The Female Authors of Cadell and Davies
The Female Authors of Cadell and Davies
Abstract and Keywords
This chapter explores the publishing firm of Cadell and Davies and its relationships with its female authors. During the seven decades in which it operated, in various incarnations between 1765 and 1836, the firm published many influential female authors of the period, including Fanny Burney, Hannah Cowley, Felicia Hemans, Hannah More, Charlotte Smith, Ann Radcliffe, and Helen Maria Williams. Through a careful examination of the surviving correspondence and the bibliographical history of their publications of women's writing, this chapter engages in a quantitative and qualitative assessment of the firm’s business practices and women’s engagement with the commercial world of print. The print networks described in the chapter emphasize the centralized position, and asymmetrical power, that male publishers held within a marketplace abundant with female writers seeking to print their works.
Trading between 1765 and 1836, the publishing firm Cadell and Davies (C & D), in its various incarnations, published ‘many of the most important and enterprising works of the late eighteenth century’.1 The firm is especially noteworthy for its publication of several influential female authors of the period, including Frances Burney, Hannah Cowley, Felicia Hemans, Hannah More, Charlotte Smith, Ann Radcliffe, and Helen Maria Williams, to name only a handful of the well-known women they published during this period. This chapter will offer a detailed analysis of the nature of the relationships between C & D and their female authors, by examining the surviving correspondence and the bibliographical history of their publication of women’s writing. This method allows for both a quantitative and qualitative assessment of the firm’s business practices and women’s engagement with the commercial world of print.
Throughout this chapter we use the shorthand of C & D, though in fact the firm operated in a variety of different configurations over its seventy-one years of operation (1765–1836). In 1765 Thomas Cadell, Sr. (1742–1802) became Andrew Millar’s partner, taking over the business in 1767. Cadell Sr. published Edward Gibbon’s Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire (1776–88) and Samuel Johnson’s Lives of the Most Eminent English Poets (1779–81), along with novels by Henry Mackenzie and Tobias Smollet, the poetry of Robert Burns, the legal writing of William Blackstone, and the philosophy of David Hume and Adam Smith. Cadell was an original member of a famous dining club of booksellers which met monthly at Shakespeare Tavern.2 His son, (p.100) Thomas Cadell, Jr. (1773–1836), succeeded him in 1793, with Cadell, Sr. choosing William Davies as his son’s partner. The new partners located their firm at 141 Strand in London, with Davies managing most of the partnership’s affairs until he became ill in 1813. Cadell consequently became more involved with the business and continued to run the firm after Davies’s death in 1820, publishing under his own name until he died in 1836.
C & D’s dates roughly mirror those of the Romantic period itself, a period which in turn tracks the huge increase in book publication that commenced in the final third of the eighteenth century.3 Although we lack comprehensive data, we know that women made enormous contributions to this increased production, particularly in the genres of fiction and poetry, both important genres on C & D’s lists. In Virginia Woolf’s famous formulation, in the later eighteenth century ‘a change came about which, if I were rewriting history, I should describe more fully and think of greater importance than the Crusades or the Wars of the Roses. The middle-class woman began to write’.4 To adapt Woolf to the evidentiary record we now have before us, we might say that the closing decades of the eighteenth century were a critical turning point in the quantitative output of women’s contributions to print.5 As Judith Stanton observed nearly three decades ago, data on women’s entry into print for the period 1660 to 1800 demonstrates that ‘[t]heir numbers increased at around fifty percent every decade starting in the 1760s’ thus ‘confirm[ing] what we sense about the history of women writing, that the later eighteenth century saw a structural change in the behaviour of women’.6 C & D’s business likewise ends at a transitional moment, both politically, with the beginning of Victoria’s long reign, and technologically, with the rise of industrialised print production.
An analysis of C & D and their engagements with female authors thus provides a useful case study suggestive of larger patterns within the period as a whole. What emerges from our analysis is a different understanding of female literary networks than that described in most of the chapters in this (p.101) book. Here we do not describe networks of women writers, but rather a print network. In particular, the network between C & D and their female authors may be characterized as a nearly perfect ‘star network’, with C & D in the central position, and all of their female authors surrounding them as starbursts, or spokes in a wheel. In this kind of a network, one node (C & D) is connected to the others, and all other nodes are connected to each other only via C & D. Admittedly, we did not investigate relationships between the women themselves (because we searched for letters to/from C & D), and on a few occasions there are intermediary figures who complicate the model somewhat. However, by and large this network form suggests the centralized position, and power, that male publishers held within a marketplace abundant with female writers seeking to print their works. This star model also mirrors the geographical relationship between C & D and their female authors, since most women resided outside of the capital, with C & D occupying their highly central position in the capital, at their Strand address in the literal middle of London. Through our qualitative analysis of the surviving correspondence, we find literary networks organized by both commercial interests and sociable codes of conduct. Women’s places within these publishing networks are equally complex, as they were at once autonomous (operating as individual economic agents) and dependent (reliant upon the advice and market sense of their publishers). Often seeking profit, always concerned with reputation, women came to C & D with varying degrees of social and cultural capital and a range of knowledge about the book trades. Their interactions with C & D remind us of their vulnerabilities but also of the regard in which female writers were held, and their centrality to the period’s literary print culture.
To date, most attempts to understand women’s engagements with print after 1750 have adopted qualitative methods, describing women as individual professional writers who sought remuneration for their work and respect from both lay and professional readers. In a related essay published in 2014, ‘Do Women Have a Book History?’, one of the co-authors of this essay, Michelle Levy, provides a survey of the history of scholarship on women’s professional authorship in the long eighteenth century, and argues for a broader ‘understanding of women’s engagement with literary culture’, in part by examining ‘the actual conditions of literary production and dissemination’.7 That essay includes analysis of a specific case study of women’s publishing history of the period, an archive of the correspondence of eighty women, in 172 letters, with four publishing houses, a collection entitled ‘Original Letters, collected (p.102) by William Upcott of the London Institution. Distinguished Women’ and held by the British Library.8 Here, we develop the claims made in that essay by providing a sequel of sorts, surveying a differently configured collection of letters – largely from women to one publishing house, C & D.
According to Devoney Looser, ‘it is beyond [question] that big data [approaches are] necessary – integral – to our writing better literary histories of this watershed moment for the professional woman writer’. She calls ‘for us to think more creatively and collaboratively about new biographical practices’, and we would add, bibliographical practices, ‘that could emerge for Romantic women writers in concert with big data’.9 This chapter offers one experiment along the lines Looser suggests, by engaging with evidentiary materials that allow us to perform both a micro- and macro-analysis of women’s publishing history.
Of the few attempts to survey women’s commercial engagements with print, all are at least twenty years old, and only one (Judith Stanton’s) attempts a quantitative approach.10 Furthermore, none of these attempts use digital resources, which provide us with unprecedented access to information about women’s books from the period. This essay uses ‘distant reading’ approaches, of the type advocated by Franco Moretti, to move beyond the scope of a small number of professional women writers to focus on the engagements of a larger group of women with their publishers. Our essay examines women’s entanglements with their publishers both from near and afar, enabling a fuller understanding of how women’s books were produced, marketed, and distributed during the period. We present close and distant reading strategies by carefully attending to individual letters, and by categorising and thus grouping together issues raised in the letters, to provide an overview of the nature of the concerns expressed within the correspondence.
Most of our analysis – both qualitative and quantitative – is focused on a corpus of letters that passed between C & D and their female authors. Letters and other business documents of the firm survive in profusion, (p.103) although they are diffused across numerous institutions in the US and UK. The publishing house has not been extensively researched beyond Theodore Besterman’s collection of selected letters in 1938, which published no letters to or from women.11 Besterman’s letters not only reflect the lack of status accorded to women writers at the time his book was published; they also reflect the hugely differential survival rates of letters from women to C & D, as opposed to men.
In researching this project, correspondence and records were transcribed and described at all of the known archives with significant holdings of C & D material: the British Library (BL); Beinecke (BE); Bodleian (BO); New York Public Library (NYPL); National Library of Scotland (NLS); Edinburgh University Library (EUL); Houghton Library (HO); Huntington Library (HL); and the University of Birmingham (UB). These collections hold thousands of letters by men to C & D; as an example, 128 folders at the Beinecke hold one of the largest collections of the firm’s letters. 111 of these folders contain correspondence to the firm and related documents generated by men; by contrast, only seventeen folders hold letters and documents by women. Furthermore, out of these seventeen folders, most (fifteen) hold material by Charlotte Turner Smith, and contain 140 of her letters; this leaves only two folders with letters from other women to C & D: one contains nine letters from Henrietta Maria Bowdler, and the other has three letters by Charlotte Mary Smith.12 In our corpus of letters, culled from these archives, we include a total of 150 surviving letters to and from women and the publishing house, a number that (as we have seen in the Beinecke archive) is dwarfed by the number of surviving letters to and from the publishers and men. Specifically, our corpus includes 141 letters by women, and nine by C & D to women, written between 1771 and 1845. In all, our corpus includes forty-seven women sending or receiving letters to or from the firm.
Table 5.1 shows the breakdown of total letters, and total women, by archive. As may be seen, the BL holds the largest collection of letters (fifty-eight), followed by the Bodleian (twenty-eight), Houghton (twenty-eight), and Beinecke (twenty). Fifty of the letters from the BL were collected by William Upcott. Upcott, a librarian and collector, obtained large quantities of correspondence from several London publishers, whom he knew well. The far fewer letters held by other institutions demonstrates the importance of the Upcott collection as a record of women’s publishing history. (p.104)
Table 5.1: Number of letters / number of women by archive
47 individual women
Figure 5.1 shows the number of letters individual women wrote. As shown, letters from C & D’s most successful female author, Hannah More, dominate these counts, with thirty-six letters from her: twelve (BL); fifteen (HO); and nine (BO). Charlotte Smith comes in a distant second, with fourteen letters – only one of which has been published (Stanton pp. 29–30). Beyond More and Smith, most women in our corpus write fewer than ten letters, and the vast majority write only one or two. In this way, our corpus presents a broad cross-section of women, helping us move beyond the individualising tendencies of literary studies.
As a wide range of women sent and received the letters, from different locations and discussing a wide range of topics, we needed a quantification method to gain a clearer picture of women’s concerns and requests. To capture this data, we created a database for all of the correspondence, including all information in the letters (such as dates, names, place), and transcriptions. From this data, we can present some basic demographic information about these women. Of the forty-seven women, the primary occupations of thirty are, unsurprisingly, as writers, though many women have multiple occupations. Two are artists, and the other known women are designated only in familial/social terms (as wives, sisters, daughters, etc.). Most of the letters – 117 of the 141 total – were written from inside Britain, and came from forty-three women; of these, eighty-three were written from outside of London (by twenty-four women) and thirty-four letters were written from London (by twenty-two women). Ten of the letters were written outside of Britain, and came from four women: seven letters from Italy (six from Hester Lynch Piozzi, one from
We also incorporate quantitative bibliographical data about C & D’s publication of female authors. We have compiled an extensive bibliography of women’s publications with the publisher to enable a fuller understanding of how the firm produced, marketed, and distributed women’s books in the period.13 We included all known books that a woman authored, translated, or edited. Between 1767 and 1836, C & D published 180 titles by eighty-two women (including five ‘by a lady’ or similarly gendered signature). The left-hand side of Figure 5.2 demonstrates that most women – fifty-four in the bibliography (or 66 per cent of the total number of women) – published only one work. There is a significant jump to the next data points, with nine women publishing two titles, nine publishing three, six publishing four, and one woman publishing five; we can see how frequently women made brief appearances in print.14 These numbers bear comparison to those for women’s poetry generally:
(p.106) [O]f the 714 known poets in Jackson’s … Romantic Poetry by Women: a bibliography, 1770–1835, 490 women, or 68 per cent of the cohort, published only a single volume of verse; a further 112 women, or 16 per cent, published two books of verse. According to Jackson’s data, a full 84 per cent of all women poets in the Romantic period printed no more than two separate poetry titles. By contrast, only 43 women, or 6 per cent, wrote five or more titles, and only eight, or 1 per cent, wrote more than ten …
C & D’s female authors fare almost identically to those publishing poetry, with 66 per cent (C & D) to 68 per cent (all women’s poetry) of women publishing only a single title. We also have nearly identical figures at the other end of the spectrum, with a total of only six women (Brooke, Cowley, Williams, Hemans, Smith, and More) – or 7 per cent of the total – writing five or more titles. To the far right of Figure 5.2, we find the most prolific woman, Hannah More, with a staggering twenty-seven titles. These statistics suggest a repeated pattern across women’s publishing history: a large majority (66–68 per cent) of women entered print briefly, and a very small minority (6–7 per cent) were exceptionally prolific.
In Figure 5.3, we consider the twenty-eight (34 per cent of women) whose works went into multiple editions. These women published eighty-six titles; in total, C & D published 494 editions of women’s works. More’s enormous success is readily apparent in Figure 5.3. C & D published a staggering 178 editions of the twenty-seven titles by More, or thirty-six percent of the total 494 editions.16 Understood in these terms, More’s strategic importance to the firm is evident. Figure 5.3 also demonstrates that C & D had measurable success with a range of female authors (similar to those in Figure 5.2, with Smith, Brooke, Cowley, Williams, and Burney taking the lead) – women who wrote titles that reached multiple editions.17 We also see a long tail, with most women (forty of eighty-two, or nearly half) with works that were never reprinted. In Figure 5.4,
(p.107) we see how important the major genres of poetry and fiction were to C & D, another way in which the firm’s activities are broadly representative of the literary marketplace as a whole. We also realize that the exceptionally prolific authors (Brooke, Cowley, Williams, Hemans, Smith, and More) are also authors whose works go into many editions.
Within this complex ecology, the need for variation in economic arrangements between different women becomes apparent, and we see these differences borne out in the correspondence. We see how C & D treat exceptional women – those with proven records of success or with works deemed worthy of investment – in the publishers’ willingness either to pay for the copyright outright or to share profits. We also see how women themselves advocate for their worth. Other women without a history in print have far less bargaining power, and C & D show themselves unwilling to take risks unless their costs and time are covered. For the category in between, a range of economic options were available, though as we shall see the publishers were generally conservative, unwilling to expose themselves. (p.108)
In our examination of the correspondence, however, we find comparatively few letters that relate directly to negotiations about publication, with the largest number of letters concerning book ordering (thirty-seven meaningful mentions), and manuscript proofing (forty meaningful mentions). As these are the most common topics in the letters, it follows that most women writing to C & D are either customers wishing to purchase books, authors or others involved in the publishing process, or a mixture of these roles. Indeed, throughout the correspondence we see overlap between the roles of the firm as publishers/booksellers, and women as authors, purchasers, and borrowers of books. Similarly, we find a blurring in the nature of the relationship between women and their publishers/booksellers – at once personal and professional, private and public.
Recognising the imbricated nature of C & D’s engagements with women, we begin by examining how women interact with them on questions of publication in the surviving correspondence. As we can only recover agreements made with authors through correspondence (and other documents) – and with (p.109)
so many women residing outside of London, it is likely that most agreements were transacted in writing – these surviving letters are the most effective means of tracking the nature of these negotiations and arrangements. We begin by addressing issues arising pre-publication, and then proceed to issues pending publication, such as proofing of copy, authorship attribution, advertising, and pricing, as well as women’s involvement in the production process. The final section examines letters that address issues that arise post-publication: reviews, accounts, and payments, as well as the extensive correspondence addressing C & D as booksellers.
Throughout our analysis, we seek to evaluate the professional and personal relationship between C & D and their female correspondents. Although we have portraits of other publisher–author relationships from the period, most focus on male authors. Only a few consider the relationship between publishers and women – and through a study of individual female authors at that. One of the most comprehensive studies of author–publisher relationships in the (p.110) nineteenth century is Michael Everton’s The Grand Chorus of Complaint: Authors and the Business Ethics of American Publishing. Besides presenting a series of case studies, Everton also helpfully discusses the moral discourse surrounding publishing (albeit for a later period, and across the Atlantic). Nevertheless, Everton’s findings provide a useful framework for our analysis. According to Everton, authors and publishers insisted that publishing was an ethical trade, with the expectation that the publisher would act in his commercial interests, but with scrupulous fairness and decency. Everton’s examples suggest how frequently publishers were thought (by both male and female authors) to have departed from these principles, often in highly public contests.18
From our survey, C & D’s conduct with women never invites this disputatiousness. As businessmen seeking profit, we find multiple examples of them implementing standards of fairness; of correspondence demonstrating unfailing politeness and responsiveness; and, in general, of gentlemanly, even chivalrous behaviour.
Writers made solicitations then much as they do now: an author sent a manuscript with an accompanying letter describing her work, along with a brief assessment of its niche in the contemporary literary landscape. Within our corpus, six letters present works for publication; these often show women assessing the publication value of the works they describe, thereby highlighting their knowledge of the market; at other times, women ask the advice of the publisher and seek their assessment of the work. Throughout, women manifest confidence in their writing. Consider, for example, how Rose Lawrence presents her plan to arrange a miscellany of poetry: she asserts that it ‘would be easy to furnish a volume of equal if not superior merit’ to Riddell’s Metrical Miscellany (1802), and could ‘offer some very beautiful poems to the public through this medium’.19 Comparing her proposed collection to Riddell’s demonstrates a knowledge of C & D’s publication list, and of the contemporary market. She defers ultimate judgement to the publishers, stating that they ‘will be able to judge whether works of this kind are encouraged by the public’, conceding their expertise.
Solicitations often included this sort of compliment to the publisher. Women also state their preference for publication under C & D’s imprint. For instance, (p.111) Hester Thrale Piozzi sends Thomas Cadell a letter on 7 June 1785 regarding the publication of her work Anecdotes of the Late Samuel Johnson (1786). In this letter, she explains that
As you were at once the Bookseller & Friend of Doctor Johnson, who always spoke of your Character in the kindest Terms; I could wish you likewise to be the Publisher of some Anecdotes concerning the last twenty Years of his Life, collected by me during the many Days I had Opportunity to spend in his instructive Company; and digested into Method since I heard of his Death.20
Piozzi is savvy in her address to Cadell by appealing to both his private and commercial interests – as both ‘the Bookseller & Friend of Doctor Johnson’. Her overture was successful: Cadell published the book on 26 March 1786.21
Hannah More navigates the submission of new work with absolute confidence of its acceptance. Although the following letter is undated, the work she discusses is presumably Christian Morals (1813) – bearing close resemblance to ‘“Christian Ethics” or something like it’, the title the letter mentions.22 In the discussion, she does not question its acceptance, but directly proposes a printing schedule:
I have for some weeks been turning my thoughts to a new Work. It will be only one Volume about the size of the others. I shall probably give it the Title of ‘Christian Ethics’ or something like it. If health permit [sic] I think I shall be able to send a portion of it in November. will Mr. Strahan’s Presses be at liberty at that time? I shall wish to bring it out in the Winter and therefore thought it right to apprize you of my intention.23
By 1813 More is an established author of the firm, and her assurance is warranted, having already published eighteen titles, and 110 editions, with the firm.
Publishers could also receive more unusual solicitations. On 17 December 1772, Ann Nutburn addresses Cadell ‘as Bookseller of eminence in his profession, upon whose honour and secresy I may depend in any transaction’. Nutburn describes having in her possession ‘a Collection of Original Letters, (p.112) which came into my hands in the most honourable way, written by a person of great distinction (tho I have very particular reasons against declaring the Author) upwards of 130 in Number, commencing about the year 1740 and Continued to about 1765’. She asks £200 for the copyright, not ‘an unreasonable sum’, she claims, ‘from the accounts I have heard of what has been given to other Authors’, and also ‘an additional sum to be agreed upon between us, in case the Book should go through several Editions, of which I have no doubt’. She includes copies of two letters, depending on his honour to return them, and proposes a meeting in which Cadell could peruse the rest. If he will not meet her price, she means to ‘suppress them, for the present, till I can contrive a way of publishing them myself’.24 The letter is extraordinary in a few respects. It demonstrates a clandestine trade in letters (even if, as Nutburn asserts, they had been honourably obtained). It indicates that Nutburn, with apparently no ties to the trade (she has no known publication to her name, and solicits Cadell because of his reputation alone), had knowledge of its workings, as she requests a sum based on what she hears has been paid to others; she seeks profit-sharing in subsequent editions; she protects her literary property by asking for the return of the two copied letters; she names a price for the manuscript that may have been appropriate for the letters, as containing ‘Anecdotes concerning most of the principal persons who figured at that time in publick life’; and she understands that the other route to publication, if copyright is not purchased outright, is self-financing. Whether a secret meeting was ever held at the Inn in Basingstoke, as Nutburn suggests, is unknown, but it appears as though Cadell never printed such a volume.
The shifting and uncertain nature of C & D’s arrangements for publication – a likely consequence of them dealing with women without extensive experience with the trade, and through correspondence – emerges in another series of letters. It was not uncommon for solicitation to go through a third party, and this could lead to protracted and/or crossing sets of messages (Levy, ‘Book History’, p. 312). Mr. Barratt acts as an intermediary between Lady Tuite and C & D, as he sends them samples of her poetry. She writes to the publishers on 31 January 1796 about this work, as they have ‘recommended an avowal of [her] motives for publishing’, presumably in their correspondence with Mr. Barratt.25 She explains that her ‘[o]bject is to raise a Sum of Money as expeditiously as possible’, in order to raise funds for an unnamed beneficiary. C & D understand that a work is more likely to prosper if this purpose is (p.113) avowed, but Tuite resists, writing, ‘this however I cannot think of; the Person I mean to serve is not in a Situation to justify an appeal to the Publick beside which I do not chuse to have it known to the family that I have any hand in the business’.26 She also indicates a wish to publish ‘without giving my name’, but if this will not meet with success she will ‘not withold it’; although their response on this point is unknown, the volume is eventually published with her name, consistent with C & D’s position on anonymity, as we discuss below.27
The correspondence between Lady Tuite and the firm also demonstrates the range of methods of financing books available at the time. She initially states her intention to ‘take the Whole on myself’, that is, to self-finance the publication. With C & D’s surviving reply, we find their judicious response: ‘We have taken an Opportunity of cursorily perusing the whole and think many of the Poems extremely beautiful whilst none of them appear to us calculated to bring the smallest Discredit on their Author’. C & D make no assurances about their sales, as Lady Tuite has indicated that ‘five Hundred Copies would not be Sufficient as my own Acquaintance alone’. Nevertheless, she solicits their advice as to ‘[w]hether it is worth my while to run the chances attendant on such an undertaking’. On the question of edition size, they diplomatically write that
With Regard to the Number to be printed, that must entirely depend upon Circumstances with which you, Madam, are alone acquainted – We should, was the Work our own, not think of more in a first Edition than 500 Copies, but we recollect your mentioning that that Number would not be sufficient for your own Connections – Perhaps 750 might be the proper Number.28
In a subsequent letter from Lady Tuite, dated 8 March 1796, she once again asks for their advice: ‘before you commit it to the press to peruse it & give me your Candid opinion, as to its probable success’. As she would be taking the risk upon herself, it would be important for her to know whether they thought the work might sell. As she is unable to pay the entire expense upfront, she directs them to ‘deduct [the costs] from the profit’.
Typically, publishers paid the costs of paper, printing, and advertising, and would split the profit for books they felt confident would sell. It is possible they (p.114) also compensated themselves by charging a retail price on these expenses. For less optimistic books, they would ask the author to pay all expenses and charge a commission on each book.29 Authors who published in this way relied upon the expertise of publishers, as Tuite plainly does, asking for their guidance on a range of issues, from ‘what number of Copies it is best to print, & as I am perfectly a Novice in matters of this kind’ to ‘intreat[ing them] to manage the Whole with the Reviewers, Stationers Company &c &c’. Tuite also dictates certain aspects of the book’s production, asking for it ‘to be printed to the best advantage, with respect of Type & paper’; and suggesting a price ‘as high as you think it can be with propriety I thought of half a Guinea’. Despite proceeding on the basis that she is publishing the work on her own, she also asks: ‘Supposing I wished to sell the Copy right can you tell me what might be the probable Value?’
The work was published later that year, with the imprint, ‘Printed for T. Cadell, Jun. and W. Davies’. The precise nature of the arrangement reached is unknown. Likely, Tuite self-financed the publication, as originally proposed, with C & D facilitating the printing and sale and compensating themselves either by charging commission, or charging retail prices on the paper and printing, or both.30 These letters suggest the fluidity of the author–publisher relationship, the many possible routes towards agreement, and the difficulty of reconstructing the financial arrangements reached with the imperfect surviving record.
A shrewd and successful author like Hannah More would choose to self-publish if the price she named for copyright was not accepted. In a letter dated November 1775, likely about Sir Eldred of the Bower, and the Bleeding Rock: Two legendary tales, first published in 1776, she states her position: ‘… not caring to recede from my first proposals,’ she requests that either C & D purchase the copyright for forty guineas, or ‘you shall print it for me and I will run the hazard of the Sale’.31 Mary Alden Hopkins provides additional context for this exchange, which led to More’s first publication with the firm:
(p.115) Her preliminary triumph came with the publication in 1777 of two ballads. Her publisher was Thomas Cadell, London bookseller and publisher, and son of a Bristol bookseller. In his enthusiasm over his new client, he told her if she could find out how much Goldsmith had been paid for The Deserted Village she should receive the same. Goldsmith had been paid sixty guineas, but as Hannah did not know she was contented with forty pounds. The two ballads were Sir Eldred and the Bower and The Ballad of Bleeding Rock. Cadell was justified in his optimism for he and his son after him published all her best-selling books except the tracts and made a large amount of money for both author and publisher.32
Mona Scheuermann describes the preliminary exchange in a way that more closely aligns with Hannah’s letter to Cadell, stating ‘[t]his was a woman who sent off her first poems to be published with the comment that she was not going to be put off with a piddling sum, and who was answered with the promise that if she could learn what Goldsmith had earned for “The Deserted Village,” she would get a matching amount’.33 Scheuermann goes on to explain that ‘her proposed publisher, Cadell, apparently had not yet even seen the poems under discussion’; and that More ‘could not find what Goldsmith had been paid’, not that she was simply unaware ‘– so she and Cadell settled on £40’ (pp. 1–2). That Cadell offered her what Goldsmith was paid (sight unseen) suggests a willingness to deal with women on the same terms as men.
After this initial exchange, Cadell and thereafter his son ‘remained her publisher for more than fifty years’ (Scheuermann, p. 2). Throughout we see evidence that this was a mutually beneficial relationship. Nearly forty years after her first publication appeared, an example suggests how More returned the favour, outlined by Patricia Demers: ‘When Cadell’s rights to her text, which she had sold, expired in 1814, More came to his rescue since “several booksellers were taking undue advantage of this, and were publishing editions of The Sacred Dramas, to his no little injury”; she wrote an additional scene …’34 As Cheryl Turner notes, ‘More was unusual in her actions, which demonstrated a degree of flexibility that was possible only for a well-known author who was confident of both her entitlement to literary property, and the demand for her material’ (p. 113). Certainly, More was C & D’s most important female author: her output was constant over a period of five decades, and she produced works (p.116) that were consistently strong sellers (as is evidenced by twenty-two of her twenty-seven titles going into multiple editions, with Sacred Dramas running to over twenty editions between 1782 and 1829).
More always dealt directly with her publishers, and seems to have had their respect from the outset. But many women corresponded through intermediaries, often male, and this mediated relationship could make them vulnerable. Dr. James Currie proposes Rose Lawrence (then D’Aguilar) as a translator of Gessner, in response to C & D’s request for someone suitable for the task, ultimately published in three volumes as The Works of Solomon Gessner (1802).35 In a letter dated August 8, 1800, Currie writes:
What you mention of a translation of Gesner [sic] I have reflected upon – My young & amiable friend is soon to be married to a very deserving young man, who having instructed her in German, is now about to give her lessons of a still more interesting nature – She will however undertake the translation of Gesner, but cannot engage as to time but will perform it with attention & skill. I have promised to look over the sheets, & perhaps to give a prefatory article …36
In their reply, the firm ignores Currie’s ribald comment about Rose’s impending sexual initiation, and proceeds with business, requesting that Currie ask Lawrence to ‘do us the Favour to mention the Remuneration that will be acceptable to her, as we have little Doubt of our immediately acceding thereto’.37 This correspondence between a gentleman and publisher, promoting a female translator, shows the web of social and literary connections that underpinned literary publication – and also the coarse way in which women’s sexuality could be invoked when they were not part of the discussion.
Although they ask Lawrence to name an amount, it turns out that C & D propose one. In the letter Lawrence sends to C & D on 18 October 1800, she writes:
Dr. Currie has communicated to me your liberal proposal for a complete translation of Gesner’s works; – & I am perfectly satisfied with the terms (p.117) you have mentioned in your last letter to him. – I cannot but be highly flattered that you think me capable of executing so difficult a task, & I shall exert myself to the utmost to render the translation correct & spirited, & if possible to give an idea of that elegant simplicity of style which is the characteristic of Gesner’s writings in their original language, tho’ for the most part obscured & lost in all the translations I have yet seen of them. – I have already commenced my undertaking, & hope to have the first volume ready for publication in January next …38
Lawrence presents herself as a skilled and sensitive translator, capable of capturing the ‘simplicity of [Gessner’s] style’. She accepts the (unknown) terms they propose, but also requests, in addition to the payment, ‘a dozen copies of the Work at my own disposal’, an in-kind form of payment that most authors regularly requested. In addition, Lawrence expresses her concern about Thomas Stothard, the engraver the publishers have chosen; though she is ‘much pleased with yr intention of ornamenting it with designs’, she regrets their choice because of some of his recent compositions, and proceeds to speak with authority about other engravers whom she would prefer. C & D reply to Lawrence, indicating that they would have thought of another artist, but Stothard is a fan of Gessner and was enthusiastic to be part of the publication. They also ask about her prefatory material for the volume, and whether she thinks a biography would be a proper part of the publication. Lawrence responds affirmatively, and prepares a lengthy, twenty-page, ‘translator’s preface’. These interactions demonstrate the courtesy with which C & D dealt with Lawrence as a translator, considering her as vital as an author in shaping the volume.39
Like Hannah More, Joanna Baillie recognized the potential value of copyright, even if her publisher was unwilling to pay what she thought it was worth. In an undated letter, Joanna Baillie references a previous letter wherein she offered to sell C & D the copyright to an unnamed work, which they declined.40 Baillie responds as follows:
I am perfectly aware that the friends of an Author are very apt to rate the value of his or her works too highly; but I assure you it was only in a commercial point of view that I considered the subject when I made you (p.118) the proposals in question, and had not certainly the slightest wish that you should make such a bargain with me as would probably be hurtful to yourselves. When I said, (speaking of what I had asked for the copy right,) ‘this is a price from which I will not recede,’ I only meant that, unless I receive it, I never will give out of my own hand the property of the work, a determination which I still hold as firmly as ever, but not that I wish to receive such a sum for it, if it be more than it is worth.41
Baillie’s language demonstrates the complex nature of the publisher–author relationship; on the one hand, the letter invokes the market: ‘commercial’, ‘price’, ‘bargain’, ‘sum’, ‘property’, ‘worth’. On the other hand, a more affective discourse permeates the letter, with terms like ‘wish’, and ‘hurtful’, as Baillie expresses more of an empathic sensibility. Responding to news of the poor sales of volume two of Series of Plays, she reassures herself (and C & D) ‘that the sale of it, tho’ of late it may have greatly diminished, will be of a permanent nature’, and for that reason she ‘must not be uneasy about it as on your account I should otherwise be’, once again imagining how matters stand from her publisher’s perspective.
It is notable that Baillie takes a long view regarding the value of her literary property, refusing to compromise. She expands upon her belief in the ‘permanent nature’ of the copyright, stating:
When I put into your hands the copy right of the 2nd vol. I believed that put in your possession that from which you would continue to derive some profit during the course even of a long life, as well as the advantages of the first sale, and you must pardon me for thinking so still.42
As with More, we find Baillie preferring to retain copyright rather than parting with it for a lesser sum (and in identical language to More, refusing to ‘recede’). At the same time, she understands that it may take time for a profit to arise, and that those profits (at least to her) might be disappointing. She recollects that ‘half of the profits of both first & second edition amounted only to 38 pounds’. This amount suggests that the firm may have charged retail prices for expenses, thus reducing the profit to be shared, a finding that is borne out in letters discussed subsequently. Baillie’s language about the transfer of copyright (‘put into your hands’) also obscures the nature of that transaction. Did she donate it to them, as this suggests, or give it to them at a low price? (p.119) Doing so would seem inconsistent with her seeking a price – too high for C & D – for the sale of the copyright for another work, and yet the language does not imply a commercial exchange. The mixed nature of Baillie’s language situates publisher–female author relations within a murky middle-ground, where the discourses of sympathy and friendship comingle with those of the trade and profit.
Several letters mention requests for the author to remain anonymous either on advertising, the title page, or both. On 14 October 1809, Margaret Holford’s mother, in returning proofs of Wallace, or the Fight of Falkirk (1809), writes, ‘I do not recollect receiving an answer to a request I made you in a former letter, that Miss Holford’s name should not appear in the title page, or any future advertisement, and I hope I may interpret your silence into acquiescence’.43 On 15 November 1809, however, Margaret Holford writes herself, expressing disappointment that after she ‘signified this desire to [C & D] some time ago’, her name had been printed in an advertisement, which she discovered through a letter from a friend in Bath. She ‘repeat[s her] most particular request that if [they] have done so it may be discontinued and that [her name] may not appear in the title page’.44 C & D appear to respect her wishes, as the work is published anonymously.
Hannah More seeks a more nuanced form of anonymity for some of her works. In writing about a second edition of Hints Towards Forming the Character of a Young Princess (1805), she directs: ‘You may also if you please add my other works to the Advertisement – but not to say “by the same Author”, tho it will be understood. Nor must you print my name either in the Advertisement or the Title – tho in Conversation I now make no secret’.45 More understands the ways in which readers make author attributions, even if not explicitly stated on title pages and advertisements. In another letter, regarding a different work, she seems concerned to conceal her authorship even from close associates. She describes herself ‘distressed about my friends Mrs. Garrick and Mrs. Carter because if I send them [copies] from the Author they will be sure to suspect’ her authorship, and asks if Cadell could ‘send them Copies without saying from the Author’.46 Here, More worries that the (p.120) mere fact of a book being sent to Garrick and Carter, with the compliments of the author, from a publisher with whom she is so closely identified, would disclose her identity.
Forty letters mention manuscript proofing or corrections, making this the most prevalent descriptor. Of these, twenty – or half – are from Hannah More, demonstrating her extensive involvement in seeing her many works, and their many editions, through the press. Most of More’s concerns have to do with making corrections to her works for subsequent editions: she describes, for instance ‘employing [her] leisure in little improvements, tho very trifling’, to Hints Towards Forming the Character of a Young Princess (1805), and ‘shall be therefore obliged to know in time if there is a prospect of reaching another Edition, and my corrected Copy will be ready when called for’.47 Considering that twenty-two of her twenty-seven works published by C & D went through more than one edition, More would have been almost constantly correcting her works in preparation for a new edition. In doing so, she sought to make ‘little improvements’ and thus to improve the value of each subsequent edition.
In a more unusual request, More asks C & D, ‘[i]f the Copies are not sent already to the Reviewers, would it be too much trouble to let somebody with a Pen write in the margin’ as she has ‘a foolish anxiety about two unlucky errors on the 2d. Vol’ of Coelebs.48 Here More demonstrates a sensitivity to the reviews: for ‘tho I have corrected them in the Errata, yet as that is on a leaf not likely to be turned over, those who seek for mischief, whether Scottish or English, may afford to overlook it’. A reference to Lord Byron’s recently published English Bards and Scotch Reviewers, she might also have in mind the snarky review of G. W. Crowe in The London Review of the first edition in 1809, who claimed that More was ‘totally ignorant’ of Latin, and refused to accept the correction in the errata as evidence of an innocent mistake.49
With a less experienced author such as Lady Tuite, C & D offer detailed instructions for proofing:
We strongly recommend your permitting us to send you a Proof of each Sheet before it is printed off, as the Printers are so apt to mistake an Author’s meaning, but, if you have a Copy of the Manuscript, we need not hereafter trouble you with more than the Proof, which can be sent (p.121) and returned by Post, or, if no Correction is necessary a Line informing us thereof will be sufficient –50
By allowing Tuite to correct the proofs, C & D were following standard practice and avoiding having to make more expensive corrections at a later point in the printing process.51 Women also comment on corrections and revisions made in the editing and proofing process, usually with satisfaction. For example, Margaret Holford the Elder returns the proofs of Wallace, thanking them for their attention to hints in the margins of the manuscript, which have all have been attended to.52
Women are also actively involved in other decisions leading up to publication, including format, number of volumes, paper, pricing, and advertising. More tells C & D she would prefer to release her Strictures on the Modern System of Female Education (1799) in two volumes, instead of one octavo volume, though she defers to them.53 Several women specify that they want high-quality paper.54 As we have seen, Lady Tuite asks to price her Poems at a half guinea (or ten shillings and sixpence), and Helena Wells, who published the novel Constantia Neville: or, the West Indian advises C & D that the retail price be fifteen shillings for the three volumes.55 Women are involved in all stages of advertising, from drafting copy, to deciding where, when, and how to advertise. Issues involving advertising could, however, create confusion. Mary Anne Neri writes the only letter explicitly discussing advertising costs on 25 June 1803. In this letter, she complains that, ‘as the expences of the publication &c, have been much beyond any thing she had been led to expect, from any one who gave her information upon the subject, that they (p.122) will have the goodness to involve her as little as possible in further expences of advertising’.56 In situations in which copyright has not been purchased outright, authors had to bear advertising costs (which would have been deducted from profits, and could significantly diminish them).
Thus we find that C & D are willing to involve women in all aspects of book publication. Despite, on occasions, women complaining about failing to receive prompt replies to their letters, communication seems punctual, and proceeds without significant misunderstandings. In these relationships, C & D appear to be unfailingly courteous, polite, and professional. Women often state that they depend on C & D as honourable, gentlemanly, and understanding. Immediately prior to the publication of Anecdotes of the late Samuel Johnson (1786), Piozzi expresses a common sentiment, writing: ‘I have the fullest Confidence of your doing every thing for our mutual Honour & Advantage & have only to wish that the Book may be well received’.57 As we saw in Piozzi’s letter to Cadell, Sr. proposing publication of the Anecdotes, and Joanna Baillie’s letter to C & D, the relationship between publisher and author is not framed as strictly commercial, but is couched in terms of mutual benefit, even friendship. In a few letters, women invite the publishers to visit, in which business and social elements intermix. Hannah Cowley says in an undated letter, ‘I shall be happy if [Cadell Sr. will] do me the favour to call on me, when [he] come[s] my way’ in London.58 In a letter to Cadell Jr. written from her home in Barley Wood, More asks him if he ever travels to Somersetshire, as she ‘should be happy to see [him] and would give [him] a bed in one of the pleasantest rooms in England, and show [him] a fine Country’, insinuating a purely social visit.59
Thirty-three letters further mention topics social or not strictly professional, including salutations to the publisher’s family, discussions of being ill, or appeals to the publisher as both business contact and friend. Illness is a common discourse within the publisher/author relationship, with nine letters mentioning it; occasionally, an author’s indisposition relates directly to her ability to work on writing projects. For example, Frances Brooke writes: ‘my health has been so bad ever since the beginning of July[?] that I have not been able to do anything to any purpose, not even to finish my tragedy, tho’ I had every reason to believe it coud [sic] have come out this (p.123) year if I had’.60 Hannah More explains that she is unable to deliver the other chapters, likely of Hints to a Princess (1805), and that ‘the hurry of writing has affected my health’.61
The volume and nature of the casual discourse between the firm and their more prominent female authors such as Hannah More and Charlotte Smith demonstrate that these relationships were trusting and congenial. Women seek the assistance of C & D when they have been maligned or mistreated in some way. Hannah More, by this time with a twenty-eight year history of publishing with the firm, sends a letter on 16 March 1801 to C & D, concerned about how one Mr. Bere ‘is publishing a very False Statement, yet so specious that those who do not know his character may be taken in by it’. Published as The Blagdon Controversy: or short criticisms on the late dispute between the Curate of Blagdon [T. Bere] and Mrs Hannah More in 1801, Bere attacks More as a ‘Fanatic and Enthusiast’, taking out an advertisement for the book in the same paper, and on the same day, as More’s works are being advertised.62 More appeals to C & D not only as her publishers but as friends: ‘I conceive it right to put my friends on their guards. You will observe the malice of advertising his Attack on the same day and in the same papers with our Eight volumes’. More trusts C & D to defend her honour, for both personal and professional reasons.
Piozzi also appeals to the firm for assistance in clearing her name. Writing on 17 February 1786, she first mentions that Boswell ‘had said some strange Thing about Mrs. Montagu’s Essay on Shakespeare; & laid to my Charge concerning it – Expressions wch I never used’; and again on 3 March 1786 that James Boswell ‘has thought fit to prejudice me in the Minds of the Publick and of Mrs. Montagu by giving them to understand that I disliked her [Essay on Shakespeare] to that Effect’. She asks of Cadell Sr.: ‘I earnestly beg you will contradict the Report in whatever manner you think most efficacious, and assure the Town of my Esteem for the distinguished Talents of that Lady, which can only be exceeded by my Veneration of her Character’.63 She also adds a postscript to the first edition of Anecdotes, disputing the charge, which in turn Boswell refutes, in a later edition of the Journal of a Tour to (p.124) the Hebrides with Samuel Johnson (Piozzi, Anecdotes (1), p. 314). Finally, women could ask for other kinds of assistance. More sends a letter (undated) to C & D recommending that John Seward work for the firm; and one Mrs. Martineau describes to Davies an apartment she has available to let, and thanks him for trying to find a single gentleman to take it.64
After publication, women were reliant on their publisher to inform them about the sales of their work, and about corrections for subsequent editions if demand warranted. Since for many women, earnings (if any) were tied to book sales, these requests for information can take on an urgent tone. Ten letters mention publication sales. One letter, from Henrietta Fordyce, enquires after the sales of her late husband James Fordyce’s works; all other discussions of sales refer to works by the woman sending or receiving correspondence. A typical letter is that of Mary Anne Neri, author of The Eve of San Pietro, who would ‘be particularly obliged to [C & D] to inform her, how the sale of [the work] goes on’.65 Merely keeping track of sales could be challenging. Lady de Crespigny, in a letter to Davies on 11 July 180[5?], asks whether an error has been made about the number of copies of her Letters of Advice from a Mother to her Son (1803): Cadell Jr. told her a few days ago that only 150 had sold, whereas Davies had told her a few months back that 250 had sold.66
Women, after receiving unfavourable reports, may offer explanations for poor or slow sales. As we have seen, Joanna Baillie acknowledges that the second volume of A Series of Plays (1798) had not sold well. She suggests that perhaps the cause relates to its publication format, as a collection of a series of plays (when they were typically sold individually, in inexpensive quartos):
The lesson I ought to learn from the decrease of its late sale is, not to fatigue the public by making too many demands upon its attention. (p.125) People are accustomed to read one new play at a time and have done with it: to have a whole volume of them put into their hands at once, which they must read one after the other, because they are new and because they have been at the trouble of either buying or borrowing them, is, perhaps, rather unreasonable.67
Susannah Dobson offers an estimation of the public’s reading habits to explain poor sales of a work she has translated, Jean-Baptiste de la Curne de Sainte-Palaye’s The Literary History of the Troubadours (translation 1779).68 In a letter to Cadell (presumably Sr.; the letter is undated) asking for any money that has come from the sale, she writes: ‘I imagine their antiquity & being out of the common way of Readers may make their sale what I expected would be slow and yet there is a great many remaining especially considering the situation of things at present in the world’.69
On 24 January 1786, regarding Piozzi’s Anecdotes of the Late Samuel Johnson, Cadell Sr. had asked her to:
either name a price for the property or if more agreeable we will divide the profits. I mean that I shall advance for paper, print &c. – after these are repaid to account to you for the moiety of the profits of this and future Editions. The latter mode I have followed with Mr. Gibbon, Bishop Lowth, Adam Smith, Hayley and many other of my capital Authors. I will make no Apology for troubling you on this subject as in matters of Business being explicit is the way to promote a durable connection.70
Here we find Cadell delicately raising issues of remuneration, stating his preference for explicit arrangements both ‘to promote a durable connection’ and to protect her in the event that something should happen to him. Piozzi replies: ‘I am perfectly satisfied to settle our pecuniary Affairs in the manner you say other people do; – dividing the profits equitably between us, when Print & Paper are paid’.71
(p.126) After the rapid sale of the publication, Piozzi pertly reports to Cadell Sr. on 20 May 1786 (two months after the publication of Anecdotes) that although she ‘has not heard from him about the little Books Success, [she] desires him to be assured that he is the only Friend from whom she has not heard of it; as every Post brings her very flattering Accounts of its Reception’ with her friends reporting the good sales of the work. From these accounts, ‘she concludes they are getting rich apace now’, and directs where Cadell should send her share of the profits.72 Clearly, Piozzi assumes that she will be owed a substantial profit, likely without realising the initial outlay for printing a book was ‘always alarmingly high’, largely a consequence of the high cost of paper during this period (Gaskell, p. 161). Piozzi is correct that the sale was rapid; in a letter from Cadell Sr. to Piozzi dated 8 May 1786, he reports; ‘the Sale [is] more rapid than any Book I ever published since my being engaged in Business’.73 He proceeds to explain, however, his reason for publishing the work in smaller edition sizes, which demanded frequent re-printings:
I must own at the same time that I have consulted the reputation of the Work more than our profit for I preferred having second, third, and fourth Editions upon the Title page to printing a numerous Edition at first – If indeed I had cast off three or four thousand at once the profit would have been more considerable, but as a length of time must have elapsed before I could have advertised even a second Edition the World would have concluded that the Sale was not so extensive. I therefore printed one thousand Copies of the first Edition – these were sold off in a few hours – within the week I had a second Edition of a thousand Copies ready. The Sale of these were equally rapid – In two days I had a third Edition of 500 Copies and at the same time set about preparing for a fourth if the demand continued – the Demand did continue, and I had the fourth Edition of one thousand Copies ready for publication as soon as the third was sold off. The fourth is now selling, and I have little doubt but I shall be obliged speedily to announce a fifth edition.74
(p.127) The letter, perhaps, prepares Piozzi for the disappointing news (not disclosed in the letter) as to the profits to be shared (she is thought to have made somewhere between 130 and 300 pounds).75 Although Cadell anticipates another edition, only four editions were ultimately produced, all in 1786, and no further editions were published in her lifetime. Perhaps as a result of this somewhat disappointing profit-sharing arrangement, when Piozzi sought to sell Cadell Sr. her Observations on 14 November 1788, she demanded 500 guineas payment for the copyright, a sum that it appears Cadell did not agree to pay.76
Twenty-nine letters discuss accounts, a somewhat broader category as all clients, including those that simply purchased books, might have an account with the firm. It is inevitable that these repeated requests for information about the status of an account were taxing to C & D, given the number of authors and book buyers with whom they were dealing. Lady Tuite, for example, writes that she ‘is much surprized she has had no answer from Messrs C & D, as to her Acct: which she has repeatedly asked for’.77 Henrietta Maria Bowdler asks for her account statement in several letters, ‘[a]s I always am desirous to know the exact state of all my accounts, before the end of every year’.78 Confusion could arise, as in a response by More to C & D, she explains ‘[y]ou totally mistook in supposing I wanted my Account’ when she had only wanted to know ‘how many Copies of Coelebs had been printed’ as people in her neighbourhood were disputing the amount, and her asking ‘related simply to ascertain the number as matter of curiosity’.79 Nevertheless, from the letters reviewed, C & D appear to have been generally punctual in sending out account statements. Within three weeks (from 11 June–1 July 1806), they send Anne Persode Blair’s account with a reply to her letter, asking her to draw on them for the account due within ten days ‘after Sight’ of their reply.80
Authors could hold money in their accounts, rendering the publishing firm into bankers of sorts. We know that Charlotte Smith frequently asked C & D (p.128) to pay money to various creditors from her account during the years 1794 to 1797.81 It seems clear that this was an imposition C & D did not relish. In sending her an account statement (undated), they request she not send them any more bills, as it will cause further confusion to her account.82 Rather, as with their direction to Blair, they seem to prefer for money to be drawn from them directly.
A large proportion of letters in this collection, and the second largest category (after manuscript proofing) relate to book ordering, with mentions in thirty-seven letters. These letters demonstrate the extent to which C & D engage with women as purchasers, reflecting the firm’s combined role during the period (and that of most publishers) as publishers and booksellers. At the same time, it is important to understand the complex and multiple forms of involvement in bookselling in which C & D were engaged.
We have seen how Rose Lawrence requested an in-kind payment, in the form of ‘a dozen copies of the Work’, even after an arrangement as to payment had been made; Smith and other writers would seek these forms of payment as well, thus seizing upon the publisher’s dual role. As Susan Staves has found, ‘Whether a particular book sent by a publisher was meant as part of the author’s payment or as a gift or simply as a commodity for which the publisher expected market price was not always clear’.83 In a letter dated 27 June 1798, Smith, possibly discussing The Young Philosopher (which was published in 1798) offers a typical example of her attempt to extract more from her publisher:84
But I have long since learnd that every Author but me has 20 Copies of their own work allowed them–. However as I made no bargain for that I do not now mean to press it, but as I cannot spare any I have here from my own family, I must beg the favr. of you to send two for me for which I must acct. when our account is closed.85
Smith’s many letters to Cadell and Davies frequently request books. Often the requests are unaccompanied by any suggestions that she intends to pay, as she seems to have hoped the publishers would honour at least some of these requests by considering the books part of their payment to her, as support of her ongoing writing, or as gifts to one of their valued authors. Thus, she makes unadorned requests. (p. 197)
Staves cites one affecting/manipulative account, in which Smith requests copies of her books for her son, recently returned from the war as an amputee (p. 198). Hannah More, similarly and perhaps – like Smith – strategically does not seem to negotiate for copies but to request them after the fact, writing on one occasion that she ‘shall be much obliged to you for a few Copies; but as beggars must not be chusers I shall leave you to fix the number’.86 It should be pointed out that these reserved copies had to be sent to friends as directed by the author, another task that authors could impose on publishers.
As authors frequently published on account – books published by subscription, or by the author – publishers like C & D were also involved in the distribution of these books. Lady Tuite, for example, asks that copies be sent to various booksellers, and complains to C & D when they are unavailable for purchase in some provincial bookshops.87 Hannah Cowley requests that Cadell Sr. send copies of the Belle’s Stratagem to the playhouse to sell while the play is on.88
When books published by the author or by subscription did not sell, the firm might be asked to buy back the unsold books. Thus Mrs. Holford (elder) writes that her daughter thanks C & D for ‘purchasing the rest at a wholesale price’.89 In a more unusual case, an author might request to purchase her books back from C & D. In two letters between the publisher and one Miss Savage, author of the novel Massenberg, she expresses disappointment in the account information conveyed in a previous letter. She writes: ‘Since the sale of this work has been so languid as to give so little hope that the remaining copies (p.130) may be disposed of at a profitable price, will you, Sir, permit me to send for twenty five of them to be paid for at the price at which the future copies may sell’.90 In a reply to Miss Savage, dated 14 July 1829, they offer to sell her discounted copies of her novel for five shillings in sheets, or six shillings in boards.91 We do not know the nature of the agreement between Savage and the firm, though it seems that she did not pay for the costs of printing and paper (which would entitle her to ownership of all copies). On the other hand, Savage would not be asking for her account if they had purchased the copyright (and any loss would be theirs alone). It seems likely that some sort of profit-sharing/commission arrangement was in place, and that there was no profit to be shared with her, and perhaps even a balance owing. For these reasons, C & D assert ownership in the remaining stock, although they do offer her the wholesale price (the retail price in 1825 was twenty-one shillings). Further, in their reply they make it plain that they will not release copies until payment is received: ‘they [the copies] shall be delivered to Miss Savages Order upon Mr Cs being favored with payment for the amount –’.92
On 11 June 1806, Anne Persode Blair requested her account from C & D. She is the widow of John Blair (d. 1782), author of The Chronology and History of the World, first published 1754. In their reply, dated 1 July 1806, they write:
We send you a Statement of your Account as desired – It is made out in the same Manner as the former Account, and therefore you will probably think our Commn. too high – If you will be so obliging as add to the 64.10-5 whatever you think right, and draw on us for the Amount thus increased at ten Days after Sight we will take Care that your Bill is duly honoured –93
Here we find C & D responsive to the concerns of a widow of one of their authors, inviting her to add back to the account owing ‘whatever you think right’. What is remarkable about this response is not merely the courtesy it (p.131) implies, but that it is in the service of a woman whose husband had died nearly thirty years prior, and in relation to a work that had first been printed more than half a century before. In another similar situation, Margaret Riollay enquires of C & D in relation to the account of her late husband, Dr. Riollay.94 They advise her that he actually owed money, and propose auctioning off the remaining copies of her husband’s works to pay the debt, then pay her the ‘over plus’, should there be any.95 C & D clearly had a reputation for sensitivity and kindness, prompting these women to seek their assistance, a confidence that was not misplaced. These examples provide further evidence of the high regard in whcih women were treated by C & D.
A final example of Cadell Sr.’s consummate professionalism may be found in his letter to Piozzi dated 24 January 1786. He writes:
I am to acknowledge the receipt of two of your Letters, and should have wrote you in answer to the one dated October 20th but my mind was then so distressed that I was wholly incapable of attending to any thing but the painful illness of a Beloved Wife. Her dissolution has deprived me of the best of Women – my Children of the most tender and affectionate of mothers. I must request your pardon for being thus particular on my own concerns.96
Reporting on the illness and death of his wife on 31 December 1785, Cadell retains his composure, but, at the same time, does not entirely suppress his grief. Indeed, Piozzi herself hardly knows how to reply, writing on 17 February 1786: ‘I am much obliged to you for the letter just now sent me from Rome by Mr. Jenkins, dated 24 of January and feel sincerely mortified at the thoughts of having plagued you when your spirits were depressed by a recent misfortune’.97
Throughout the correspondence with their female authors, women manifest confidence and respect for C & D, and the publishers are decent and compassionate to the women they trade with. In his assessment of C & D’s dealings with male authors, Besterman reaches a similar conclusion, although he points out several major conflicts between the firm and a handful of male authors, of which we have found no analogue in our research. Whether C & D (and other male publishers) treated female authors differently from men – for (p.132) example, offering to pay women less for similar work – will require further comparative study. Based upon our review, however, it seems that the worst we can say of C & D in their dealings with women is the poor judgement they demonstrated in rejecting George Austen’s submission of ‘a manuscript novel, comprising 3 vols., about the length of Miss Burney’s “Evelina”’, a novel which, if accepted, would have capped their achievement as the premier publishers of women writers of the day (Besterman, p. xxi). Instead, it was John Murray who (belatedly) recognised Jane Austen’s talent, the very publisher who, according to Besterman, would eventually reach and overtake C & D, displacing their supremacy ‘at or near the head of the Trade’ (p. xiv).
The literary network we have described has some important implications. A star network is often considered to be the most unequal type of network. This power imbalance occurs because the central node (C & D) occupies a superior structural position. The central actor, because of its position in the network, possesses more opportunities than all of the other nodes: in our example, C & D have multiple choices for whose work they publish, and this autonomy makes them less reliant on any specific other actor. Of course, all women could choose to deal with other publishers (and many discussed in this chapter did so), but nevertheless, their position within these other networks is likely to be very similar, as we know that there were far fewer publishers than writers seeking publication. In other words, this imbalance was structural within the marketplace broadly conceived. Not only does the central actor have more connections and hence more power, it also enjoys asymmetry in terms of knowledge as a result of these connections: C & D, for example, know precisely how much they have paid (and made) through their contractual arrangements with other authors, whereas the other nodes (authors) do not share this knowledge. This structural advantage results from C & D’s centrality within the network, and suggests the relative disadvantaged position that women occupied. It is true that male authors would find themselves facing the same structural inequalities within the communications circuit, but they were not burdened with women’s social, economic and cultural vulnerabilities. Our findings demonstrate that, notwithstanding their superior position, C & D did not exploit this position. By treating their female authors with respect, C & D reflect the high esteem in which women writers were held at the time, at least within the book trades, a position to which feminist scholars have sought, for the last half century, to restore them.
Primary Manuscript Sources
Cadell and Davies, Records of Cadell and Davies, MSS CD 1–529, The Huntington Library.
Cadell and Davies Records, GEN MSS 510, General Collection, Beinecke Rare Book and Manuscript Library, Yale University.
Edinburgh University Library, Q. 15. 3.
Electronic Enlightenment Project, Bodleian Libraries, University of Oxford.
EVELYN PAPERS. Vols. DXIX–DXXII. ‘Original Letters collected by William Upcott of the London Institution. Distinguished Women’; 17th–19th cent. (1824), Add. MS 78686–78689, British Library.
Montagu Manuscripts, MSS. Montagu d. 19, Bodleian Libraries.
National Library of Scotland, Acc 9026.
The Cadell and Davies Papers, 1776–1887, CD 1–50, Special Collections, Cadbury Research Library, University of Birmingham.
The Donald & Mary Hyde Collection of Dr. Johnson and Early Modern Books and Manuscripts, MS Hyde 69, Houghton Library.
Western Manuscripts at the Weston Library, Bodleian Libraries, MSS. Eng. lett. c. 141.
Baillie, Joanna. A series of plays: in which it is attempted to delineate the stronger passions of the mind. Each passion being the subject of a tragedy and a comedy. London: T. Cadell, Jun. and W. Davies, 1798.
Besterman, Theodore. The Publishing Firm of Cadell and Davies: Select Correspondence and Accounts, 1793–1836. London: Oxford University, 1938.
Cadell and Davies. ‘Letter to James Currie, 11 Aug. 1800’. 1800. MS, University of Glasgow, Centre for Robert Burns Studies, Glasgow. The Letters of James Currie (1756–1805). 17 April 2016. Web.
—. The following valuable books are printed for T. Cadell, Jun. and W. Davies (Successors to Mr. Cadell) in the Strand, 1796; 1797. London: Cadell and Davies, 1796; 1797. Eighteenth Century Collections Online. Gale. Simon Fraser University. 4 April 2016.
Cadell, Cecilia Mary. Massenburg. A Tale. In three volumes. London: T. Cadell, Jun., 1825.
Champion de Crespigny, Lady Mary. Letters of Advice from a Mother to her Son. London: T. Cadell, Jun. and W. Davies, 1803.
Clifford, James L. ‘The printing of Mrs Piozzi’s anecdotes of Dr. Johnson’. The Bulletin of the John Rylands Library, 20: 1 (1936).
Cowley, Hannah. The Belle’s Stratagem. London: T. Cadell, 1780.
Currie, James. ‘Letter to Cadell and Davies, 8 Aug. 1800’. MS, University of Glasgow, Centre for Robert Burns Studies. The Letters of James Currie (1756–1805). 17 April 2016. Web.
(p.134) de la Curne de Sainte-Palaye, Jean-Baptiste. The Literary History of the Troubadours, trans. Susannah Dobson. London: T. Cadell, 1779, Eighteenth Century Collections Online. Gale. Simon Fraser University. 12 April 2016. Web.
Demers, Patricia. The World of Hannah More. Lexington: University Press of Kentucky, 1996.
Dille, Catherine. ‘Cadell, Thomas, the elder (1742–1802)’, Oxford Dictionary of National Biography. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2004, online edn., January 2008. Simon Fraser University. 10 December 2013. Web.
Eighteenth Century Collections Online, Gale. [online] Available at gale.com/primary-sources/eighteenth-century-collections-online.
English Short Title Catalogue. [online] Available at estc.bl.uk.
Everton, Michael. The Grand Chorus of Complaint: Authors and the Business Ethics of American Publishing. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2011.
Feldman, Paula R. ‘The Poet and the Profits: Felicia Hemans and the Literary Marketplace’. Keats–Shelley Journal, 46 (1997).
Fergus, Jan. ‘The Professional Women Writer’, The Cambridge Companion to Jane Austen, ed. Edward Copeland and Juliet McMaster. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1997.
Fergus, Jan, and Janice Farrar Thaddeus. ‘Women, publishers, and money, 1790–1820’, Studies in Eighteenth-Century Culture, 17 (1987).
Gaskell, Philip. A New Introduction to Bibliography: The classic manual of bibliography. Delaware: Oak Knoll Press, 1992.
Gessner, Salomon. The Works of Solomon Gessner, Translated from the German. With some account of his life and writings. In three volumes, trans. Rose Lawrence. London: Cadell and Davies, 1802.
Holford, Margaret. Wallace; or, The Fight of Falkirk. A metrical romance. London: T. Cadell, Jun. and W. Davies, 1809.
Hopkins, Mary Alden. Hannah More and Her Circle. New York: Longmans, Green and Co., 1947.
Jackson Bibliography of Romantic Poetry, 2016. [online] Available at jacksonbibliography.library.utoronto.ca.
Jackson, James Robert de Jager. Romantic poetry by women: a bibliography, 1770–1835. Oxford: Clarendon Press; New York: Oxford University Press, 1993.
Leuner, Kirstyn. ‘Romantic Women Writers and The Stainforth Library: “Making Women Writers Count” (NASSR 2016)’, Digital Romanticisms, n.p., 2016. Web. 27 August 2016.
Levy, Michelle. ‘Do Women Have a Book History?’, Studies in Romanticism, New Directions in Romanticism and Gender: Essays in Honor of Anne K. Mellor, 53: 3 (2014).
—. ‘Women and Print Culture, 1780–1830’, in The History of British Women’s Writing, 1750–1830, ed. Cora Kaplan and Jennie Batchelor, and Jacqueline Labbe (vol. ed.), 5. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, 2010.
Looser, Devoney. ‘British Women Writers, Big Data, and Big Biography, 1780–1830’, Women’s Writing, 22: 2 (2015).
—. Christian Morals. London: T. Cadell, Jun. and W. Davies, 1813.
—. Hints Towards Forming the Character of a Young Princess. London, T. Cadell, Jun. and W. Davies, 1805.
—. Sir Eldred of the Bower, and the Bleeding Rock: Two legendary tales. By Miss Hannah More. London: T. Cadell, 1776.
—. Strictures on the modern system of female education. With a view of the principles and conduct prevalent among women of rank and fortune. By Hannah More. In two volumes. London, T. Cadell, Jun. and W. Davies, 1799.
Neri, Mary Anne. The Eve of San-Pietro. A Tale. In Three Volumes. London: T. Cadell, Jun. and W. Davies, 1804, Eighteenth Century Collections Online. Gale. Simon Fraser University. 4 April 2016.
Piozzi, Hester Lynch. Anecdotes of the Late Samuel Johnson, LL.D. During the last twenty years of his life. London: T. Cadell, 1786, Eighteenth Century Collections Online. Gale. Simon Fraser University. 26 April 2016.
—. Anecdotes of the late Samuel Johnson, LL.D. during the last twenty years of his life. The fourth edition. London: T. Cadell, 1786, Eighteenth Century Collections Online. Gale. Simon Fraser University. 18 April 2016.
Riddell, Maria. Metrical Miscellany. London: T. Cadell, Jun. and W. Davies, 1802.
Sadleir, Michael. ‘Review of The Publishing Firm of Cadell and Davies: Select Correspondence and Accounts, 1793–1836’, The Library 19: 3 (1938).
Scheuermann, Mona. In Praise of Poverty: Hannah More Counters Thomas Paine and the Radical Threat. Lexington: The University Press of Kentucky, 2002.
Scragg, Brenda J. ‘Lackington, James (1746–1815)’, Oxford Dictionary of National Biography. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2004, online edn., Oct 2007. Simon Fraser University. 25 April 2016.
Smith, Charlotte. The Collected Letters of Charlotte Smith, ed. Judith Phillips Stanton. Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 2003.
—. The young philosopher: a novel. In four volumes. By Charlotte Smith. London: T. Cadell, Jun. and W. Davies, 1798.
Stanton, Judith Phillips. ‘Charlotte Smith’s “Literary Business”: Income, Patronage, and Indigence’, 1 (January 1987).
—. ‘Statistical Profile of Women Writing in English from 1660–1800’, in Eighteenth-Century Women and the Arts, ed. Frederick M. Keener and Susan E. Lorsch. New York: Greenwood, 1988.
Staves, Susan. ‘“Books without which I cannot write”: How did Eighteenth-century Women Writers Get the Books They Read?’, Women and Material Culture, 1660–1830, ed. Jennie Batchelor and Cora Kaplan. New York: Palgrave, 2007.
Strahan, Andrew, and Thomas Cadell. The following valuable books are printed for A. Strahan and T. Cadell, in the Strand. 1788–1793. London: A. Strahan and T. Cadell, 1788–1793, Eighteenth Century Collections Online. Gale. Simon Fraser University. 4 April 2016.
Turner, Cheryl. Living by the Pen: Women writers in the eighteenth century. New York: Routledge, 1994.
Wells, Helena. Constantia Neville; or, the West Indian. A novel. In three volumes. By Helena Wells, Author of ‘the Step-Mother,’ &c. London: T. Cadell, Jun. and W. Davies, 1800.
Woolf, Virginia. A Room of One’s Own. London: Penguin, 2004.
(1) Michael Sadleir, ‘Review of The Publishing Firm of Cadell and Davies: Select Correspondence and Accounts, 1793–1836’, The Library, 19: 3 (1938), pp. 364–8 (p. 365).
(2) Catherine Dille, ‘Cadell, Thomas, the elder (1742–1802)’, Oxford Dictionary of National Biography, (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2004), online edn., January 2008. Simon Fraser University. 10 December 2013. Web.
(3) Michelle Levy, ‘Women and Print Culture, 1780–1830’, in The History of British Women’s Writing, 1750–1830, ed. Cora Kaplan and Jennie Batchelor, and Jacqueline Labbe (vol. ed.), 5 (Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, 2010), pp. 29–46 (p. 31–2).
(4) Virginia Woolf, A Room of One’s Own (London: Penguin, 2004). p. 18.
(5) Of course, Woolf was mistaken in the claim that middle-class women began to write in the late eighteenth century, as they had been writing for centuries. As we now know, however, they often wrote for manuscript circulation, though even their print record was largely obscured to and thus unknown by Woolf.
(6) Judith Phillips Stanton, ‘Statistical Profile of Women Writing in English from 1660–1800’, in Eighteenth-Century Women and the Arts, ed. Frederick M. Keener and Susan E. Lorsch (New York: Greenwood, 1988), pp. 247–54 (p. 248).
(7) Michelle Levy, ‘Do Women Have a Book History?’, Studies in Romanticism, New Directions in Romanticism and Gender: Essays in Honor of Anne K. Mellor, 53: 3 (Fall 2014), pp. 297–314 (pp. 303–4).
(8) EVELYN PAPERS. Vols. DXIX–DXXII. ‘Original Letters collected by William Upcott of the London Institution. Distinguished Women’; 17th–19th cent. (1824), Add. MS 78686–78689, British Library.
(9) Devoney Looser, ‘British Women Writers, Big Data, and Big Biography, 1780–1830’, Women’s Writing, 22: 2 (May 2015), pp. 165–71 (p. 165).
(10) Jan Fergus, and Janice Farrar Thaddeus, ‘Women, publishers, and money, 1790–1820’, Studies in Eighteenth-Century Culture, 17 (1987), pp. 191–207; Stanton, ‘Statistical Profile of Women Writing in English’, pp. 247–54; Cheryl Turner, Living by the Pen: Women writers in the eighteenth century (New York: Routledge, 1994).
(11) Theodore Besterman, The Publishing Firm of Cadell and Davies: Select Correspondence and Accounts, 1793–1836 (London: Oxford University, 1938).
(12) The letter count of Charlotte Turner Smith’s letters is from Charlotte Smith, The Collected Letters of Charlotte Smith, ed. Judith Phillips Stanton (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 2003). p. xxxiii. Other totals are our own.
(13) This bibliography was compiled by examining the following sources: English Short Title Catalogue, [online] Available at: <estc.bl.uk>; Jackson Bibliography of Romantic Poetry, (2016), [online] Available at: <jacksonbibliography.library.utoronto.ca>; Eighteenth-Century Collections Online, Gale [online] Available at: <gale.com/primary-sources/eighteenth-century-collections-online>; Andrew Strahan and Thomas Cadell, The following valuable books are printed for A. Strahan and T. Cadell, in the Strand. 1788–1793 (London: A. Strahan and T. Cadell, 1788–1793), in Eighteenth Century Collections Online. Gale. Simon Fraser University. 4 April 2016; Cadell and Davies, The following valuable books are printed for T. Cadell, Jun. and W. Davies (Successors to Mr. Cadell) in the Strand, 1796; 1797 (London: Cadell and Davies, 1796; 1797), in Eighteenth Century Collections Online. Gale. Simon Fraser University. 4 April 2016.
(14) The business model, at least for women, seems to contradict Cadell, Sr.’s comments to Gibbon in 1787: ‘I had rather risk my fortune with a few such Authors as Mr Gibbon, Dr Robertson, D Hume … than be the publisher of a hundred insipid publications’.
(15) See also Kirstyn Leuner, ‘Romantic Women Writers and The Stainforth Library: “Making Women Writers Count” (NASSR 2016)’, Digital Romanticisms, (2016), n.p., in which she states: ‘Of these 940 authors with publications in the Romantic era, those with the most titles in the [Stainforth] library include Hannah More (99), Hannah Cowley (67), Elizabeth Inchbald (67), Susannah Centlivre (42), Felicia Hemans (36), Elizabeth Rowe (31), Anne Plumptre (26), Anna Seward (23), and L. E. L. (Maclean) (22)’.
(16) There is some evidence that some of the edition sizes were quite large: On 30 October 1825, a member of the firm informs her ‘that it was requisite to put to Press again the “Spirit of Prayer” and requested to know whether she had any corrections to make – Suggested that the same number should be printed as before viz: 1500’; Letter from Hannah More to Thomas Cadell, Jr, 30 October 1825, Houghton Library, MS Hyde 69, folio 30, Cambridge, United States of America.
(17) What we see with the disappearance of Hemans from Figure 5.2 has been noted in Paula R. Feldman, ‘The Poet and the Profits: Felicia Hemans and the Literary Marketplace’, Keats–Shelley Journal, 46 (1997), pp. 148–76.
(18) Michael Everton, The Grand Chorus of Complaint: Authors and the Business Ethics of American Publishing (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2011).
(19) Letter from Rose Lawrence to C & D, 25 October 1802, Edinburgh University Library Q. 15. 3 folio La II. 647/247, Edinburgh, United Kingdom; Maria Riddell., Metrical Miscellany (London: T. Cadell, Jun. and W. Davies, 1802).
(20) Letter from Hester Lynch Piozzi to Thomas Cadell, 7 June 1785, Houghton Library MS Hyde 69 folio 34, Cambridge, United States of America.
(21) Hester Lynch Piozzi, Anecdotes of the late Samuel Johnson, LL.D. during the last twenty years of his life. By Hesther Lynch Piozzi. The fourth edition. (London: T. Cadell, 1786), Eighteenth Century Collections Online. Gale. Simon Fraser University. 18 April 2016.
(22) Hannah More, Christian Morals (London: T. Cadell, Jun. and W. Davies, 1813).
(23) Letter from Hannah More to C & D, 27 Aug, Bodleian Libraries MSS. Montagu d. 19 folio 134, Oxford, United Kingdom.
(24) Letter from Ann Nutburn to Thomas Cadell, 17 December 1772, Special Collections, Cadbury Research Library, University of Birmingham CD 47, Birmingham, United Kingdom.
(25) Letter from Eliza Dorothea Tuite to Thomas Cadell, 31 January 1796, Bodleian Libraries MSS. Montagu d. 19, Oxford, United Kingdom.
(26) In a subsequent letter, ‘Lady Tuite begs her Acct: may be immediately made out, as the Person for whose benefit the Book was published, is in want of the Money whatever it may be’. Letters from Eliza Dorothea Tuite to C & D, 8 and 28 March 1796, Bodleian Libraries MSS. Montagu d. 19 folios 101–2, Oxford, United Kingdom.
(27) Eliza Dorothea Tuite, Poems by Lady Tuite. (London: T. Cadell, Jun. and W. Davies, 1796), Eighteenth Century Collections Online. Gale. Simon Fraser University. 20 April 2016.
(28) Letter from C & D to Eliza Dorothea Tuite, 1796, Bodleian Libraries MS Montagu d. 19 folio 101, Oxford, United Kingdom.
(29) Jan Fergus discusses publication on commission in ‘The Professional Women Writer’, in The Cambridge Companion to Jane Austen, ed. Edward Copeland and Juliet McMaster (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1997), pp. 12–31. p. 17. Besterman confirms that C & D used both methods (as well as payment for copyright): pp. xxx–xxxi.
(30) According to Turner, ‘Self-financed publication could result also from a combination of a strong desire to get into print coupled with the money to finance it, or it might be an attempt to avoid sharing the profits with ‘the Trade’, a practice which was discouraged by the booksellers. Whatever the motivation, this action required a substantial investment on the part of the author, reflecting either desperation, or the author’s considerable faith in the value or saleability of her work’ (p. 113).
(31) Letter from Hannah More to Thomas Cadell, November 1775, Houghton Library, Cambridge, United States of America; Hannah More, Sir Eldred of the Bower, and the Bleeding Rock: Two legendary tales. By Miss Hannah More. (London: T. Cadell, 1776).
(32) Mary Alden Hopkins, Hannah More and Her Circle (New York: Longmans, Green and Co., 1947), p. 63. In fact, the first publication of these ballads was 1776.
(33) Mona Scheuermann, In Praise of Poverty: Hannah More Counters Thomas Paine and the Radical Threat (Lexington: The University Press of Kentucky, 2002), p. 1.
(34) Patricia Demers, The World of Hannah More (Lexington: University Press of Kentucky, 1996), p. 41.
(35) Salomon Gessner, The Works of Solomon Gessner, Translated from the German. With some account of his life and writings. In three volumes, trans. Rose Lawrence (London: Cadell and Davies, 1802).
(36) James Currie, ‘Letter to C & D, 8 Aug. 1800’. 1800. MS University of Glasgow, Centre for Robert Burns Studies, Glasgow. The Letters of James Currie (1756–1805). 17 April 2016. Web.
(37) C & D, ‘Letter to James Currie, 11 August 1800’. 1800. MS University of Glasgow, Centre for Robert Burns Studies, Glasgow. The Letters of James Currie (1756–1805). 17 April 2016. Web.
(38) Letter from Rose Lawrence to C & D, 18 October 1800[?], Edinburgh University Library Q. 15. 3 folio La II. 647/244, Edinburgh, United Kingdom.
(39) Letter from Rose Lawrence to C & D, 23 December 1800[?], Edinburgh University Library Q. 15. 3 folio La II. 647/246, Edinburgh, United Kingdom.
(40) Joanna Baillie, A series of plays: in which it is attempted to delineate the stronger passions of the mind. Each passion being the subject of a tragedy and a comedy. By Joanna Baillie. (London: T. Cadell, Jun. and W. Davies, 1798).
(41) Letter from Joanna Baillie to C & D, 31 December 18[??], National Library of Scotland Acc 9026, Edinburgh, United Kingdom.
(42) Letter from Joanna Baillie to C & D, 31 December 18[??], National Library of Scotland Acc 9026, Edinburgh, United Kingdom.
(43) Letter from Margaret Holford (Elder) to C & D, 14 October 1809, British Library Add. MS 78687, London, United Kingdom. pp. 1–2; Holford, M., Wallace; or, The Fight of Falkirk. A metrical romance (London: T. Cadell, Jun. and W. Davies, 1809).
(44) Letter from Margaret Holford (Younger) to C & D, 15 November 1809[?], British Library, Add. MS 78687, London, United Kingdom.
(45) Letter from Hannah More to Thomas Cadell, Jr., 5 June, Bodleian Libraries MSS. Montagu d. 19 folio 131, Oxford, United Kingdom; More, H., Hints Towards Forming the Character of a Young Princess (London, T. Cadell, Jun. and W. Davies, 1805).
(46) Letter from Hannah More to Thomas Cadell, British Library Add. MS 78688, London, United Kingdom.
(47) Letter from Hannah More to C & D, 31 July 1805, British Library Add. MS 78688, London, United Kingdom.
(48) Letter from Hannah More to C & D, 24 December 1809, Houghton Library MS Hyde 69, Cambridge, United States of America.
(49) Hannah More, Coelebs in Search of a Wife, ed. Patricia Demers (Peterborough: Broadview, 2007), p. 103, note 1.
(50) Letter from C & D to Eliza Dorothea Tuite, 1796, Bodleian Libraries MSS. Montagu d. 19 folio 101, Oxford, United Kingdom.
(51) Philip Gaskell, A New Introduction to Bibliography: The classic manual of bibliography (Delaware: Oak Knoll Press, 1992), p. 115.
(52) Letter from Margaret Holford (Elder) to C & D, 14 October 1809, British Library Add. MS 78687, London, United Kingdom.
(53) Letter from Hannah More to C & D, 14 December 1798[?], Houghton Library MS Hyde 69 folio 29, Cambridge, United States of America; Hannah More, Strictures on the modern system of female education. With a view of the principles and conduct prevalent among women of rank and fortune. By Hannah More. In two volumes. (London, T. Cadell, Jun. and W. Davies, 1799).
(54) Letter from Maria Graham to Thomas Cadell, Jr., 7 September 1804, British Library Add. MS 78687, London, United Kingdom; letters from Miss Iremonger to C & D, 13 June 1796 and 1796, Bodleian Libraries MSS. Eng. lett. c. 141, Oxford, United Kingdom; letter from Eliza Dorothea Tuite to C & D, 8 March 1796, Bodleian Libraries MSS. Montagu d. 19, folio 101, Oxford, United Kingdom.
(55) Helena Wells, Constantia Neville; or, the West Indian. A novel. In three volumes. By Helena Wells, Author of ‘the Step-Mother,’ &c. (London: T. Cadell, Jun. and W. Davies, 1800).
(56) Letter from Mary Anne Neri to C & D, 25 June 1803, Huntington Library mssCD 1–529 box 7 folder CD 337–93, folio 360, San Marino, United States of America.
(57) Letter from Hester Lynch Piozzi to Thomas Cadell, 20 October 1785, Houghton Library MS Hyde 69, Cambridge, United States of America.
(58) Letter from Hannah Cowley to Thomas Cadell, British Library Add. MS 78686, London, United Kingdom.
(59) Letter from Hannah More to Thomas Cadell, Jr., 21 June, British Library Add. MS 78688, London, United Kingdom.
(60) Letter from Frances Brooke to Thomas Cadell, 5 January [pre-1781], Houghton Library MS Hyde 69 folio 7, Cambridge, United States of America.
(61) Letter from Hannah More to C & D, 10 December 18, British Library Add. MS 6048, London, United Kingdom.
(62) Letter from Hannah More to C & D, 16 March 1801, Houghton Library, Cambridge, United States of America.
(63) Letter from Hester Lynch Piozzi to Thomas Cadell, 17 February 1786, Houghton Library MS Hyde 69, Cambridge, Unites States of Americ a; letter from Hester Lynch Piozzi to Thomas Cadell, 3 March 1786, Houghton Library MS Hyde 69, Cambridge, United States of America.
(64) Letter from Hannah More to C & D, 25 November, Bodleian Libraries MSS. Montagu d. 19 folio 130, Oxford, United Kingdom; letter from Mrs. Martineau to William Davies, 1 June 1795, Bodleian Libraries MSS. Eng. lett. Box 548 folder 43–64 folio 61, Oxford, United Kingdom.
(65) Letter from Mary Anne Neri to C & D, Huntington Library mssCD 1–529 box 7 folder CD 337–93, folio 361, San Marino, United States of America; Mary Anne Neri, The Eve of San-Pietro. A Tale. In Three Volumes. (London: T. Cadell, Jun. and W. Davies, 1804), Eighteenth Century Collections Online. Gale. Simon Fraser University. 4 April 2016.
(66) Letter from Lady Mary Champion de Crespigny to William Davies, 11 July 18[05?], Edinburgh University Library Q. 15. 3 folio La II. 646/105, Edinburgh, United Kingdom; Lady Mary Champion de Crespigny, Letters of Advice from a Mother to her Son (London: T. Cadell, Jun. and W. Davies, 1803).
(67) Letter from Joanna Baillie to C & D, 31 December 18[??], National Library of Scotland Acc 9026, Edinburgh, United Kingdom.
(68) Jean-Baptiste de la Curne de Sainte-Palaye, The Literary History of the Troubadours, trans. Susannah Dobson (London: T. Cadell, 1779), Eighteenth Century Collections Online. Gale. Simon Fraser University. 12 April 2016.
(69) Letter from Susannah Dobson to Thomas Cadell, British Library Add. MS 78686, London, United Kingdom.
(70) Thomas Cadell, ‘Letter to Hester Lynch Piozzi, 24 January 1786’. 1786. MS. Electronic Enlightenment Project, Bodleian Libraries, University of Oxford. 2 May 2016. Web.
(71) Letter from Hester Lynch Piozzi to Thomas Cadell, 17 February 1786, Houghton Library MS Hyde 69, Cambridge, United States of America. In a letter dated 24 January 1786, Cadell had asked Piozzi to either name her price or split the profits; Thomas Cadell, ‘Letter to Hester Lynch Piozzi, 24 January 1786’. 1786. MS Electronic Enlightenment Project, Bodleian Libraries, University of Oxford. 2 May 2016. Web.
(72) Letter from Hester Lynch Piozzi to Thomas Cadell, 20 May 1786, Houghton Library MS Hyde 69 folio 34, Cambridge, United States of America.
(73) For a fuller discussion of the printing of this work, as well as Piozzi’s dispute with Boswell, see James L. Clifford, ‘The printing of Mrs Piozzi’s anecdotes of Dr. Johnson’, The Bulletin of the John Rylands Library 20: 1 (1936), pp. 157–72.
(74) Hester Lynch Piozzi, ‘Letter to Thomas Cadell, 20 May 1786’. 1786. MS Electronic Enlightenment Project, Bodleian Libraries, University of Oxford. 2 May 2016. Web. Note 1.
(75) Thomas Cadell, ‘Letter to Hester Lynch Piozzi, 24 January 1786’. 1786. MS Electronic Enlightenment Project, Bodleian Libraries, University of Oxford. 2 May 2016. Web. Note 6.
(76) Hester Lynch Piozzi, ‘Letter to Samuel Lysons, 21 July 1789’. 1789. MS Electronic Enlightenment Project, Bodleian Libraries, University of Oxford. 2 May 2016. Web.
(77) Letter from Eliza Dorothea Tuite to C & D, 28 March 1797, Bodleian Libraries MSS. Montagu d. 19 folio 102, Oxford, United Kingdom.
(78) Letter from Henrietta Maria Bowdler to C & D, 20 November 1806, Beinecke Rare Book and Manuscript Library MSS 510 box 1 folder 9, New Haven, United States of America.
(79) Letter from Hannah More to C & D, Houghton Library, Cambridge, United States of America.
(80) Letter from Anne Persode Blair to C & D [including a reply from C & D, 1 July 1806], 11 June 1806, Bodleian Libraries MSS. Eng. lett. c. 141, Oxford, United Kingdom.
(81) Bills from Charlotte Smith to Thomas Cadell, 30 June and 16 July 1794, Beinecke Rare Book and Manuscript Library MSS 510 box 4 folder 116, New Haven, United States of America; bills from Charlotte Smith to C & D, various [19 December 1794, 30 May 1795, 14 December 1796, 23 December 1796, 17 January 1797], Beinecke Rare Book and Manuscript Library MSS 510 box 4 folder 116, New Haven, United States of America.
(82) Letter from C & D to Charlotte Smith, Beinecke Rare Book and Manuscript Library MSS 510 box 4 folder 114, New Haven, United States of America.
(83) Susan Staves, ‘“Books without which I cannot write”: How did Eighteenth-century Women Writers Get the Books They Read?’, in Women and Material Culture, 1660–1830, ed. Jennie Batchelor and Cora Kaplan (New York: Palgrave, 2007), pp. 192–211. p. 196.
(84) Charlotte Smith, The young philosopher: a novel. In four volumes. By Charlotte Smith. (London: T. Cadell, Jun. and W. Davies, 1798).
(85) Letter from Charlotte Smith to C & D, 27 June 1798, British Library Add. MS 78689, London, United Kingdom.
(86) Letter from Hannah More to C & D, 16 March 1801, Houghton Library, Cambridge, United States of America.
(87) Letter from Eliza Dorothea Tuite to C & D, 28 March 1797, Bodleian Libraries MSS. Montagu d. 19 folio 102, Oxford, United Kingdom.
(88) Letter from Hannah Cowley to Thomas Cadell, British Library Add. MS 78686, London, United Kingdom; Cowley, H. The Belle’s Stratagem (London: T. Cadell, 1780).
(89) Letter from Margaret Holford (elder) to C & D, 14 October 1809, British Library Add. MS 78687, London, United Kingdom.
(90) Letter from Miss Savage to Thomas Cadell, Jr., 10 July 1829, Bodleian Libraries MSS. Eng. lett. c. 141, Oxford, United Kingdom.
(91) Letter from Thomas Cadell, Jr., to Miss Savage [Cecilia Mary Cadell?], 14 July 1829, Bodleian Libraries MSS. Eng. lett. c. 141, Oxford, United Kingdom; Cecilia Mary Cadell, Massenburg. A Tale. In three volumes (London: T. Cadell, Jun., 1825).
(92) Letter from Thomas Cadell, Jr., to Miss Savage, 14 July 1829, Bodleian Libraries MSS. Eng. lett. c. 141, Oxford, United Kingdom.
(93) Letter from Anne Persode Blair to C & D [contains reply from C & D, 1 July 1806], 11 June 1806, Bodleian Libraries MSS. Eng. lett. c. 141, Oxford, United Kingdom.
(94) Letter from Margaret Riollay to C & D, 10 July 1799, Bodleian Libraries MSS. Montagu d. 19, Oxford, United Kingdom.
(95) Letter from Thomas Cadell, Jr. to Margaret Riollay, 3 August 1799, Bodleian Libraries MSS. Montagu d. 19, Oxford, United Kingdom.
(96) Thomas Cadell, ‘Letter to Hester Lynch Piozzi, 24 Jan. 1786’. 1786. MS Electronic Enlightenment Project, Bodleian Libraries, University of Oxford. 2 May 2016. Web.
(97) Letter from Hester Lynch Piozzi to Thomas Cadell, 17 February 1786, Houghton Library MS Hyde 69, Cambridge, United States of America.