have, on the other hand, an idea that he is justly
punished for his offenses; and so perhaps he is, but not in the sense
understood by the majority of those who contemplate his downfall as a
retributive dispensation. The fact is, that reckless publishing is more
injurious to the literary profession than any thing in the world beside.
The cautious publisher is the author's best friend. If a house publish
at their own risk a number of works which they can not sell, they must
either go into the Gazette at last, or make large sums of money by works
which they _can_ sell. When a publisher loses money by a work, an injury
is inflicted upon the literary profession. The more money he can make by
publishing, the more he can afford to pay for authorship. It is often
said that the authors of successful works are inadequately rewarded in
proportion to their success; that publishers make their thousands, while
authors only make their hundreds. But it is forgotten that the profits
of the one successful work are often only a set-off to the losses
incurred by the publication of half a dozen unsuccessful ones. If a
publisher purchase a manuscript for L500, and the work prove to be a
"palpable hit" worth L5000, it may seem hard that the publisher does not
share his gains more equitably with the author. With regard to this it
is to be said, in the first place, that he very frequently _does_. There
is hardly a publisher in London, however "grasping" he may be, who has
not, time after time, paid to authors sums of money not "in the bond."
But if the fact were not as we have stated it, we can hardly admit that
publishers are under any kind of obligation to exceed the strict terms
of their contracts. If a publisher gives L500 for a copyright,
expecting to sweep the same amount into his own coffers, but instead of
making that sum, loses it by the speculation, he does not ask the author
to refund--nor does the author offer to do it. The money is in all
probability spent long before the result of the venture is ascertained;
and the author would be greatly surprised and greatly indignant, if it
were hinted to him, even in the most delicate way, that the publisher
having lost money by his book, would be obliged to him if he would make
good a portion of the deficit by sending a check upon his bankers.

We repeat, then, that a publisher who loses money by one man's books,
must make it by another's, or go into the Gazette. There are publishers
who tr