Sarah Scott and Elizabeth Montagu’s <i>Essay on the Writings and Genius of Shakespear</i> (1769): New Letters

Two previously unpublished letters from Sarah Scott (1720–95) to George Aust (1741–1829), a British civil servant, part of a collection that considerably expands Scott’s known correspondence, provide insights into the literary and publishing activities of Scott and her sister, Elizabeth Montagu (1718–1800), in September 1769.1 The letters reveal that Scott and Montagu were responsive to the demands and developments of the print marketplace, which they leveraged to their advantage. Montagu was basking in the success of An Essay on the Writings and Genius of Shakespear, a spirited, patriotic defence of Shakespeare that she had worked on for five years but had published anonymously in April 1769, when the Shakespeare Jubilee became the talk of the town. Her work had been well received by friends (of whom few knew her real identity) and reviewers, but it was hardly as newsworthy as the three-day spectacle in Stratford-upon-Avon, planned and staged by David Garrick (1717–79), that was announced in May 1769.2 After the Jubilee ended with inundation and disappointment on 8 September 1769, no sooner had the rained-out attendees returned to London than reports, ranging from complimentary to critical, started to appear.3 Encouraged by the Shakespearean vogue, the positive reception of her work, and the Dublin edition well into production, supervised by Elizabeth Vesey (c.1715–91), Montagu set out to advertise the Essay again.4 In a letter to her father, Matthew Robinson (1694–1778), of 10 September 1769, Montagu explained her motives for anonymous publication, most importantly ‘a prejudice against female Authors especialy if they invade those regions of litterature which the Men are desirous to reserve to themselves’.5 Her publishing savvy is on display: ‘As the jubilee has awakend ye love of ye publick to Shakespear. I have written a note to Dodsley from the Author of ye Essay to desire it may be advertized again’.6 Montagu had dealt with James Dodsley (1724–97) during the production of the Essay, possibly through Benjamin Stillingfleet (1702–71), who had counselled Montagu and corrected page proofs, and she still felt raw about how her bookseller had handled matters. ‘The booksellers who hate an Author should print for himself, would hardly advertise my book’, she wrote, complaining that ‘It was with great difficulty I got my Essay advertised the day before it was publishd, & in spite of all my pains it hardly appeard in the papers till ye week after ye Kings birthday [4 June 1769] when the Town was empty’. Although Dodsley is named in the imprint and advertisements, as are Thomas Cadell (1742–1802) and John Wilkie (d.1785), among other London publishers, Montagu probably stood to share in the profits. The great lengths she had to go to advertise the Essay in April 1769 have not been identified, but if her actions in September 1769 are any indication, secrecy and deceit were involved. Not trusting her porter with the task, Montagu requested that her note to Dodsley be put ‘into ye penny post. ye farther from Hillstreet it is put in ye better, for I wd not have Master Dodsley smell out ye Author’.7 Her abundance of caution was warranted. Hill Street, which could be identified by postmark, was where Montagu lived and entertained when in London, and, after ‘great enquiries were made of ye Booksellers, who said they knew not the Author’, the printer had ‘at last unluckily ownd that Mr Stillingfleet corrected the Press & as he is an intimate friend of mine this circumstance has in some degree betrayd ye secret’. For all the subterfuge, Montagu decided against contacting Dodsley again: ‘I have hit on a surer way to have my work advertized than by sending to Dodsley who perhaps might neglect it’.8 The ‘surer way’ was Scott. Besides reducing the risk of Dodsley discovering Montagu’s identity, Scott was in London, not Berkshire, and could discreetly go about advertising the Essay. ‘I repent I did not advertise it again before ye Jubilee, but I have written to Town today to my Sister to get it done’, Montagu wrote to her husband, Edward Montagu (1692–1775), on 10 September 1769.9 Montagu’s letter to her sister does not survive, so it cannot be determined whether it was Montagu or Scott who suggested that Aust place the advertisements. (The latter seems more likely.) Scott’s response, written two days later, does survive. She agreed to help Montagu, but ‘Having lent the Essay I am not sure I remember the whole title, therefore will inclose a letter to Mr Aust, if you will be so good as to add the title at the bottom, it will make but one day difference’.10 The letter that must have been enclosed by Scott, inscribed ‘To | Mr Aust | At the Secretary of State’s Office | Cleveland Court’, reads: Tuesday. Sir, I am sorry I was not at home when you were so obliging as to call upon me, not that I shoud have ventured at one word of advice about what part your Sister11 shou’d take, for tho’ going abroad woud be a great advantage to one in her situation, yet I am sensible nothing enable her timerous spirit to undertake it but its being her own free choice. As I am always troubling it is to no purpose to make any excuses for the two following requests. I shall be much obliged to you if you can get the Essay on Shakespeare advertized as soon as possible in Lloyds & the St James’s Chronicles, London Evening post, & two of the most read morning papers. The full title of the Essay you will find at the end of my letter, for not having it by me at this present moment, I can not here give it you particularly. You will much oblige me by getting this done as soon as you can, & by observing that the Advertizement is really put in, for there has been great deceit hitherto on that head. If you were less well acquainted with me I might flatter myself that by appearing thus interested for it you might think me the Author, but you know me too well for your opinion to pay me any such compliment. My other request is that you will be so good as to get me a frank directed to the Right Honble Lady Elizabeth Archer at Hale12 near Downton Wilts; as I want to send her a packet, & know not without the assistance you have been so good as to offer me in this way, how to get a frank.13 I am Sir, Your Sincere Friend & Servant Sarah Scott The postscript, written in an unidentified hand, gives a near-perfect transcription of the title page: ‘An | Essay on ye Writings | and Genius of Shakespear | compared with ye Greek | & French Dramatic Poets with | some remarks upon ye misrepresentations of Monsr | de Voltaire. | Printed for J Dodsley Pall Mall; Mess Baker & Leigh | York street Covent Garden. J Walter Charing cross. | T. Cadel in ye Strand & J Wilkie No 71. St Pauls Churchyard’.14 That Scott trusted Aust with Montagu’s task, but not the author’s identity, demonstrates Scott’s sympathy for her sister’s desire for secrecy: Scott’s works were always published anonymously, or, in the case of The History of Gustavus Ericson (1760), pseudonymously. Scott was friendly with Aust and his family (as her interest in Aust’s sister’s prospects indicates). He was the eldest child of Anne Aust (c.1709–82), a pauper from Batheaston who had benefited from the friendship and generosity of Lady Barbara Montagu (1722–64), Scott’s lifelong companion.15 Lady Bab (as she was called) helped women ‘in humble circumstances’ all her life, and, in her death, left Anne an annuity of £10.16 This legacy was to support Anne until Aust’s income exceeded £100 per annum: ‘then’, Lady Bab wrote in her will, ‘I Depend upon his honour and Word that he will provide for her’.17 Aust’s sisters, Ann and Maria (1746–1816), were also legatees of Lady Bab, as was Sarah ‘Sally’ Maese (1744–1811), the schoolmistress-turned-writer whom Aust would later marry in November 1803.18 When Scott wrote to Aust on 12 September 1769, he was employed by the Northern Department of the Secretary of State, a position that he had obtained through Lady Bab’s patronage.19 After Lady Bab’s death, Scott continued to watch Aust’s career, in addition to the careers of his sisters, with interest. She depended on him for family updates, errands, papers—to supplement his income, Aust took up subscriptions for newspapers and journals on the side—and, above all, free postage.20 Like Scott’s brother-in-law, who was a Member of Parliament, Aust was permitted free franks through his work for the Northern Department. Scott, whose finances were often precarious until Montagu settled an annuity on her in 1775, appreciated this favour and frequently sent Aust letters to be franked.21 It was the correct decision to trust Aust, as advertisements for the Essay appeared in the papers, Lloyd’s Evening Post, the St. James’s Chronicle, and the Public Advertiser among them, almost immediately. In a letter dated only ‘Wednesday’, but probably written two weeks later, on 27 September 1769, judging by when the papers ceased to advertise Montagu’s work, Scott wrote to Aust again. The inscription is ‘To | Mr Aust | In the Secretary of States Office | Cleveland Court | London’. Sir, I am very much obliged to you for having got the Essay advertized, I think it need not make its appearance in the papers after friday; when I have the pleasure of seeing you I shall be glad to discharge the debt for all these Advertisements. There is come out in french a history of Francis the first, of France,22 which is very much commended, I shou’d like to translate it if I was sure it wou’d be taken, & if you at any time pass by Cadells in the Strand I shall be much oblig’d to you if you will ask him whether he will take it if he likes the translation, if he will he shall have some sheets as a specimen to determine upon, & in that case I will beg the favor of you to buy it for me unbound. It may be time enough to settle the price when he has the specimen. Francis being a Cotemporary Competitor with Charles the fifth the two books23 wou’d assist each other in the sale. Mrs Cutts24 desires her compts. I am Sir Your most Sincere friend &: Obligd Servt SS Wednesday.25 As Montagu was taking advantage of the public’s fascination with Shakespeare, Scott was approaching booksellers about future projects. Scott’s success with novels, translations, and histories is documented in her letters and by the print record, but her most recently published work, The History of Sir George Ellison (1766), the sequel to A Description of Millenium Hall (1762) (which had received its third edition in 1767), had been sold to Andrew Millar (1705–68) for £70: ‘some what cheaper than I intended’.26 Scott had sent manuscripts to Cadell, who had taken over Millar’s business, in December 1768, including an unidentified novel that Montagu ‘liked ye reading of’, but was met with disappointment.27 To translate for Cadell the prestigious Histoire de François Premier of Gabriel-Henri Gaillard (1726–1806), a multi-volume history that would involve considerable work, yet already had an audience, would be a coup. Since Cadell’s publishing partner, William Strahan (1715–85), had paid William Robertson a fortune for his highly anticipated History of the Reign of the Emperor Charles V, Cadell must have been eager to move copies. Whether Scott had heard the rumours about Robertson’s lucrative deal with his publishers or not, it made good sense for her to suggest a complementary, albeit ambitious, project. Scott probably received a positive response, because she asked for Montagu’s help with her history on 10 October 1769: ‘What you say of the manner wherein the life of Francis the first might be treated is very just it might easily be so composd from different Authors as not to require the name of a translation, only acknowleging in a preface the great use Gailliard had been of, but were I to undertake it I must apply for your assistance in the parallel, as it is above me’. Scott had used this method of history-writing before in Gustavus Ericson, which derives from but also develops the work of René-Aubert de Vertot (1655–1735). She was serious enough about the project to sound out Montagu, and she appears to have been pleased with her sister’s practical suggestions. After Aust was unable to secure a copy of Gaillard’s history, Scott contacted John Nourse (1705–80), an importer of foreign literature, on Montagu’s recommendation: ‘he has it not but will get it, tho’ he says it is very difficult to get’.28 Nothing came of Scott’s proposal, but the letter to Aust is a testament to her shrewd business sense. That Scott approached Cadell before committing to the purchase of an expensive book, let alone the time-consuming work of translating it, shows how she understood writing in terms of costs and benefits. When reflecting on the publication of Millenium Hall in 1763, Scott wrote to Montagu: ‘in truth a thing like that which takes so very little time in writing that I can not say but my Time was sufficiently paid for; it was not a months work, therefore it brought me in about a guinea a day’.29 Of the sisters, Scott was the pragmatist by necessity, and in a severely damaged letter to Montagu, she seems to state this position: ‘I have tried Cade[ll] [torn] & several other Booksellers, but they refuse to es [torn] translation, which disappoints me, for I am too lazy [torn] it on an uncertainty, not only as I might not meet with [torn]’.30 The lacunae are tantalizing, but suggest that Scott was in the habit of drafting specimens for prospective publishers. She explored multiple options for publication, even if she was unwilling to spend her limited time and resources when the payoff seemed unlikely. Although much about the literary and publishing activities of Scott and Montagu remains unknown, Scott’s letters to Aust reveal the acumen and expert knowledge, not just of readerships and trends, but of publishers, booksellers, and practices, that the sisters brought to their publications. Scott’s career is characterized as much by its false starts as its successes, yet she stayed alert to developments in the print marketplace, ready to exploit publishing opportunities or carve them out for herself. Montagu, who had little need to publish and often more time to do so, was also aware of the circumstances in which she was working. To ensure fair treatment for the ‘Lady Critick’, as she calls herself in the letter to her father, Montagu took matters of promotion into her own hands.31 More scholarship on Montagu’s and Scott’s long-standing engagements with their booksellers and print culture is needed, and Aust, as a previously unidentified collaborator in the publishing process, offers a productive starting place in his collection of Scott’s letters.

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.