Maryland Journal

July 2

Carl Robert Keyes Daily Advert Update , , , ,

What was advertised in a colonial American newspaper 250 years ago today?

Maryland Journal (July 2, 1774).

“IN Gratitude to Doctor GILBERT, I … make this public acknowledgment.”

When Doctor Gilbert moved to a new location on Market Street from Gay Street in Baltimore in 1774, he alerted “the public, and in general his former customers” in an advertisement in the Maryland Journal.  Yet that information appeared at the end of a lengthy advertisement devoted primarily to testimonials from some of the patients he served.  The advertisement began with Joseph Smith, “master-carpenter of the town of Baltimore,” expressing his gratitude to the doctor and doing so in the public prints “for the good of those labouring under the like disorders.”  He then explained that for nine years he had suffered from ulcers that would not heal on one of his feet, despite the skill of other doctors he consulted.  His condition reached such a “deplorable condition” that he feared that his leg would need to be amputated “to save my life.”  Fortunately, he “applied to Doctor Gilbert” who “thro’ his great skill and experience in surgery and physic, hath completed on me a perfect and miraculous cure.”

Similarly, Catherine Smith offered an account of her experience with a “sore toe” that would not heal.  She saw several doctors, but they unsuccessfully treated her and instead “brought it to a gangrene and mortification.”  She turned to Gilbert.  Although he could not save her toe, after he amputated it he “brought me to as good a state of health as I ever before enjoyed.”  Smith offered her “most sincere thanks” for “his tender care of me,” making a statement in an advertisement “for the benefit of the public.”  David Rusk felt a similar duty to report on how Gilbert aided members of his household.  “FOR the good of my Neighbours,” he explained, “I cannot omit giving this public testimony of Doctor GILBERT.”  His servant, Mary, had “a very large ulcer on one of her legs for near five years.”  She had also seen many doctors “to no purpose,” but then Gilbert “made a perfect cure of her, contrary to expectation of any who saw the sore.”  In addition, Gilbert cured Rusk’s daughter of deafness through treating “a running out of her Ears, which she has been afflicted with these several years.”

For his part, Gilbert did not describe his services or his training.  He merely informed readers of his new location and mentioned that he sold “a fresh assortment of drugs and medicines.”  He apparently believed that he did not need to expound on his credentials or his experience like others who provided medical services often did in their advertisements, figuring that testimonials from his former patients told a more compelling and more convincing story than anything he could say about himself.  Those stories of successful treatments offered hope to prospective patients, a powerful motivation to seek Gilbert’s services.

June 11

Carl Robert Keyes Daily Advert Update , , , , , , , ,

What was advertised in a colonial American newspaper 250 years ago today?

Maryland Journal (June 11, 1774).

“No money be expected until the test of proof shall confirm their intrinsic value.”

When he set up shop “at the sign of the DIAL” in Baltimore, John McCabe, a “WATCH and CLOCK-MAKER, From DUBLIN,” deployed a marketing strategy commonly undertaken by artisans who migrated across the Atlantic to the colonies.  In an advertisement in the June 11, 1774, edition of the Maryland Journal, he sought to establish his reputation in a town that did not have firsthand knowledge of his skill.  Instead, he relied on an overview of his experience, asserting that he had “conducted business for many of the most capital artists in London, Dublin, and Liverpool.”  Having worked in the most exclusive shops in urban centers, especially the cosmopolitan center of the empire, gave the newcomer a certain cachet, enhanced even more by the “testimony of their approbation of his abilities” that he claimed he could produce.

Yet McCabe did not rest on such laurels that were not immediately apparent to readers.  Instead, he simultaneously declared that his “fixed determination to pay the strictest attention to business.”  Underscoring his industriousness also came from the playbook developed by other artisans, a familiar refrain in their advertisements.  Prospective customers who might have been skeptical of McCabe’s credentials could judge for themselves whether he made clocks and watches “equal, if not superior, in elegance of workmanship and accuracy of construction to any imported.”  They could acquire such timepieces “upon reasonable terms,” getting the same style and quality as watches and clocks from London without paying exorbitant prices.

Even though the initial portions of his advertisement resembled notices placed by other artisans, McCabe, he did include an offer not made nearly as often: allowing a trial period for customers to decide if they wished to purchase or return watches and clocks from his shop.  The enterprising artisan declared that “ladies and gentlemen may be furnished” with any of the variety of clocks and watches listed in his advertisement and “no money be expected until the test of proof shall confirm their intrinsic value.”  McCabe did not explicitly state that customers could return items they found lacking, so confident was he that they would indeed be satisfied with his wares during the trial.  He extended a similar offer for “spring clocks for mariners … which keep time on a principle, he believes, superior to any hitherto practised.”  Customers could make that determination for themselves: “he will suffer them to be tried two or three voyages at Sea before he requires payment.”  Such arrangements would have required some negotiation about the amount of time and the length of those voyages, but allowing for such trials before collecting money from customers did not put McCabe at a disadvantage in the eighteenth-century commercial culture of extending extensive credit to consumers.  Prospective customers likely expected credit, so McCabe gained by transforming the time that would elapse between purchase and payment into a trial, giving those customers the impression that they received an additional benefit from doing business with him.  For some, that may have been the more effective marketing strategy than any claims about his experience working in the best shops in London, Dublin, and Liverpool.

June 4

Carl Robert Keyes Daily Advert Update , , , , ,

What was advertised in a colonial American newspaper 250 years ago today?

Maryland Journal (June 4, 1774).

“An accurate map of Baltimore and Harford counties.”

Authors, booksellers, and printers often published books and magazines by subscription in the eighteenth century … or at least attempted to do so.  Before taking publications to press, they distributed subscription proposals to encourage interest and assess demand.  Subscribers reserved copies in advance, sometimes paying deposits.  If the publishers determined that the number of subscribers would make books or magazines viable enterprises, they moved forward with the proposed works.  If subscriptions did not generate sufficient revenue, publishers abandoned projects.

Artists and engravers also used subscriptions for publishing prints, as did surveyors for maps.  George Gouldsmith Presbury, “Deputy-Surveyor of Harford county” in Maryland, published subscription proposals for “an accurate map of Baltimore and Harford counties” in the Maryland Journal, Baltimore’s first newspaper, in 1774.  That the surveyor envisioned a market for this map testified to the growing significance of Baltimore on the eve of the American Revolution.  The map “will be nearly, if not quite, a yard square” and feature “a description of all the rivers, creeks, town, and public roads.”  Presbury needed commitments from “one thousand subscribers” before “the work will be put to press.”  To aid in the endeavor, more than a dozen local agents in Baltimore, Harford, and Anne Arundel Counties accepted subscriptions and deposits.  Upon publication, Presbury would advertise in the Maryland Journal once again, calling on subscribers to collect their maps form the local agents who accepted their subscriptions.

Presbury also allowed for the possibility that the market would not yet support this project.  He allowed for six months for subscribers to reserve their copies, advising that he “cannot, without loss to himself, publish the map in the manner he proposes” if he did not raise enough funds.  If necessary, “notice will then be given in this paper” that the proposal had not succeeded and “each subscriber may again receive his subscription money” from the local agent that received it.  Apparently, that was the case, though Presbury did publish A New and Accurate Map of Baltimore-Town six years later. Presbury and other prospective publishers used subscription proposals to take risks in the marketplace for books, magazines, prints, and maps, but only to an extent, while shielding themselves from losses.

May 28

Carl Robert Keyes Daily Advert Update , , , , ,

What was advertised in a colonial American newspaper 250 years ago today?

Maryland Journal (May 28, 1774).

“Next door but one to the London coffee-house, on Fell’s-Point, Baltimore.”

Baltimore was growing in importance on the eve of the American Revolution, though the port did not yet rival or surpass Annapolis.  In August 1773, William Goddard launched the Maryland Journal, the first newspaper printed in Baltimore.  Joseph Rathell attempted to establish a circulating library in the fall of 1773, but in the end could not compete with bookseller William Aikman’s library in Annapolis.  Still, the advertisements in the Maryland Journal testified to other amenities available in Baltimore, a town that offered a style of life becoming increasingly sophisticated.

Among the advertisements in the May 28, 1774, edition, one promoted a “Stage … between the city of Philadelphia and Baltimore-Town.”  Instead of directing their attention solely toward Annapolis, residents of Baltimore also cultivated connections with Philadelphia, the largest and most cosmopolitan city in the colonies.  In addition to transporting passengers, the operators of the “stage wagon” and “stage boat” also carried goods.  Yet consumers in Baltimore did not need to rely on placing orders with merchants and shopkeepers in Philadelphia or any other city.  Retailers in their own town carried all sorts of imported goods.  Christopher Johnson and Company advertised their “neat and general assortment of goods, just imported … from LONDON,” listing an array of textiles and housewares comparable to the selection available in towns of all sizes throughout the colonies.  In his advertisement, William O’Bryan previewed a “fresh supply of Books, of the latest Publication, from London, Dublin, and Edinburgh.”

Yet it was not solely the availability of goods that marked Baltimore’s participation in the transatlantic consumer revolution.  Residents also appreciated the latest fashions, aiming to demonstrate that even at a distance they kept up with current styles.  Edward Kearns, a tailor, trumpeted that he “has conducted business, with approbation, for some of the most celebrated fashions in Dublin.”  Clients could find his shop “at the sign of the Hand and Shears, … next door but one to the London coffee-house.”  That establishment also represented connections to the metropolis that elevated Baltimore’s standing as more than a distant outpost.  In addition, George Pointon ran a “DANCING SCHOOL … FOR the accomplishment of young ladies and gentlemen, in the most modern variety in that genteel branch of polite education.”  The dancing master also tended to the comportment of his pupils, pledging “his earnest attention to the improvement of their behaviour.”  His description of his services corresponded with newspaper notices placed by dancing masters in major urban ports like Philadelphia, New York, and Charleston.  Displays of gentility mattered as much to colonizers in Baltimore as in other cities and towns.  Not only did they acquire clothing and goods that matched the latest fashions, they also developed manners that confirmed their status … or at least had opportunities to do so, according to the goods and services represented among the advertisements in the Maryland Journal.

January 8

Carl Robert Keyes Daily Advert Update , , , ,

What was advertised in a colonial American newspaper 250 years ago today?

Maryland Journal (January 8, 1774).

“My Entreaty to a great Majority of the Subscribers … to pay the Entrance Money, (a small Sum!)”

Less than five months after William Goddard commenced publication of the Maryland Journal on August 20, 1773, he found the enterprise in a dire financial position, at least according to the notice that he placed in the January 8, 1774, edition.  It appeared under a heading for “New Advertisements,” the first item following news, letters, and editorials.  With a manicule to help draw attention to his message, the printer lamented, “IT gives me real Pain to find myself under the Necessity of repeating my Entreaty to a great Majority of the Subscribers for the Encouragement of this paper, to pay the Entrance Money, (a small Sum!) agreeable to Contract.”  Indeed, Goddard had specified in his subscription proposals that Baltimore’s first newspaper would cost “the moderate Price of TEN SHILLINGS, … per Annum, one Half to be paid at the Time of subscribing, and the Remainder at the Expiration of the Year.”  He also pledged to begin publication “as soon … as I shall obtain a sufficient Number of Subscribers barely to defray the Expence of this Work.”

Enough subscribers may have submitted payment “barely to defray” the cost of printing those first issues, but Goddard apparently did not insist that more subscribers actually pay the entrance fee before he launched the venture.  Publishing a newspaper was a complex endeavor.  With a large enough subscription base, printers could convince others to subscribe.  The size of that subscription base also testified to the circulation of the newspaper, important for bringing in advertisements.  Many printers considered advertising more lucrative than subscriptions, allowing credit for subscriptions but not advertisements.  Still, that was not the deal that Goddard outlined in the subscription proposals for the Maryland Journal.  He may have figured that subscribers would pay once he distributed the first issue, so he gambled on taking the newspaper to press before most subscribers paid.  Goddard may have also been concerned about the prospects of competition.  The growing port had reached the point that it might support its own newspaper instead of relying on newspapers published in Annapolis and Philadelphia … but could it support two newspapers?  At the same time that Goddard circulated proposals for the Maryland Journal, Robert Hodge and Frederick Shober announced that they “intend shortly to exhibit Proposals for publishing a NEWS-PAPER, which shall be justly entitled to the Attention and Encouragement of this FLOURISHING TOWN.”  In the end, Goddard printed a newspaper in Baltimore, while Hodge and Shober did not.  Perhaps Goddard overextended himself when he faced competition.

If the Maryland Journal failed and Goddard shuttered his printing shop in Baltimore, it would not be his fault.  At least that was what he claimed in his notice, asserting that “[t]hose who neglect complying with this reasonable Request” to pay the entrance fee “may consider themselves individually accessary to the Fall of the Maryland Journal.”   Goddard did not acknowledge that he may have been overzealous in publishing the newspaper before he secured sufficient funding, nor did he acknowledge reasons that some subscribers may have been dissatisfied.  For instance, publication had been sporadic at times in those first months.  From Goddard’s perspective, however, that did not absolve subscribers of their obligation to pay.  After all, publishing a newspaper was an “arduous and very expensive Undertaking” that would not endure without “that Assistance which was expected, according to the Terms of the Proposals.”  Even if Goddard got a little ahead of himself by publishing the newspaper before collecting the entrance fees, subscribers now had a duty to catch up with their payments.  Otherwise, the public would lose a newspaper that disseminated all sorts of advertisements and news, including coverage of the crisis over tea that resulted in colonizers in Boston dumping tea shipped by the East India Company into the harbor.

December 18

Carl Robert Keyes Daily Advert Update , , ,

What was advertised in a colonial American newspaper 250 years ago today?

Maryland Journal (December 18, 1773).

“Fine hyson and bohea tea.”

Benjamin Levy advertised a variety of groceries, including “fine hyson and bohea tea,” available at his store on Market Street in Baltimore in the December 18, 1773, edition of the Maryland Journal.  Two nights earlier, colonizers disguised as Indians boarded ships in Boston and tossed tea shipped by the East India Company into the harbor to protest the Tea Act.  While it would take a little time for that news to reach Baltimore, the newspaper carried other news about the escalating crisis.

The first page featured news from Boston, dated November 29: “Yesterday morning arrived here the ship Dartmouth, Capt. Hall, in 8 weeks from London, with 114 chests of the long expected and much talked of TEA.”  The following morning, a handbill posted around town proclaimed, “FRIENDS!  BRETHREN!  COUNTRYMEN!  THAT worst of plagues, the detested TEA, shipped for this port by the East-India Company, is now arrived in this harbour; the hour of destruction or manly opposition to the machinations of tyranny stares you in the face.”  In the face of this threat, “every friend to his country, to himself and posterity, is now called upon to meet at Faneuil Hall … to make a united and successful resistance to this last, worst and most destructive measure of administration.”  The remainder of the page and two columns on the second page provided an overview of the meeting, a response from the governor and Loyalist merchants, and a resolution from the town meeting stating that “if any person or persons shall hereafter import Tea from Great-Britain … until the said unrighteous Act shall be repealed, he or they shall be deemed by this body, an enemy of his country.”  In addition, “we will prevent the landing and sale of the same, and the payment of any duty thereon.  And we will effect the return thereof to the place from whence it shall come.”  Another resolution called for “the foregoing vote to be printed and sent to England, and all the sea-ports in this province.”  That news made it far beyond other ports in Massachusetts.

A much shorter piece followed the accounts from Boston.  A condescending note to women suggested that their enjoyment of tea played a significant role in precipitating the crisis, ignoring the fact that both men and women, poor, middling, and wealthy, all consumed tea.  “LADIES,” it declared, “HOWEVER coolly some of you may now esteem your husband, it might be worth your while to consider, whether by abandoning the accursed TEA, you will preserve your country and posterity in peace and good order, or expose twenty-five thousand of them to spill their blood, in defence of their undoubted birth-right.”  The anonymous correspondent anticipated an armed conflict over the English liberties that colonizers were supposed to possess, arguing that if that did indeed come to pass then women would be at fault for not abstaining from tea.  This echoed a sentiment so often expressed among the editorials in newspapers during the imperial crisis:  women presented dangers both political and cultural through their consumption of tea and other goods.

The Maryland Journal even included an inaccurate account of what occurred in Massachusetts: “A Gentleman just come to Town from Boston assures us, That the East India Company’s TEA, lately arrived at that Place, in several Ships, from London, for the Purpose of enslaving and impoverishing, if not poisoning, the People, was all sent back to the Proprietors, conformable to the noble and Spirited Resolves of the brave Inhabitants of the Town of Boston.”  That was not what happened at all, as colonizers in Baltimore would soon learn.  Even as Benjamin Levy advertised “fine hyson and bohea tea” for sale at his store in Baltimore, tea shipped by the East India Company floated in Boston Harbor.  A new stage of the imperial crisis was brewing as colonizers faced repercussions from Parliament for that act of protest.

November 20

Carl Robert Keyes Daily Advert Update , , , ,

What was advertised in a colonial American newspaper 250 years ago today?

Maryland Journal (November 20, 1773).

“Such unworthy motives as these are far from Dr. Gilbert’s intention.”

When Dr. H. Gilbert relocated from Philadelphia to Baltimore, he inserted an advertisement in the Maryland Journal to introduce himself to the community and solicit patients who wished to consult him about “all the disorders to which the human body is incident.”  His lively notice included commentary about the kinds of advertisements that others who provided medical services often placed. “It is now become almost customary,” the doctor observed, “at least many have of late thought proper to begin their address to the public with liberal encomiums on their own knowledge, practice, and abilities.”  When they arrived in new places, doctors could not rely on their reputations to encourage patients to see them; in the absence of such familiarity, many emphasized their training and experience to assure prospective patients that they would be in good hands.

Gilbert found a certain aspect of such introductions particularly unsavory and disingenuous.  Some doctors, he charged, “at once declare there is no disorder, however accute or malignant in its nature, that they cannot immediately not only give relief in, but effectually eradicate, without the least inconvenience or danger to the patient.”  Those claims appeared in too many newspaper advertisements and handbills, leading “persons who are unacquainted with the human frame” to believe that “many disorders exist altogether in the imagination, by the easy manner in which they are said to be expelled.”  Such marketing had two outcomes: “imposing on the ignorant” and “the emolument of the authors of such preposterous assertions.”  Unfortunately, patients often had a “fatal experience” under those circumstances.  Gilbert suggested that grandiose promises from doctors “must … appear in a very ridiculous light to every person of the smallest degree of penetration.”  In a backhanded fashion, he discouraged readers from seeking treatment from quacks and charlatans who seemed to promise too much.

Gilbert pledged that he would give patients false hopes by telling them merely what they wanted to hear and taking their money for cures that did not work.  He would not make “preposterous assertions” and swindle them: “such unworthy motives as these are far from Dr. Gilbert’s intention.”  He did relay his own credentials, “being regularly bred to his profession, as well as his having had several years experience and practice by land and sea, and in Germany, Holland, and America,” but did not make the kinds of unfounded assertions that he critiqued.  Instead, he stated that he would “exert his utmost abilities to serve” patients and “by good attendance and a particular attention to their respective cases, endeavour to merit the patronage of the public.”  In other words, Gilbert stressed the individualized care that he bestowed on each patient.  He assessed their particular symptoms and recommended care specific to their needs.  Rather than making self-promotion and dubious promises the centerpieces of his marketing efforts, he emphasized honesty and respect in his interactions with the public and his patients.

November 13

Carl Robert Keyes Daily Advert Update , , , , ,

What was advertised in a colonial American newspaper 250 years ago today?

Maryland Journal (November 13, 1773).

“Mr. RATHELL thankfully acknowledges the receipt of a Letter signed ‘a Friend to Literary Institutions.’”

Joseph Rathell’s “PROPOSALS FOR ESTABLISHING A CIRCULATING LIBRARY IN BALTIMORE-TOWN” appeared once again in the November 13, 1773, edition of the Maryland Journal.  So did William Aikman’s address “To the LADIES and GENTLEMEN of the Town of BALTIMORE” concerning his efforts to establish a circulating library in Annapolis and deliver books to subscribers in Baltimore.  Aikman reported that he heard from prospective subscribers that they had concerns about “the trouble and risk they run of procuring and returning the books.”  To assuage such anxieties, he devised a plan for subscribers in Baltimore to submit orders and return books to a local merchant who would then forward them to Annapolis via a weekly packet ship.  Aikman planned to charge a dollar for delivery service in addition to the subscription fees.  Rathell mocked the additional fee in an advertisement that ran in the same issue of the Maryland Journal as Aikman’s notice.  He seemingly knew about Aikman’s advertisement before it appeared in print, perhaps tipped off by a friend in the printing office.

Whether or not that was the case, Rathell did receive other assistance from the Maryland Journal in marketing his circulating library.  The local news items included a blurb about his efforts and the response from residents of the city so far.  The blurb ran immediately below “SHIP NEWS” and before “PRICES CURRENT at BALTIMORE,” a prime spot for merchants and other readers to notice it.  It related that Rathell “thankfully acknowledges the receipt of a Letter signed ‘a Friend to Literary Institutions,’ enclosing the Names of sundry Ladies and Gentlemen, as Subscribers to his intended CIRCULATING LIBRARY.”  Readers may have doubted the veracity of this report, dismissing it as mere puffery.  Those who continued reading encountered commentary from Rathell that might have more appropriately appeared among the advertisements.  For instance, he pledged that “he will be particularly exact in selecting the Books, in which he will be principally governed by Gentlemen of known literary Skill, in Philadelphia, and New-York.”  In so doing, he directed attention away from Aikman’s library in Annapolis in favor of larger and more cosmopolitan port cities.  He also directly solicited requests from prospective subscribers to his library, proclaiming that “any Commands addressed to Mr. Rathell, directing his Attention to particular, scarce, or curious Publications, &c. shall meet due Regard.”  This advertisement masqueraded as a news item, supplementing the proposals that Rathell published elsewhere in the newspaper.  He could have incorporated all of the information into a single notice, but a news item doubled as an endorsement of his enterprise.  In the end, it did not matter.  Rathell did not manage to launch a circulating library in Baltimore.  Aikman had more success with his endeavor in Annapolis, at least prior to the Revolutionary War.

November 6

Carl Robert Keyes Daily Advert Update , , , ,

What was advertised in a colonial American newspaper 250 years ago this week?

Maryland Journal (November 6, 1773).

“PROPOSALS FOR ESTABLISHING A CIRCULATING LIBRARY IN BALTIMORE-TOWN.”

When he opened a circulating library in Annapolis in 1773, bookseller and stationer William Aikman faced competition in his efforts to recruit subscribers in Baltimore.  Joseph Rathell announced his own intention for “ESTABLISHING A CIRCULATING LIBRARY IN BALTIMORE-TOWN” in the October 23 edition of the Maryland Journal.  A week later, he published a longer advertisement, one that offered the same amenities, lower fees, and greater convenience for patrons than Aikman outlined in his notices.

In his updated address to prospective subscribers, Rathell emphasized the fees for “this much wish’d for Institution,” just “one Dollar a Quarter … (tho’ the Subscription to the Annapolis Library is One Guinea per Annum, besides the Expence of a Dollar a Year for Carriage of Books from thence to this Place by Water).”  He expected readers to recognize the bargain for the quarterly fee, while simultaneously mocking Aikman’s most recent advertisement.  Aikman apparently learned of Rathell’s “PROPOSALS” and, wary of the threat to his own efforts to expand his clientele beyond Annapolis, devised a plan to address the concerns that prospective subscribers had expressed about the “trouble and risk they run of procuring and returning the books.”  In an advertisement in the October 30 edition of the Maryland Journal, the first issue after Rathell’s original advertisement, Aikman presented what he considered a reasonable solution, “any orders for books left with Mr. Christopher Johnston, merchant, in Baltimore, will be regularly forwarded by a packet that goes weekly between Baltimore and Annapolis.”  Subscribers could request and return books for just a dollar a year, an additional fee that Rathell derided.  Somehow, the bookseller in Baltimore became aware of Aikman’s proposal before it appeared in print in the Maryland Journal.  In the same issue that Aikman first introduced delivery service Rathell published a rejoinder on another page.  The advertisements ran next to each other in the November 6 edition, drawing even more attention to the bargain that Rathell offered.  How did he know about Aikman’s newest proposal before reading the advertisement in the newspaper?  The annual subscription fee previously appeared in notices in the Maryland Gazette, advertisements that Rathell could have seen, but the delivery service was a new aspect of Aikman’s library.  Did someone in the printing office pass along that information?

Rathell sought to cater to “the Convenience of Gentlemen and Ladies of Literary Taste and Discernment” in Baltimore and surrounding towns, but he was not quite ready to launch his own circulating library.  His advertisement undercutting Aikman also served as an invitation to prospective subscribers to submit their names within three weeks of his advertisement’s first appearance in the Maryland Journal.  At that time, “if an adequate Number of Subscribers appear, the Library will be completed and opened without Delay.”  Rathell encouraged subscribers “to be speedy in entering their Names … that he may be the sooner enable to provide a COLLECTION OF BOOKS … very considerable in Number.”  He likely also intended that such haste would prompt prospective subscribers to choose between his library and Aikman’s library in Annapolis, boosting the prospects for his own by drawing subscribers away from a rival.  This ploy did not work, in part because prospective subscribers considered Aikman’s proposal the more viable option.  Rathell did not open a circulating library in Baltimore, despite the savvy appeals he made.  Other factors defeated his plan.  As Joseph Towne Wheeler explains, “the growing commercial town was still dependent upon the older community.”[1]  After all, the Maryland Journal, Baltimore’s first newspaper, commenced publication just a couple of months earlier.  “After the Revolution the situation was reversed,” Wheeler continues, noting that “when Parson Weems visited Annapolis in 1800, he could write, ‘There is not a book store in the whole town.’”[2]  Baltimore was not quite ready for the circulating library that Rathell envisioned.

**********

[1] Joseph Towne Wheeler, “Booksellers and Circulating Libraries in Colonial Maryland,” Maryland Historical Magazine 34, no. 2 (June 1939): 118.

[2] Wheeler, “Booksellers and Circulating Libraries,” 119.

October 30

Carl Robert Keyes Daily Advert Update , , ,

What was advertised in a colonial American newspaper 250 years ago today?

Maryland Journal (October 30, 1773).

“Any orders for books … will be regularly forwarded by a packet that goes weekly between Baltimore and Annapolis.”

When William Aikman opened a circulating library in Annapolis in the summer of 1773, he hoped to gain subscribers in Baltimore and other towns.  Unlike modern public libraries open to all patrons, eighteenth-century circulating libraries lent books and other reading material only to subscribers who paid fees to access them.  To make the venture viable, Aikman needed to recruit as many subscribers as possible.  According to the advertisement he placed in the October 30 edition of the Maryland Journal, the newspaper only recently established in Baltimore, Aikman stated that he had learned that a “number of the friends of literature” in that city expressed interest in subscribing to his library yet refrained solely due to the “trouble and risk they run of procuring and returning the books” at such a distance.  His library catalog revealed which books subscribers could borrow, but the logistics of checking them out and returning them to the library remained an obstacle.

Aikman proposed a solution to that problem.  He instructed that “any orders for books left with Mr. Christopher Johnston,” a merchant in Baltimore, “will be regularly forwarded by a packet that goes weekly between Baltimore and Annapolis.”  Aikman charged an additional fee for this service, a dollar a year.  He also advised that it would go into effect “provided a proper number of subscribers can be got.”  In other words, prospective subscribers needed to consider not only the benefits that would accrue to them but also their duty to make the library more accessible to the “friends of literature” in their town.  Aikman promised “above two hundred volumes of all the new publications of merit” that subscribers could borrow rather than buy.

The bookseller and stationer in Annapolis may not have been aware that he faced a competitor.  Elsewhere in the October 30 edition of the Maryland Journal, Joseph Rathell published “PROPOSALS FOR ESTABLISHING A CIRCULATING LIBRARY IN BALTIMORE-TOWN,” offering residents a local alternative to the library in Annapolis.  The Adverts 250 Project will examine that advertisement, including Rathell’s dismissive reference to Aikman’s fees for delivering books to Baltimore, in another entry.