A Publisher and His Friends Part 11

"Respecting my _Review_, you appear to forget that your engagement was that I should be your sole agent here, and that you were to publish nothing but what I was to have the offer of a share in. Your deviation from this must have led me to conclude that you did not desire or expect to continue my agent any longer. You cannot suppose that my estimation of Mr. Scott's genius can have rendered me indifferent to my exclusion from a share in the 'Lady of the Lake.' I mention this as well to testify that I am not indifferent to this conduct in you as to point it out to you, that if you mean to withhold from me that portion which you command of the advantages of our connexion, you must surely mean to resign any that might arise from me. The sole agency for my publications in Edinburgh is worth to any man who understands his business 300 a year; but this requires zealous activity and deference on one side, and great confidence on both, otherwise the connexion cannot be advantageous or satisfactory to either party. For this number of the _Review_ I have continued your name solely in it, and propose to make you as before sole publisher in Scotland; but as you have yourself adopted the plan of drawing upon me for the amount of each transaction, you will do me the favour to consider what quant.i.ty you will need, and upon your remitting to me a note at six months for the amount, I shall immediately ship the quant.i.ty for you."

_Mr. James Ballantyne to John Murray_.

"Your agency hitherto has been productive of little or no advantage to us, and the fault has not lain with us. We have persisted in offering you shares of everything begun by us, till we found the hopelessness of waiting any return; and in dividing Mr. Scott's poem, we found it our duty to give what share we had to part with to those by whom we were chiefly benefited both as booksellers and printers."

This letter was accompanied with a heavy bill for printing the works of De Foe for Mr. Murray. A breach thus took place with the Ballantynes; the publisher of the _Quarterly_ was compelled to look out for a new agent for Scotland, and met with a thoroughly competent one in Mr.

William Blackwood, the founder of the well-known publishing house in Edinburgh.

To return to the progress of the _Quarterly_. The fifth number, which was due in February 1810, but did not appear until the end of March, contained many excellent articles, though, as Mr. Ellis said, some of them were contributed by "good and steady but marvellously heavy friends." Yet he found it better than the _Edinburgh_, which on that occasion was "reasonably dull."

It contained one article which became the foundation of an English cla.s.sic, that of Southey on the "Life of Nelson." Of this article Murray wrote to its author:

"I wish it to be made such a book as shall become the heroic text of every midshipman in the Navy, and the a.s.sociation of Nelson and Southey will not, I think, be ungrateful to you. If it be worth your attention in this way I am disposed to think that it will enable me to treble the sum I first offered as a slight remuneration."

Mr. Murray, writing to Mr. Scott (August 28, 1810) as to the appearance of the new number, which did not appear till a month and a half after it was due, remarked on the fourth article. "This," he said, "is a review of the 'Daughters of Isenberg, a Bavarian Romance,' by Mr. Gifford, to whom the auth.o.r.ess (Alicia T. Palmer) had the temerity to send three 1 notes!" Gifford, instead of sending back the money with indignation, as he at first proposed, reviewed the romance, and a.s.sumed that the auth.o.r.ess had sent him the money for charitable purposes.

_Mr. Gifford to Miss A.T. Palmer_.

"Our avocations leave us but little leisure for extra-official employment; and in the present case she has inadvertently added to our difficulties by forbearing to specify the precise objects of her bounty.

We hesitated for some time between the Foundling and Lying-in Hospitals: in finally determining for the latter, we humbly trust that we have not disappointed her expectations, nor misapplied her charity. Our publisher will transmit the proper receipt to her address."

One of the princ.i.p.al objections of Mr. Murray to the manner in which Mr. Gifford edited the _Quarterly_ was the war which he waged with the _Edinburgh_. This, he held, was not the way in which a respectable periodical should be conducted. It had a line of its own to pursue, without attacking its neighbours. "Publish," he said, "the best information, the best science, the best literature; and leave the public to decide for themselves." Relying on this opinion he warned Gifford and his friends against attacking Sydney Smith, and Leslie, and Jeffrey, because of their contributions to the _Edinburgh_. He thought that such attacks had only the effect of advertising the rival journal, and rendering it of greater importance. With reference to the article on Sydney Smith's "Visitation Sermon" in No. 5, Mr. George Ellis privately wrote to Mr. Murray:

"Gifford, though the best-tempered man alive, is _terribly_ severe with his pen; but S.S. would suffer ten times more by being turned into ridicule (and never did man expose himself so much as he did in that sermon) than from being slashed and cauterized in that manner."

The following refers to a difference of opinion between Mr. Murray and his editor. Mr. Gifford had resented some expression of his friend's as savouring of intimidation.

_John Murray to Mr. Gifford_.

_September_ 25, 1810.

"I entreat you to be a.s.sured that the term 'intimidation' can never be applied to any part of my conduct towards you, for whom I entertain the highest esteem and regard, both as a writer and as a friend. If I am over-anxious, it is because I have let my hopes of fame as a bookseller rest upon the establishment and celebrity of this journal. My character, as well with my professional brethren as with the public, is at stake upon it; for I would not be thought silly by the one, or a mere speculator by the other. I have a very large business, as you may conclude by the capital I have been able to throw into this one publication, and yet my mind is so entirely engrossed, my honour is so completely involved in this one thing, that I neither eat, drink, nor sleep upon anything else. I would rather it excelled all other journals and I gained nothing by it, than gain 300 a year by it without trouble if it were thought inferior to any other. This, sir, is true."

Meanwhile, Mr. Murray was becoming hard pressed for money. To conduct his increasing business required a large floating capital, for long credits were the custom, and besides his own requirements, he had to bear the constant importunities of the Ballantynes to renew their bills.

On July 25, 1810, he wrote to them: "This will be the last renewal of the bill (300); when it becomes due, you will have the goodness to provide for it." It was, however, becoming impossible to continue dealing with them, and he gradually transferred his printing business to other firms. We find him about this time ordering Messrs. George Ramsay & Co., Edinburgh, to print 8,000 of the "Domestic Cookery," which was still having a large sale.

The Constables also were pressing him for renewals of bills. The correspondence of this date is full of remonstrances from Murray against the financial unpunctuality of his Edinburgh correspondents.

On March 21, 1811, he writes: "With regard to myself, I will engage in no new work of any kind"; and again, on April 4, 1811:

Dear Constable,

You know how much I have distressed myself by entering heedlessly upon too many engagements. You must not urge me to involve myself in renewed difficulties.

To return to the _Quarterly_ No. 8. Owing to the repeated delay in publication, the circulation fell off from 5,000 to 4,000, and Mr.

George Ellis had obviously reason when he wrote: "Hence I infer that _punctuality_ is, in our present situation, our great and only desideratum."

Accordingly, increased efforts were made to have the _Quarterly_ published with greater punctuality, though it was a considerable time before success in this respect was finally reached. Gifford pruned and pared down to the last moment, and often held back the publication until an erasure or a correction could be finally inserted.

No. 9, due in February 1811, was not published until March. From this time Southey became an almost constant contributor to the _Review_. He wrote with ease, grace, and rapidity, and there was scarcely a number without one, and sometimes two and even three articles from his pen.

His prose style was charming--clear, masculine, and to the point. The public eagerly read his prose, while his poetry remained unnoticed on the shelves. The poet could not accept this view of his merits. Of the "Curse of Kehama" he wrote:

"I was perfectly aware that I was planting acorns while my contemporaries were setting Turkey beans. The oak will grow, and though I may never sit under its shade, my children will. Of the 'Lady of the Lake,' 25,000 copies have been printed; of 'Kehama', 500; and if they sell in seven years I shall be surprised."

Scott wrote a kindly notice of Southey's poem. It was not his way to cut up his friend in a review. He pointed out the beauties of the poem, in order to invite purchasers and readers. Yet his private opinion to his friend George Ellis was this:

_Mr. Scott to Mr. G. Ellis_.

"I have run up an attempt on the 'Curse of Kehama' for the _Quarterly_: a strange thing it is--the 'Curse,' I mean--and the critique is not, as the blackguards say, worth a d.a.m.n; but what I could I did, which was to throw as much weight as possible upon the beautiful pa.s.sages, of which there are many, and to slur over its absurdities, of which there are not a few. It is infinite pity for Southey, with genius almost to exuberance, so much learning and real good feeling of poetry, that, with the true obstinacy of a foolish papa, he _will_ be most attached to the defects of his poetical offspring. This said 'Kehama' affords cruel openings to the quizzers, and I suppose will get it roundly in the _Edinburgh Review_. I could have made a very different hand of it indeed, had the order of the day been _pour dechirer_."

It was a good thing for Southey that he could always depend upon his contributions to the _Quarterly_ for his daily maintenance, for he could not at all rely upon the income from his poetry.

The failure of the _Edinburgh Annual Register_, published by Ballantyne, led to a diminution of Southey's income amounting to about 400 a year.

He was thus led to write more and more for the _Quarterly_. His reputation, as well as his income, rose higher from his writings there than from any of his other works. In April 1812 he wrote to his friend Mr. Wynn:

_Mr. Southey to Mr. Wynn_.

"By G.o.d's blessing I may yet live to make all necessary provision myself. My means are now improving every year. I am up the hill of difficulty, and shall very soon get rid of the burthen which has impeded me in the ascent. I have some arrangements with Murray, which are likely to prove more profitable than any former speculations ... Hitherto I have been highly favoured. A healthy body, an active mind, and a cheerful heart, are the three best boons Nature can bestow, and, G.o.d be praised, no man ever enjoyed these more perfectly."

CHAPTER VIII

MURRAY AND GIFFORD--RUPTURE WITH CONSTABLE--PROSPERITY OF THE "QUARTERLY"

A good understanding was now established between Mr. Murray and his editor, and the _Quarterly_ went on improving and gradually increased in circulation. Though regular in the irregularity of its publication, the subscribers seem to have become accustomed to the delay, and when it did make its appearance it was read with eagerness and avidity. The interest and variety of its contents, and the skill of the editor in the arrangement of his materials, made up for many shortcomings.

Murray and Gifford were in constant communication, and it is interesting to remember that the writer of the following judicious criticism had been editor of the _Anti-Jacobin_ before he was editor of the _Quarterly_.

_Mr. Gifford to John Murray_.

_May_ 17, 1811.

"I have seldom been more pleased and vexed at a time than with the perusal of the enclosed MS. It has wit, it has ingenuity, but both are absolutely lost in a negligence of composition which mortifies me. Why will your young friend fling away talent which might so honourably distinguish him? He might, if be chose, be the ornament of our _Review_, instead of creating in one mingled regret and admiration. It is utterly impossible to insert such a composition as the present; there are expressions which would not be borne; and if, as you say, it will be sent to Jeffrey's if I do not admit it, however I may grieve, I must submit to the alternative. Articles of pure humour should be written with extraordinary attention. A vulgar laugh is detestable. I never saw much merit in writing rapidly. You will believe me when I tell you that I have been present at the production of more genuine wit and humour than almost any person of my time, and that it was revised and polished and arranged with a scrupulous care which overlooked nothing. I have not often seen fairer promises of excellence in this department than in your correspondent; but I tell you frankly that they will all be blighted and perish prematurely unless sedulously cultivated. It is a poor ambition to raise a casual laugh in the unreflecting.

The article did not appear in the _Quarterly_, and Mr. Pillans, the writer, afterwards became a contributor to the _Edinburgh Review_.

In a letter of August 25, 1811, we find Gifford writing to a correspondent: "Since the hour I was born I never enjoyed, as far as I can recollect, what you call _health_ for a single day." In November, after discussing in a letter the articles which were about to appear in the next _Review_, he concluded: "I write in pain and must break off."

In the following month Mr. Murray, no doubt in consideration of the start which his _Review_ had made, sent him a present of 500. "I thank you," he answered (December 6), "very sincerely for your magnificent present; but 500 is a vast sum. However, you know your own business."

Yet Mr. Murray was by no means abounding in wealth. There were always those overdrawn bills from Edinburgh to be met, and Ballantyne and Constable were both tugging at him for accommodation at the same time.

The business arrangements with Constable & Co., which, save for the short interruption which has already been related, had extended over many years, were now about to come to an end. The following refers to the purchase of Mr. Miller's stock and the removal of Mr. Murray's business to Albemarle Street.

_John Murray to Mr. Constable_.