John Chapman to George Combe, London, 3 March 1854
Title
John Chapman to George Combe, London, 3 March 1854
Title
John Chapman to George Combe, London, 3 March 1854
Sender
John Chapman
Recipient
George Combe
Date(s)
- 1854-03-03
Place
London
Letter Content
John Chapman to George Combe, London, 3 March 1854
MS: National Library of Scotland. Endorsed: London 3 March 1854. | John Chapman | 5 March ansd.
London 142 Strand | March 3. 1854.
George Combe Esq.
My dear Sir
I have received your two letters of yesterday's date. As you do not regret having sent the one first written I beg to say that its reception by me was needless as a proof that you make every possible exertion to fulfil any engagement you may enter into; for I never doubted your endeavours in this respect, and as the language of the letter is such as I think one gentleman ought not to write to another without larger and better ascertained grounds of complaint than those which I believe you to have in this instance, I trust that the few words I may have to say will induce a conviction on your part that if your letter does not insult me it at least does me a gross injustice.
You say I expressed a desire that you would furnish me with an article on prison discipline; if my memory serves me rightly it would be more correct to say that you enquired whether such an article would be acceptable -- adding an expression of your willingness to write it, and that I then in answer said I should be glad to have it. But so far from wishing you to write it "at the sacrifice of your health and convenience" was I, that I expressed a readiness to insert the paper chiefly because I believed its publication would give you pleasure. For however important the subject may be in itself, and however ably you might treat it, there were others which at the time seemed to me of quite equal if not more pressing urgency.
With reference to your complaint that the publication of your paper was postponed from January to April I can only say that in politely asking your assent to that postponement I was only acting conformably to long recognized editorial custom which necessarily accords great freedom and option in the management of a review; and it seems to me that if up to the last day of going to press such freedom were witheld all really efficient editorship would be at an end.
The cause of the delays since January in no respect lies with me, whatever you may think of my "style of doing business"; and I believe they would have been avoided had your communications been made to me directly instead of through a third person -- a plan which has evidently resulted in misunderstanding all round. Miss Evans requested proofs in slip of the article; slips 1 to 20 were sent to her February 7; 21 to 28 were sent February 8th; 29 to 36 were sent February 9th, and 37 to 46 on February 10th since which time I have been urgent for a decision as to whether the pamphlet could and would be cut down to the dimensions of an article, and your note of (I think) the 27th of February was the first affirmative intimation I could obtain. It is I who have been so long kept in suspense -- pledged on the one hand to insert your article if presented in time and if reduced to the prescribed limits, and, while uncertain whether it would be supplied, bound on the other hand to provide an article, at the cost of £20, to go in its place in the event of my not receiving it. This I did at the very latest date at which I dared to run the risk of uncertainty.
After Miss Evans had corrected the slips she returned them and requested a proof in pages or pamphlet form -- saying she could give no decisive opinion as to the reduction of the article until she had it in that form. She received sheets A, B, C, D, and E February 18th and F on the 21st.
Before proceeding further in this matter I wish to have a distinct understanding, if the article be inserted, as to the amount of time which you will be willing shall elapse after the Review is published before the article shall be published as a pamphlet; also, that after what has passed, I cannot consent simply to place the amount of remuneration for the article (£20) to the credit of your account but that I must pay you in cash as I do other contributors. I am, my dear Sir
Yours sincerely,
John Chapman.
MS: National Library of Scotland. Endorsed: London 3 March 1854. | John Chapman | 5 March ansd.
London 142 Strand | March 3. 1854.
George Combe Esq.
My dear Sir
I have received your two letters of yesterday's date. As you do not regret having sent the one first written I beg to say that its reception by me was needless as a proof that you make every possible exertion to fulfil any engagement you may enter into; for I never doubted your endeavours in this respect, and as the language of the letter is such as I think one gentleman ought not to write to another without larger and better ascertained grounds of complaint than those which I believe you to have in this instance, I trust that the few words I may have to say will induce a conviction on your part that if your letter does not insult me it at least does me a gross injustice.
You say I expressed a desire that you would furnish me with an article on prison discipline; if my memory serves me rightly it would be more correct to say that you enquired whether such an article would be acceptable -- adding an expression of your willingness to write it, and that I then in answer said I should be glad to have it. But so far from wishing you to write it "at the sacrifice of your health and convenience" was I, that I expressed a readiness to insert the paper chiefly because I believed its publication would give you pleasure. For however important the subject may be in itself, and however ably you might treat it, there were others which at the time seemed to me of quite equal if not more pressing urgency.
With reference to your complaint that the publication of your paper was postponed from January to April I can only say that in politely asking your assent to that postponement I was only acting conformably to long recognized editorial custom which necessarily accords great freedom and option in the management of a review; and it seems to me that if up to the last day of going to press such freedom were witheld all really efficient editorship would be at an end.
The cause of the delays since January in no respect lies with me, whatever you may think of my "style of doing business"; and I believe they would have been avoided had your communications been made to me directly instead of through a third person -- a plan which has evidently resulted in misunderstanding all round. Miss Evans requested proofs in slip of the article; slips 1 to 20 were sent to her February 7; 21 to 28 were sent February 8th; 29 to 36 were sent February 9th, and 37 to 46 on February 10th since which time I have been urgent for a decision as to whether the pamphlet could and would be cut down to the dimensions of an article, and your note of (I think) the 27th of February was the first affirmative intimation I could obtain. It is I who have been so long kept in suspense -- pledged on the one hand to insert your article if presented in time and if reduced to the prescribed limits, and, while uncertain whether it would be supplied, bound on the other hand to provide an article, at the cost of £20, to go in its place in the event of my not receiving it. This I did at the very latest date at which I dared to run the risk of uncertainty.
After Miss Evans had corrected the slips she returned them and requested a proof in pages or pamphlet form -- saying she could give no decisive opinion as to the reduction of the article until she had it in that form. She received sheets A, B, C, D, and E February 18th and F on the 21st.
Before proceeding further in this matter I wish to have a distinct understanding, if the article be inserted, as to the amount of time which you will be willing shall elapse after the Review is published before the article shall be published as a pamphlet; also, that after what has passed, I cannot consent simply to place the amount of remuneration for the article (£20) to the credit of your account but that I must pay you in cash as I do other contributors. I am, my dear Sir
Yours sincerely,
John Chapman.
Signature
John Chapman.
Citation
John Chapman, John Chapman to George Combe, London, 3 March 1854, Complete George Eliot Letters(2026), George Eliot Archive, edited by Beverley Park Rilett. https://GeorgeEliotArchive.org, Accessed September 7, 2026. https://www.georgeeliotarchive.org/items/show/95493