A Publisher and His Friends Part 17

".... Have you any fancy to dash off an article on 'Emma'? It wants incident and romance, does it not? None of the author's other novels have been noticed, and surely 'Pride and Prejudice' merits high commendation."

Scott immediately complied with Murray's request. He did "dash off an article on 'Emma,'" which appeared in No. 27 of the _Quarterly_. In enclosing his article to Murray, Scott wrote as follows:

_Mr. Scott to John Murray_.

_January_ 19, 1816.

Dear Sir,

Enclosed is the article upon "Emma." I have been spending my holidays in the country, where, besides constant labour in the fields during all the hours of daylight, the want of books has prevented my completing the Highland article. (The "Culloden Papers," which appeared in next number.) It will be off, however, by Tuesday's post, as I must take Sunday and Monday into the account of finishing it. It will be quite unnecessary to send proofs of "Emma," as Mr. Gifford will correct all obvious errors, and abridge it where necessary.

_January_, 25, 1816.

"My article is so long that I fancy you will think yourself in the condition of the conjuror, who after having a great deal of trouble in raising the devil, could not get rid of him after he had once made his appearance. But the Highlands is an immense field, and it would have been much more easy for me to have made a sketch twice as long than to make it shorter. There still wants eight or nine pages, which you will receive by tomorrow's or next day's post; but I fancy you will be glad to get on."

The article on the "Culloden Papers," which occupied fifty pages of the _Review_ (No. 28), described the clans of the Highlands, their number, manners, and habits; and gave a summary history of the Rebellion of '45.

It was graphically and vigorously written, and is considered one of Scott's best essays.

CHAPTER XII

VARIOUS PUBLICATIONS--CHARLES MATURIN--S.T. COLERIDGE--LEIGH HUNT

Scott's "poor Irish friend Maturin," referred to in the previous chapter, was a young Irish clergyman, who was under the necessity of depending upon his brains and pen for the maintenance of his family.

Charles Maturin, after completing his course of education at Trinity College, married Miss Harriet Kinsburg. His family grew, but not his income. He took orders, and obtained the curacy of St. Peter's Church, Dublin, but owing to his father's affairs having become embarra.s.sed, he was compelled to open a boarding-school, with the view of a.s.sisting the family. Unfortunately, he became bound for a friend, who deceived him, and eventually he was obliged to sacrifice his interest in the school.

Being thus driven to extremities, he tried to live by literature, and produced "The Fatal Revenge; or, the Family of Montorio," the first of a series of romances, in which he outdid Mrs. Radcliffe and Monk Lewis.

"The Fatal Revenge" was followed by "The Wild Irish Boy," for which Colburn gave him 80, and "The Milesian Chief," all full of horrors and misty grandeur. These works did not bring him in much money; but, in 1815, he determined to win the height of dramatic fame in his "Bertram; or, the Castle of St. Aldebrand," a tragedy. He submitted the drama to Walter Scott, as from an "obscure Irishman," telling him of his sufferings as an author and the father of a family, and imploring his kind opinion. Scott replied in the most friendly manner, gave him much good advice, spoke of the work as "grand and powerful, the characters being sketched with masterly enthusiasm"; and, what was practically better, sent him 50 as a token of his esteem and sympathy, and as a temporary stop-gap until better times came round. He moreover called the attention of Lord Byron, then on the Committee of Management of Drury Lane Theatre, to the play, and his Lordship strongly recommended a performance of it. Thanks to the splendid acting of Kean, it succeeded, and Maturin realized about 1,000.

"Bertram" was published by Murray, a circ.u.mstance which brought him into frequent communication with the unfortunate Maturin. The latter offered more plays, more novels, and many articles for the _Quarterly_. With reference to one of his articles--a review of Sheil's "Apostate"

--Gifford said, "A more potatoe-headed arrangement, or rather derangement, I have never seen. I have endeavoured to bring some order out of the chaos. There is a sort of wild eloquence in it that makes it worth preserving."

Maturin continued to press his literary work on Murray, who however, though he relieved him by the gift of several large sums of money, declined all further offers of publication save the tragedy of "Manuel."

_John Murray to Lord Byron_.

_March_ 15, 1817.

"Maturin's new tragedy, 'Manuel,' appeared on Sat.u.r.day last, and I am sorry to say that the opinion of Mr. Gifford was established by the impression made on the audience. The first act very fine, the rest exhibiting a want of judgment not to be endured. It was brought out with uncommon splendour, and was well acted. Kean's character as an old man--a warrior--was new and well sustained, for he had, of course, selected it, and professed to be--and he acted as if he were--really pleased with it.... I have undertaken to print the tragedy at my own expense, and to give the poor Author the whole of the profit."

In 1824 Maturin died, in Dublin, in extreme poverty.

The following correspondence introduces another great name in English literature. It is not improbable that it was Southey who suggested to Murray the employment of his brother-in-law, Samuel Taylor Coleridge, from his thorough knowledge of German, as the translator of Goethe's "Faust." The following is Mr. Coleridge's first letter to Murray:

_Mr. Coleridge to John Murray_.

JOSIAH WADE'S, Esq., 2, QUEEN'S SQUARE, BRISTOL. _[August_ 23, 1814.]

Dear Sir,

I have heard, from my friend Mr. Charles Lamb, writing by desire of Mr.

Robinson, that you wish to have the justly-celebrated "Faust" of Goethe translated, and that some one or other of my partial friends have induced you to consider me as the man most likely to execute the work adequately, those excepted, of course, whose higher power (established by the solid and satisfactory ordeal of the wide and rapid sale of their works) it might seem profanation to employ in any other manner than in the development of their own intellectual organization. I return my thanks to the recommender, whoever he be, and no less to you for your flattering faith in the recommendation; and thinking, as I do, that among many volumes of praiseworthy German poems, the "Louisa" of Voss, and the "Faust" of Goethe, are the two, if not the only ones, that are emphatically _original_ in their conception, and characteristic of a new and peculiar sort of thinking and imagining, I should not be averse from exerting my best efforts in an attempt to import whatever is importable of either or of both into our own language.

But let me not be suspected of a presumption of which I am not consciously guilty, if I say that I feel two difficulties; one arising from long disuse of versification, added to what I know, better than the most hostile critic could inform me, of my comparative weakness; and the other, that _any_ work in Poetry strikes me with more than common awe, as proposed for realization by myself, because from long habits of meditation on language, as the symbolic medium of the connection of Thought with Thought, and of Thoughts as affected and modified by Pa.s.sion and Emotion, I should spend days in avoiding what I deemed faults, though with the full preknowledge that their admission would not have offended perhaps three of all my readers, and might be deemed Beauties by 300--if so many there were; and this not out of any respect for the Public (_i.e._ the persons who might happen to purchase and look over the Book), but from a hobby-horsical, superst.i.tious regard to my own feelings and sense of Duty. Language is the sacred Fire in this Temple of Humanity, and the Muses are its especial and vestal Priestesses. Though I cannot prevent the vile drugs and counterfeit Frankincense, which render its flame at once pitchy, glowing, and unsteady, I would yet be no voluntary accomplice in the Sacrilege. With the commencement of a PUBLIC, commences the degradation of the GOOD and the BEAUTIFUL--both fade and retire before the accidentally AGREEABLE.

"Oth.e.l.lo" becomes a hollow lip-worship; and the "CASTLE SPECTRE," or any more recent thing of Froth, Noise, and Impermanence, that may have overbillowed it on the restless sea of curiosity, is the _true_ Prayer of Praise and Admiration.

I thought it right to state to you these opinions of mine, that you might know that I think the Translation of the "Faust" a task demanding (from _me_, I mean), no ordinary efforts--and why? This--that it is painful, very painful, and even odious to me, to attempt anything of a literary nature, with any motive of _pecuniary_ advantage; but that I bow to the all-wise Providence, which has made me a _poor_ man, and therefore compelled me by other duties inspiring feelings, to bring _even my Intellect to the Market_. And the finale is this. I should like to attempt the Translation. If you will mention your terms, at once and irrevocably (for I am an idiot at bargaining, and shrink from the very thought), I will return an answer by the next Post, whether in my present circ.u.mstances, I can or cannot undertake it. If I do, I will do it immediately; but I must have all Goethe's works, which I cannot procure in Bristol; for to give the "Faust" without a preliminary critical Essay would be worse than nothing, as far as regards the PUBLIC. If you were to ask me as a Friend, whether I think it would suit _the General Taste_, I should reply that I cannot calculate on caprice and accident (for instance, some fashionable man or review happening to take it up favourably), but that otherwise my fears would be stronger than my hopes. Men of genius will admire it, of necessity. Those most, who think deepest and most imaginatively. The "Louisa" would delight _all_ of good hearts.

I remain, dear Sir, With due respect, S.T. COLERIDGE.

To this letter Mr. Murray replied as follows:

_John Murray to Mr. Coleridge_.

_August_ 29, 1814.

Dear Sir,

I feel greatly obliged by the favour of your attention to the request which I had solicited our friend Mr. Robinson to make to you for the translation of Goethe's extraordinary drama of "Faust," which I suspect that no one could do justice to besides yourself. It will be the first attempt to render into cla.s.sical English a German work of peculiar but certainly of unquestionable Genius; and you must allow that its effects upon the public must be doubtful. I am desirous however of making the experiment, and this I would not do under a less skilful agent than the one to whom I have applied. I am no less anxious that you should receive, as far as I think the thing can admit, a fair remuneration; and trusting that you will not undertake it unless you feel disposed to execute the labour perfectly _con amore_, and in a style of versification equal to "Remorse," I venture to propose to you the sum of One Hundred Pounds for the Translation and the preliminary a.n.a.lysis, with such pa.s.sages translated as you may judge proper of the works of Goethe, with a copy of which I will have the pleasure of supplying you as soon as I have your final determination. The sum which I mention shall be paid to you in two months from the day on which you place the complete Translation and a.n.a.lysis in my hands; this will allow a reasonable time for your previous correction of the sheets through the press. I shall be glad to hear from you by return of Post, if convenient, as I propose to set out this week for the Continent. If this work succeeds, I am in hopes that it will lead to many similar undertakings.

With sincere esteem, I am, dear Sir, Your faithful Servant, J. Murray

I should hope that it might not prove inconvenient to you to complete the whole for Press in the course of November next.

Mr. Coleridge replied as follows, from the same address:

_Mr. Coleridge to John Murray_.

_August_ 31, 1814.

Dear Sir,

I have received your letter. Considering the necessary labour, and (from the questionable nature of the original work, both as to its fair claims to Fame--the diction of the good and wise according to unchanging principles--and as to its chance for Reputation, as an accidental result of local and temporary taste), the risk of character on the part of the Translator, who will a.s.suredly have to answer for any disappointment of the reader, the terms proposed are humiliatingly low; yet such as, under modifications, I accede to. I have received testimonials from men not merely of genius according to my belief, but of the highest accredited reputation, that my translation of "Wallenstein" was in language and in metre superior to the original, and the parts most admired were subst.i.tutions of my own, on a principle of compensation. Yet the whole work went for waste-paper. I was abused--nay, my own remarks in the Preface were transferred to a Review, as the Reviewer's sentiments _against_ me, without even a hint that he had copied them from my own Preface. Such was the fate of "Wallenstein"! And yet I dare appeal to any number of men of Genius--say, for instance, Mr. W. Scott, Mr.

Southey, Mr. Wordsworth, Mr. Wilson, Mr. Sotheby, Sir G. Beaumont, etc., whether the "Wallenstein" with all its defects (and it has grievous defects), is not worth all Schiller's other plays put together. But I wonder not. It was _too_ good, and not good enough; and the advice of the younger Pliny: "Aim at pleasing either _all_, or _the few,"_ is as prudentially good as it is philosophically accurate. I wrote to Mr.

Longman before the work was published, and foretold its fate, even to a detailed accuracy, and advised him to put up with the loss from the purchase of the MSS and of the Translation, as a much less evil than the publication. I went so far as to declare that its success was, in the state of public Taste, impossible; that the enthusiastic admirers of "The Robbers," "Cabal and Love," etc., would lay the blame on me; and that he himself would suspect that if he had only lit on _another_ Translator then, etc. Everything took place as I had foretold, even his own feelings--so little do Prophets gain from the fulfilment of their Prophecies!

On the other hand, though I know that executed as alone I can or dare do it--that is, to the utmost of my power (for which the intolerable Pain, nay the far greater Toil and Effort of doing otherwise, is a far safer Pledge than any solicitude on my part concerning the approbation of the PUBLIC), the translation of so very difficult a work as the "Faustus,"

will be most inadequately remunerated by the terms you propose; yet they very probably are the highest it may be worth your while to offer to _me_. I say this as a philosopher; for, though I have now been much talked of, and written of, for evil and not for good, but for suspected capability, yet none of my works have ever sold. The "Wallenstein" went to the waste. The "Remorse," though acted twenty times, rests quietly on the shelves in the second edition, with copies enough for seven years'

consumption, or seven times seven. I lost 200 by the non-payment, from forgetfulness, and under various pretences, by "The Friend"; [Footnote: Twenty-seven numbers of _The Friend_ were published by Coleridge at Penrith in c.u.mberland in 1809-10, but the periodical proved a failure, princ.i.p.ally from the irregularity of its appearance. It was about this time that he was addicted to opium-eating.] and for my poems I _did_ get from 10 to 15. And yet, forsooth, the _Quarterly Review_ attacks me for neglecting and misusing my powers! I do not quarrel with the Public--all is as it must be--but surely the Public (if there be such a Person) has no right to quarrel with _me_ for not getting into jail by publishing what they will not read!

The "Faust," you perhaps know, is only a _Fragment_. Whether Goethe ever will finish it, or whether it is ever his object to do so, is quite unknown. A large proportion of the work cannot be rendered in blank verse, but must be given in wild _lyrical_ metres; and Mr. Lamb informs me that the Baroness de Stael has given a very unfavourable account of the work. Still, however, I will undertake it, and that instantly, so as to let you have the last sheet by the middle of November, on the following terms:

1. That on the delivery of the last MS. sheet you remit 100 guineas to Mrs. Coleridge, or Mr. Robert Southey, at a bill of five weeks. 2. That I, or my widow or family, may, any time after two years from the first publication, have the privilege of reprinting it in any collection of all my poetical writings, or of my works in general, which set off with a Life of me, might perhaps be made profitable to my widow. And 3rd, that if (as I long ago meditated) I should re-model the whole, give it a finale, and be able to bring it, thus re-written and re-cast, on the stage, it shall not be considered as a breach of the engagement between us, I on my part promising that you shall, for an equitable consideration, have the copy of this new work, either as a separate work, or forming a part of the same volume or both, as circ.u.mstances may dictate to you. When I say that I am confident that in this _possible_ and not probable case, I should not repeat or retain one fifth of the original, you will perceive that I consult only my dread of appearing to act amiss, as it would be even more easy to compose the whole anew.

If these terms suit you I will commence the Task as soon as I receive Goethe's works from you. If you could procure Goethe's late Life of himself, which extends but a short way, or any German biographical work of the Germans living, it would enable me to render the preliminary Essay more entertaining.

Respectfully, dear Sir,