nineteenth century || the fight at the top of the tree: vanity fair versus dombey and son

Rice University

The Fight at the Top of the Tree: Vanity Fair versus Dombey and SonAuthor(s): Robert L. PattenSource: Studies in English Literature, 1500-1900, Vol. 10, No. 4, Nineteenth Century (Autumn,1970), pp. 759-773Published by: Rice UniversityStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/449713 .

Accessed: 05/12/2014 23:09

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range ofcontent in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

.

Rice University is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Studies in EnglishLiterature, 1500-1900.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 128.235.251.160 on Fri, 5 Dec 2014 23:09:31 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=rice

http://www.jstor.org/stable/449713?origin=JSTOR-pdf

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp


The Fight at the Top of the Tree: Vanity Fair Versus Dombey and Son

ROBERT L. PATTEN

The rivalry between Thackeray and Dickens commenced with their nearly simultaneous issuing, by the same publisher in a similar format, of Vanity Fair (1847-1848) and Dombey and Son (1846-1848). Thackeray attributed to Dickens's jealousy the cooling of their relationship after 1847. However, comparison of the sales of the two novels reveals that Vanity Fair was not so successful as Dombey, losing money during its serial run. It did not earn enough to pay the publishers their con- tractual ?1,200 until mid-1850. On the other hand, bound volumes and the cheap edition (1853) sold well; by 1859 Thackeray had received over ?1,700 for his novel. Dombey was Dickens's first novel for which his former printers acted also as publishers; though he was worried about their inexperience, the novel was an instant and continued success, beating Martin Chuzzlewit by 10,000 copies per number and earn- ing for Dickens in twenty months ?9,165.11.10. Dickens had more buyers, and probably more readers, than Thackeray, and he was more re- munerative to his publishers. So on professional grounds he had little reason to be jealous. The causes of their strained relationship are more likely to be found in their divergent modes of life and philosophies of literature.

THACKERAY ATTRIBUTED to Dickens's jealousy the cooling of their relationship after 1847, remarking in April 1852 that Dickens "can't forgive me for my success with Vanity Fair; as if there were not room in the world for both of us!"' In Thackeray's view, Vanity Fair established him as "a sort of great man in my way-all but at the top of the tree: indeed there if the truth were known and having a great fight up there with Dickens."2 For fifteen years, the "fight" continued, as the two novelists issued new works concurrently: Vanity Fair (20 numbers in 19, 1847-1848) with Dombey and Son (20 numbers in 19, 1846-1848); Pendennis (24 numbers in 23, 1848-1850) with David Copperfield (20

'William Makepeace Thackeray, Letters and Private Papers, ed. Gor- don N. Ray, 4 vols. (Cambridge, Mass., 1945-1946), III, 37n. Dr. John Brown, friend of both writers, is reported to have said that Dickens "could not abide the brother so near the throne" (Alexander Peddie, Recollections of Dr. John Brown [London, 1894], p. 177, quoted in Gordon N. Ray, "Dickens versus Thackeray: the Garrick Club Affair," PMLA, LXIX [1954], 817). 'Thackeray, Letters, II, 333.



760 VANITY FAIR VERSUS DOMBEY AND SON

numbers in 19, 1849-1850); Henry Esmond (3 vols., 1852) with Bleak House (20 numbers in 19, 1852-1853); The New- comes (24 numbers in 23, 1853-1855) with Hard Times (Household Words, April-August 1854); The Virginians (24 numbers, 1857-1859) with A Tale of Two Cities (All the Year Round, April-November 1859) ; and Philip (Cornhall, January 1861-August 1862) with Great Expectations (All the Year Round, December 1860-August 1861). Striking similarities in format and subject matter further encouraged comparison, many of the intellectuals agreeing with Jane Carlyle that Thackeray "beats Dickens out of the world."3

Until recently, however, it has not been possible to estimate their comparative sales, except in very general terms, because it was supposed that most of the relevant publishers' records had been destroyed. But when the offices of Punch were moved in July 1969 from Bouverie to Tudor Street, the "Paper and Print" ledgers of the original firm, Bradbury and Evans, were located.4 These, combined with the accounts rendered to Dickens semi-annually by his publishers and now on deposit in the Forster Collection of the Victoria and Albert Museum, enable us to contrast more precisely the respective fortunes of the two authors.

The closest similarity occurs in the first instance of rivalry, Vanity Fair and Dombey and Son. Both novels appeared in twenty monthly numbers as nineteen, each number contain- ing thirty-two pages of letterpress and two full-page illustrations, though Thackeray also supplied designs for woodcuts used as initials and at several important points in the text.5 Bradbury and Evans printed, published, advertised, and dis- tributed both novels: Dickens had left Chapman and Hall in 1844 because of disagreements caused by the anemic sales of Martin Chuzzlewit and the slim profits of A Christmas Carol, while Thackeray, after trying several other publishers, in-

'Gordon N. Ray, Thackeray, 2 vols. (London, 1955-1958), I, 427. 'Miss Marilyn Lawes, Librarian of Bradbury Agnew & Company, after much searching finally tracked down these ledgers; to her, and to Mr. A. V. Caudery, Chairman and Managing Director of Punch Publi- cations Ltd., for permission to quote from the records, I am greatly indebted. For permission to quote from publishers' records in the Vic- toria and Albert Museum, I am grateful to the Keeper of the Library, Mr. J. P. Harthan. 6See Donald Hannah, "'The Author's own candles': The Significance of the Illustrations to Vanzity Fair," in Renaissance and Modern Essays, ed. G. R. Hibbard (London, 1966), 119-127.



ROBERT L. PATTEN 761

cluding Henry Colburn, finally persuaded the printers already known to him through Punch to issue his "Pen and Pencil Sketches of English Society."6 Thus for both authors the printing firm was venturing on previously unmapped terri- tory. The novels came out within three months of one another, Dombey running from October 1846 to April 1848, Vanity Fair from January 1847 to July 1848. In both works, family pride, the absence of love, the vanities of materialism, the death of an only son and heir, play prominent roles. For each author, the success of his work marked a favorable turn- ing point: Dickens at last became financially secure when he received the unexpectedly large profits from the first four numbers of Dombey in the spring of 1847; Thackeray paid off ?300 in pressing debts out of his salary for the first six months of Vanity Fair. Finally, each author was intensely aware of the other's work, though Thackeray's spontaneous enthusiasm for Dombey appears more genuine and generous than Dick- ens's initial polite congratulations. But then, Dickens strongly disapproved of Thackeray's parodies in "Punch's Prize Novel- ists," and may have sensed, especially in the early chapters of Vanity Fair, what he interpreted as another instance of "depreciating or vulgarizing" authors.7

The sales of the two novels reveal that, despite having the same publisher and distribution machinery, and similar format and themes, the fortunes of the two books differed exten- sively. Thackeray had yet to gain wide public favor; he could please the readers of the higher-class journals, with their limited circulations, but had not captured a larger general

'Sir William Fraser in Hic et Ubique says sixteen publishers rejected the manuscript, but Henry Sayre Van Duzer claims to have seen a letter of Vizetelly's denying this assertion (A Thackeray Library [Port Washington, N. Y., 1965], p. 132). Gordon Ray guesses "that Colburn was the last in a series of '3 or 4 publishers' whom Thackeray had tried," an estimate which Geoffrey and Kathleen Tillotson accept ("In- troduction," Vanity Fair [Boston, 1963], p. xvii). 7Thackeray, Letters, II, 336-337. However, in a speech in support of the General Theatrical Fund, as well as elsewhere, Dickens testified to his appreciation of the novel (Harry Stone, "Dickens's Knowledge of Thackeray's Writings," Dickensian, LIII [1957], 44-45). Despite their differences about "the Dignity of Literature," Dickens and Thackeray tried to be conciliatory throughout the 1850's, and K. J. Fielding notes that there is "not a single derogatory reference to his rival" to be found in Dickens's letters ("Thackeray and the 'Dignity of Literature,' " TLS, 26 September 1958, 552). Fielding's observa- vation supports that of Edgar Johnson, "The Garrick Club Affair," PMLA, LXXI (1956), 257.




public. Vanity Fair earned him a place in the forefront of English letters, and invitations to dine with Mrs. Norton and Lady Holland. But it never sold a quarter as many copies as Dombey.

In January 1846 Thackeray told his step-father that he was "engaged to write a monthly story at 60? a number."8 The contract, signed on 25 January, stipulated that he would be paid each publication day, the last of the month preceding that by which the number was dated.9 From the gross receipts, which included income from sales (13 as 12 for 8s. 9d.) and advertising, Bradbury and Evans were to deduct all expenses, including their 10%o commission on gross sales, and were then supposed to take an equivalent ?60 for themselves, during the serial run. The remainder was to be divided equally, and the copyright owned jointly. The advantage of this contract over half-profits, as Thackeray was to discover, was that he was assured of his ?60 a month, even if the serial lost money, as it did.

The novel was supposed to begin in May 1846.10 Since Dickens had determined by the end of March not to start publication of Dombey until October, Thackeray would have had a half year's head start in the competition for the public's monthly shilling.'1 But delays postponed Vanity Fair until the start of the new year. During the autumn Thackeray worried about its reception, wondering "whether this will take, the publishers accept it, and the world read it," and more particularly, doubting "whether it will be palatable to the London folks."12 A week before publication commenced, however, he had regained some of his confidence: "my prospects

'Thackeray, Letters, II, 225, identified as referring to Vanity Fair by the Tillotsons, p. xviii. 'Thus the January 1848 number went on sale 31 December 1847, and appears in the publishers' accounts for the July-December 1847 period, while the July 1847 number appears in the January-June 1847 accounts. But an exception was made for the first number, nominally January 1847, actually issued 31 December 1846: it too appears in the January-June 1847 accounts.

"Thackeray, Letters, II, 233. "Undoubtedly there were many prospective purchasers who could afford to buy both periodicals each month, but there were also undoubtedly some for whom the outlay of a shilling was the extreme limit of their resources. There is no evidence to suggest that Dickens's sales were hurt by the competition of Vanity Fair, but it is possible to suppose that Thackeray's sales may have been hurt by prior com- mitments to Dombey.

"Thackeray, Letters, I, cxxvi.




are very much improved," he told his mother, "and Vanity Fair may make me-" His Christmas book, Mrs. Perkins's Ball, published by Chapman and Hall, was "a great success- the greatest I have had." But he added wryly, "very nearly as great as Dickens [Battle of Life]. that is Perkins 500 Dickens 25000 [24,450 to 31 December 1846] only that difference !" Still, 1,500 of the 2,000 first printing had been taken, "a great success for the likes of me."'13 Lady Ritchie was always told that "it was 'Mrs. Perkins's Ball' which played the part of pilot or steam tug to the great line-of-battle ship, 'Vanity Fair,' and which brought it safely off the shoals."'14

Bradbury and Evans judged that at least three times as many buyers would present themselves for Titmarsh's novel without a hero as had come forward for the Christmas book; accordingly, they ran off 5,000, and then 2,000 more, copies of Vanity Fair I. Sales went fairly well at first-well enough for Thackeray to tell William Edmondstoune Aytoun that "The women like 'Vanity Fair', I find very much, and the publishers are quite in good spirits regarding that venture."15 But the first printing was far from exhausted at the end of the month, so the order for Number II was reduced to 6,000. Even this figure proved optimistic: of Number III only 5,000 copies were printed. Like quantities of Numbers IV, V, and VI were ordered.

On 3 July 1847 the publishers "found it worth their while" to insert in the Athenaeum what Gordon Ray terms "a much more elaborate notice" of Number VII, identifying Thackeray as the author of Mrs. Perkins's Ball, and including quotations from favorable reviews in the Morning Chronicle ("Common sense sits smiling on the top of every page") and the Sun ("He is the Fielding of the nineteenth century"). Thackeray thought this impressive display (only about one column inch of a notice shared with Punch Vol. XII) "the greatest compt. I ever had in my life."''16 But the printers were merely putting a brave front on a very unpromising situation: sales had fallen so much that for that Number VII they had reduced the print order yet again, to 4,000; and it continued at that level until Number XII for December. Of the first seven num-

3Thackeray, Letters, II, 258. "Van Duzer, p. 132. Cf. Lionel Stevenson, The Showman of Vanity Fair (New York, 1947), p. 150.

5Thackeray, Letters, II, 267. "Thackeray, Letters, II, 311 and n. 86.




bers, January to July, out of the 37,000 copies printed only 25,717 had been sold, an average of under 3,700 copies per number.17 Such a circulation continued over the whole novel would have compared favorably with that for the average three-decker; Lut for a serial, it verged on being uneconomic. Vanity Fair "does everything but sell," Thackeray lamented to his mother in October, "and appears really immensely to increase my reputation if not my income."18 The power of the critics to stimulate buyers through favorable reviews was not, at least at first, very great; though the print order was increased by 500 to 4,500 for Numbers XII and XIII (Decem- ber 1847 and January 1848), and to 5,000 from Number XIV onward, the novel was still not paying its way. The binding order fluctuated more erratically: from 5,760 of I it fell to 4,000 of III, IV, and V, to between 3,700 and 3,850 for VI- XIII, rose to 4,478 for XIV and 4,550 for XV and XVI, then dropped back to 4,500 for the rest of the run. By May 1848 Thackeray knew "for certain" that Bradbury and Evans were "several hundred pounds out of pocket."19 The July- December 1847 accounts show a deficit of ?462.18.4, not including the ?60 monthly stipends to which the publishers were contractually entitled, but which they could not yet collect.

Nevertheless, friends and critics praised, sales rose grad- ually, and by the end of the run in July 1848 the situation had improved: reprints were ordered to bring all back numbers up to printings of at least 5,000, and in preparation for issuing the novel complete, 1,000 additional copies of each number were run off to be bound up in volumes.20 By 20 August 1,500 copies in volumes had been sold, which Thackeray thought "very well in these times of revolution and dismay."21 On 2

"Sales were determined by adding to the number of copies on hand at the close of the last accounting period the number of copies printed during the current one, and subtracting from this total the number of copies in inventory at the end of the current period. Thus it is not possible to determine exactly how many copies of any one number were sold, since sales of back numbers and all of current numbers were lunmp- ed together. My assumption in determining averages is that sales in any accounting period are of current numbers exclusively.

"Thackeray, Letters, II, 318. "Thackeray, Letters, II, 378. "Serial publishers apparently continued to account in numbers even when all numbers were used to make up bound volumes. Authors seem not to have shared in any extra receipts produced by the difference between the sales price of twenty numbers, 20s., and the sales price of these numbers in publishers' binding, 21s.

"Thackeray, Letters, II, 420.




September a further reprinting of 1,500 copies of each number was required. The sales of numbers in 1848 nearly doubled those of 1847: 96,961 as against 48,689. "Vanity Fair is doing very well commercially I'm happy to say at last," Thackeray told Lady Blessington in August 1848.22 However, not until mid-1850 did it earn sufficient profits to pay Bradbury and Evans the ?60 monthly stipends they were to get before the remaining profits were divided equally, and even then Thack- eray had to remit ?196.10.0 to bring the balance up to ?1,200. Nine years later he estimated that his share of the copyright had yielded a further ?800 (before deducting his payment of ?196.10.0 presumably) ;23 the records through 1858 show pay- ments amounting to ?708.15.7 on the combined sales of the demy 8vo. and crown 8vo. ("cheap") editions. But its popularity also helped him prospectively, allowing him to raise his

2Idcem. Sales and Thackeray's share of the profits from 1847 to 1858, by half-years, are as follows:

demy 8vo. numbers crown 8vo. volumes June 47 25,717 [? -377.10. 8]* Dec. 47 22,972 [ -462.18. 4]* J June 48 Dec. 48 96,961 [ 760. 0. 3]* June 49 13,941 [ 879. 6. 6]* Dec. 49 4,879 [ 1,003.10. 0]* June 50 5,219 [ -68.18. 9]* Dec. 50 948 [ -49.12.10]* June 51 3,653 19.16. 9 Dec. 51 1,187 12.19. 9 June 52 2,465 28. 3. 0 Dec. 52 2,411 30.12. 4 June 53 2,144 27. 6. 4 3,344 ? 56. 7. 4 Dec. 53 802 8.12. 5 784 64.18. 2 June 54 2,066 21. 4. 5 871 Dec. 54 717 5. 4. 7 479 6. 7. 9 June 55 1,091 2.14.10 442 35.12. 2 Dec. 55 573 7. 9. 3 891 73. 7. 3 June 56 1,207 14.18. 8 1,106 93.18. 4 Dec. 56 577 [ -1. 4. 3]* 676 [ -33.13. 9]* June 57 1,870 8. 3. 8 909 57. 6. 6 Dec. 57 459 3.19. 7 530 [ -53. 0. 2]* June 58 646 9. 5. 2 981 55. 9. 8 Dec. 58 485 5.14. 5 732 59. 3. 3 TOTAL ?206. 5. 2 ?502.10. 5 *Undivided balance carried forward without distribution. The demy 8vo., bound, retailed for 21s., wholesaled at 8s. 9d. for 13 as 12 copies; the crown 8vo. (BM 12620 c. 14), issued early in February 1853, retailed for 6s. cloth, wholesaled at 3s. 9d. (after 1856 3s. 7d.) for 26 as 25 copies in quires, 4s. 2d. for 25 as 24 bound in cloth.

23Thackeray, Letters, IV, 155.




price for Pendennis to ?2,000 for 24 numbers, over ?83 per number in place of ?60 per number for Vanity Fair.

Though critics found a new hero in a novel without one, Dombey touched the hearts (and purses) of a much larger reading public. Dickens was far from sanguine about his prospects at the start: Dombey was to be his first new serial in fifteen months-the longest hiatus yet. Neither Martin Chuzzlewit nor Pictures from Italy nor the serial reprint of Oliver Twist had achieved a large circulation. The Daily News venture had proved a fiasco. And he was working with a new firm, known to him only as printers, which had suddenly assumed the onerous responsibility of producing a new daily newspaper, and had also agreed to issue Thackeray's new novel, in the same format, and almost concurrently. Further, there was the appalling prospect that his new serial would be announced as issuing from the "Office of the Daily News," the paper from which he had just extricated himself with considerable difficulty; Dickens thought it highly improper "that a book of mine should be published at a newspaper office."24 No wonder Dickens nervously canvassed the possibility of returning to Chapman and Hall:

There is all the preliminary announcement to be con- sidered and arranged, and the board to be made quite clear and clean for the playing out of a very great stake; and I do not think-not because I will not, but because I cannot-that Bradbury and Evans's arrange- ments, so thoroughly unsettled and so sweepingly changed by the newspaper, are so capable of the undertaking as Chapman and Hall's.25

No change was made, however, and as Dickens got into the writing his spirits rose. His illustrator, Browne, "who is generally the most indifferent fellow in the world," could not help writing him a long letter praising the first number.2 6 From Whitefriars came word that firms were buying space in the inserted Dombey and Son "Advertiser," and that E. Moses and Son, the poetical clothier, "has taken one page of the wrapper, all through."27 Forster was enthusiastic; and

24Charles Dickens, Letters, ed. Walter Dexter, 3 vols. (Bloomsbury, 1938), I, 759. Eventually, to meet Dickens's objections, the place of publication was given as "Whitefriars," the location of the printing plant.

2"Dickens, Letters, I, 759-760. 26Dickens, Letters, I, 783. 2 Idem.




Dickens's little circle of friends in Lausanne heard him read the opening chapters with gratifying attention and "unrelate- able success."28 But would it sell, sell widely, sell enough to repay his large debts and reconfirm his popularity?

As Chuzzlewit had not exceeded 23,000, the printers began with a press-run of 25,000. Within hours of issue, the first number was sold out. A reprinting of 5,000 was readied; seven days later it too was exhausted, and twice during No- vember further printings of 2,000 each were required. "The Dombey sale is BRILLIANT!I" Dickens crowed to Forster. "I had put before me thirty thousand as the limit of the most extreme success, saying that if we should reach that, I should be more than satisfied and more than happy; you will judge how happy I am !"29 The publishers raised the initial press run of the second number to 30,000; by 21 November, they had to run off another 2,000. At the end of that month, with sales outstripping Chuzzlewit by some 10,000 copies, Dickens could say that "Dombey is doing wonders. It went up, after the publication of the second number, over the thirty thousand. This much is a very large sale so early in the story, that I begin to think it will beat all the rest."30 For the third and fourth numbers, December 1846 and January 1847, the printing was raised to 32,000, over six times that for the fourth number of Vanity Fair.

Of the first four numbers, 122,035 had been sold by 1 January 1847, an average of more than 30,500 copies of each, over eight times the average circulation of Thackeray's early numbers. Instead of Thackeray's fixed stipend plus half profits, Dickens received three-quarters of the profits, after deducting all expenses, agents' allowances, and the publishers' 10% commission on gross sales. On each of the first four numbers, he received about ?375; on each of the next six, ?462.31

28Dickens, Letters, I, 788. 29Dickens, Letters, I, 798. 30Dickens, Letters, I, 816. 3"Sales and Dickens's share of the profits from 1846 to 1858, by half- years, are as follows:

demy 8vo. numbers Dec. 46 122,035 ?1,498. 4. 8 June 47 197,110 2,773.19. 9 Dec. 47 188,940 2,635. 2.11 June 48 159,274 2,258. 4. 6 Dec. 48 4,746 94. 4. 8




Dombey maintained its sales. After Paul's death in Number V, the press run was increased 1,000 to 33,000; it dropped back to 32,000 five months later, but rose again to 33,000 following Edith's flight, and to 34,000 for Numbers XVII and XVIII. The final double number appeared in April 1848, 35,000 copies being printed, of which 32,000 were stitched into wrappers. By the end of the accounting period in June a total of 667,359 copies of the twenty numbers had been sold, an average of over 33,000 each, for gross revenues (including advertising) of ?24,486.5.1. Dickens's share of the profits was ?9,165.11.10; Bradbury and Evans, entitled to one-quarter profits plus 10%o commission on gross sales, retained ?5,503. 16.3.

In contrast to Vanity Fair, which sold strongly as a bound volume, the sales of Dombey dropped off abruptly after its serial run: 159,274 numbers sold between January and July 1848, 4,746 numbers in the succeeding six months. The following year, unaccounted returns produced a deficit in the second half. Evidently Dickens's market was satisfied by the serial sale: no reprinting of any number was required until four

demy 8vo. numbers June 49 1,484 29.16. 0 Dec. 49 returns L-14.17.11]* June 50 734 15. 9. 9 Dec. 50 862 18. 7.10 June 51 877 19.10. 2 Dec. 51 671 12. 7. 0 June 52 2,083 41.18. 8 Dec. 52 2,288 47.19. 1 June 53 3,247 62.17.10 Dec. 53 1,208 11.11. 6 June 54 1,638 29. 0. 2 Dec. 54 1,845 29.12. 1 June 55 2,020 38.12. 0 Dec. 55 1,806 36. 7.10 June 56 2,022 34. 5. 0 Dec. 56 1,319 18.14. 4 June 57 3,090 41.16.11 Dec. 57 1,570 31. 0. 7 June 58 2,402 44.18. 1 Dec. 58 233 1.18. 3 TOTAL ?9,821. 1. 8 *Undivided balance carried forward without distribution. The cheap edition of Dombey went on sale in the spring of 1858, selling 6,046 copies by the end of the year. I am grateful to my research assistant, Miss Judith Keyston, for compiling and verifying these figures.




years later, and then only for 250 copies of Number XII, presumably to equalize stock for binding into volumes. Moreover, when Dickens commenced publishing David Copperfield in May 1849 he discovered that he had lost over two-fifths of his Dombey readership; "as Chuzzlewit with its small sale sent me up," he speculated, "Dombey's large sale has tumbled me down."32

In spite of the apparent precision of these statistics, it is not easy to draw definitive conclusions about their significance. More numbers of Dombey were purchased than of Vanity Fair; so much we can state with assurance. In all probability more complete copies of Dombey (all twenty numbers, unbound or bound) were assembled than of Vanity Fair; we can assume that many of the people who purchased Number I would purchase all the rest, though surely the figures hide instances where an early reader lost interest and discontinued buying, while a later reader began buying midway through the novel, either buying or borrowing the earlier numbers to fill in the gaps.

Reviews seem to have helped to increase Thackeray's sales, whereas Dickens's novel sustained its opening circulation, apparently proof against notices good or bad. The larger sale of bound volumes of Vanity Fair suggests that Thackeray reached a more affluent audience, but maybe the novel only came to the attention of the affluent buying public, perhaps through reviews, so late in its serial run that it was more convenient to purchase it in bound state. That is, potential purchasers of Dickens's new novel, habituated to his format and interested in his works, would start buying Dombey at the beginning, whereas Thackeray's work, much more obscure and far less dramatically promoted, had to find an audience along the way. In this respect, the fortune of Vanity Fair might be compared to that of Pickwick, which began with a printing of 1,000 copies, of which 400 were sewn in wrappers, and whose sales were so disastrous that of the second number only 500 were originally printed, though by the end of its run it was selling nearly 40,000 copies.33 But Pickwick had also to contend with the heavy disadvantage of appearing in

"Dickens, Letters, II, 173. "3Thomas Hatton and Arthur H. Cleaver, A Bibliography of the Peri- odical Works of Charles Dickens (London, 1933), p. 6; John Forster, Life of Charles Dickens, ed. J. W. T. Ley (New York [1928]), IV, ii, 302.




a format hitherto reserved for cheap writing and inexpen- sive reprints, whereas Thackeray, by adopting Dickens's format, probably gained buyers initially because the medium was familiar and popular.

Those who could afford to wait until Vanity Fair appeared in bound form were more affluent than those of Dickens's buyers who could only afford to spend a shilling a month- and we know from other evidence that often the "purchaser" of a monthly number was actually a club, the members of which each could afford to contribute only a penny or less towards the cost of the new number.34 If some of Dickens's monthly buyers were actually clubs, whereas a substantial number of Thackeray's buyers were single readers, then the number of Dickens's readers may have been significantly greater than his average sales, while Thackeray's readers were equivalent to his purchasers. A corollary to this theory is that probably every shilling number purchased was read at least once, while a few of the volumes, elegantly bound, may have rested unopened on the shelves of gentlemen's libraries. On the other hand, Dickens in bound form seems not to have been purchased in quantity by the circulating libraries, while Vanity Fair almost certainly was; thus the number of Thackeray's potential readers, as compared to his buyers, also increases significantly.

One other inference permitted by the evidence is that Dickens proved a far more lucrative author to his publishers than Thackeray. Bradbury and Evans were not able to pay themselves their ?60 a month from the profits for over three years. To the end of 1858, the accounts of the demy 8vo. and crown 8vo. editions credit them, in addition to the ?1,200, with approximately ?678.2.2. in commissions, and ?708.15.6 in half-profits (8d. under Thackeray's because he was usually given the odd penny). At the end of the accounting period during which Dombey concluded, Bradbury and Evans had already collected over twice as much in commission and profit, though they were entitled to no stipend, and to only one- quarter of the net profits. The comparative amounts of advertising taken in the wrappers, bills, and "Advertiser" of the two serials provides a further demonstration of this inference: Vanity Fair, ?272.9.6; Dombey and Son, ?2,027.1.0. These figures must be used with caution; Vanity Fair was

3'See MS notes in Pickwick Papers BM C. 59. d. 19.




an unknown vehicle at the start, and gained advertising revenue as its circulation increased, going from ?92.13.6 for Num- bers I-VII down to ?57.3.6 for Numbers VIII-XIII (the sum- mer months were always slack; August, September, and No- vember carried no advertising inserts), and then rising to ?122.12.6 for the last seven numbers. Unfortunately for the partners, the comparatively strong sale in volumes did not bring in any additional advertising revenue. So although it is true that the gross advertising receipts for Dombey were over seven times those for Vanity Fair, part of the discrepancy must be explained in ways that moderate the case against Thackeray's work.

Serial publication, like any other form of publication, en- tails risks. It requires a sizeable volume to be economic, especially if the publishers guarantee a payment per number to the writer. Had Bradbury and Evans published Vanity Fair on a straight half-profits basis, without any monthly stipend, there would have been ?760.0.3 to divide by the end of 1848. But meanwhile, Thackeray would have had no income from the novel whatever; in view of his always precarious financial balance, it is extremely doubtful that Vanity Fair would have got written at all. "I dislike the half profit, as all writers do," Trollope observed to Henry Colburn in March 1848.35 Dickens opposed a royalty system when strictly ap- plied for similar reasons: young and poor authors cannot afford to wait until their works are published before being paid. "If the publishers met next week," he told Forster, "and resolved henceforth to make this royalty bargain and no other, it would be an enormous hardship and misfortune because the authors could not live while they wrote."36

Thus, it is likely that to get Vanity Fair at all Bradbury and Evans had to risk a loss by paying Thackeray a monthly stipend for each part. Their risks the other way might have been considerable too, for Thackeray was a mainstay of Punch. To have lost him as a novelist might have led to the loss of him as an essayist. On the other hand, the intangible gains produced through the success of Vanity Fair are hard to measure in pounds, shillings, and pence. To what extent was the circulation of Punch supported by Thackeray's new fame? To what extent are the sales of all his subsequent works

"6Anthony Trollope, Letters, ed. Bradford A. Booth (London, 1951), No. 13. 36Dickens, Letters, III, 490-491.




influenced by his reputation as the author of Vanity Fair? To what extent did Thackeray's success deflect him from essays into novels.3 Unhappily for Bradbury and Evans, one long- range consequence of Vanity Fair reaped great profit for another publisher: it was George Smith of Smith, Elder who backed and enjoyed the considerable harvest from Thackeray's editorship of the Cornhill Magazine in the 1860's.

For Dickens, Dombey was less seminal. It did counteract any impression that his hold over a large public was slipping, and its profits did enable him at last to clear off the heavy indebtedness he had incurred in buying his way out of earlier publishing contracts. The large profits confirmed his impression "that Bradbury and Evans are the men for me to work with"; there were no more tentative overtures to Chapman and Hall for a decade.38 Dombey did not establish Dickens; it merely confirmed a popularity which, though it fluctuated considerably during his career, was resoundingly endorsed in subsequent decades by the sales of Bleak House, Little Dorrit, and Edwin Drood.

On the face of it, therefore, there was little reason for Dickens to be jealous of Thackeray's success. The rising star of Michael Anigelo Titmarsh did not eclipse Boz's; competition for the public's shilling did not impoverish Dickens. The causes of the estrangement between them are more likely to be found in their divergent modes of life and philosophies of literature than in their competition for circulation.39 There was indeed, as Thackeray observed, "room in the world for both." Victorian literature was immeasurably enriched by the "great fight" at the "top of the tree."40

RICE UNIVERSITY

3 Most of Thackeray's Punch articles appear between 1842 and 1848 (M. H. Spielmann, The Hitherto Unidentified Contributions of W. M11. Thackeray to "Punch" [New York, 1900]).

"Dickens, Letters, I, 671. However, Chapman and Hall continued to sell the books in which they shared the coypright, and were the publishers of the Cheap Edition begun in 1847.

39See, in addition to Ray, "Dickens versus Thackeray," Stone, Fielding, and Johnson, cited above, Charles Mauskopf, "Thackeray's Attitude towards Dickens's Writings," NCF, XXI (1966), 21-33.

"?I am grateful to the National Endowment for the Humanities for a Younger Scholar Fellowship spent in England, and to Bryn Mawr College for a Junior Faculty Research Award Leave of Absence, which permitted me to do the research for this paper. Portions of it, in altered form, were read to the SCMLA, 31 October 1969.



JULY- JAN.- JULY- JAN.- JULY- JAN.- o: NUMBER DEC. JUNE DEC. JUNE DEC. JUNE TOTALS t

1846 1847 1847 1848 1848 1849

7000 2750 2000 11750 I 34000 4000 2750 40750 4@

6000 2500 2000 10500 >. 11 32000 2000 1000 2750 37750'-1

5000 500 2500 2000 10000 o III 32000 2000 3750 36750 '.

5000 2750 2000 9750 .E IV 32000 1000 3000 36000 '

. _ ......0

5000 2750 2000 9750 e V 32000 2000 1750 35750

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ I _ _ _ _ _ _ _ o_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ C

T 5000 2500 2000 9500 E VI 33000 3000 36000 so

4000 1000 2500 2000 9500 @ VIl 33000 2500 35500 C

4000 1000 2500 2000 9500 t' Vil 33000 1500 34500 i

4000 1000 2500 2000 9500 IX 33000 2000 35000 >

4000 1000 2500 2000 9500 o X 33000 2000 35000 -

4000 1000 2500 2000 9500 : XI _ 32000 1500 _, 33500 . .

4500 500 2500 2000 9500 $ XII 32000 1500 33500 >

4500 500 2500 2000 9500 '? XiII 32000 1500 33500 a

00E 5000 2500 2000 9500 XIV 32000 2500 34500 >

5000 2500 2000 9500 , XV 32000 2500 34500 '

5000 2500 2000 9500 , XVI 33000 1500 34500 .

5000 2500 2000 9500 o XVII __ 34000 34000 >

5000 2500 2000 9500 * XVIII 34000 34000 0

. ,~~~~~~

__ __ ___ E

5000 2500 2000 9500 3 XIX __ _ _ __ _ _ 35000 _ __ 35000-

5000 2500 2000 9500 u XX _ 35000 35000 F



nineteenth century || the fight at the top of the tree: vanity fair versus dombey and son

Documents