Talk:Eliza Smith (writer)

Biographical details to check

There is a suggestion from this blog text: [1] that in the introduction to a 1968 facsimile edition that she may have worked in a particular country house. This preface needs to be checked and then that biographical detail added.

"There are slight hints in her book of an association with the Netherlands, and Lord Montagu has suggested, in the introduction to a facsimile edition of her work published in 1968 that she may have worked at his home, Beaulieu Abbey in Hamsphire:

I was fascinated to find that several of the recipes contained were identical to those in manuscript form in my books. Although it is not known in which great house Mrs E. Smith worked it is more than probable that some of these dishes were orignially created in one of my ancestors kitchens.

(See page 133, A short- title caltolgue of Household and Cookery Books published in the English Tongue 1701-1800 by Virginia Mclean.)

Eliza Smith’s book, though not the first recipe book to be published in England is of interest to historians because it was the first to be published in America-at Williamsburg. It does contain some interesting and innovative recipes. She was among the first cookery writer to include potatoes for savoury dishes, and she even inlcuded one recipe using tea."

Her name

It isn't clear where the Eliza comes from. In her lifetime her books were published under the initials, E.S. Upon her death (the only report of which is by her publisher in the 5th edition) her name is published as E. Smith. All modern library indexes and biographies give her name as Eliza. However, given we have no birth or even confirmed death date and no other solid biographical information, this may be a guess.

Should her name thus be listed as E. (Eliza?) Smith. Or, Eliza? Smith.William Rubel (talk) 10:52, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

I followed up the reference to ODNB. There she is called "Smith, Eliza". ODNB is in general a very reliable source, so if they call her Eliza (a) there is probably some good reason (b) we will not be unwise if we follow them. But I haven't yet verified what ODNBs source for the name Eliza is, and it would certainly be good to know! Andrew Dalby 16:00, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

Andrew. I have searched ECCO and then Google Books in 10-year blocks beginning with 1800. I am pretty certain the first published use of Eliza -- or any first name -- was in 1965. There are a few blocked titles that I can't see into in the mid-20th-century, but it is very clear that until very recently it was assumed we did not know the name. The Library of Congress Union Catalogue pre 1956 lists her as E. Smith. I believe that we need to look at historic library catalogues. I have reviewed every book sale catalogue from 1806 through the 19th and early 20th centuries. There is simply no record of a first name. The only full name associated with her book is in an 1863 sale from Birmingham in which the owner of the book, Elizabeth Serle's -- a large property owner -- is given by way of provenance for the first edition. My current theory is that Eliza was added by a major library to its card catalogue in the 1960s. Like, the British Library, as part of a program to, for example, given names to women. There are no articles in JSTOR, there is nothing in Google Scholar. I am fairly certain there is simply no published reference to her first name prior to the later decades of the 20th century. Perhaps we could write to the author of the ODNB entry? William Rubel (talk) 10:04, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

William, what you say is certainly possible: it is the reason why B. Traven used to be called "Ben Traven" in some catalogues: it started as a mistake. But the English Wikipedia will not be the first place where you publish your research on this. "No original research" is the firm rule. Although you can write to the author of the ODNB entry, you should not publish her reply here. You have to publish it (with her permission) in a book or article somewhere else, along with whatever can be found in primary sources, positive or negative. Once that's done, we can use your material here.

What you can do, though, is to say, and cite, where that name Eliza first appears. 1965, you say. Where? Does the name appear in Lord Montagu's 1968 edition? Andrew Dalby 16:25, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

Andrew, I understand that I can't publish original research here. The British Library catalog has 2 books under e.s., 15 under e. smith, and 5 under Eliza Smith. The Library of Congress has 4 under e. smith and 1 under Eliza Smith, a book from 2002. UC Berkeley has 25 editions under e. smith and none under Eliza Smith. Seems like a good idea for me to write this up for the PPC. William Rubel (talk) 07:09, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

Excellent.

Library catalogue descriptions don't prove the negative, because it used to be normal to curtail the forenames in descriptions even if they were known. Library catalogue headings don't prove the positive, because Eliza would spread from one "reliable" catalogue to others. Hence the more real books can be checked, the better!

The latest edition I can find visible online is the 15th. The ODNB article (by Nancy Cox) cites the preface of the 16th edition (1758) and also says "in later editions her full name was given". It would be good to verify what she meant by "full" and whether the preface of the 16th ed. is cited for just this reason! Andrew Dalby 08:48, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

There are four mentions of "E. Smith"'s cookbook in the first nine issues of PPC. None of those authors call her "Eliza". Those are good secondary sources (alongside the early title pages, which are primary sources) if you want to move this article to "E. Smith". But better wait to see what Nancy Cox says about her reasons for choosing "Eliza". Andrew Dalby 14:20, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

Andrew, thank you so much for your help. Here is the problem. In no edition is her full name used. At ECCO, as fortune would have it, the 16th edition is not scanned. The 17th has no preface. The last edition, the 18th, does, but it is substantively enlarged. Of course, it could not have been revised by an author who had been dead for over three decade. In any case, it does not mention a first name, or any name. As for a 1758 sixteenth edition, if we find it, as she was long dead by that time, it was not her revealing anything.

This book strikes me, from the first, as what we now call a corporate work. The advertising was extensive -- 322 ads for 18 editions. That is 17 ads per edition! If only our own publishers would be so kind. I haven't looked at each and every ad. But I can say is that I think should one do so that one would find that the vast majority do not give any name at all. The author was never important. McLean states, "Although the 1st ed. was published under her initials only, she gives her name in subsequent editions." This is page 134 of her Prospect Books annotated bibliography of cookery books,1981. This statement is simply untrue. In no edition was her full name used and her last name was declared by the publisher (not her) to be Smith after her alleged death, IF we are to believe her publisher. Note that Cox accepts the last name Smith but doesn't accept the death date which she gives as 1732? Why question the death date and not the name? Is there any tradition of declaring pseudonymous authors dead? It seems that the acceptance of "Smith" as the last name hinges on there not being such a tradition.

I feel way over my head in this. I have no idea what kind of literary pranks were played at the time. As a 21st century person I find it incredible that such a popular author could have lived and died with no trace. But, is that unusual? In any case, sticking with the record. I will do my best to find the 16th edition but I see no room in the preface that was printed, with variations, for more than 30 years for the preface author to have stated her (or his) name.

We are taking the preface to be a true statement of fact -- that the author was a housekeeper -- but there is no outside evidence for that statement. It was, however, the kind of job that made sense for a female author of a cookbook. Janet Theophano in Eat My Words: Reading Women's Lives Through the Cookbooks They Wrote p. 194 (you can find at google books) raises the question of the preface's authorship. (Theophano, by the way, states that there were 16 editions, not 18.)

Primary research: Jane Levi suggests we look at the publishers' records, should we be able to find them. The publisher, J. Pemberton, was well known. There are period books about the company. Separately, I am thinking that a computer driven analysis of the writing might lead to something. Does the material added after her death match the style of the recipes published in the first edition? William Rubel (talk) 12:10, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

I was wondering about the publisher. The latest editions were from Longman (very well known, with a published history): in what circumstances the publisher changed, I don't know.

For Wikipedia I'd suggest you consider separately the opinions of earlier historians and bibliographers (which definitely belong in the article, with footnote references) and your own thoughts and speculations (which definitely don't belong, as you know, until they have been published elsewhere).

The preface of the 16th ed. might be important or it might not. Nancy Cox, who cited it, ought to be able to tell you! If written by someone else it could contain just the nugget of information we want. Andrew Dalby 10:24, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Her importance

E. Smith was one of the most widely read cookbook author in the UK and the North American colonies from roughly 1827 when her book was first published through to the end of the century. As one of the first important woman cookbook authors writing in English she has a very important place in the history of women cookbook writers. That we know nothing about her -- hence the stub status of the post -- is probably an issue that relates to her position as a female cookbook writer and at one point will be discussed in an academic article. The existence of this stub in the Wikipedia and its obvious limitations will, hopefully, spur research into her life. Somewhere, there must be more information to be published and then cited here. William Rubel (talk) 07:10, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

Stub Class

At this point, the information in this article includes all published information on the life of E. Smith. William Rubel (talk) 07:12, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

I gather "stub class" is usually judged automatically by length. The ideal English Wikipedia article is much longer than this. A good way to get this article to "start class" would be to add information about the forerunners who influenced her, the later figures who were influenced by her, and her emergence into modern cookbook bibliography and scholarship ... I doubt if she'll get beyond "start class" before the end of the universe. Andrew Dalby 09:02, 12 July 2015 (UTC)