 | |  |
114
II.
At this point we may turn to the legal documents of 1875 and extract their evidence concerning the year 1870. Before he instituted his lawsuit Tennyson had written to Pickering, as the owner of the only copy of the Tale known not to be in private hands, and had received in reply an account of some events of 1870. In consequence the Bill of Complaint composed by Tennyson's solicitors contained the following passages:
5. The Plaintiff has recently [i.e., in 1875] discovered that the
Defendant Richard Herne Shepherd of No. 5 Hereford Square Brompton
has procured the said Poem to be reprinted from a copy obtained by him in
a surreptitious manner. . . .
6. . . . Some years ago [i.e., in 1870] the said Mr. Pickering lent his
copy to the Defendant. The Defendant without Mr. Pickering's knowledge
or sanction took a copy of the said Poem and caused it to be reprinted. On
discovering what the Defendant had done Mr. Pickering remonstrated with
him and called upon him to give up all the copies of the said Poem in his
possession. The Defendant pretended to comply with this demand but it
appears that he kept back one or more copies. . . .
The reprint of 1870 was made the subject of a magnificently thorough set
of Interrogatories by the poet's solicitors. Only the latter half
of them need be quoted here. Shepherd was required to say[7]
6. . . . Who were the Printers (by name and address) employed the
Defendant to reprint the said Poem? and how many copies were ordered by
the Defendant, and how many copies were in fact printed and for what
price, and what did the Defendant pay for the same? Did not the said Mr.
Pickering (and when, and how, and under what circumstances) discover that
the Defendant had caused the said Poem to be printed? Did not the said Mr.
Pickering then remonstrate with the Defendant on the subject? And did he
not call upon the Defendant to deliver up all the copies of the said Poem in
his possession or power? Did not the Defendant pretend to comply with
such demands?
7. Set forth how many copies were printed by the Order of the
Defendant before the said Mr. Pickering called upon the Defendant to
deliver up all copies in his possession or power. Set forth what has become
of all such copies of the said Poem, and if any were sold by the Defendant;
set forth when, and to whom, and for what price or consideration each and
every
copy was sold. Set forth how many copies were delivered to the said Mr.
Pickering, and when such delivery took place. Were any of the copies
disposed of in any other manner? and if so, how, and to whom? Was any
copy (or were any copies, and if so how many) retained by the Printer, and
what has become of the same (and of any copy so retained)?
115
In his Answer Shepherd replied at length:
5 — I admit that the plaintiff has recently discovered, and that
it
is the fact, that I have procured the said poem to be reprinted; but I deny
and it is entirely untrue that such imprint was from a copy obtained by me
in a surreptitious manner. . . .
6— . . . . In the month of June 1870 a copy of the said poem
was
included in a sale by auction. . . . The library was on view for many days
prior to the day of sale and I inspected the poem during such time. The
copy of the said poem was put up for sale with two other early volumes
written by the plaintiff, and was at the auction knocked down to and
ostensibly purchased by Mr. Pickering of 196, Picadilly. A number of
booksellers (amongst them the said Mr. Pickering and Mr. John Pearson of
No. 15, York Street, Covent Garden) attended the said sale, and entered
into an arrangement (commonly known as a knock out) by which they
agreed not to bid against each other at the auction, but that any lot knocked
down to any one of them should afterwards be put up for sale amongst
themselves, and that the sum obtained in excess of the amount bid at the
auction should be equally divided amongst the several parties to the
arrangement. In pursuance of this arrangement the copy [of the] poem in
question was some two or three day after the sale put up by the said
booksellers; and as the said Mr. B. M. Pickering offered the highest price,
he became the real purchaser thereof. Before, however, the resale
mentioned took place, the volume was taken charge of by and remained in
the custody of the said Mr. Pickering. Whilst in such custody and
possession, and with the knowledge and sanction of the said Mr. Pickering,
and at his request, I transcribed the said volume upon his own premises.
After the said volume had been secured by the said Mr. Pickering by such
resale as hereinbefore mentioned, he on two or three occasions lent it to me
in order that I might correct my transcript therefrom, and at the time of
making such loan I was placed under no promise or limitation with regard
to the said volume; no limitation was attempted to be placed upon my use
of the said book except as an afterthought later in the same year.[8]
116
7 — I caused the said poem to be reprinted in August 1870.
Such
reprint was from the transcript made by me as hereinbefore mentioned. The
printers I employed were Messrs Strangeways and Walden of 28, Castle
Street, Leicester Square. I ordered 50 copies to be struck off but I believe
the actual number printed was 54 or 55. Of these, 25 only were delivered
to me; the rest remained in the printers' hands. The fact of such reprint
came to the knowledge of the said Mr. Pickering in or about the month of
October 1870, and through information supplied by John Wilson of 93,
Great Russell Street, Bloomsbury. Mr. Pickering complained to me upon
the matter and asked me to deliver up all copies in my possession, and this,
although in no wise bound so to do, I agreed to and performed. I however
at the same time informed Mr. Pickering that I was unable to recall certain
copies that had been given away, and he consented that such copies should
be retained by their possessors. I also gave to
Mr. Pickering an order upon the printers to enable him to obtain possession
of the copies remaining in their hands, some 28 or 29 [read,
29
or 30] in number, Mr. Pickering agreeing at the same time to discharge
one-half of the printers' bill. I also succeeded in persuading some of the
second-hand booksellers who had purchased copies to return the same upon
being refunded the price they paid. The copies so returned were delivered
to the said Mr. Pickering.
8 — As hereinbefore stated 54 [read, 54 or 55]
copies
were printed by my order before Mr. Pickering called on me to deliver up
all copies in my possession or power. Of these
As the reader may calculate, at most 11 copies escaped destruction by
Pickering. (To anticipate, there is nothing to suggest he did not destroy the
copies he impounded.) Because the pamphlet received no publicity of any
kind, which would have advertised its rarity and desirability, for five years;
because only one copy that was sold had been bound; and because the
known recipients of gift copies were not likely to possess bibliographical
expertise, one would not expect more than 2 or 3 copies to have survived
until the present day.
- 12 copies were sold to Messrs. Walford Brothers of 320, Strand, for £2. Ten or eleven of these were afterwards given up to Mr. Pickering by Messrs. Walford, and the money paid for them refunded.
- 1 copy was sold to Mr. Pearson of 15, York Street, Covent Garden, for 3s. 6d. This was afterwards given up to Mr. Pickering and the money paid for it refunded.
- 1 copy was sold to Messrs. Willis & Sotheran of 136, Strand, for £1. This copy had been bound in morocco at an additional cost of 6s.
- 1 copy was given to E. R. Tenison, Esq., M.D., of 9, Keith Terrace, Shepherd's Bush.[9]
- 3 or more copies were given up by me to the said Mr. Pickering.
- 6 copies were given to Josiah Temple, Esq., of Grecian Cottage, Crown Hill, Upper Norwood, for himself and friends.[10]
- 1 copy was given away by me but to whom, I am unable to recollect. The distribution of the said copies both by sale and gift occurred in or about the month of September 1870.
- 28 or 29 [read, 29 or 30] copies were delivered by the printer on my order to Mr. Pickering. . . . To the best of my belief such delivery took place in December 1870. I retained a copy of the rough proof of such reprint and the same is now [1875] in my possession, and I am am ready and willing and hereby offer to deliver up the same to the plaintiff.
117
Much later, Shepherd wrote[11] that his reprint of 1870 was "without title, table of contents, or monograph, and it lacked completeness in regard to the collection of Minor Poems, while including some others afterwards acknowledged and restored." The consequences of the remark are radical. The reprint did not contain Shepherd's monograph on the Tale: Wise's "First Pirated Edition: 1870," which does contain
118
The auction record, in Book Auction Records, Book Prices Current, and American Book Prices Current [14] requires close inspection. There are 26 records of sales of copies of the Tale said to be dated 1870. On reference to the sale catalogues, one of these turns out to have been dated 1875; on the other hand, two examples said to have been dated 1868 and 1875, respectively, turn out to have been dated 1870,[15] so that the total rises to 27. Of these, according to the sale catalogues, 19 contained the monograph and were therefore examples of the forged "First" edition.[16] One record is too perfunctory to allow any deduction.[17] In the remaining 7 cases, reference to the sales-catalogues shows
119
| | |