springs NC
    Joseph Drury, Villanova University, English Department, Villanova, PA
    Kristin M. Girten, University of Nebraska, NE
    Melissa M. Mowry, St. John's University, Staten Island NY
    Alex Pettit, University of North Texas, TX
    Scott Black, University of Utah Salt Lake City, UT
    Tiffany Potter, University of British Columbia, Canada
    Aleksondra Hultquist, Stockton University, Galloway, NJ

    So, there you have it: ten American-based scholars, and one Canadian-based scholar. So, why is Eliza Haywood Unpopular in the UK?

    [UPDATED 2 July 2017]

    Sunday, 7 May 2017

    Private Case items not on ECCO

    While reviewing Patrick Kearney’s two bibliographies of the British Library’s Private Case holdings—his Private Case (1981), which lists items now in the Private Case, and his Supplement (2016), which lists items known to have once been in it—it occurred to me that I could use the data he provides to see whether the Private Case holdings continue to be systematically withheld from ECCO.

    I have been curious concerning the presence of Private Case items on ECCO for a while. In my 2011 article “‘The New Machine’: Discovering the limits of ECCO” I mentioned that little of the Private Case material was on ECCO and that the material that had been included at the time of writing had only recently been added (ibid., 441). The main evidence I had to go on was that no Private Case items appear in the first eight thousand reels of the Eighteenth Century microfilm series (the basis of ECCO), and few had appeared thereafter (ibid., 451–52n37). (The first one appears to have been Thomas Stretser's New Description of Merryland, 4th ed. (1741); ESTC: t139065, which appeared on reel 8284 in 1986.)

    I recently updated all the information in my Bibliography of Eliza Haywood about items on the Eighteenth Century microfilm series for a forthcoming essay (“The availability of Haywood’s works, editing and issues of bibliography”). And I have also now updated my Checklist of Eighteenth-Century Erotica, using the information from Kearney. I used the updated information about the Haywood corpus as a benchmark for the eighteenth-century works in English either in, or previously in, the Private Case.

    My (long) experience using ECCO suggests that Haywood is pretty representative of British Library holdings in general: i.e., that close to three-quarters of all Haywood items on ECCO are sourced from the British Library, and almost everything at the British Library is on ECCO. These proportions seem to be true generally of British Library holdings on ESTC and ECCO.

    As I explain below, when I compared the British Library’s holdings of Haywood items with past and present Private Case items, I discovered that, while a similar percentage of Haywood items are on ESTC as are, or were, in the Private Case, it is still the case that, whereas 95% of all Haywood items held in the British Library are on ECCO, less than half of all material that is or was in the Private Case has now been reproduced on ECCO.

    That there is little difference between the presence on ECCO of items presently in, versus those once in, the Private Case, suggests that items are not being withheld from ECCO due to access restrictions on the Private Case pressmark. I doubt very much that the material once or now in the Private Case is in significantly worse condition that the many heavily-worn Haywood items I have examined. Consequently, it would seem that the previous and present Private Case items are only being withheld because of the nature of their contents; i.e., because they are works of erotica.

    * * * * *

    Of the 149 eighteenth-century works in English, recorded by Kearney as being, or having been, held in the British Library’s Private Case, ten are not recorded on ESTC at all (6.7%), a dozen more are not listed as holdings in the relevant ESTC entry (15%), a further forty-nine that are on ESTC, are not reproduced on ECCO and another eleven, which are on ECCO, reproduce copies other than that in the Private Case. Of the seventy-eight items on ECCO (52%), thirty-four are definitely, and thirty-three are probably, sourced from the British Library (45%); “probably” because these items are not identifiable on ECCO by visible pressmarks.

    Looking just at the fifty-four eighteenth-century works in English presently in the British Library’s Private Case, three are not recorded on ESTC at all (5.6%), twenty-five that are on ESTC are not reproduced on ECCO (46%) and another four, which are on ECCO, reproduce copies other than that in the Private Case. Of the twenty-nine items on ECCO (54%), seventeen are definitely, and eight are probably, sourced from the British Library.

    The data I have on Haywood items is not in a form that facilitates detailed comparison. However, fifteen of the 273 eighteenth-century works in English, which I record in my Bibliography of Eliza Haywood, are not recorded on ESTC at all (5.5%); and of the 180 Haywood items that are reproduced on ECCO, 128 (or 71%) are sourced from the British Library. Fifty-two Haywood items on ECCO are sourced from other libraries (29%), but in only seven of these cases does the British Library also hold the item concerned (5%).

    What this means is that a similar percentage of either present (5.6%), or present and previous, Private Case items (6.7%), than Haywood items (5.5%), are missing from ESTC completely; a somewhat lower percentage of present and previous (45%), or present Private Case items (54%), that Haywood items (66%) are on ECCO; but a hugely-higher percentage of either present (54%), or present and previous, Private Case (55%), than Haywood items (5%), which are held by the British Library, are not on ECCO. An item once in, or presently in, the Private Case is over ten times as likely to not appear on ECCO, as a Haywood item.

    * * * * *

    I will save my data on Kearney for another time, but regarding the Haywood items on the Eighteenth Century microfilm series—and, therefore, on ECCO—128 items are British Library copies. The remaining are from the following libraries: the Bodleian (16), Houghton (9), Huntington (6), National Library of Ireland (6), Clark (5), Boston Public (4), Cambridge (3), and one each from the National Library of Wales, National Library of Scotland, and the Spencer Library.

    Thursday, 13 April 2017

    Foxcroft Lecure on Private Case Collections

    My 2016 Foxcroft lecture on private case collections has finally appeared on YouTube (here). I mentioned the lecture in passing here, but more details about the event at the State Library of Victoria in Melbourne are now online here.

    The year-long delay in appearance was caused by my heavy use of slides, which the in-house video editors at the State Library struggled with a little. After much discussion back-and-forward I asked them to post it online as it is, though there are still a few mis-matches, rather than delay posting it any longer.

    Although it is always a little weird to see yourself on video, it is nice that it the lecture is finally available. In the second half of this year I will write up the presentation formal as a formal essay, which will be published by the Ancora Press at Monash University in association with the State Library. Until then, comments, corrections, hints etc. are all welcome!


    Thursday, 30 March 2017

    Eliza Haywood in the Early Novels Database (END)

    The Early Novels Database (END) is hosted by the University of Pennsylvania Rare Book and Manuscript Library (PU), and under development by staff and students at the library, Swarthmore College and the University of Pennsylvania. The project has a stated aim of restoring metadata lost in digitisation projects. If this were actually the case then the six-year old project would have to be considered a failure, even in its "Under Construction" form. It is clear, however, that the actual aim of END is to involve undergraduate students in the collection of detailed paratextual information, annotation, marginalia etc. from the "extensive collection of fiction in English published between 1660 and 1830" available at PU. (A 2011 overview of the project is here.)

    I am not sure how I have managed to not hear about the project, given that I am interested in annotation, marginalia etc., particularly that in works by Haywood. But once I did hear about it I realised that it was very likely that END included information about works by Haywood, since PU has a large number of books by Haywood. (With 45 items, it has the fifth largest Haywood collection in the States: larger than that at Yale, Princeton, the Clark.) Unfortunately, it is presently impossible to search END for works by Haywood. On the splash page, a visitor is given the choice of sorting results by title or year (not author), or to "narrow results" by browsing "Narrative form," "Author claim type," "Author gender claim" (by which they seem to mean "Author sex claim"), "Person" etc. Since there was no way to narrow results by author, I did what I have had to do so many times, I simply searched through every single title to identify those by Haywood. It is a tedious way of searching, and would have been largely unnecessary if the metadata in the PU library catalogue had been carried over, but it is effective. Below is the list of titles, arranged chronologically.

    The busy-body (1742) *
    Memoirs of an unfortunate young nobleman (1743) *
    Secret histories, novels, and poems (1745)
    The fortunate foundlings (Dublin, 1745)
    The adventures of Natura (1748)
    Dalinda: or, the double mariage [sic] (1749) *
    The busy body (Dublin 1770)
    The distressed orphan (1770) *
    The female spectator (1771) *
    The invisibe [sic] spy (1773) †
    The female spectator (1775)
    Epistles for ladies (1776) †
    The Sopha (1781) †
    The history of Miss Betsy Thoughtless (1783)

    There appear to be many cases where there are multiple entries for the one work, and there are three records that are empty—links that lead to a blank page (marked † above). Also, only five of the fourteen entries record marginalia or inscriptions (marked * above) of any kind, and most of these provide few useful details. In almost all cases Haywood listed as a “Person” in the primary record, but no linking is provided to her as a Person. The only case where you can navigate from one Haywood work to another is Secret histories, novels, and poems (1745) which links to The female spectator (1771).

    Since I examined all of these books late in July 1997, I am not relying on END for my knowledge of the PU colection. But there are a lot of smaller libraries that I did not visit and it would be helpful if projects like this were more common. Involving undergraduates in cataloguing weird and interesting copy-specific information is a great idea. It is a shame that the basic database structure is not better adapted to searching by author since the vast majority of interest in marginalia is focussed on the annotator (as author) or on the annotations (as a response to an author): i.e., it is ultimately a biographical interest.

    The only blog entry (on the END blog) concerning marginalia is this one from 2013. In her reflections on Marginalia, Christina Aruffo explains why "marginalia cataloguing can be sporadic"—even in a project such as this—because cataloguing it can be time consuming, cataloguers have their own "accepted and internalized definition of what marginalia actually is"—meaning doodles and library markings ("library marginalia") get less attention than text, as does anything else that cannot be easily related to the text as text.

    For student projects based on END data and texts, see here; for papers, see this (including one by Andrew Piper and Ehsan Arabnejad which "draws on a taxonomy of eighteenth-century novels’ footnotes to advance a simple but consequential argument: despite the claims of almost all scholarship on the subject, footnotes in novels were common and referential rather than exceptional and self-referential, meta-fictional, or “postmodern” avant la letter." Nice.)

    A simple measure of media focus or bias?

    A linguist made an observation to me last year concerning media focus, which has been at the back of my mind of late. Responding to a student project on media focus and bias, they wondered whether another way of measuring media bias might be to count how often different media outlets use the phrase "far right" versus "far left"—since these are, at least in part, terms of abuse: ways of labeling political views or actions as extreme.

    The linguist reasoned that, if there is a fairly-even distribution of votes for centre-left and centre-right parties, there are probably as many far-left as far-right voters too. And if the left is just as active as the right, you would expect an unbiased media to label as many ideas or actions as far or extreme left as right.

    It did occur to me at the time that, if "far left" activists spend their weekends knitting, while "far right" activists are burning down refugee centres, the media would have good reasons to refer to "far right" more than "far left". Or, reporters might fill newpapers with glowing reports about "far right" fascists and attacks on "far laft" Marxists, so the number of references might be equal but a bias still be present.

    Still, as I said, the question got me thinking. There did seem to be a lot more discussion of the "far right" than "far left" in the media. So, when an acquaintance decried the right-wing drift of the ABC, I started thinking about this "test" again. And every time since, when I have read an accusation of left-wing bias at the ABC, I have thought that I should have a go at this test and see what the results are.

    Since I'd really rather think about something else, and it was obvious that the only way I could stop thinking about this was to take to Google to do a series of site-searches, I decided to do this, post the results here, and return to my Haywood research. I looked at all the major local newspapers and a few famous US papers for comparison. I have sorted them according to how many more times the site refers to "far right" than "far left" (the multiple).


    As you can see, on this measure: The Daily Mail is, improbably, the least biased of all media outlets in its labeling of political ideas or actions as "far" (50:50 split in references to "far left" and "far right" on its site [multiple equals one]). Brietbart—the only site to refer to "far left" more than "far right"—is about as focussed on left-wing extremism as The Australian is on the right-wing extremism (!?!; with three times as many references to either "far left" or "far right" [the multiples being one-third and three]).

    The Age is obsessively-focussed on right-wing extremism (with six times as many references to "far right" as "far left" [multiple of six]), while the SBS is almost twice as obsessed as the obsessively-focussed Age (making them "madly-" or "insanely-focussed"? [multiple of eleven]). The ABC is so far beyond "insanely-focussed" on the right, by this measure, that superlatives fail me: a multiple of seventeen! I.e., seventeen times as many references to "far right" as "far left"—94 percent of all reference to "far-[anything]" being "far right." The numbers are amazing too: the ABC has a few more references to "far left" than The Australian, but more than six times as many references to the "far right"!

    Obviously, there are lots of problems with this as a measure of focus, and even more with translating focus to bias in labeling people, ideas, actions etc. as extreme: it may be that all forty-thousand ABC references to the "far right" are objectively-speaking, unbiased and even-handed, with no suggestion that the "far right" are extreme in any way. It may be that, every other news outlet is massively under-reporting "far right" activity. And, as I said, it is unclear whether this is actually right-wing bias: with innumerable glowing reports about fascists mixed with a small number of attacks on Marxists (or even an uneven number of references to people sitting in the "far left" of pubs, clubs and stadiums).

    However, if Brietbart is itself usually described as a "far right" media outlet—because of its obsession with, and attacks on, what it calls the "far left"—that does suggest that The Australian is "far left," since its references to extreme left and right activity are the statistical mirror-image of Brietbart. And this suggests that the ABC would have to be described as far-far-far-far-far left (i.e., more than five times as far "far left" as Brietbart is "far right"?). It seems unlikely that the ABC is five times as biased as Brietbart, but the fact that the ABC has almost three times as many references to "far right" as Brietbart has references to "far left" does suggests—at the least—something about the usage of these terms.

    A general Google search does bring up twice as many references to "far right" as "far left" so, perhaps, the Daily Telegraph is closer to the centre than the Daily Mail, SBS is only as biased as Brietbart (the former have six times more references to the "far right" than the internet average, the later roughly one sixth), and the ABC is only eight or nine times as focussed on the "far right" as the rest of the world combined (as represented on the internet), or only 1.5 times as far to the left of the internet-average as Brietbart is to the right. Perhaps.

    Anyway, as should be clear, linguistics and media/communications are not really my forte. I couldn't work out how to get Excel to establish a multiple based on the internet average of 2:1 for far right:left. And I haven't done enough maths to confidently discuss any of the above in relation to standard deviation, which I suspect I should. But I have pretty-much satisfied my own curiosity, so I am quite happy to let the subject go.

    Saturday, 25 March 2017

    Informal Haywood criticism, blogs etc

    [I have moved this on section of my Eliza Haywood Links here, since my 2009 post was becoming unweildy. I hadn't updated it for years (since 2012?), and I don't plan on updating it again any time soon. Now that so much formal criticism is readily available online, there is less need for it. And since this type of ephemeral and informal discussion is very prone to dissapearing from online, it is a constant battle maintain the links—time better spent keeping up with the primary and secondary texts.]

    For a defunct blog titled A Blog to be Let, see here.

    November 2005: Janet posted her thoughts on Eliza Haywood "Fantomina"

    February 2007: The Literate Kitten posted her thoughts on Love in Excess by Eliza Haywood

    November 2007: P. Brigitte posted her thoughts on The History of Miss Betsy Thoughtless

    July 2009: Stephen J. Gertz posted his thoughts on The Secret History of … the Court of Caramania in a post titled Sex! Scandal! Political Intrigue! (What Else Is New?)

    December 2009: The students of St. Christopher’s and St. Catherine’s posted their thoughts on Fantomina in a series of posts here

    January 2010: J. Y. posted her/his thoughts on The Great Debate in Love in Excess

    February 2010: Kate Wallis posted her thoughts on Love “Barter’d” in The City Jilt

    February 2010: Stephanie Jarnold posted her thoughts on Fire and Seduction in Eliza Haywood’s “The City Jilt”

    March 2010: Kristen Eggen posted her thoughts on The City Jilt – Fall from Hopes

    June 2010: Meminsanebrane posted her/his thoughts on Fantomina is a creeper

    October 2010: Liz posted her thoughts on Haywood's appearance in Clara Reeve's The Progress of Romance in Sisters under the dust-jacket.

    December 2010: Jill Domschot posted her thoughts on Eliza Haywood: from The Female Spectator, Vol. 1, No. 1

    January 2011: Students at the University of Illinois doing Engl 206/CWL 257: Enlightenment Literature and Culture posted their thoughts on Fantomina in a series of posts, mostly here and here.

    May 2011: Kat Aubrey posted her thoughts on Eliza Haywood, Remarkable 18th Century Author

    August 2011: Students at The University of Illinois doing Engl 429: The Eighteenth Century Novel posted their thoughts on Fantomina in a series of posts, mostly here and here.

    February–April 2012: Students at The University of Colorado at Boulder doing ENGL 1260-002: Intro to Women's Lit: Adventures in Form posted their thoughts on Fantomina in a series of posts, mostly here and here.

    Thursday, 23 March 2017

    First Exhibition to Focus on Eliza Haywood

    In 2004, in the literature-survey section of my Bibliography of Eliza Haywood, I explained that

    no public or private library has approached completeness in gathering together the works of Haywood. Indeed, it appears as if no library has ever made the attempt. The best Haywood collections are those held by the largest academic and public libraries, which have such collections by virtue of the fact that they have a lot of books. Consequently, no auction or library catalogue has offered a useful substitute for a Haywood bibliography or offered substantial assistance in compiling this bibliography. Also, there have been no substantial exhibitions of Haywood’s works and no substantial collections offered by booksellers and hence no accompanying catalogues to draw upon.

    I am very pleased to say that this situation has changed. In a footnote to this passage I acknowledged that "Sandy Lerner has collected nineteen Haywood items since 1990 as a part of a larger project at Chawton House to promote research into the writings of English women before 1830." Though their collection is small (it just scrapes into the top thirty collections, in a tie with New York Public Library at no.29/30), the context is important. Chawton House is a collection with a purpose. Chawton House has made an attempt to collect Haywood and other women writers like her. And Chawton House does not have a collection of her books only "by virtue of the fact that they have a lot of books." It is appropriate then, that Chawton House will be the location of the first Haywood exhibition (details here), and it is a huge achievement that the collection has so quickly reached the point where they are able to host an exhibition of Haywood's works at all.


    Though not credited online, the exhibition ("Naming, Shaming, Reclaiming: The ‘Incomparable’ Eliza Haywood") has been curated by Dr Kim Simpson, a Postdoctoral Fellow at the Chawton House Library. If you read her bio (here), you will see that Kim is interested in the contribution made to the development of fiction by anonymous and unattributed texts—texts which are rarely taught, edited or discussed by an author-obsessed academy. Given my own focus on Haywood, I must plead guilty to contributing to this unhealthy, anachronistic obsesson with authors—and I must admit to regularly having to do battle the urge to suggest any new, plausible attributions—but in my defence I would point out that I kept these unhealth urges in check and dismissed more attributions (45) than I added (2). And one that I dismissed (Ca.36 The Prude) is Kim's "particular favourite for its libertine villainess, Elisinda."

    The exhibition is open for more than two months. Unfortunately, I won't be able to make it, so I hope that lots of people post pictures and descriptions online and that a catalogue of some sort is printed—since that too would be a first!

    Thursday, 16 March 2017

    The Van Everen Fitsanybook Adjustable Book Cover


    Sing this 1890 jingle with me children,

    The Van Everen Cover is the right Book Cover.
      It's modern, it's useful, it's neat;
    So it's no use to bother or try any other,
      For Van Everen's cannot be beat.

    When I received my copy of his Nineteenth-Century Dust-Jackets, I was glad to see that Mark Goldburn includes a description (on 92–93) of various American "stationers' jackets" that were being sold in the 1870s. Two years ago, I had to go to great lengths to buy the below, unused Van Everen Adjustable Book Cover, and was only able to do so thanks to the kind assistance of David Levy (Hoyle bibliographer/collector and the genius behind this blog). Mark describes these "Fitsanybook" jackets, but does not offer any images—which is a shame, but even in a heavily-illustrated book there are limits to how many illustrations you can include. Since there is not much online about them, I thought it might be worth posting something here.


    Van Everen advertised their "Neat and Convenient Ready made Book Cover" from 1872–1894 in terms as follows:

    P. F. Van Everen's Adjustable Book Cover, consists of a loose or supplementary cover, made of strong manilla paper, in four parts [as above], said parts being self-sealing, and adjustable in relation to each other, as they are put on the book, so as to fit many different sizes of books. The object of this invention is to supply libraries, schools, and book users generally, with a cheap, convenient and neat book cover, already cut, folded, gummed, and in part sealed—thus affording, at a trifling cost, a complete book cover, that fits any book. These covers are extensively used by schools and Sunday-school libraries. Samples sent free to any address upon receipt of six cents for postage, by P. F. Van Everen, care of N. Y. Silicate Book Slate Co., 191 Fulton street, corner Church, N. Y.

    This advertising spiel ran in The Weekly Trade Circular on 29 February 1872, and was repeated with minor variations in The Publishers' Weekly and Library Notes from 1872–1893. This advertisement explains that Van Everen's Adjustable Book Cover was patented 3 May 1870 (American Bookseller, vol.1, no.6 (15 March 1876): 221) and in 1876 Van Everen explained that his "Book-Covers have been in use for six years," dating the sale of the covers to the same year as they were patented (Minutes of the Illinois Baptist Pastoral Union, Thirty-First Annual Meeting ... Chicago, October 17–20, 1876 (Aurora, IL: Knickerbocker and Hodder, 1876), [8]).

    In 1873, the "Trade Price" for these "Fitsanybook" covers—with a dealer's imprint added to them (see example below presently available on eBay here)—ranged from twenty dollars for one thousand down to fifteen dollars per thousand for five thousand or more (The Publishers' Weekly, no.87 (13 September 1873): 288). A few years later the American Educational Annual, vol. 1 (New York: J. W. Schermerhorn, 1875), listed the covers at two dollars per box of one hundred.


    From 1876, Van Everen was advertsing his Adjustable Book-Covers (NB: plural), in three sizes: A (as above; "School and Sunday-School books," 18mo, 16mo and 12mo; $2.00 per 100)—which seems to be the original size—plus two new sizes: B ("Elementary and Primary Geographies, Law and Medical books"; seemingly, 8vo; $3.50 per 100) and C ("large Atlas Geographies"; seemingly, folio; $5.00 per 100) (Minutes of the Illinois Baptist Pastoral Union, [8]), adding that his covers "are the only supplementary covers that can be successfully and economically applied to different sizes of books and Sunday School Library books." In 1878, an even smaller size was introduced: the "Primary," for "the smallest Sunday School Library books" ($1.50 per 100) (Steiger's Educational Directory for 1878 (New York: E. Steiger, 1878), 221).

    On 14 February 1888, Van Everen patented a new and more elaborate design for the "Fitsanybook" ("The Adjustable Book Cover: Just the Thing for Schools and Libraries"), and on 15 August 1890, Van Everen sent a very long "letter and accompanying documents to The Stationer" (see below), which advertises the covers in "three colors of papers" (regular manilla, a dark colour, and a cover that is "lithographed in fancy figures") plus a "leatherette" finish. But the days of the Fitsanybook cover appear to have been numbered; the last reference that I can find to it is in the Proceedings of the Americal Library Association, 17–22 September 1894, in a list of "'Don't'; Warnings of Experience. Communicated by a number of librarians": "Don't invest in the Van Everen Fitsanybook adjustable book-covers called 'Fitsanybook.' There is more tear than wear in them."

    * * * * *


    Van Everen must have sold hundreds of thousands of these book covers (below they claim "about a million"), so it is not too hard to find books which have intact jackets. Above, for example, is one presently available on eBay (here), with an intact library label for the "Library of the E.C. Fraternity. This appears to be the regular manilla Fitsanybook design. The one below with a private library label, and the 1888 patent date on it, seems to be the lithographed version with "fancy figures." Images from the inside of my own set of covers (also lithographed) are further below, for comparison. There is another one with this design presently available on eBay (here).



    * * * * *

    Advertisement in The American Stationer, vol.1, no.6 (20 August 1890): 389:

    P. F. Van Everen, Manufacturer of Adjustable Book Covers and Perforated Library Numbers, sends the following letter and "accompanying documents" to The Stationer: 60 Ann Street, New York, August 15, 1890. To the Editor of The Stationer:
      We have advertised considerably in The Stationer and with such uniform good results that we would like once more to stir up the Trade by way of remembrance, but just how to do that in a fresh, new way is hard to plan and harder to work the plan.
      We have been making book covers for many years; so long, in fact, that the profits on their manufacture and sale have made some persons independent of the ordinary vicissitudes of commercial life, and it is well understood that we make the best book cover that was ever placed on the market. It has had the largest sale of any stationery novelty, and we mean to keep making them as long as it pays—the manufacturer.
      What we would like to have you do for us is this: Fix up an advertisement so that we can get the attention of the new firms who have recently started in to make their fortunes by dealing in books and stationery. The old-established dealers know all about us now, but we would like to have every dealer who has not used the Van Everen book covers know that they are commercially convenient, useful, ornamental and popular. We use three colors of papers for our covers—the regular manilla color, a dark color that wears well and does not show soiling so soon as the others, and a cover that is lithographed in fancy figures.
      We also make some covers of leather paper (leatherette), for use in very choice localities or hi-calities. Of those we make the size A only, and they retail for 5 cents each. That may seem pretty precipitous, but people will have them. A cover of that kind is dreadfully durable and in the dark colors keeps quite clean till used up. The "leather" covers are put up fifty in a box—quite a nice box, too—and are sold to the dealers for $1.25 per box.
      We meant to have asked you to put in the advertisement that we make more library numbers and letters now than we ever did before, but you cannot devote a whole column to Yours truly,
    P. F. VAN EVEREN.

    ———————————

    It is a noticeable fact that the sales of the Van Everen book covers are increasing yearly, and that not only the schools but the libraries are using them in quantities.

    * * * *

    The old-fashioned cover was a good enough cover
      When paper and time were so free,
    But as 'tis fussy and old and cannot be sold,
      It's not the Book Cover for me.

    The Van Everen Cover is the right Book Cover.
      It's modern, it's useful, it's neat;
    So it's no use to bother or try any other,
      For Van Everen's cannot be beat.

    * * * *

    By the way, most of the booksellers that sell school books find that it is a good plan to furnish book covers with every school book that they sell. The dealer has a neat card advertising his business printed on the outside of the front part of the cover, and gives a cover to every buyer of a book. The printing only costs about 50 cents per thousand.
    * * * *

    These cards are printed on at the time and place of manufacture, as a usual thing, but as many of the dealers are having constant calls for covers that are without the advertisement they buy the covers unprinted to meet that demand, and on those that are for the give-away trade they stamp what advertising matter they want with a rubber stamp.
    * * * *

    Little Sallie Waters, sitting in the sun,
    With a beau 'n umbrella, having lots of fun.
    Rise, Sallie, rise, 'tis time to be wise,
    Look through the East and look through the West,
    Van Everen's book covers are the best.

    * * * *

    They may be the best, or they may not be the best; it is the way they suit your needs. We do not wish to make such extravagant statements about the book covers that the dealers will think that the goods will sell themselves. We do not wish to force sales. All that we wish to do is to let the dealers know what the book covers are and where they may be had. Then when they want them it is easy to make a sale.

    * * * *

    There was a man in our town,
      Who was so wondrous wise.
    He made a patent book cover,
      To fit books of any size,
    And when he saw how well they sold,
      Said he: "It is quite plain,
    I'll make them by the million
      And I get there just the same."

    * * * *

    We were asked, the other day, how many new school books were put into the hands of the rising generation every year, and we had to answer that we didn't know. But we might have made a guess at it, for about a million of them are covered with adjustable book covers, and if we estimate that only one out of every ten school books is covered at all we get a total of ten millions. Well, who would not belong to a Great Book Company if he could?

    ———————————

    Answers to Correspondents.

    B., Keokuk, Ia., wants to know if the Van Everen adjustable book covers are sold at wholesale in Chicago.
    Ans.— Certainly. A. C. McClurg [and] Co., S. A. Maxwell & Co., The Western News Company, and C. M. Barnes keep them in stock constantly.
    R., St. Joseph, Mo., asks who sells the Van Everen adjustable covers in St. Louis.
    Ans.—They are principally sold by The J. L. Boland Book and Stationery Company.
    Librarian, Springfield, Ill., writes: "Where can we get gummed, numbered tags ready made?"
    Ans.—From Van Everen, 60 Ann street, New York. Order direct.
    S. A. M., Milwaukee, Wis., wants address of the manufacturer of carriage checks in duplicate; also hat checks, etc.
    Ans.—P. F. Van Everen, 60 Ann street, New York. There seems to be quite a sameness about these answers, but we cannot pervert the facts even for the sake of variety.
      To answer about a dozen letters in a lump, we may as well add that the Van Everen book covers, as well as his general specialties, are not only for sale as above, but also by the following wholesale dealers: J. K. Gill [and] Co., Portland, Ore.; Cunningham, Curtiss & Welch, San Francisco, Cal.; The Chain [and] Hardy Book, Stationery and Art Company, of Denver, Col.; The Burrows Bros. Company, Cleveland, Ohio; Brown, Eager & Hull, Toledo, Ohio; Vosburgh, Whiting [and] Co., Buffalo. N. Y.; J. B. Lippincott Company, Philadelphia, Pa., and by all the large book and stationery jobbers of New York city.

    ———————————

    For particulars as to the sizes and the prices to the booksellers, see the full page advertisement on the other side of this sheet. P. F. VAN EVEREN, 60 Ann Street, New York.

    Sunday, 5 March 2017

    A Cultural History of the Songster

    While Paul Watt and I were working on our four-volume collection Bawdy Songbooks of the Romantic Period (2011), with Derek B. Scott, David Gregory and Ed Cray, we discussed the possibility of continuing our collaboration, and directing scholarly attention to the songsters that were at the heart of the collection, by holding a conference and/or editing a collection of essays. In the end (i.e., over the last six years), we did/have done both.

    Although our book, edited by Derek, Paul and I for Cambridge University Press, is not officially in print until 23 March, it has appeared on Google Books here, today, so I thought I'd use this excuse to post the very cool cover art and thank my brilliant co-editors for making this collection possible.

    I also wanted to repeat something I have had reason to say many times before (such as here), Government bodies (I am looking at you ARC), and Universities, are obsessed with "Evidence of Impact." I can trace the prompt for two collaborative enterprises, an essay ("Fanny Hill, Lord Fanny, and the Myth of Metonymy") and an edited collection (Bawdy Songbooks of the Romantic Period), both of which were published in 2011, to August 2000. And I can trace the prompt for the present collaborative enterprise to those 2011 publications. The second time-frame is shorter (six years instead of ten), which I can probably credit to Paul and Derek, but they are still long. Likewise, the time-frame for other scholars using our publications is almost as long and so, only now, are citations for these publications beginning to accumulate and multiply.

    In November 2010 I wrote:

    When it can take a decade … between the prompt for an article and its publication, and when it can take three years between the submission of an article and it being printed, there seems little chance that an ARC final report, submitted on the day your funding stops, will capture even a fraction of your "Research outputs" and, as for "Evidence of Impact," it could be years again before any of the arguments [you] have presented gain any traction.

    While we wait for "evidence of impact" to accumulate for today's publication, we will each keep ourselves busy with our next projects. Meanwhile, here is the cool cover art I mentioned:


    BTW: The first title for our book was The Nineteenth-Century Songster: A Cultural History; our second A Cultural History of the Songster: Cheap Print and Popular Song in the Nineteenth Century, but we got rolled. CUP didn't want "Songster" in the main title at all, and I note that the sub-title is missing from the "About this book" page on Google (here). As you may have guessed, I didn't agree with CUP's arguments for changing the title, and that is why I am using the sub-title here!

    Saturday, 4 March 2017

    Iwan Bloch on the erotic engravings of Fanny Hill

    Henry Spencer Ashbee (1834–1900) (aka Pisanus Fraxi) claims, in his Catena Librorum Tacendorum (1885), 83, that "Few works have been more frequently illustrated than the Memoirs of a Woman of Pleasure." He goes on to describe five mezzotints, "designed probably by George Morland, and engraved by his brother-in-law, William Ward, or by John Raphael Smith" (ibid.). (The whole of this book is available on the Internet Archive here.)

    Ashbee cites La Bibliophile Fantaisiste (Geneva, 1869), 48, for the five plates he discusses, "with eight others." This information was repeated, in turn, by Iwan Bloch (aka Eugen Duehren; 1872–1922), who translated it into German in his Das Geschlechtsleben in England, mit besonderer Beziehung auf London, 3 Teile in 3 Bänden (Berlin, 1901-3) [Sex life in England, with special reference to London, 3 parts in 3 volumes]. This work was revised and shortened as Englische Sittengeschichte, 2 vols. (Berlin, 1912) [The history of English customs].

    Bloch's earlier, longer work was twice translated (much abridged): first in America by Richard Deniston as Ethnological and cultural studies of the sex life in England: illustrated, as revealed in its erotic and obscene literature and art; with nine private cabinets of illustrations by the greatest English masters of erotic art, Translated and Edited by Richard Deniston (New York: Falstaff Press, 1934) and second in England by William H. Forstern as Sexual Life in England: Past and Present (London: Alfred Aldor, 1938; repr. London: Arco Publications, in association with the Rodney Book Service, 1958). The whole of Ethnological and cultural studies of the sex life in England is on the Internet Archive here; but Sexual Life in England: Past and Present is not online.

    Given how horribly complicated it is trying to unravel the relationship between the above books, I thought it might be worth using the passage concerning the mezzotints by Morland (1763-1804) in Das Geschlechtsleben in England (vol.2 of which is online here) to show the differences between the three texts. I have put the British translation first, since it sticks closer to the German.

    The Bloch passage is Das Geschlechtsleben in England, mit besonderer Beziehung auf London, 2.296–97; translated as Sexual Life in England: Past and Present (1958), 650; Ethnological and cultural studies of the sex life in England, 350–51:

    Auch Zeichnungen zu eigentlichen obscönen und erotischen Schriften hat George Morland in Verbindung mit Ward und J. R Smith geliefert, vor allem die fünf folgenden vortreffllichen Mezzotintos zu John Cleland's „Memoire of a woman of pleasure"

    No. 1. Fanny Hill and Phoebe. Phoebe berührt Fanny in indecenter Weise. Rechts ein Tisch mit einer brennenden Kerze.
    No. 2. Mrs. Brown, the Horse Grenadier, and Fanny Hill. Fanny beobachtet durch eine Glasthür die fette Mrs. Brown in einer Liebesszene mit einem Soldaten.
    No. 3. Fanny Hill, Louisa, and the Nosegay Boy. Der Junge und die zwei Freudenmädchen. Im Vordergründe ein Korb mit Blumen. Rechte auf dem Stuhl eine Rate.
    No. 4. Harriet ravish'd in the Summer House (Harriet wird in dem Sommerhäuschen genotzüchtigt).
    No. 4a. Dieselbe Szene ohne Titel, mit leichten Differenzen in Haartracht und Kleidung der Frau, der Ausstattung des Raumes u.s.w. Ist wohl die ältere-Zeichnung, und No. 4 eine spätere Kopie.
    No. 5. Harriet and the Barronet (sie). Ein Paar auf einer Ottomane, während zwei andere Paare hinter demselben stehen und sie beobachten.
    No. 5a. Dieselbe Scene mit leichten Aenderungen. Sopha, Haarfarbe und Haartrachten sind verschieden, rechts ist ein Lehnstuhl, links im Vordergründe Männerlut und Stiefel.

    Forstern [the bracketed bits below are the bits of the German text omitted from his translation]

    George Morland, in association with Ward and J. R. Smith, also supplied illustratons to obscene books. The following five excellent mezzotintos were for "Memoir of a Woman of Pleasure"

    1. Fanny Hill and Phoebe. Phoebe touching Fanny in an indecent manner. [To the right, a table with a burning candle.]
    2. Mrs. Brown, the Horse Grenadier, and Fanny Hill. Fanny watching through a glass door a love scene between the stout Mrs. Brown and a soldier.
    3. Fanny Hill, Louisa, and the Nosegay Boy. Youth and two prostitutes. Basket of flowers and rod.
    4. Harriet ravish'd in the Summerhouse. [Harriet is raped in the summer cottage]
    [4a. The same scene without title, with slight differences in the hair and clothes of the woman, and the equipment in the room etc. This is probably the older drawing, and no. 4 a later copy.]
    5. Harriet and the Barronet (sic). A couple on a setee, with two other watching them.
    [5a. The same scene with slight changes. Sopha, hair colour and style are different. On the right is an arm-chair, on the left in the foreground men's boots and boots.]

    Deniston

    Morland also illustrated the real erotic works. His best known are the five superb mezzotints to John Cleland's Memoirs of a Woman of Pleasure:

    No. 1. Fanny Hill and Phoebe. Phoebe is initiating Fanny into tribadic practices.
    [No.2] and Fanny Hill. Fanny secretly observes the fat Mrs. Brown being engaged by a lusty soldier.
    No. 3. Fanny Hill, Louisa, and the Nosegay Boy. The youth is engaged with the two prostitutes. In the foreground a basket with flowers. At the right, a rod on a stool.
    No. 4. Harriet ravish'd in the Summer House. A powerful drawing of a forcible rape.
    No. 5. Harriet and the Barronet (sic). A couple engaged on the ottoman, while two other couples stand behind and watch them.

    As you can see above, both Forstern and Deniston shorten Bloch's text, thought they do it is slightlly different ways. Both omit any mention of the "table with a burning candle" in no.1; but sometimes Fortern includes more detail (explaining, in no.2, that Fanny is "watching through a glass door") and somethimes Deniston includes more (describing no. 4 as "A powerful drawing of a forcible rape"). In general, Deniston is more informal ("the stout Mrs. Brown and a soldier" vs "the fat Mrs. Brown being engaged by a lusty soldier"), and is inclined to explain more ("Phoebe touching Fanny in an indecent manner" vs "Phoebe is initiating Fanny into tribadic practices"). What this means is that neither Forstern nor Deniston can be relied on.

    * * * * *

    The five Mezzotints described by Ashbee and Bloch are below. Where I could find both coloured and uncoloured versions, I include both.


    BTW: if you'd like to buy a set of these engravings, be prepared to pay a lot! See here for a set which sold for Euro 15,600 in 2006.

    Thursday, 2 March 2017

    Works Containing Gardner Ornaments

    I spent the second half of 2013 on study leave. During that time I compiled two lengthy articles of Thomas Gardner, his wife and son, who carried on his publishing business after he died in 1765. Both articles were published in Script and Print in the first half of 2015. (They were going to appear together, but at over 80 pages of print, were too long for a single, 64-page issue.) I think of them as Gardner 1 and Gardner 2 or "Bio" and "Checklist," but the titles are:

    [1] "Thomas, Lucy and Henry Lasher Gardner, Opposite St. Clement's Church in the Strand, 1739–1805" Script and Print, vol.39, no.1 (February 2015): 21–58. Copy on Academia.com.

    [2] "Thomas Gardner's Ornament Stock: A Checklist" Script and Print, vol.39, no.2 (May 2015): 69–111. Copy on Academia.com.

    These article started with material I was going to publish in a blog post here. But, as the material rapidly grew, I realised it would have to be a few posts, then an article, then two articles! Long as my articles are, quite a bit of the material I collected during my research was never going to make it into them. But I tried to hold off posting anything here until my articles were in print (emphasis on tried: one moment of weakness, quickly led to another).

    Since 2015, I have published one more article:

    [3] "A Postscript on Thomas Gardner’s Printing," Script and Print, vol. 40, no. 1 (May 2016): 43–45. Copy on Academia.com.

    And while drafting a few others I recently identified an error in the printing of the ornament catalogue. Because I was still researching and drafting essays, I had still been kind-of holding off posting anything more here. However, now that my main articles are in print, and I have an error to correct, there really doesn't seem to be any good reason to hold off publishing anything more about Gardner here, and at least one good reason to not hold off. So I won't.

    The printing error in Gardner 2 is that the image of one headpiece (H16) is repeated (it appears as both H16 and H18), while a second headpiece image (of H18) is omitted. This is the image of H18 that ought to have appeared in Gardner 2:


    * * * * *

    Below is a bibliography of the books, pamphlets etc. that contain Thomas Gardner ornaments (i.e., the forty-nine ornaments I identified as belonging to him), but which I did not include in my "Checklist" Bibliography (Part A [only containing Gardner ornaments] or B [containing a mix of ornaments]). Although the lists below may contain items I accidentally omitted from my article, they are not lists of errata and corrigenda. Rather, they are supplement to my "Checklist"—since they are/will be mostly made up of items that [a] I did not locate using the method I outlined in my "Checklist" or [b] which were intentionally left out of my "Checklist," such as the dozens of items not available on ECCO or in digital surrogate elsewhere.

    It is possible that the bibliography below, combined with the "selection of Gardner’s output" I included in my "Checklist," may, in time, amount to a near-complete list of items printed by Gardner. I certainly hope it does, and so I will be very grateful for any information provided to expand the lists below. I have started today with only the two items identified by Carlo Dumontet, which he reported to me almost immediately after my "Checklist" was published, and one by David Levy, which he sent me last week. (A big thank you to Carlo and David.) I will add the Haywood and Shakespeare items I identified in Gardner 3, as soon as I get a chance.

    Given the progress Hazel Wilkinson has now made in "developing methods of identifying unknown printers using digital imaging" (i.e., using image-recognition software to locate and match printer’s ornaments on ECCO files), there is a new and enticing method for identifying extra Gardner items: Fleuron: A Database of Eighteenth-Century Printers' Ornaments. David found his addition to this list using Fleuron. My first attempts on this site suggest that there is very good chance that I will soon be able to greatly-expand these lists. If so, great! It may not take decades—which is normal for such enterprises—to reach the point where it is possible to obtain a much more complete picture of the scope of Gardner’s printing activities.

    * * * * *

    A: List of ten items containing only Gardner ornaments (NB: new items will be numbered sequentially, A1, A2 etc., but will be arranged chronologically).

    A3. Luke Ogle, The Natural Secret History of Both Sexes: Or, A Modest Defense of Public Stews, 4th ed. (London: Printed in the year, 1740); ESTC: T230930; reissued as Part 3 (Part 7 of 9 in the contents list) in William Beckett, A collection of chirurgical tracts (London: Printed for E. Curll, sold by C. Rivington, Messrs. Birt, Ware, Longman, Hitch, Wood and Company, J. Clark and J. Hodges, on London-Bridge, [1740]); ESTC: T114928. Ornaments: [i] (H07), xii (H09), [1] (H08, F07), 77 (H08), 79 (T11), 80 (H09), 90 (T11), 91 (H08).

    A5. Samuel Wesley, Sexus invicem depraeliantes: ex Anglico Latine redditum (London: C. Corbett, 1740); ESTC: T48007 . Ornaments: [i] (T01), 2 (07), 3 (F09), 52 (T09), 53 (T10).

    A4. Catherine Douglas, Duchess of Queensberry, A Proper Reply to a Late Very Extraordinary Letter from the Hon. T----s H----y, Esq; to Sir Thomas Hanmer, Bart. (London: Printed for W. Webb, near St. Paul’s, 1742); ESTC: T53983; available on GB here. Ornaments: [1] (T10), [3] (H06).

    A7. John Cookesey, Christianity founded on argument. A sermon Preached before the University of Oxford, on Palm Sunday, March 27, 1743 (London: printed for William Sandby, at the Ship without Temple-Bar, 1743); ESTC: T30688 ; available on GB here. Ornaments: 1 (H06, F05), 23 (T01).

    A2. Edward Vernon, Authentic papers relating to the expedition against Carthagena (London: Printed for L. Raymond, and sold by J. M. in Pater-noster-Row, 1744); ESTC: T22782 ; available on GB here; reissued as Authentic papers relating to the expedition against Carthagena, 2nd ed. (London: Printed for L. Raymond, and sold by M. Cooper at the Globe in Pater-noster-row, 1744); ESTC: T22783. Ornaments: 100 (T06).

    A1. Edward Legge, A letter to a certain eminent British sailor, occasion'd by his Specimen of naked truth (London: Printed for M. Moore, 1746); ESTC: T89560; available on IA here. Ornaments: [1] (T05), [3] (H06, F08), 32 (T13).

    A8. The Edge taken off: Or The Conundrums and Home-Clinches Of The Whet-Stone Unriddled. To which are added, Some Fresh Conundrums, and their Answers (London: Printed for J. Robinson, at the Golden-Lyon in Ludgate-Street, 1745); ESTC: T75787; L copy (incomplete) available on GB here. Ornaments: [1] (T12), [8] (H12, inverted), [1] (H09).

    A9. The whet-Stone: or the spawn of puzzle. Being a fresh collection of conundrums, never before publish’d (London: Printed for J. Robinson, at the Golden-Lyon in Ludgate-Street, 1745); ESTC: T75838; L copy (incomplete) available on GB here. Ornaments: [1] (T12), [1] (H09).

    A10. An Earnest Address to Britons. Wherein the Several Artifices Made Use of by the Emissaries of France and Rome, to Corrupt the Minds of the People, and to Overturn Our Happy Constitution, are Explained, and Laid Open to Public View … (London: Printed for J. Robinson, at the Golden-Lyon in Ludgate-Street, [1745]); ESTC: T72093 (which dates this pamphlet to 1745); O copy available on GB here. Ornaments: [1] (H03, F02), [30] (T07).

    A6. Memoirs of the Nutrebian court: discovering The Distresses of the Queen, happy Birth, and surprizing Deliverance of her Children, the Intrigues and Cabals of the Grandees; the Providential …, 2 vols. (London: printed for M. Laugham and sold by J. Robinson and W. Reeves, 1747); ESTC: T57810; vol.1 available on GB here; vol.1 available on GB here; reissued as Nutrebian tales, Or the strange and surprising adventures of a captive Queen, Wonderful Deliverance of her Children; Curious Metamorphosis of a Monkey, Butterfly, etc. Anecdotes of a Convent, History of the Prince de Barnaville and the Count. The whole Interspersed with many entertaining amours and Secret Histories, 2 vols. (London: R. Dodsley, 1765); ESTC: T57811; Ornaments: vol.1: [iii] (H18), [vii] (H06), [x] (H01), [1] (H07, F07), 31 (H20), 50 (H20), 73 (H20), 89 (H20), 109 (H20), 122 (T10), 123 (H20), 137 (H20), 151 (H20), 165 (T07), 166 (H20), 197 (H20), 214 (T13), 215 (H20); vol.2: [1] (H06, F07), 21 (H20), 43 (T13), 44 (H20), 65 (H20), 87 (H20), 110 (H20), 113 (T12), 128 (H20), 150 (H20), 173 (H20), 191 (H20), 210 (H20), 230 (H20), 256 (T02).

    * * * * *

    B: List of five items containing a mix of ornaments (NB: new items will be numbered sequentially, B1, B2 etc., but will be arranged chronologically).

    B2. Thémiseul de Saint-Hyacinthe, The history of Prince Titi. Book the fourth. Translated by a lady (London: Printed for E. Curll, at Pope’s Head, in Rose Street Covent-Garden, 1736); ESTC: N33012 ; Ornaments: [i] (printer's device: Pope’s Head), [1] (H06), 94 (T07).

    B3. Richardson Pack, Major Pack's Poetical remains. Published from his original manuscripts (London; Printed for E. Curll, at Pope's Head, in Rose Street, Covent-Garden, [1738]); ESTC: T132220 ; Ornaments: 12 (T07), 19 (mystery tailpiece), 24 (T07), 30 (T07), 36 (T01).

    B1. Canute Young, Chronologia enucleata. Or, a pocket library. Shewing the most material occurrences from the creation of the world down to this time (London: Printed for the author, and sold by Mr. Hodges, Mr. Meadows, P. Morony, Mr. Clark, Mr. Jefferies, Mr. Jackson, Mr. Millan, Mr. Lewis, Mr. Meighan, 1739); ESTC: T78099; reissued as The historian's vade mecum; or a pocket companion ([London]: Printed by Catherine Clifton, for P. Morony, 1741); Fleuron: 0140500900; ESTC: T112175. Ornaments: [i] (H16), [1] (H06, F09), 14 (T01), 15 (H10), 26 (H10), 44 (T07), 45 (mystery headpiece), 53 (T05), 54 (H16), 65 (H17), 74 (H16), 82 (T13), 83 (H10), 97 (H17), 109 (T07), 110 (H18), 116 (T05), 117 (H10), 125 (T13), 126 (H17), 140 (T07), 141 (H10), 146 (T13), 147 (H17), 153 (H18), 167 (T05), 168 (H10, T07), 169 (mystery headpiece), 176 (T03), 178 (H17), 190 (T13), 191 (H10), 198 (T07), 199 (mystery headpiece), 209 (T13), 210 (H17), 211 (H10, T01), 212 (mystery headpiece, T05).

    B4. The School of Venus: Or, the Lady's Miscellany, 2nd ed. (London: Printed for E. Curll, at Pope’s Head, in Rose Street Covent-Garden, 1739); ESTC: T73534; Ornaments: [3] (mystery headpiece), 19 (T07), [23] (mystery headpiece), 30 (T05), 31 (H02), 36 (mystery headpiece), 40 (T01), 43 (mystery headpiece), 56 (T03), [57] (mystery headpiece), 66 (T05).

    B5. Claude Prosper Jolyot de Crébillon, The Skimmer: or the history of Tanzai and Neadarne, 2 vols (London: Printed for F. Galicke near Temple-Bar, 1742); ESTC: T118232; reissued as The Skimmer: or the history of Tanzai and Neadarne, 2 vols. (London: printed only for Daniel Lynch, in Cock Court, next Door to Stationers-Hall, 1748); ESTC: T97241; Ornaments: vol.1: [i] (mystery tailpiece), [iii] (mystery factotum), [1] (F07), 151 (T11), 249 (T10); vol. 2: [1] (F09), 45 (T10), 101 (T13).

    [UPDATED 29 April 2017]