I am, dear Sir, Your obliged and faithful Servant,
John Murray.
It will be observed from this letter, that Mr. Murray was aware that, besides skilful editing, sound and practical business management was necessary to render the new Review a success. The way in which he informs Mr. Scott about Gifford's proposed review of "Juvenal" and "Persius," shows that he fully comprehended the situation, and the dangers which would beset an editor like Gifford, who lived for the most part amongst his books, and was, to a large extent, secluded from the active world.
On the same day Scott was writing to Murray:
Mr. Scott to John Murray. Edinburgh,November15, 1808.
Dear Sir,
I received two days ago a letter from Mr. Gifford highly approving of the particulars of the plan which I had sketched for theReview. But there are two points to be considered. In the first place, I cannot be in town as I proposed, for the Commissioners under the Judicial Bill, to whom I am to act as clerk, have resolved that their final sittings shall be heldhere, so that I have now no chance of being in London before spring. This is very unlucky, as Mr. Gifford proposes to wait for my arrival in town to set the great machine a-going. I shall write to him that this is impossible, and that I wish he would, with your assistance and that of his other friends, make up a list of the works which the first number is to contain, and consider what is the extent of the aid he will require from the North. The other circumstance is, that Mr. Gifford pleads the state of his health and his retired habits as sequestrating him from the world, and rendering him less capable of active exertion, and in the kindest and most polite manner he expresses his hope that he should receive very extensive assistance and support from me, without which he is pleased to say he would utterly despair of success. Now between ourselves (for this is strictly confidential) I am rather alarmed at this prospect. I am willing, and anxiously so, to do all in my power to serve the work; but, my dear sir, you know how many of our very ablest hands are engaged in theEdinburgh Review, and what a dismal work it will be to wring assistance from the few whose indolence has left them neutral. I can, to be sure, work like a horse myself, but then I have two heavy works on my hands already, namely, "Somers" and "Swift." Constable had lately very nearly relinquished the latter work, and I now heartily wish it had never commenced; but two volumes are nearly printed, so I conclude it will now go on. If this work had not stood in the way, I should have liked Beaumont and Fletcher much better. It would not have required half the research, and occupied much less time. I plainly see that, according to Mr. Gifford's view, I should have almost all the trouble of a co-editor, both in collecting and revising the articles which are to come from Scotland, as well as in supplying all deficiencies from my own stores.
These considerations cannot, however, operate upon the first number, so pray send me a list of books, and perhaps you may send some on a venture. You know the department I had in theEdinburgh Review. I will sound Southey, agreeable to Mr. Gifford's wishes, on the Spanish affairs. The last number of theEdinburgh Reviewhas given disgust beyond measure, owing to the tone of the article on Cevallos'exposé. Subscribers are falling off like withered leaves.
I retired my name among others, after explaining the reasons both to Mr. Jeffrey and Mr. Constable, so that there never was such an opening for a newReview. I shall be glad to hear what you think on the subject of terms, for my Northern troops will not move without pay; but there is no hurry about fixing this point, as most of the writers in the first number will be more or less indifferent on the subject. For my own share, I care not what the conditions are, unless the labour expected from me is to occupy a considerable portion of time, in which case they might become an object. While we are on this subject, I may as well mention that as you incur so large an outlay in the case of the Novels, I would not only be happy that my remuneration should depend on the profits of the work, but I also think I could command a few hundreds to assist in carrying it on.
By the way, I see "Notes on Don Quixote" advertised. This was a plan I had for enriching our collection, having many references by me for the purpose. I shall be sorry if I am powerfully anticipated. Perhaps the book would make a good article in theReview. Can you get me "Gaytoun's Festivous Notes on Don Quixote"?
I think our friend Ballantyne is grown an inch taller on the subjects of the "Romances."
Believe me, dear Sir, Yours very truly, Walter Scott.
Gifford is much pleased with you personally.
John Murray to Mr. Scott.
November19, 1808.
"Mr. Gifford has communicated to me an important piece of news. He met his friend, Lord Teignmouth, and learned from him that he and the Wilberforce party had some idea of starting a journal to oppose theEdinburgh Review, that Henry Thornton and Mr. [Zachary] Macaulay were to be the conductors, that they had met, and that some able men were mentioned. Upon sounding Lord T. as to their giving us their assistance, he thought this might be adopted in preference to their own plans…. It will happen fortunately that we intend opening with an article on the missionaries, which, as it will be written in opposition to the sentiments in theEdinburgh Review, is very likely to gain that large body of which Wilberforce is the head. I have collected from every Missionary Society in London, of which there are no less than five, all their curious reports, proceedings and history, which, I know, Sydney Smith never saw; and which I could only procure by personal application. Southey will give a complete view of the subject, and if he will enter heartily into it, and do it well, it will be as much as he can do for the first number. These transactions contain, amidst a great deal of fanaticism, the most curious information you can imagine upon the history, literature, topography and manners of nations and countries of which we are otherwise totally ignorant…. If you have occasion to write to Southey, pray urge the vast importance of this subject, and entreat him to give it all his ability. I find that a new volume of Burns' ('The Reliques') will be published by the end of this month, which will form the subject of another capital article under your hands. I presume 'Sir John Carr (Tour in Scotland)' will be another article, which even you, I fancy, will like; 'Mrs. Grant of Laggan,' too, and perhaps your friend Mr. Cumberland's 'John de Lancaster' …. Are you not sufficiently well acquainted with Miss (Joanna) Baillie, both to confide in her, and command her talents? If so, you will probably think of what may suit her, and what may apply to her. Mr. Heber, too, would apply to his brother at your request, and his friend Coplestone, who will also be written to by a friend of Gifford's…."
Scott was very desirous of enlisting George Canning among the contributors to the Quarterly. He wrote to his friend Ellis:
Mr. Scott to Mr. G. Ellis.
"As our start is of such immense consequence, don't you think Mr. Canning, though unquestionably our Atlas, might for a day find a Hercules on whom to devolve the burden of the globe, while he writes for us a review? I know what an audacious request this is, but suppose he should, as great statesmen sometimes do, take a political fit of the gout, and absent himself from a large ministerial dinner which might give it him in good earnest—dine at three on a chicken and pint of wine, and lay the foundation of at least one good article? Let us but once get afloat, and our labour is not worth talking about; but, till then, all hands must work hard."
This suggestion was communicated by George Ellis to Gifford, the chosen editor, and on December 1, Murray informed Scott that the article on Spain was proceeding under Mr. Canning's immediate superintendence. Canning and Gifford went down to Mr. Ellis's house at Sunninghill, where the three remained together for four days, during which time the article was hatched and completed.
On receiving the celebrated "Declaration of Westminster" on the SpanishWar, Scott wrote to Ellis:
"Tell Mr. Canning that the old women of Scotland will defend the country with their distaffs, rather than that troops enough be not sent to make good so noble a pledge. Were the thousands that have mouldered away in petty conquests or Lilliputian expeditions united to those we have now in that country, what a band would Sir John Moore have under him!… Jeffrey has offered terms of pacification, engaging that no party politics should again appear in hisReview. I told him I thought it was now too late, and reminded him that I had often pointed out to him the consequences of letting his work become a party tool. He said 'he did not fear for the consequences—there were but four men he feared as opponents.' 'Who are these?' 'Yourself for one.' 'Certainly you pay me a great compliment; depend upon it I will endeavour to deserve it.' 'Why, you would not join against me?' 'Yes, I would, if I saw a proper opportunity: not against you personally, but against your politics.' 'You are privileged to be violent.' 'I don't ask any privilege for undue violence. But who are your other foemen?' 'George Ellis and Southey.' The other he did not name. All this was in great good humour; and next day I had a very affecting note from him, in answer to an invitation to dinner. He has no suspicion of theReviewwhatever."
In the meantime, Mr. Murray continued to look out for further contributors. Mr. James Mill, of the India House, in reply to a request for assistance, wrote:
"You do me a great deal of honour in the solicitude you express to have me engaged in laying the foundation stone of your new edifice, which I hope will be both splendid and durable; and it is no want of zeal or gratitude that delays me. But this ponderous Geography, a porter's, or rather a horse's load, bears me down to a degree you can hardly conceive. What I am now meditating from under it is to spare time to do well and leisurely the Indian article (my favourite subject) for your next number. Besides, I shall not reckon myself less a founder from its having been only the fault of my previous engagements that my first article for you appears only in the second number, and not in the first part of your work."
Another contributor whom Mr. Murray was desirous to secure was Mrs.Inchbald, authoress of the "Simple Story." The application was made toher through one of Murray's intimate friends, Mr. Hoppner, the artist.Her answer was as follows:
Mrs. Inchbald to Mr. Hoppner.December31, 1808.
My dear Sir, As I wholly rely upon your judgment for the excellency of the design in question, I wish you to be better acquainted with my abilities as a reviewer before I suffer my curiosity to be further gratified in respect to the plan of the work you have undertaken, or the names of those persons who, with yourself, have done me the very great honour to require my assistance. Before I see you, then, and possess myself of your further confidence, it is proper that I should acquaint you that there is only one department of a Review for which I am in the least qualified, and that one combines plays and novels. Yet the very few novels I have read, of later publications, incapacitates me again for detecting plagiary, or for making such comparisons as proper criticism may demand. You will, perhaps, be surprised when I tell you that I am not only wholly unacquainted with the book you have mentioned to me, but that I never heard of it before. If it be in French, there will be another insurmountable difficulty; for, though I read French, and have translated some French comedies, yet I am not so perfectly acquainted with the language as to dare to write remarks upon a French author. If Madame Cottin's "Malvina" be in English, you wish it speedily reviewed, and can possibly have any doubt of the truth of my present report, please to send it me; and whatever may be the contents, I will immediately essay my abilities on the work, or immediately return it as a hopeless case.
Yours very faithfully,
E. Inchbald.
On further consideration, however, Mrs. Inchbald modestly declined to become a contributor. Notwithstanding her great merits as an author, she had the extremest diffidence in her own abilities.
Mrs. Inchbald to John Murray.
"The more I reflect on the importance of the contributions intended for this work, the more I am convinced of my own inability to become a contributor. The productions in question must, I am convinced, be of a certain quality that will demand far more acquaintance with books, and much more general knowledge, than it has ever been my good fortune to attain. Under these circumstances, finding myself, upon mature consideration, wholly inadequate to the task proposed, I beg you will accept of this apology as a truth, and present it to Mr. Hoppner on the first opportunity; and assure him that it has been solely my reluctance to yield up the honour he intended me which has tempted me, for an instant, to be undecided in my reply to his overture.—I am, Sir, with sincere acknowledgments for the politeness of your letter to me,
"E. Inchbald."
And here the correspondence dropped.
It is now difficult to understand the profound secrecy with which the projection of the new Review was carried on until within a fortnight of the day of its publication. In these modern times widespread advertisements announce the advent of a new periodical, whereas then both publisher and editor enjoined the utmost secrecy upon all with whom they were in correspondence. Still, the day of publication was very near, when theQuarterlywas, according to Scott, to "burst like a bomb" among the Whigs of Edinburgh. The only explanation of the secrecy of the preliminary arrangements is that probably down to the last it was difficult to ascertain whether enough materials could be accumulated to form a sufficiently good number before the firstQuarterly Reviewwas launched into the world.
While Mr. Gifford was marshalling his forces and preparing for the issue of the first number of theQuarterly, Mr. Murray was corresponding with James Ballantyne of Edinburgh as to the works they were jointly engaged in bringing out, and also with respect to the northern agency of the newReview. An arrangement was made between them that they should meet at Boroughbridge, in Yorkshire, at the beginning of January 1809, for the purpose of concocting their plans. Ballantyne proposed to leave Edinburgh on January 5, and Murray was to set out from London on the same day, both making for Boroughbridge. A few days before Ballantyne left Edinburgh he wrote to Murray:
"I shall not let a living soul know of my intended journey. Entire secrecy seems necessary at present. I dined yesterdaytête-à-têtewith Mr. Scott, and had a great deal of highly important conversation with him. He showed me a letter bidding a final farewell to the house of Constable."
It was mid-winter, and there were increasing indications of a heavy storm brewing. Notwithstanding the severity of the weather, however, both determined to set out for their place of meeting in Yorkshire. Two days before Ballantyne left Edinburgh, he wrote as follows:
Mr. Ballantyne to John Murray.January4, 1809.
Dear Murray, It is blowing the devil's weather here; but no matter—if the mail goes, I go. I shall travel by the mail, and shall, instantly on arriving, go to the "Crown," hoping to find you and an imperial dinner. By the bye, you had better, on your arrival, take places north and south for the following day. In four or five hours after your receiving this, I expect to shake your princely paw.
Thine, J.B.
Scott also sent a note by the hand of Ballantyne to tell of his complete rupture with Constable owing to "Mr. Hunter's extreme incivility."
As a result of these negotiations the Ballantynes were appointed publishers of the new Review in Edinburgh, and, with a view to a more central position, they took premises in South Hanover Street. Scott wrote with reference to this:
Mr. Scott to John Murray.
February, 1809.
I enclose the promised "Swift," and am now, I think, personally out of your debt, though I will endeavour to stop up gaps if I do not receive the contributions I expect from others. Were I in the neighbourhood of your shop in London I could soon run up half a sheet of trifling articles with a page or two to each, but that is impossible here for lack of materials.
When the Ballantynes open shop you must take care to have them supplied with food for such a stop-gap sort of criticism. I think we will never again feel the pressure we have had for this number; the harvest has literally been great and the labourers few.
Yours truly,
Mr. James Ballantyne. to John Murray.
January27, 1809.
"I see or hear of nothing but good about theReview. Mr. Scott is at this moment busy with two articles, besides the one he has sent. In conversation a few days since, I heard a gentleman ask him, 'Pray, sir, do you think theQuarterly Reviewwill be equal to theEdinburgh?' His answer was, 'I won't be quite sure of the first number, because of course there are difficulties attending the commencement of every work which time and habit can alone smooth away. But I think the first number will be a good one, and in the course of three or four,I think we'll sweat them!'"
The first number of theQuarterly Reviewwas published at the end of February, 1809. Like most first numbers, it did not entirely realize the sanguine views of its promoters. It did not burst like a thunder-clap on the reading public; nor did it give promise to its friends that a new political power had been born into the world. The general tone was more literary than political; and though it contained much that was well worth reading, none of its articles were of first-rate quality.
Walter Scott was the principal contributor, and was keenly interested in its progress, though his mind was ever teeming with other new schemes. The allusion in the following letter to his publication of "many unauthenticated books," if unintentional, seems little less than prophetic.
Mr. Scott to John Murray.
Edinburgh,February25, 1809.
Dear Sir,
I see with pleasure that you will be out on the first. Yet I wish I could have seen my articles in proof, for I seldom read over my things in manuscript, and always find infinite room for improvement at the printer's expense. I hope our hurry will not be such another time as to deprive me of the chance of doing the best I can, which depends greatly on my seeing the proofs. Pray have the goodness to attend to this.
I have made for the Ballantynes a little selection of poetry, to be entitled "English Minstrelsy"; I also intend to arrange for them a first volume of English Memoirs, to be entitled—"Secret History of the Court of James I." To consist of:
Osborne's "Traditional Memoirs."
Sir Anthony Welldon's "Court and Character of James I."
Heylin's "Aulicus Coquinariae."
Sir Edward Peyton's "Rise and Fall of the House of Stewart."
I will add a few explanatory notes to these curious memoirs, and hope to continue the collection, as (thanks to my constant labour on "Somers") it costs me no expense, and shall cost the proprietors none. You may advertise the publications, and Ballantyne, equally agreeable to his own wish and mine, will let you choose your own share in them. I have a commission for you in the way of art. I have published many unauthenticated books, as you know, and may probably bring forward many more. Now I wish to have it in my power to place on a few copies of each a decisive mark of appropriation. I have chosen for this purpose a device borne by a champion of my name in a tournament at Stirling! It was a gate and portcullis, with the motto CLAUSUS TUTUS ERO. I have it engraved on a seal, as you may remark on the enclosure, but it is done in a most blackguard style. Now what I want is to have this same gateway and this same portcullis and this same motto ofclausus tutus ero, which is an anagram ofWalterus Scotus(taking two singleU's for theW), cut upon wood in the most elegant manner, so as to make a small vignette capable of being applied to a few copies of every work which I either write or publish. This fancy of makingportculliscopies I have much at heart, and trust to you to get it accomplished for me in the most elegant manner. I don't mind the expense, and perhaps Mr. Westall might be disposed to make a sketch for me.
I am most anxious to see theReview. God grant we may lose no ground; I tremble when I think of my own articles, of two of which I have but an indefinite recollection.
What would you think of an edition of the "Old English Froissart," say 500 in the smallantique quarto, a beautiful size of book; the spelling must be brought to an uniformity, the work copied (as I could not promise my beautiful copy to go to press), notes added and illustrations, etc., and inaccuracies corrected. I think Johnes would be driven into most deserved disgrace, and I can get the use of a most curious MS. of the French Froissart in the Newbattle Library, probably the finest in existence after that of Berlin. I am an enthusiast about Berners' Froissart, and though I could not undertake the drudgery of preparing the whole for the press, yet Weber [Footnote: Henry Weber, Scott's amanuensis.] would do it under my eye upon the most reasonable terms. I would revise every part relating to English history.
I have several other literary schemes, but defer mentioning them till I come to London, which I sincerely hope will be in the course of a month or six weeks. I hear Mr. Canning is anxious about ourReview. Constable says it is a Scotch job. I could not help quizzing Mr. Robert Miller, who asked me in an odd sort of way, as I thought, why it was not out? I said very indifferently I knew nothing about it, but heard a vague report that the Edition was to be much enlarged on account of the expected demand. I also inclose a few lines to my brother, and am, dear Sir,
Very truly yours,
W. Scott.
It is universally agreed here that Cumberland is five hundred degrees beneath contempt.
Ballantyne, Scott's partner, and publisher of theReviewin Edinburgh, hastened to communicate to Murray their joint views as to the success of the work.
Mr. Ballantyne to John Murray.
February28, 1809.
My dear Murray,
I received theQuarterlyan hour ago. Before taking it to Mr. Scott, I had just time to look into the article on Burns, and at the general aspect of the book. It looks uncommonly well…. The view of Burns' character is better than Jeffrey's. It is written in a more congenial tone, with more tender, kindly feeling. Though not perhaps written with such elaborate eloquence as Jeffrey's, the thoughts are more original, and the style equally powerful. The two first articles (and perhaps the rest are not inferior) will confer a name on theReview. But why do I trouble you withmyopinions, when I can give you Mr. Scott's? He has just been reading the Spanish article beside me, and he again and again interrupted himself with expressions of the strongest admiration.
Three days later, Ballantyne again wrote:
"I have now read 'Spain,' 'Burns,' 'Woman,' 'Curran,' 'Cid,' 'Carr,' 'Missionaries.' Upon the whole, I think these articles most excellent. Mr. Scott is in high spirits; but he says there are evident marks of haste in most of them. With respect to his own articles, he much regrets not to have had the opportunity of revising them. He thinks the 'Missionaries' very clever; but he shakes his head at 'Sidney,' 'Woman,' and 'Public Characters.' Our copies, which we expected this morning, have not made their appearance, which has given us no small anxiety. We are panting to hear the public voice. Depend upon it,ifour exertions are continued, the thing will do. Would G. were as active as Scott and Murray!"
Murray had plenty of advisers. Gifford said he had too many. His friend, Sharon Turner, was ready with his criticism on No. 1. He deplored the appearance of the article by Scott on "Carr's Tour in Scotland." [Footnote: Scott himself had written to Murray about this, which he calls "a whisky-frisky article," on June 30. "I take the advantage of forwarding Sir John'sReview, to send you back his letters under the same cover. He is an incomparable goose, but as he is innocent and good-natured, I would not like it to be publicly known that the flagellation comes from my hand. Secrecy therefore will oblige me."]
Mr. Sharon Turner to John Murray.
"I cannot endure the idea of an individual being wounded merely because he has written a book. If, as in the case of the authors attacked in the 'Baviad,' the works censured were vitiating our literature—or, as in the case of Moore's Poems, corrupting our morals—if they were denouncing our religious principles, or attacking those political principles on which our Government subsists—let them be criticised without mercy. Thesalus publicademands the sacrifice. But to make an individual ridiculous merely because he has written a foolish, if it be a harmless book, is not, I think, justifiable on any moral principle … I repeat my principle. Whatever tends to vitiate our literary taste, our morals, our religious or political principles, may be fairly at the mercy of criticism. So, whatever tends to introduce false science, false history, indeed, falsehood in any shape, exposes itself to the censor's rod. But harmless, inoffensive works should be passed by. Where is the bravery of treading on a worm or crushing a poor fly? Where the utility? Where the honour?"
An edition of 4,000 copies had been printed; this was soon exhausted, and a second edition was called for.
Mr. Scott was ample in his encouragements.
"I think," he wrote to Murray, "a firm and stable sale will be settled here, to the extent of 1,000 or 1,500 even for the next number…. I am quite pleased with my ten guineas a sheet for my labour in writing, and for additional exertions. I will consider them as overpaid by success in the cause, especially while that success is doubtful."
Ballantyne wrote to Murray in March:
"Constable, I am told, has consulted Sir Samuel Romilly, and means, after writing a book against me, to prosecute me forstealing his plans!Somebody has certainly stolen his brains!"
The confederates continued to encourage each other and to incite to greater effort the procrastinating Gifford. The following rather mysterious paragraph occurs in a letter from Scott to Murray dated March 19, 1809.
"I have found means to get at Mr. G., and have procured a letter to be written to him, which may possibly produce one to you signed Rutherford or Richardson, or some such name, and dated from the North of England; or, if he does not write to you, enquiry is to be made whether he would choose you should address him. The secrecy to be observed in this business must be most profound, even to Ballantyne and all the world. If you get articles from him (which will and must draw attention) you must throw out a false scent for enquirers. I believe this unfortunate man will soon be in London."
In reply, Mr. Murray wrote on March 24 to Mr. Scott, urging him to come to London, and offering, "if there be no plea for charging your expenses to Government," to "undertake that theReviewshall pay them as far as one hundred guineas." To this Scott replied:
Mr. Scott to John Murray.
Edinburgh,March27, 1809.
I have only time to give a very short answer to your letter. Some very important business detains me here till Monday or Tuesday, on the last of which days at farthest I will set off for town, and will be with you of course at the end of the week. As to my travelling expenses, if Government pay me, good and well; if they do not, depend on it I will never take a farthing from you. You have, my good friend, enough of expense to incur in forwarding this great and dubious undertaking, and God forbid I should add so unreasonable a charge as your liberality points at. I am very frank in money matters, and always take my price when I think I can give money's worth for money, but this is quite extravagant, and you must think no more of it. Should I want money for any purpose I will readily makeyoumy banker and give you value in reviews. John Ballantyne's last remittance continues to go off briskly; the devil's in you in London, you don't know good writing when you get it. All depends on our cutting in before the nextEdinburgh, when instead of following their lead they shall follow ours.
Mrs. Scott is my fellow-traveller in virtue of an old promise. I am, dear Sir, yours truly,
Walter Scott.
April4, at night.
I have been detained a day later than I intended, but set off to-morrow at mid-day. I believe I shall getfranked, so will have my generosity for nothing. I hope to be in London on Monday.
In sending out copies of the first number, Mr. Murray was not forgetful of one friend who had taken a leading part in originating theReview.
In 1808 Mr. Stratford Canning, when only twenty years of age, had beenselected to accompany Mr. Adair on a special mission to Constantinople.The following year, on Mr. Adair being appointed H.B.M. Minister to theSublime Porte, Stratford Canning became Secretary of Legation. Mr.Murray wrote to him:
John Murray to Mr. Stratford Canning.
32, Fleet St., London,March12, 1809.
Dear Sir,
It is with no small degree of pleasure that I send, for the favour of your acceptance, the first number of theQuarterly Review, a work which owes its birth to your obliging countenance and introduction of me to Mr. Gifford. I flatter myself that upon the whole you will not be dissatisfied with our first attempt, which is universally allowed to be so very respectable. Had you been in London during its progress, it would, I am confident, have been rendered more deserving of public attention.
The letter goes on to ask for information on foreign works of importance or interest.
Mr. Stratford Canning replied:
"With regard to the comission which you have given me, it is, I fear, completely out of my power to execute it. Literature neither resides at Constantinople nor passes through it. Even were I able to obtain the publications of France and Germany by way of Vienna, the road is so circuitous, that you would have them later than others who contrive to smuggle them across the North Sea. Every London newspaper that retails its daily sixpennyworth of false reports, publishes the French, the Hamburgh, the Vienna, the Frankfort, and other journals, full as soon as we receive any of them here. This is the case at all times; at present it is much worse. We are entirely insulated. The Russians block up the usual road through Bucharest, and the Servians prevent the passage of couriers through Bosnia. And in addition to these difficulties, the present state of the Continent must at least interrupt all literary works. You will not, I am sure, look upon these as idle excuses. Things may probably improve, and I will not quit this country without commissioning some one here to send you anything that may be of use to so promising a publication as yourReview."
No sooner was one number published, than preparations were made for the next. Every periodical is a continuous work—never ending, still beginning. New contributors must be gained; new books reviewed; new views criticised. Mr. Murray was, even more than the editor, the backbone of the enterprise: he was indefatigable in soliciting new writers for theQuarterly, and in finding the books fit for review, and the appropriate reviewers of the books. Sometimes the reviews were printed before the editor was consulted, but everything passed under the notice of Gifford, and received his emendations and final approval.
Mr. Murray went so far as to invite Leigh Hunt to contribute an article on Literature or Poetry for theQuarterly. The reply came from John Hunt, Leigh's brother. He said:
Mr. John Hunt to John Murray.
"My brother some days back requested me to present to you his thanks for the polite note you favoured him with on the subject of theReview, to which he should have been most willing to have contributed in the manner you propose, did he not perceive that the political sentiments contained in it are in direct opposition to his own."
This was honest, and it did not interfere with the personal intercourse of the publisher and the poet. Murray afterwards wrote to Scott: "Hunt is most vilely wrong-headed in politics, which he has allowed to turn him away from the path of elegant criticism, which might have led him to eminence and respectability."
James Mill, author of the "History of British India," sent an article for the second number; but the sentiments and principles not being in accordance with those of the editor, it was not at once accepted. On learning this, he wrote to Mr. Murray as follows:
Mr. James Mill to John Murray.
My dear Sir,
I can have no objection in the world to your delaying the article I have sent you till it altogether suits your arrangements to make use of it. Besides this point, a few words of explanation may not be altogether useless with regard to another. I am half inclined to suspect that the objection of your Editor goes a little farther than you state. If so, I beg you will not hesitate a moment about what you are to do with it. I wrote it solely with a view to oblige and to benefityou personally, but with very little idea, as I told you at our first conversation on the subject, that it would be in my power to be of any use to you, as the views which I entertained respecting what is good for our country were very different from the views entertained by the gentlemen with whom in your projected concern you told me you were to be connected. To convince you, however, of my good-will, I am perfectly ready to give you a specimen, and if it appears to be such as likely to give offence to your friends, or not to harmonise with the general style of your work, commit it to the flames without the smallest scruple. Be assured that it will not make the smallest difference in my sentiments towards you, or render me in the smallest degree less disposed to lend you my aid (such as it is) on any other occasion when it may be better calculated to be of use to you.
Yours very truly,
J. Mill.
Gifford was not a man of business; he was unpunctual. The second number of theQuarterlyappeared behind its time, and the publisher felt himself under the necessity of expostulating with the editor.
John Murray to Mr. Gifford.
May11, 1809.
Dear Mr. Gifford,
I begin to suspect that you are not aware of the complete misery which is occasioned to me, and the certain ruin which must attend theReview, by our unfortunate procrastination. Long before this, every line of copy for the present number ought to have been in the hands of the printer. Yet the whole of theReviewis yet to print. I know not what to do to facilitate your labour, for the articles which you have long had he scattered without attention, and those which I ventured to send to the printer undergo such retarding corrections, that even by this mode we do not advance. I entreat the favour of your exertion. For the last five months my most imperative concerns have yielded to this, without the hope of my anxiety or labour ceasing.
"Tanti miserere laboris,"
in my distress and with regret from
John Murray.
Mr. Gifford's reply was as follows:
"The delay and confusion which have arisen must be attributed to a want of confidential communication. In a word, you have too many advisers, and I too many masters."
At last the second number of theQuarterlyappeared, at the end of May instead of at the middle of April. The new contributors to this number were Dr. D'Oyley, the Rev. Mr. Walpole, and George Canning, who, in conjunction with Sharon Turner, contributed the last article on Austrian State Papers.
As soon as the second number was published, Mr. Gifford, whose health was hardly equal to the constant strain of preparing and editing the successive numbers, hastened away, as was his custom, to the seaside. He wrote to Mr. Murray from Ryde:
Mr. Gifford to John Murray.
June18, 1809.
"I rejoice to hear of our success, and feel very anxious to carry it further. A fortnight's complete abstraction from all sublunary cares has done me much good, and I am now ready to put on my spectacles and look about me…. Hoppner is here, and has been at Death's door. The third day after his arrival, he had an apoplectic fit, from which blisters, etc., have miraculously recovered him…. This morning I received a letter from Mr. Erskine. He speaks very highly of the second number, and of the Austrian article, which is thought its chief attraction. Theology, he says, few people read or care about. On this, I wish to say a word seriously. I am sorry that Mr. E. has fallen into that notion, too general I fear in Scotland; but this is his own concern. I differ with him totally, however, as to the few readers which such subjects find; for as far as my knowledge reaches, the reverse is the fact. The strongest letter which I have received since I came down, in our favour, points out the two serious articles as masterly productions and of decided superiority. We have taught the truth I mention to theEdinburgh Review, and in their last number they have also attempted to be serious, and abstain from their flippant impiety. It is not done with the best grace, but it has done them credit, I hear…. When you make up your parcel, pray put in some small cheap 'Horace,' which I can no more do without than Parson Adamsex'Aeschylus.' I have left it somewhere on the road. Any common thing will do."
Mr. Murray sent Gifford a splendid copy of "Horace" in the next parcel of books and manuscripts. In his reply Gifford, expostulating, "Why, my dear Sir, will you do these things?" thanked him warmly for his gift.
Mr. George Ellis was, as usual, ready with his criticism. Differing fromGifford, he wrote:
"I confess that, to my taste, the long article on the New Testament is very tedious, and that the progress of Socinianism is, to my apprehension, a bugbear whichwehave no immediate reason to be scared by; but it may alarm some people, and what I think a dull prosing piece of orthodoxy may have its admirers, and promote our sale."
Even Constable had a good word to say of it. In a letter to his partner,Hunter, then in London, he said:
"I received theQuarterly Reviewyesterday, and immediately went and delivered it to Mr. Jeffrey himself. It really seems a respectable number, but what then? Unless theirs improves and ours falls off it cannot harm us, I think. I observe that Nos. 1 and 2 extend to merely twenty-nine sheets, so that, in fact, ours is still the cheaper of the two. Murray's waiting on you with it is one of the wisest things I ever knew him do: you will not be behindhand with him in civility."
No. 3 of theQuarterlywas also late, and was not published until the end of August. The contributors were behindhand; an article was expected from Canning on Spain, and the publication was postponed until this article had been received, printed and corrected. The foundations of it were laid by George Ellis, and it was completed by George Canning.
Of this article Mr. Gifford wrote:
"In consequence of my importunity, Mr. Canning has exerted himself and produced the best article that ever yet appeared in any Review."
Although Mr. Gifford was sometimes the subject of opprobrium because of his supposed severity, we find that in many cases he softened down the tone of the reviewers. For instance, in communicating to Mr. Murray the first part of Dr. Thomson's article on the "Outlines of Mineralogy," by Kidd, he observed:
Mr. Gifford to John Murray.
"It is very splenitick and very severe, and much too wantonly so. I hope, however, it is just. Some of the opprobrious language I shall soften, for the eternal repetitions ofignorance, absurdity, surprising,etc., are not wanted. I am sorry to observe so much Nationality in it. Let this be a secret between us, for I will not have my private opinions go beyond yourself. As for Kidd, he is a modest, unassuming man, and is not to be attacked with sticks and stones like a savage. Remember, it is only the epithets which I mean to soften; for as to the scientific part, it shall not be meddled with."
His faithful correspondent, Mr. Ellis, wrote as to the quality of this third number of theQuarterly. He agreed with Mr. Murray, that though profound, it was "most notoriously and unequivocallydull…. We must veto ponderous articles; they will simply sink us."
Isaac D'Israeli also tendered his advice. He was one of Mr. Murray's most intimate friends, and could speak freely and honestly to him as to the prospects of theReview. He was at Brighton, preparing his third volume of the "Curiosities of Literature."
Mr. I. D'Israeli to John Murray.
"I have bought the complete collection of Memoirs written by individuals of the French nation, amounting to sixty-five volumes, for fifteen guineas…. What can I say about theQ.R.?Certainly nothing new; it has not yet invaded the country. Here it is totally unknown, though as usual theEd. Rev.is here; but among private libraries, I find it equally unknown. It has yet its fortune to make. You must appeal to thefeelingsof Gifford! Has he none then? Can't you get a more active and vigilant Editor? But what can I say at this distance? The disastrous finale of the Austrians, received this morning, is felt here as deadly. Buonaparte is a tremendous Thaumaturgus!… I wish you had such a genius in theQ.R.…. My son Ben assures me you are in Brighton. He saw you! Now, he never lies." [Footnote: Mr. Murray was in Brighton at the time.]
Thus pressed by his correspondents, Mr. Murray did his best to rescue theQuarterlyfrom failure. Though it brought him into prominent notice as a publisher, it was not by any means paying its expenses. Some thought it doubtful whether "the play was worth the candle." Yet Murray was not a man to be driven back by comparative want of success. He continued to enlist a band of competent contributors. Amongst these were some very eminent men: Mr. John Barrow of the Admiralty; the Rev. Reginald Heber, Mr. Robert Grant (afterwards Sir Robert, the Indian judge), Mr. Stephens, etc. How Mr. Barrow was induced to become a contributor is thus explained in his Autobiography. [Footnote: "Autobiographical Memoir of Sir John Barrow," Murray, 1847.]
"One morning, in the summer of the year 1809, Mr. Canning looked in upon me at the Admiralty, said he had often troubled me on business, but he was now about to ask me a favour. 'I believe you are acquainted with my friend William Gifford?' 'By reputation,' I said, 'but not personally.' 'Then,' says he, 'I must make you personally acquainted; will you come and dine with me at Gloucester Lodge any day, the sooner the more agreeable—say to-morrow, if you are disengaged?' On accepting, he said, 'I will send for Gifford to meet you; I know he will be too glad to come.'
"'Now,' he continued, 'it is right I should tell you that, in theReviewof which two numbers have appeared, under the name of theQuarterly, I am deeply, both publicly and personally, interested, and have taken a leading part with Mr. George Ellis, Hookham Frere, Walter Scott, Rose, Southey, and some others; our object in that work being to counteract thevirusscattered among His Majesty's subjects through the pages of theEdinburgh Review. Now, I wish to enlist you in our corps, not as a mere advising idler, but as an efficient labourer in our friend Gifford's vineyard.'"
Mr. Barrow modestly expressed a doubt as to his competence, but in the sequel, he tells us, Mr. Canning carried his point, and "I may add, once for all, that what with Gifford's eager and urgent demands, and the exercise becoming habitual and not disagreeable, I did not cease writing for theQuarterly Reviewtill I had supplied no less, rather more, than 190 articles."
The fourth number of theQuarterly, which was due in November, was not published until the end of December 1809. Gifford's excuse was the want of copy. He wrote to Mr. Murray: "We must, upon the publication of this number, enter into some plan for ensuring regularity."
Although it appeared late, the fourth number was the best that had yet been issued. It was more varied in its contents; containing articles by Scott, Southey, Barrow, and Heber. But the most important article was contributed by Robert Grant, on the "Character of the late C.J. Fox." This was the first article in theQuarterly, according to Mr. Murray, which excited general admiration, concerning which we find a memorandum in Mr. Murray's own copy; and, what was an important test, it largely increased the demand for theReview.
During the year in which theQuarterlywas first given to the world, the alliance between Murray and the Ballantynes was close and intimate: their correspondence was not confined to business matters, but bears witness to warm personal friendship.
Murray was able to place much printing work in their hands, and amongst other books, "Mrs. Rundell's Cookery," a valuable property, which had now reached a very large circulation, was printed at the Canongate Press.
They exerted themselves to promote the sale of one another's publications and engaged in various joint works, such, for example, as Grahame's "British Georgics" and Scott's "English Minstrelsy."
In the midst of all these transactions, however, there were not wanting symptoms of financial difficulties, which, as in a previous instance, were destined in time to cause a severance between Murray and his Edinburgh agents. It was the old story—drawing bills for valuenotreceived. Murray seriously warned the Ballantynes of the risks they were running in trading beyond their capital. James Ballantyne replied on March 30, 1809:
Mr. James Ballantyne to John Murray.
"Suffer me to notice one part of your letter respecting which you will be happy to be put right. We are by no means trading beyond our capital. It requires no professional knowledge to enable us to avoid so fatal an error as that. For the few speculations we have entered into our means have been carefully calculated and are perfectly adequate."
Yet at the close of the same letter, referring to the "British Novelists"—a vast scheme, to which Mr. Murray had by no means pledged himself—Ballantyne continues:
"For this work permit me to state I have ordered a font of types, cut expressly on purpose, at an expense of near £1,000, and have engaged a very large number of compositors for no other object."
On June 14, James Ballantyne wrote to Murray:
"I can get no books out yet, without interfering in the printing office with business previously engaged for, and that puts me a little about for cash. Independent ofthiscircumstance, upon which we reckoned, a sum of £1,500 payable to us at 25th May, yet waiting some cursed legal arrangements, but which we trust to have very shortly [sic]. This is all preliminary to the enclosures which I hope will not be disagreeable to you, and if not, I will trust to their receiptaccepted, by return of post."
Mr. Murray replied on June 20:
"I regret that I should be under the necessity of returning you the two bills which you enclosed, unaccepted; but having settled lately a very large amount with Mr. Constable, I had occasion to grant more bills than I think it proper to allow to be about at the same time."
This was not the last application for acceptances, and it will be found that in the end it led to an entire separation between the firms.
The Ballantynes, however, were more sanguine than prudent. In spite of Mr. Murray's warning that they were proceeding too rapidly with the publication of new works, they informed him that they had a "gigantic scheme" in hand—the "Tales of the East," translated by Henry Weber, Walter Scott's private secretary—besides the "Edinburgh Encyclopaedia," and the "Secret Memoirs of the House of Stewart." They said that Scott was interested in the "Tales of the East," and in one of their hopeful letters they requested Mr. Murray to join in their speculations. His answer was as follows:
John Murray to Messrs. Ballantyne & Co.
October31, 1809.
"I regret that I cannot accept a share in the 'Edinburgh Encyclopaedia.' I am obliged to decline by motives of prudence. I do not know anything of the agreement made by the proprietors, except in the palpable mismanagement of a very exclusive and promising concern. I am therefore fearful to risk my property in an affair so extremely unsuitable.
"You distress me sadly by the announcement of having put the 'Secret Memoirs' to press, and that the paper for it was actually purchased six months ago! How can you, my good sirs, act in this way? How can you imagine that a bookseller can afford to pay eternal advances upon almost every work in which he takes a share with you? And how can you continue to destroy every speculation by entering upon new ones before the previous ones are properly completed?… Why, with your influence, will you not urge the completion of the 'Minstrelsy'? Why not go on with and complete the series of De Foe?… For myself, I really do not know what to do, for when I see that you will complete nothing of your own, I am unwillingly apprehensive of having any work of mine in your power. What I thus write is in serious friendship for you. I entreat you to let us complete what we have already in hand, before we begin upon any other speculation. You will have enough to do to sell those in which we are already engaged. As to your mode of exchange and so disposing of your shares, besides the universal obloquy which attends the practice in the mind of every respectable bookseller, and the certain damnation which it invariably causes both to the book and the author, as in the case of Grahame, if persisted in, it must end in serious loss to the bookseller…. If you cannot give me your solemn promise not to exchange a copy of Tasso, I trust you will allow me to withdraw the small share which I propose to take, for the least breath of this kind would blast the work and the author too—a most worthy man, upon whose account alone I engaged in the speculation."
Constable, with whom Murray had never entirely broken, had always looked with jealousy at the operations of the house of Ballantyne. Their firm had indeed been started in opposition to himself; and it was not without a sort of gratification that he heard of their pecuniary difficulties, and of the friction between them and Murray. Scott's "Lady of the Lake" had been announced for publication. At the close of a letter to Murray, Constable rather maliciously remarks:
January20, 1810.
"I have no particular anxiety about promulgating the folly (to say the least of it) of certain correspondents of yours in this quarter; but if you will ask our friend Mr. Miller if he had a letter from a shop nearly opposite the Royal Exchange the other day, he will, I dare say, tell you of the contents. I am mistaken if their game is not well up! Indeed I doubt much if they will survive the 'Lady of the Lake.' She will probably help to drown them!"
An arrangement had been made with the Ballantynes that, in consideration of their being the sole agents for Mr. Murray in Scotland, they should give him the opportunity of taking shares in any of their publications. Instead, however, of offering a share of the "Lady of the Lake" to Mr. Murray, according to the understanding between the firms, the Ballantynes had already parted with one fourth share of the work to Mr. Miller, of Albemarle Street, London, whose business was afterwards purchased by Mr. Murray. Mr. Murray's letter to Ballantyne & Co. thus describes the arrangement:
John Murray to Messrs. Ballantyne & Co.
March26, 1810.
"Respecting myReview, 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 theReviewI 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 quantity you will need, and upon your remitting to me a note at six months for the amount, I shall immediately ship the quantity 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 theQuarterlywas 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 theQuarterly. 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 theEdinburgh, which on that occasion was "reasonably dull."
It contained one article which became the foundation of an English classic, 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 association 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 authoress (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 assumed that the authoress 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 principal objections of Mr. Murray to the manner in which Mr. Gifford edited theQuarterlywas the war which he waged with theEdinburgh. 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 theEdinburgh. 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, isterriblysevere 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.
September25, 1810.
"I entreat you to be assured 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 theQuarterlyNo. 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 thatpunctualityis, in our present situation, our great and only desideratum."
Accordingly, increased efforts were made to have theQuarterlypublished 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 theReview. 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 theQuarterly: a strange thing it is—the 'Curse,' I mean—and the critique is not, as the blackguards say, worth a damn; but what I could I did, which was to throw as much weight as possible upon the beautiful passages, 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, hewillbe 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 theEdinburgh Review. I could have made a very different hand of it indeed, had the order of the day beenpour déchirer."
It was a good thing for Southey that he could always depend upon his contributions to theQuarterlyfor his daily maintenance, for he could not at all rely upon the income from his poetry.
The failure of theEdinburgh 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 theQuarterly. 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 God'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, God be praised, no man ever enjoyed these more perfectly."