Letter from Mary Holderness to William Upcott, January 26th, 1823

By Emily Mikkola

Introduction

This letter is addressed to “W. Upcott Esqre”, meaning Mr. William Upcott. In the letter, Holderness seems to have made business arrangements with a Mr Sherwood that Upcott is involved in, and is passing along some information regarding both the deal itself as well as her thoughts on it. Holderness is providing Sherwood with some art that she is awaiting payment for, and Upcott must know him well enough to be able to encourage him to respond to Mary quickly. She shares contempt with Upcott about how the deal has been going in a fairly casual tone, which implies that her relationship with Upcott is both a business partnership as well as a friendship. Holderness tells him that she has already worked for several weeks for no profit but now thinks that Sherwood should have paid a portion before and the rest after— she is struggling to get in touch with him and has to deal with the printers and engravers that she is getting the pieces from. She mentions that she had left her manuscript with Sherwood and he seems to have told her that his response would only be delayed a day, however he has kept Holderness waiting for longer. She also mentions that she is planning to “leave the neighbourhood of the City”, having seen a house that she is likely going to move into, and would prefer to have the deal with Sherwood closed as soon as possible. 

Description

There is an envelope included in the letter as well as a stamp and address, so it appears that Holderness used the Postal System to have this letter delivered to Upcott. There is also a stamp saying “Lombard St” and “Paid”, confirming that she used the Postal Service. It is addressed to the London Institute (where Upcott worked as a Librarian) and is addressed from 6 Great Suffolk Street Borough. There is also a stamp with a logo on it, presumably from the Postal Service, and on the last page of the letter there is remnants of a wax seal. Holderness’s handwriting is quite tidy and she leaves very little blank space, using both sides of two sheets of paper. 

Notable Features

There are several mistakes and areas that are difficult to read— she writes that she had met with a House that she “shall probably be [crossed out] take”, and has cramped sections that are difficult to read, suggesting this is not an extremely formal letter. This letter is also addressed to Upcott himself, who then must have decided to add it to his collection of letters from eminent women. 

Analysis 

This letter is dated January 16th 1823, so it is likely that the manuscript that she had left with Sherwoods was her work titled “New Russia. Journey from Riga to the Crimea, by Way of Kiev; with Some Account of the Colonization, and the Manners and Customs of the Colonists of New Russia. To Which Are Added, Notes Relating to the Crim Tatars.” 

Holderness and her family had lived in Riga from 1816 to 1820 and she had written several travel books about her experiences, and Upcott helped her negotiate terms with Sherwood and Jones in November of 1822 (British Travel Writing). This letter, being written in January of 1823, may have been late stages of this negotiation. The purpose of this letter is to seek advice from Upcott on how to deal with her publisher and Holderness asks for help in how to proceed with Sherwood, especially regarding payment. It is not clear what art pieces Holderness was providing Sherwood with and whether this was part of the publishing deal. 

Mr. Young, whom Holderness “had intended to write again [to make] some trifling additions” is assumed to be the Reverend Arthur Young, who had placed an advertisement in the Suffolk press for farmers to accompany him to the Crimea to sublet or purchase land from a large estate that he had there (British Travel Writing). Young, being the reason that Holderness and her family had moved to the Baltic, had intended to publish a travel book himself, but when it did not happen, Holderness published her own. Upcott seemed to have previous knowledge about the deal between Holderness and Sherwood and has more context than what is given, so Holderness’s letter seems like either a reply to a previous letter regarding the same topic, or an update on any new information that she has.