¹ See, e.g., Una Pope-Hennessy, Charles Dickens (London, 1945), p. 379; and Ralph Straus, Dickens: A Portrait in Pencil (London, 1928), pp. 250-253.

² Here I am following the four-page leaflet issued by Bradbury & Evans in May 1859. The first two pages contain the prospectus of Once a Week; the last two, entitled “Mr. Charles Dickens and His Late Publishers,” give Bradbury & Evans' public statement of their quarrel with Dickens. In the affidavit filed in Chancery on 24 March 1859 the publishers also insisted that there had been no previous request from Dickens; and in his affidavit as defendant—25 March—Dickens did not gainsay them.

³ According to the Articles of Partnership, the second Tuesday of each May and November was the time of regular meetings of the partners. A special meeting could be called at any time by any one of the proprietors by a written notice not more than seven days prior to the actual date of such a meeting.

⁴ In the original Articles it was stated that to make a general or special meeting valid, at least two of the partners besides Bradbury & Evans should be present. In 1856 Forster had retired from the partnership and with the assent of the other partners had sold and assigned his share to Dickens.

⁵ These letters are given in full in the affidavit filed in Chancery on 24 March 1859 by Bradbury & Evans.

⁶ Pope-Hennessy (see n. 1, above), p. 395.

⁷ See Household Words, xix (28 May 1859), 601. Forster treats this whole discreditable affair in the following cool fashion: “It [Household Words] was bought by Dickens, who, even before the sale, exactly fulfilling a previous announcement of the proposed discontinuance of the existing periodical and establishment of another in its place, precisely similar but under a different title, had started All the Year Round. It was to be regretted perhaps that he should have thought it necessary to move at all, but he moved strictly within his rights.” The Life of Charles Dickens, ed. Ley (London, 1928), p. 670.

⁸ In a letter dated 31 Jan. 1850 Dickens had described to Mrs. Gaskell the “general mind and purpose” of Household Words as “the raising up of those that are down, and the general improvement of our social condition.” Letters of Charles Dickens (New York, 1879), i, 250. And in his advertisement of the forthcoming AU the Year Round, he had stated that his new journal was designed for the instruction and entertainment of all classes and for the discussion of the social questions of the day.

⁹ Dickens had laid great emphasis on gathering about him a group of writers on whom he could depend for good work: 75% of the contributions to Household Words had been by a group of about 20 contributors. See my article, “Dickens's Success with Household Words,” The Dickensian, xlvi (Sept. 1950), 199-200. And when announcing the incorporation of Household Words into All the Year Round, Dickens had stated: “I have the happiness of taking with me the staff of writers with whom I have laboured, and all the literary and business co-operation that can make my work a pleasure.” Household Words, xix (28 May 1859), 601.

¹⁰ Lionel Stevenson, Dr. Quicksilver: The Life of Charles Lever (London, 1939), p. 238.

¹¹ Some 50 of these reviews were revised and reprinted in 4 volumes: Eminent Men and Popular Books (London, 1859) ; Biography and Criticism; Being a Second Series of “Eminent Men and Popular Books” (London, 1860); and Mornings of the Recess. 1861-64. A Series of Biographical and Literary Papers, 2 vols. (London, 1864). I wish to express gratitude to J. S. Maywood, Esq., Librarian for the Times, who has kindly sent me identifications of the reviews by Lucas between 1857 and 1865 from the Times editorial diaries.

¹² I borrow here a phrase which Lucas took from Macaulay and about which he developed his brilliant review of the History of England, reprinted in Eminent Men and Popular Books.

¹³ Review of Rawlinson's Herodotus, 22 and 23 Sept. 1858. Of course, he agreed with the many that to be entertaining was an “indispensable requirement” but he held that consideration as but “a rude test of the merits of any work of fiction” (Review of East Lynne, 25 Jan. 1862).

¹⁴ Review of Charles Kingsley's Two Years Ago, 29 Dec. 1857.

¹⁵ Review of Harriet Beecher Stowe's Dred, 18 Sept 1856.

¹⁶ Review of White Lies, 2 Jan. 1858.

¹⁷ Review of The Ordeal of Richard Feverel, 14 Oct. 1859.

¹⁸ Review of “Illustrated Books,” 24 Dec. 1858.

¹⁹ See, e.g., his praise of Leech in “Modern English Caricature,” 2 Jan. 1863.

²⁰ In 1852 he was the founder and first editor of the Press, a newspaper established with the support of the Conservative party and in opposition to the Coalition Ministry.

²¹ These figures and dates are taken from ledgers in the possession of Bradbury, Agnew & Co.; Alan G. Agnew, Esq., has kindly made the material available to me and has given me permission to print from it.

²² It would seem, however, that, like the two journals conducted by Dickens and like Punch during much of its career, Once a Week was dated on Saturday and issued three or four days earlier in the week. Note the date of Dallas' letter and cf. R. C. Lehmann, Charles Dickens as Editor (London, 1912), pp. 19-20.

²³ With thanks to Mr. Agnew.

²⁴ Bertha Coolidge, A Catalogue of the Altschul Collection of George Meredith in the Yale University Library (privately printed, 1931), pp. 131-132.

²⁵ With thanks to Mr. Agnew.

²⁶ Nonesuch Letters, iii, 108-109.

²⁷ Ibid., ii, 597.

²⁸ John Cranstoun Nevill, Harriet Martineau (London, 1943), p. 116.

²⁹ E.g., Joseph Pennell in Modern Illustration (London, 1895), p. 84, calls Once a Week, Good Words, and the Shilling Magazine “really the most important art journals England has ever seen….” Gleeson White rates it as “the pioneer of its class” with superiority equal to its priority: “The invention and knowledge, the mastery of the methods employed, and the superb achievements of some of its contributors entitle it to be ranked as one of the few artistic enterprises of which England may be justly proud” (English Illustration: The Sixties, London, 1897, p. 16). Finally, Philip James says that much of the best work of the best illustrators of the 'sixties appeared in such magazines as Once a Week and Good Words (English Book Illustration: 1800-1900, London, 1947, pp. 42-43). The DNB says that Rossetti was an illustrator for Once a Week; Siegfried Sassoon says that he was the only notable artist of the time who was not (George Meredith, London, 1948, p. 100). My evidence substantiates Sassoon's statement about Rossetti, though his “only notable artist” is debatable.

³⁰ Our comment catalogue can go no further here. The curious reader can find some interesting, though often inexact, indexes and commentaries on the illustrators to Once a Week in Gleeson White's book cited above. Best of all, since the magazine itself is so often unavailable, Mr. White reprints 21 representative illustrations from Once a Week.

³¹ One suspects from time to time that poems were actually chosen for the magazine according to their adaptability to the artist's pencil.

³² The poetry was generally adequate, and only occasionally distinguished by such names as Tennyson, Meredith, and Gerard Manley Hopkins. Two things tended to keep the poems as a whole distinct and objective: very many of them were renderings from other languages, ancient and modern, with emphasis on tradition and legend; and the verses were usually made the subjects for the major illustrations of the magazine. Lucas was the first editor to recognize the merit of G. M. Hopkins' work: he published “Winter with the Gulf Stream” in Once a Week on 14 Feb. 1863. In a letter to the TLS (23 Aug. 1947, p. 427), a letter in which he calls Lucas “one of the most brilliant editors in a period of great editors,” Humphry House suggests a “family acquaintanceship between Lucas and the Hopkinses” and asks for further light. The ledgers for Once a Week accredit 24 contributions to the Hopkinses between 3 Dec. 1859 and 29 Oct. 1864. The first 9 contributions aie entered in the ledger under the father's name, the remaining 15 under the name of the son. I am inclined to believe that all these pieces except the one mentioned above are by the father. In the magazine itself, these 24 contributions are variously signed. Among the first 9 pieces, all the poems are signed “Berni,” and of the 3 essays, 2 are signed “Manley Hopkins” and one “Berni.” Among the remaining 15, only “Winter with the Gulf Stream” is signed “G.M.H.”; almost all the other poems are signed “Berni” (with the exception of one signed “H.M.”); and most of the essays are unsigned, with “Berni” occasionally used. I do not think there are any new Hopkins “finds” here, but the informality of the bookkeeping certainly suggests a personal relationship between Lucas and the Hopkins family.

³³ On 18 Sept. 1856 Dickens had written to Wills concerning a proposal for a long story by Wilkie Collins for Household Words: “as to a long story itself, I doubt its value to us and I feel perfectly convinced that it is not one quarter so useful to us as detached papers, or short stories in four parts.” Lehmarm (see n. 22, above), pp. 222-223.

³⁴ Malcolm Elwin, Charles Reade (London, 1931), p. 146.

³⁵ With thanks to Mr. Agnew.

³⁶ Household Words, xix (28 May 1859), 601. It will be remembered that Lucas had condemned Reade's White Lies in the Times for 2 Jan. 1858.

³⁷ See my article (cited in n. 9 above), pp. 200-201. That A Tale of Two Cities was responsible for the rise was also the opinion of the reviewer of the first volume of All the Year Round in the Illustrated London News, xxxv (12 Nov. 1859), 458: “It is reported that this serial, under its present title, has obtained a far greater circulation than its predecessor Household Words, considerable as that was. As there is nothing in the general run of articles in All the Year Round which makes them specially distinguishable from those in Household Words, the access of popularity is attributable to the very obvious circumstance of the issue of Mr. Dickens' ‘A Tale of Two Cities’ in the former.”

³⁸ See Royal A. Gettmann's “The Serialization of Reade's ‘A Good Fight’, ” Nineteenth-Century Fiction, vi (June 1951), 21-32.

³⁹ Coolidge (see n. 24, above), p. 83. See also the judicious article by Royal A. Gettmann, “Serialization and Evan Harrington,” PMLA, lxiv (Dec. 1949), 963-975.

⁴⁰ The evidence bears out the rumor that Evan Harrington damaged the circulation of Once a Week. See Sassoon (cited in n. 29, above), p. 33. Brooks wrote to Evans, one of the proprietors, just before The Silver Cord began publication, “I don't think that Mr. Reade's or Mr. Meredith's shortcomings have anything to do with me, though Lucas seems to think so, and speaks of them as having ‘broken down.‘ I am not going to break down, D. V.” See George S. Layard, A Great “Punch” Editor: Being the Life, Letters, and Diaries of Shirley Brooks (London, 1907), p. 174. Layard says that Evan Harrington “had not proved a popular attraction” and that A Good Fight “had fallen quite flat.”

⁴¹ All these remarks seem to imply some censure of the preceding novel—Evan Harrington.

⁴² Walter Graham, English Literary Periodicals (New York, 1930), p. 302.

⁴³ See, e.g., my article, “Henry Kingsley and The Gentleman's Magazine,” JEGP, l (Jan. 1951), 90-100.

⁴⁴ For a brief comparison of payments to contributors to Once a Week with those to contributors to Dickens' journals, see my article, “Dickens the Paymaster,” PMLA, lxvi (Dec. 1951), 1177-80.

⁴⁵ In the case of some drawings, rather than the dimensions of the cuts, much of the time and difficulty involved was dependent on the number and complexity of different figures in the same drawing, in addition to their background and setting. It appears from the records that such matters were certainly considered.

⁴⁶ Gleeson White, e.g., was deceived by these assertions and concluded that “there can be no doubt that the self-congratulation is both well deserved and genuine” (p. 19). See n. 29, above.

⁴⁷ Of course, these figures are only the closest approximation to the actual circulation of Once a Week to which we can arrive on the evidence given. The method used for attaining these results was a simple one. The ledger lists the half-yearly proceeds from the sales of the magazine according to single numbers, monthly parts, and volumes. Knowing the prices at which each of these items sold, I have divided the total receipt for each division by the cost of the individual item, thus coming to the total number of sales. One factor this method could not take into consideration, and for this reason I would consider the figures given in the text as minimum possibilities. Many of the numbers were probably sold in bulk, e.g., a 1,000 for the price of 900. Thus the total number distributed would exceed the actual number for which receipts are listed. With Vol. ix—June 1864—the amount received from the sale of monthly parts exceeded the returns for weekly numbers, one more indication of the failure of the magazine.

⁴⁸ For this several conjectures may be offered: those interested enough by the advertising campaign to buy some of the first copies later lost interest; Reade's A Good Fight, with Charles Keene's illustrations, may have attracted a good many readers who ceased to buy the periodical with the quick termination of this story; Meredith's Evan Harrington was not a popular serial.

⁴⁹ The most obvious explanation for this is the fact that Mrs. Henry Wood's Verner's Pride began in the opening number of this volume and continued throughout it. This conjecture is further supported by two facts: Mrs. Wood was the only novelist who had a second novel to appear in Once a Week during these years; and even Vol. viii, which contained the last instalments of Verner's Pride, did not fall back to the low circulation of Vol. vi. It will be remembered that this was during the period of the greatest interest in East Lynne. Lucas had reviewed the novel in the Times on 25 Jan. 1862.

⁵⁰ Four half-yearly statements of the expenses involved in the publication of the miscellany are interesting with far wider reference than merely to Once a Week. I have omitted such items as rent, wrappers, binding, electrotyping, and sundries, which can mean nothing in particular to us.

	Dec. 1859	June 1861	June 1863	Dec. 1864
Paper & Print:	£4218.9.8	£3557.3.6	£2481.4.7	£2138.11.9
Bills & Showcards:	238.4.0	31.7.3	92.10.0	57.4.0
Advertising:	574.17.1	54.7.0	92.13.10	58.4.3
Contributions:	1893.8.0	1063.4.3	2197.5.3	1245.18.0
Commission to Agents:	316.0.0	154.11.8	124.16.0	94.16.8

Bills, showcards, and advertising take a normal turn in that the expenses for the first half-year, which would include the launching of the magazine, far exceed those of later periods of like extent. Also, we would expect the amounts paid for contributions to vary sharply from volume to volume, depending especially on the purchase of expensive fiction. Two items, however, are especially indicative of the trends in the sale of the magazine: paper and print and commission to agents. Not only the decreases themselves, but also the proportions of one to the other, relate a true story of the gradual falling-off of the circulation of the journal from 1859 to 1865. Unless otherwise indicated, all the materials from ledgers used in this article are in the possession of Bradbury, Agnew & Co. and have been used with permission of the Managing Director, Mr. Agnew.

⁵¹ Here I am following conclusions arrived at in my article, “Dickens's Success with Household Words” (see n. 9, above), pp. 197-203.

⁵² Household Words, xix (28 May 1859), 601.

⁵³ It was Bradbury & Evans, not Samuel Lucas, who made arrangements with Reade for A Good Fight; and the publishers later caused an estrangement between E. S. Dallas and Anthony Trollope by violating their agreement for the latter's The Vicar of Bullhampton. See Francis X. Roellinger, “E. S. Dallas in Trollope's Autobiography,” MLN, lv (June 1940), 422-424, and Michael Sadleir, Trollope, A Commentary (London, 1927), pp. 296-298. Further, Edward Walford, Lucas' subeditor who succeeded him as editor in 1865, wrote as follows to the publishers on 4 Dec. 1867: “to speak plainly & honestly, as matters are & have been of late, I do not feel myself free to act in my position as Editor. I constantly find myself controlled, & my judgment over-ruled in matters of detail, in a way which not only disheartens me, but which also makes it impossible for me to reply to letters which require an answer from the Editor, or to write as I could wish in asking the aid of able pens.” I quote from this letter with the permission of Mr. Agnew.

⁵⁴ Walford, at least, had grave doubts about the value of this policy. In the letter quoted from in the preceding note, he says: “I wish that I were quite convinced that this policy of inviting ‘outsiders’ so freely and of accepting their papers to such an extent had altogether been productive of as good results as both you and I have a right to expect. What is in theory & on paper the best course, however, will not always be found to work well in practice … .”