446 ■ THE POPULAR SCIENCE MONTHLY. 



business, notwithstanding the competition among publishers, is abnor- 

 mally profitable. This seems to me a remarkable assumption. Embark- 

 ing in the business of publishing, like embarking in any other business, 

 is determined partly by the relative attractiveness of the occupation 

 and partly by the promised returns of capital. There is no reason to 

 think that the occupation of publishing differs widely from other occu- 

 pations in attractiveness ; and hence we must say that, competing for 

 recruits with many other businesses, it must on the average offer a like 

 return on capital. Were it found that the average return on capital in 

 publishing was larger than in other businesses, there would immediately 

 be more publishers, and competition would lower the returns. If, then, 

 we must infer that, taking the returns of all publishers on the average 

 of books, their profits are not higher than those of other businesses, 

 what would be the effect of such a measure as that proposed, if, as an- 

 ticij^ated, it lowered publishers' returns ? Simply that it would drive 

 away a certain amount of capital out of the publishing business into 

 more remunerative businesses. Competition among publishers would 

 decrease ; and, as competition decreased, their profits would begin to 

 rise again, until, by and by, after a sufficient amount of perturbation 

 and bankruptcy, there would be a return to the ordinary rates of profit 

 on capital, and the proposed benefit to the public at the cost of pub- 

 lishers would disappear. 



Q. Then, with a view to the permanent cheapening of books, we 

 may gather that your opinion is that it would not be effected in the 

 way suggested ? 



A. I think not. The natural cheapening of books is beneficial ; the 

 artificial cheapening is mischievous. 



Q. May I ask you to explain what you mean by contrasting the 

 natural and the artificial cheapening of books ? 



A. By natural cheapening I mean that lowering of prices which fol- 

 lows increase of demand. I see no reason, a priori, for supposing that 

 publishers differ from other traders in their readiness to cater for a 

 larger public, if they see their way to making a profit by so doing; and, 

 a posteriori, there is abundant proof that they do this. The various 

 series of cheap books, bringing down even the whole of Shakespeare to 

 a shilling, and all Byron to a shilling, and each of Scott's novels to six- 

 pence, sufiiciently prove that prices will be lowered in the publishing 

 trade if the market is adequately extensive, just as in any other trade. 

 If it be said that in this case authors have not to be paid, I would sim- 

 ply refer to such a series as that of Mr. Bohn, who, notwithstanding the 

 payments to translators and others, published numerous valuable books 

 at low rates. Moreover, we have conclusive evidence that with the 

 works of still living authors the same thing happens, when the market 

 becomes sufficiently large to make a low price profitable. Witness not 

 only the cheap editions of many modem novels, but the cheap editions 

 even of Mr. Carlyle's works and Mr. Mill's works. Deductively and indue- 



