Owing to the intimate relations which were now established betweenMurray and Lockhart, the correspondence is full of references to SirWalter Scott and to the last phases of his illustrious career.
Lockhart had often occasion to be at Abbotsford to see Sir Walter Scott, who was then carrying on, single-handed, that terrible struggle with adversity, which has never been equalled in the annals of literature. His son-in-law went down in February 1827 to see him about further articles, but wrote to Murray: "I fear we must not now expect Sir W. S.'s assistance ere 'Napoleon' be out of hand." In the following month of June Lockhart wrote from Portobello: "Sir W. Scott has got 'Napoleon' out of his hands, and I have made arrangements for three or four articles; and I think we may count for a paper of his every quarter." Articles accordingly appeared from Sir Walter Scott on diverse subjects, one in No. 71, June 1827, on the "Works of John Home "; another in No. 72, October 1827, on "Planting Waste Lands "; a third in No. 74, March 1828, on "Plantation and Landscape Gardening "; and a fourth in No. 76, October 1828, on Sir H. Davy's "Salmonia, or Days of Fly-Fishing." The last article was cordial and generous, like everything proceeding from Sir Walter's pen. Lady Davy was greatly pleased with it. "It must always be a proud and gratifying distinction," she said, "to have the name of Sir Walter Scott associated with that of my husband in the review of 'Salmonia.' I am sure Sir Humphry will like his bairn the better for the public opinion given of it by one whose immortality renders praise as durable as it seems truly felt."
With respect to "Salmonia" the following anecdote may be mentioned, as related to Mr. Murray by Dr. Gooch, a valued contributor to theQuarterly.
"At page 6 of Salmonia," said Dr. Gooch, "it is stated that 'Nelson was a good fly-fisher, and continued the pursuit even with his left hand.' I can add that one of his reasons for regretting the loss of his right arm was that it deprived him of the power of pursuing this amusement efficiently, as is shown by the following incident, which is, I think, worth preserving in that part of his history which relates to his talents as a fly-fisher. I was at the Naval Hospital at Yarmouth on the morning when Nelson, after the battle of Copenhagen (having sent the wounded before him), arrived in the Roads and landed on the Jetty. The populace soon surrounded him, and the military were drawn up in the marketplace ready to receive him; but making his way through the crowd, and the dust and the clamour, he went straight to the Hospital. I went round the wards with him, and was much interested in observing his demeanour to the sailors. He stopped at every bed, and to every man he had something kind and cheering to say. At length he stopped opposite a bed in which a sailor was lying who had lost his right arm close to the shoulder joint, and the following short dialogue passed between them.Nelson: 'Well, Jack, what's the matter with you?'Sailor: 'Lost my right arm, your Honour.' Nelson paused, looked down at his own empty sleeve, then at the sailor, and then said playfully, 'Well, Jack, then you and I are spoiled for fishermen; but cheer up, my brave fellow.' He then passed quickly on to the next bed, but these few words had a magical effect upon the poor fellow, for I saw his eyes sparkle with delight as Nelson turned away and pursued his course through the wards. This was the only occasion on which I ever saw Lord Nelson."
In the summer of 1828 Mr. Lockhart went down to Brighton, accompanied by Sir Walter Scott, Miss Scott, Mrs. Lockhart and her son John—the Littlejohn to whom Scott's charming "Tales of a Grandfather," which were at that time in course of publication, had been addressed. It was on the boy's account the party went to Brighton; he was very ill and gradually sinking.
While at Brighton, Lockhart had an interview with the Duke ofWellington, and wrote to Murray on the subject.
Mr. Lockhart to John Murray.May18, 1828.
"I have a message from the D. of W. to say that he, on the whole, highly approves the paper on foreign politics, but has some criticisms to offer on particular points, and will send for me some day soon to hear them. I have of course signified my readiness to attend him any time he is pleased to appoint, and expect it will be next week."
That the Duke maintained his interest in theQuarterlyis shown by a subsequent extract:
Mr. Lockhart to John Murray.
AUCHENRAITH,January19, 1829.
"Sir Walter met me here yesterday, and he considered the Duke's epistle as an effort of the deepest moment to theQuarterlyand all concerned. He is sure no minister ever gave a more distinguished proof of his feeling than by this readiness to second the efforts of a literary organ. Therefore, no matter about a week sooner or later, let us do the thing justice."
Before his departure for Brighton, Mr. Lockhart had been commissioned byMurray to offer Sir Walter Scott £1,250 for the copyright of his"History of Scotland," a transaction concerning which some informalcommunications had already passed.
Mr. Lockhart to John Murray.
Sir W. Scott has already agreed to furnish Dr. Lardner's "Cyclopaedia" with one vol.—"History of Scotland"—for £1,000, and he is now at this work. This is grievous, but you must not blame me, for he has acted in the full knowledge of my connection with and anxiety about the Family Library. I answered him, expressing my great regret and reminding him of Peterborough. I suppose, as I never mentioned, nor well could,money, that Dr. Lardner's matter appeared more a piece of business. Perhaps you may think of something to be done. It is a great loss to us and gain to them.
Yours truly,
After the failure of Ballantyne and Constable, Cadell, who had in former years been a partner in Constable's house, became Scott's publisher, and at the close of 1827 the principal copyrights of Scott's works, including the novels from "Waverley" to "Quentin Durward," and most of the poems, were put up to auction, and purchased by Cadell and Scott jointly for £8,500. At this time the "Tales of a Grandfather" were appearing by instalments, and Murray wrote to the author, begging to be allowed to become the London publisher of this work. Scott replied:
Sir W. Scott to John Murray.
6, Shandwick Place, Edinburgh,
_November _26, 1828.
My Dear Sir,
I was favoured with your note some time since, but could not answer it at the moment till I knew whether I was like to publish at Edinburgh or not. The motives for doing so are very strong, for I need not tell you that in literary affairs a frequent and ready communication with the bookseller is a very necessary thing.
As we have settled, with advice of those who have given me their assistance in extricating my affairs, to publish in Edinburgh, I do not feel myself at liberty to dictate to Cadell any particular selection of a London publisher. If I did so, I should be certainly involved in any discussions or differences which might occur between my London and Edinburgh friends, which would be adding an additional degree of perplexity to my affairs. I feel and know the value of your name as a publisher, but if we should at any time have the pleasure of being connected with you in that way, it must be when it is entirely on your own account. The little history designed for Johnnie Lockhart was long since promised to Cadell.
I do not, in my conscience, think that I deprive you of anything of consequence in not being at present connected with you in literary business. My reputation with the world is something like a high-pressure engine, which does very well while all lasts stout and tight, but is subject to sudden explosion, and I would rather that another than an old friend stood the risk of suffering by the splinters.
I feel all the delicacy of the time and mode of your application, and you cannot doubt I would greatly prefer you personally to men of whom I know nothing. But they are not of my choosing, nor are they in any way responsible to me. I transact with the Edinburgh bookseller alone, and as I must neglect no becoming mode of securing myself, my terms are harder than I think you, in possession of so well established a trade, would like to enter upon, though they may suit one who gives up his time to them as almost his sole object of expense and attention. I hope this necessary arrangement will make no difference betwixt us, being, with regard,
Your faithful, humble Servant,
Walter Scott.
On his return to London, Lockhart proceeded to take a house, No. 24, Sussex Place, Regent's Park; for he had been heretofore living in the furnished apartments provided for him in Pall Mall. Mr. Murray wrote to him on the subject:
John Murray to Mr. Lockhart.
July31, 1828.
As you are about taking or retaking a house, I think it right to inform you now that the editor's dividend on theQuarterly Reviewwill be in future £325 on the publication of each number; and I think it very hard if you do not get £200 or £300 more for your own contributions.
Most truly yours,
At the beginning of the following year Lockhart went down to Abbotsford, where he found his father-in-law working as hard as ever.
Mr. Lockhart to John Murray.
January4, 1820.
"I have found Sir Walter Scott in grand health and spirits, and have had much conversation with him on his hill-side about all our concerns. I shall keep a world of his hints and suggestions till we meet; but meanwhile he has agreed to writealmost immediatelya one volume biography of the great Earl of Peterborough, and I think you will agree with me in considering the choice of this, perhaps the last of our romantic heroes, as in all respects happy. … He will also writenowan article on some recent works of Scottish History (Tytler's, etc.) giving, he promises, a complete and gay summary of all that controversy; and next Nov. a general review of the Scots ballads, whereof some twenty volumes have been published within these ten years, and many not published but only printed by the Bannatyne club of Edinburgh, and another club of the same order at Glasgow…. I am coaxing him to make a selection from Crabbe, with a preface, and think he will be persuaded."
January8, 1829.
"Sir Walter Scott suggests overhauling Caulfield's portraits of remarkable characters (3 vols., 1816), and having roughish woodcuts taken from that book and from others, and the biographies newly done, whenever they are not in the words of the old original writers. He says the march of intellect will never put women with beards and men with horns out of fashion—Old Parr, Jenkins, Venner, Muggleton, and Mother Souse, are immortal, all in their several ways."
By 1829 Scott and Cadell had been enabled to obtain possession of all the principal copyrights, with the exception of two one-fourth shares of "Marmion," held by Murray and Longman respectively. Sir Walter Scott applied to Murray through Lockhart, respecting this fourth share. The following was Murray's reply to Sir Walter Scott:
John Murray to Sir Walter Scott.
June8, 1829.
My Dear Sir,
Mr. Lockhart has at this moment communicated to me your letter respecting my fourth share of the copyright of "Marmion." I have already been applied to by Messrs. Constable and by Messrs. Longman, to know what sum I would sell this share for; but so highly do I estimate the honour of being, even in so small a degree, the publisher of the author of the poem, that no pecuniary consideration whatever can induce me to part with it. But there is a consideration of another kind, which, until now, I was not aware of, which would make it painful to me if I were to retain it a moment longer. I mean, the knowledge of its being required by the author, into whose hands it was spontaneously resigned in the same instant that I read his request. This share has been profitable to me fifty-fold beyond what either publisher or author could have anticipated; and, therefore, my returning it on such an occasion, you will, I trust, do me the favour to consider in no other light than as a mere act of grateful acknowledgment for benefits already received by, my dear sir,
Your obliged and faithful Servant,
P.S.—It will be proper for your man of business to prepare a regular deed to carry this into effect, which I will sign with the greatest self-satisfaction, as soon as I receive it.
Sir W. Scott to John Murray.
EDINBURGH,June12, 1829.
My Dear Sir,
Nothing can be more obliging or gratifying to me than the very kind manner in which you have resigned to me the share you held in "Marmion," which, as I am circumstanced, is a favour of real value and most handsomely rendered. I hope an opportunity may occur in which I may more effectually express my sense of the obligation than by mere words. I will send the document of transference when it can be made out. In the meantime I am, with sincere regard and thanks,
Your most obedient and obliged Servant,
At the end of August 1829 Lockhart was again at Abbotsford; and sending the slips of Sir Walter's new article for the nextQuarterly. He had already written for No. 77 the article on "Hajji Baba," and for No. 81 an article on the "Ancient History of Scotland." The slips for the new article were to be a continuation of the last, in a review of Tytler's "History of Scotland." The only other articles he wrote for theQuarterlywere his review of Southey's "Life of John Bunyan," No. 86, in October 1830; and his review—the very last—of Pitcairn's "Criminal Trials of Scotland," No. 88, in February 1831.
His last letter to Mr. Murray refers to the payment for one of these articles:
Sir W. Scott to John Murray.
ABBOTSFORD,Monday, 1830.
My Dear Sir,
I acknowledge with thanks your remittance of £100, and I will be happy to light on some subject which will suit theReview, which may be interesting and present some novelty. But I have to look forward to a very busy period betwixt this month and January, which may prevent my contribution being ready before that time. You may be assured that for many reasons I have every wish to assist theQuarterly, and will be always happy to give any support which is in my power.
I have inclosed for Moore a copy of one of Byron's letters to me. I received another of considerable interest, but I do not think it right to give publicity without the permission of a person whose name is repeatedly mentioned. I hope the token of my good wishes will not come too late. These letters have been only recovered after a long search through my correspondence, which, as usual with literary folks, is sadly confused.
I beg my kind compliments to Mrs. Murray and the young ladies, and am, yours truly,
Scott now began to decline rapidly, and was suffering much from his usual spasmodic attacks; yet he had Turner with him, making drawings for the new edition of his poems. Referring to his last article in theQuarterlyon Pitcairn's "Criminal Trials," he bids Lockhart to inform Mr. Murray that "no one knows better your liberal disposition, and he is aware that £50 is more than his paper is worth." Scott's illness increased, and Lockhart rarely left his side.
Mr. Lockhart to John Murray.
CHIEFSWOOD,September16, 1831.
"Yesterday determined Sir W. Scott's motions. He owes to Croker the offer of a passage to Naples in a frigate which sails in about a fortnight. He will therefore proceed southwards by land next week, halting at Rokeby, and with his son at Notts, by the way. We shall leave Edinburgh by next Tuesday's steamer, so as to be in town before him, and ready for his reception. We are all deeply obliged to Croker on this occasion, for Sir Walter is quite unfit for the fatigues of a long land journey, and the annoyances innumerable of Continental inns; and, above all, he will have a good surgeon at hand, in case of need. The arrangement has relieved us all of a great burden of annoyances and perplexities and fears."
Another, and the last of Lockhart's letters on this subject, may be given:
Mr. Lockhart to John Murray.
CHIEFSWOOD,September19, 1831.
In consequence of my sister-in-law, Annie Scott, being taken unwell, with frequent fainting fits, the result no doubt of over anxieties of late, I have been obliged to let my wife and children depart by tomorrow's steamer without me, and I remain to attend to Sir Walter thro' his land progress, which will begin on Friday, and end, I hope well, on Wednesday. If this should give any inconvenience to you, God knows I regret it, and God knows also I couldn't do otherwise without exposing Sir W. and his daughter to a feeling that I had not done my duty to them. On the whole, public affairs seem to be so dark, that I am inclined to think our best course, in theQuarterly, may turn out to have been and to be, that of not again appearing until the fate of this Bill has been quite settled. My wife will, if you are in town, be much rejoiced with a visit; and if you write to me, so as to catch me at Rokeby Park, Greta Bridge, next Saturday, 'tis well.
Yours,
P.S.—But I see Rokeby Park would not do. I shall be at Major Scott's, 15th Hussars, Nottingham, on Monday night.
It would be beyond our province to describe in these pages the closing scenes of Sir Walter Scott's life: his journey to Naples, his attempt to write more novels, his failure, and his return home to Abbotsford to die. His biography, by his son-in-law Lockhart, one of the best in the whole range of English literature, is familiar to all our readers; and perhaps never was a more faithful memorial erected, in the shape of a book, to the beauty, goodness, and faithfulness of a noble literary character.
In this work we are only concerned with Sir Walter's friendship and dealings with Mr. Murray, and on these the foregoing correspondence, extending over nearly a quarter of a century, is sufficient comment. When a committee was formed in Sir Walter's closing years to organize and carry out some public act of homage and respect to the great genius, Mr. Murray strongly urged that the money collected, with which Abbotsford was eventually redeemed, should be devoted to the purchase of all the copyrights for the benefit of Scott and his family: it cannot but be matter of regret that this admirable suggestion was not adopted.
During the year 1827 Mr. Murray's son, John Murray the Third, was residing in Edinburgh as a student at the University, and attended the memorable dinner at which Scott was forced to declare himself the author of the "Waverley Novels."
His account of the scene, as given in a letter to his father, forms a fitting conclusion to this chapter.
"I believe I mentioned to you that Mr. Allan had kindly offered to take me with him to a Theatrical Fund dinner, which took place on Friday last. There were present about 300 persons—a mixed company, many of them not of the most respectable order. Sir Walter Scott took the chair, and there was scarcely another person of any note to support him except the actors. The dinner, therefore, would have been little better than endurable, had it not been remarkable for the confession of Sir Walter Scott that he was the author of the 'Waverley Novels.'
"This acknowledgment was forced from him, I believe, contrary to his own wish, in this manner. Lord Meadowbank, who sat on his left hand, proposed his health, and after paying him many compliments, ended his speech by saying that the clouds and mists which had so long surrounded the Great Unknown were now revealed, and he appeared in his true character (probably alluding to theexposemade before Constable's creditors, for I do not think there was any preconcerted plan). Upon this Sir Walter rose, and said, 'I did not expect on coming here today that I should have to disclose before 300 people a secret which, considering it had already been made known to about thirty persons, had been tolerably well kept. I am not prepared to give my reasons for preserving it a secret, caprice had certainly a great share in the matter. Now that it is out, I beg leave to observe that I am sole and undivided author of those novels. Every part of them has originated with me, or has been suggested to me in the course of my reading. I confess I am guilty, and am almost afraid to examine the extent of my delinquency. "Look on't again, I dare not!" The wand of Prospero is now broken, and my book is buried, but before I retire I shall propose the health of a person who has given so much delight to all now present, The Bailie Nicol Jarvie.'
"I report this from memory. Of course it is not quite accurate in words, but you will find a tolerable report of it in theCaledonian Mercuryof Saturday. This declaration was received with loud and long applause. As this was gradually subsiding, a voice from the end of the room was heard [Footnote: The speaker on this occasion was the actor Mackay, who had attained considerable celebrity by his representation of Scottish characters, and especially of that of the famous Bailie in "Rob Roy."] exclaiming in character,' Ma conscience! if my father the Bailie had been alive to hear that ma health had been proposed by the Author of Waverley,' etc., which, as you may suppose, had a most excellent effect."
The public has long since made up its mind as to the merits of Colonel Napier's "History of the Peninsular War." It is a work which none but a soldier who had served through the war as he had done, and who, moreover, combined with practical experience a thorough knowledge of the science of war, could have written.
At the outset of his work he applied to the Duke of Wellington for his papers. This rather abrupt request took the Duke by surprise. The documents in his possession were so momentous, and the great part of them so confidential in their nature, that he felt it to be impossible to entrust them indiscriminately to any man living. He, however, promised Napier to put in his hands any specified paper or document he might ask for, provided no confidence would be broken by its examination. He also offered to answer any question Napier might put to him, and with this object invited him to Stratfieldsaye, where the two Generals discussed many points connected with the campaign.
Colonel W. Napier to John Murray.
December5, 1828.
Dear Sir,
My first volume is now nearly ready for the press, and as I think that in matters of business a plain straightforward course is best, I will at once say what I conceive to be the valuable part of my work, and leave you to make a proposition relative to publication of the single volume, reserving further discussion about the whole until the other volumes shall be in a more forward state.
The volume in question commences with the secret treaty of Fontainebleau concluded in 1809, and ends with the battle of Corunna. It will have an appendix of original documents, many of which are extremely interesting, and there will also be some plans of the battles. My authorities have been:
1. All the original papers of Sir Hew Dalrymple.
2. Those of Sir John Moore.
3. King Joseph's correspondence taken at the battle of Vittoria, and placed at my disposal by the Duke of Wellington. Among other papers are several notes and detailed instructions by Napoleon which throw a complete light upon his views and proceedings in the early part of the war.
4. Notes of conversations held with the Duke of Wellington for the especial purpose of connecting my account of his operations.
5. Notes of conversation with officers of high rank in the French, English, and Spanish services.
6. Original journals, and the most unreserved communications with Marshal Soult.
7. My own notes of affairs in which I have been present.
8. Journals of regimental officers of talent, and last but not least, copies taken by myself from the original muster rolls of the French army as they were transmitted to the Emperor.
Having thus distributed all my best wares in the bow window, I shall leave you to judge for yourself; and, as the diplomatists say, will be happy to treat upon a suitable basis. In the meantime,
I remain, your very obedient Servant,
About a fortnight later (December 25, 1827) he again wrote that he would have the pleasure of putting a portion of his work into Mr. Murray's hands in a few days; but that "it would be disagreeable to him to have it referred to Mr. Southey for an opinion." Murray, it should be mentioned, had published Southey's "History of the War in Spain." Some negotiations ensued, in the course of which Mr. Murray offered 500 guineas for the volume. This proposal, however, was declined by Colonel Napier.
Murray after fuller consideration offered a thousand guineas, which Colonel Napier accepted, and the volume was accordingly published in the course of 1828. Notwithstanding the beauty of its style and the grandeur of its descriptions, the book gave great offence by the severity of its criticism, and called forth a multitude of replies and animadversions. More than a dozen of these appeared in the shape of pamphlets bearing their authors' names, added to which theQuarterly Review, departing from the general rule, gave no less than four criticisms in succession. This innovation greatly disgusted the publisher, who regarded them as so much lead weighing down hisReview, although they proceeded from the pen of the Duke's right-hand man, the Rt. Hon. Sir George Murray. They were unreadable and produced no effect. It is needless to add the Duke had nothing to do with them.
Mr. Murray published no further volumes of the "History of the Peninsular War," but at his suggestion Colonel Napier brought out the second and succeeding volumes on his own account. In illustration of the loss which occurred to Mr. Murray in publishing the first volume of the history, the following letter may be given, as addressed to the editor of theMorning Chronicle:
John Murray to the Editor of the Morning Chronicle.
ALBEMARLE STREET,February13, 1837.
My attention has been called to an article in your paper of the 14th of January, containing the following extract from Colonel Napier's reply to the third article in theQuarterly Review, on his "History of the Peninsular War." [Footnote: The article appeared in No. 111 ofQuarterly, April 1836.]
"Sir George Murray only has thrown obstacles in my way, and if I am rightly informed of the following circumstances, his opposition has not been confined to what I have stated above. Mr. Murray, the bookseller, purchased my first volume, with the right of refusal for the second volume. When the latter was nearly ready, a friend informed me that he did not think Murray would purchase, because he had heard him say that Sir George Murray had declared it was not 'The Book.' He did not point out any particular error, but it was not 'The Book,' meaning, doubtless, that his own production, when it appeared, would be 'The Book.' My friend's prognostic was not false. I was offered just half of the sum given for the first volume. I declined it, and published on my own account, and certainly I have had no reason to regret that Mr. Bookseller Murray waited for 'The Book,' indeed, he has since told me very frankly that he had mistaken his own interest."
In answer to the first part of this statement, I beg leave to say, that I had not, at the time to which Colonel Napier refers, the honour of any acquaintance with Sir George Murray, nor have I held any conversation or correspondence with him on the subject of Colonel Napier's book, or of any other book on the Peninsular War. In reply to the second part of the statement, regarding the offer for Colonel Napier's second volume of half the sum (viz. 500 guineas) that I gave for the first volume (namely, 1,000 guineas), I have only to beg the favour of your insertion of the following letter, written by me to Colonel Napier, upon the occasion referred to.
ALBEMARLE STREET,May13, 1829.
Upon making up the account of the sale of the first volume of "The History of the War in the Peninsula" I find that I am at this time minus £545 12s. At this loss I do by no means in the present instance repine, for I have derived much gratification from being the publisher of a work which is so intrinsically valuable, and which has been so generally admired, and it is some satisfaction to me to find by this result that my own proposal to you was perfectly just. I will not, however, venture to offer you a less sum for the second volume, but recommend that you should, in justice to yourself, apply to some other publishers; if you should obtain from them the sum which you are right in expecting, it will afford me great pleasure, and, if you do not, you will find me perfectly ready to negotiate; and in any case I shall continue to be, with the highest esteem, dear Sir,
Your obliged and faithful servant,
I am confident you will do me the justice to insert this letter, and have no doubt its contents will convince Colonel Napier that his recollection of the circumstances has been incomplete.
I have the honour to be, sir,
Your obedient humble Servant,
It may not be generally known that we owe to Colonel Napier's work the publication of the Duke of Wellington's immortal "Despatches." The Duke, upon principle, refused to read Napier's work; not wishing, as he said, to quarrel with its author. But he was made sufficiently acquainted with the contents from friends who had perused it, and who, having made the campaigns with him, could point to praise and blame equally undeserved, to designs misunderstood and misrepresented, as well as to supercilious criticism and patronizing approval, which could not but be painful to the great commander. His nature was too noble to resent this; but he resolved, in self-defence, to give the public the means of ascertaining the truth, by publishing all his most important and secret despatches, in order, he said, to give the world a correct account not only of what he did, but of what he intended to do.
Colonel Gurwood was appointed editor of the "Despatches" and, during their preparation, not a page escaped the Duke's eye, or his own careful revision. Mr. Murray, who was honoured by being chosen as the publisher, compared this wonderful collection of documents to a watch: hitherto the general public had only seen in the successful and orderly development of his campaigns, as it were the hands moving over the dial without fault or failure, but now the Duke opened the works, and they were enabled to inspect the complicated machinery—the wheels within wheels—which had produced this admirable result. It is enough to state that in these despatches thewholetruth relating to the Peninsular War is fully and elaborately set forth.
At the beginning of 1829 Croker consulted Murray on the subject of an annotated edition of "Boswell's Johnson." Murray was greatly pleased with the idea of a new edition of the work by his laborious friend, and closing at once with Croker's proposal, wrote, "I shall be happy to give, as something in the way of remuneration, the sum of one thousand guineas." Mr. Croker accepted the offer, and proceeded immediately with the work.
Mr. Murray communicated to Mr. Lockhart the arrangement he had made withCroker. His answer was:
Mr. Lockhart to John Murray.
January19, 1829.
"I am heartily rejoiced that this 'Johnson,' of which we had so often talked, is in such hands at whatever cost. Pray ask Croker whether Boswell's account of the Hebridean Tour ought not to be melted into the book. Sir Walter has many MS. annotations in his 'Boswell,' both 'Life' and 'Tour,' and will, I am sure, give them with hearty good will…. He will write down all that he has heard about Johnson when in Scotland; and, in particular, about the amusing intercourse between him and Lord Auchinleck—Boswell's father—if Croker considers it worth his while."
Sir Walter Scott's offer of information, [Footnote: Sir Walter's letter to Croker on the subject will be found in the "Croker Correspondence," ii. 28.] to a certain extent, delayed Croker's progress with the work. He wrote to Mr. Murray (November 17, 1829): "The reference to Sir Walter Scott delays us a little as to the revises, but his name is well worth the delay. My share of the next volume (the 2nd) is quite done; and I could complete the other two in a fortnight."
While the work was passing through the press Lockhart again wrote:
Mr. Lockhart to John Murray.
"I am reading the new 'Boswell' with great pleasure, though, I think, the editor is often wrong. A prodigious flood of light is thrown on the book assuredly; and the incorporation of the 'Tour' is a great advantage. Now, do have a really good Index. That to the former edition I have continually found inadequate and faulty. The book is a dictionary of wisdom and wit, and one should know exactly where to find thedictum magistri. Many of Croker's own remarks and little disquisitions will also be hereafter among the choicest ofquotabilia."
Croker carried out the work with great industry and vigour, and it appeared in 1831. It contained numerous additions, notes, explanations, and memoranda, and, as the first attempt to explain the difficulties and enigmas which lapse of time had created, it may not unfairly be said to have been admirably edited; and though Macaulay, according to his own account, "smashed" it in theEdinburgh, [Footnote: The correspondence on the subject, and the criticism on the work by Macaulay, will be found in the "Croker Correspondence," vol. ii. pp. 24-49.] some fifty thousand of the "Life" have been sold.
It has been the fashion with certain recent editors of "Boswell's Johnson" to depreciate Croker's edition; but to any one who has taken the pains to make himself familiar with that work, and to study the vast amount of information there collected, such criticism cannot but appear most ungenerous. Croker was acquainted with, or sought out, all the distinguished survivors of Dr. Johnson's own generation, and by his indefatigable efforts was enabled to add to the results of his own literary research, oral traditions and personal reminiscences, which but for him would have been irrevocably lost.
The additions of subsequent editors are but of trifling value compared with the information collected by Mr. Croker, and one of his successors at least has not hesitated slightly to transpose or alter many of Mr. Croker's notes, and mark them as his own.
Mrs. Shelley, widow of the poet, on receiving a present of Croker's"Boswell," from Mr. Murray, said:
Mrs. Shelley to John Murray.
"I have read 'Boswell's Journal' ten times: I hope to read it many more. It is the most amusing book in the world. Beside that, I do love the kind-hearted, wise, and gentle Bear, and think him as lovable and kind a friend as a profound philosopher."
Mr. Henry Taylor submitted his play of "Isaac Comnenus"—his first work—to Mr. Murray, in February 1827. Lockhart was consulted, and, after perusing the play, he wrote to Mr. Murray:
Mr. Lockhart to John Murray.
"There can be no sort of doubt that this play is everyway worthy of coming out from Albemarle Street. That the author might greatly improve it by shortening its dialogue often, and, once at least, leaving out a scene, and by dramatizing the scene at the Synod, instead of narrating it, I think sufficiently clear: but, probably, the author has followed his own course, upon deliberation, in all these matters. I am of opinion, certainly, thatno poemhas been lately published of anything like the power or promise of this."
Lockhart's suggestion was submitted to Mr. Taylor, who gratefully acknowledged his criticism, and amended his play.
Mr. Taylor made a very unusual request. He proposed to divide the loss on his drama with the publisher! He wrote to Mr. Murray:
"I have been pretty well convinced, for some time past, that my book will never sell, and, under these circumstances, I cannot think it proper that you should be the sole sufferer. Whenever, therefore, you are of opinion that the book has had a fair trial, I beg you to understand that I shall be ready to divide the loss equally with you, that being, I conceive, the just arrangement in the case."
Though Mr. Lockhart gave an interesting review of "Isaac Comnenus" in theQuarterly, it still hung fire, and did not sell. A few years later, however, Henry Taylor showed what he could do, as a poet, by his "Philip van Artevelde," which raised his reputation to the highest point. Moore, after the publication of this drama, wrote in his "Diary": "I breakfasted in the morning at Rogers's, to meet the new poet, Mr. Taylor, author of 'Philip van Artevelde': our company, besides, being Sydney Smith and Southey. 'Van Artevelde' is a tall, handsome young fellow. Conversation chiefly about the profits booksellers make of us scribblers. I remember Peter Pindar saying, one of the few times I ever met him, that the booksellers drank their wine in the manner of the heroes in the hall of Odin, out of authors' skulls." This was a sharp saying; but Rogers, if he had chosen to relate his own experiences when he negotiated with Mr. Murray about the sale of Crabbe's works, and the result of that negotiation, might have proved that the rule was not of universal application.
"The Family Library" has already been mentioned. Mr. Murray had long contemplated a serial publication, by means of which good literature and copyright works might be rendered cheaper and accessible to a wider circle of readers than they had hitherto been.
The Society for the Diffusion of Useful Knowledge was established in 1828, with Henry Brougham as Chairman. Mr. Murray subscribed £10 to this society, and agreed to publish their "Library of Entertaining Knowledge." Shortly afterwards, however, he withdrew from this undertaking, which was transferred to Mr. Knight, and reverted to his own proposed publication of cheap works.
The first volume of "The Family Library" appeared in April 1829. Murray sent a copy to Charles Knight, who returned him the first volume of the "Library of Entertaining Knowledge."
Mr. Charles Knight to John Murray.
"We each launch our vessels on the same day, and I most earnestly hope that both will succeed, for good must come of that success. We have plenty of sea-room and need never run foul of each other. My belief is that, in a very few years, scarcely any other description of books will be published, and in that case we that are first in the field may hope to win the race."
Mr. Murray's intention was to include in the Library works on a variety of subjects, including History, Biography, Voyages and Travels, Natural History, Science, and general literature. They were to be written by the best-known authors of the day—Sir Walter Scott, Southey, Milman, Lockhart, Washington Irving, Barrow, Allan Cunningham, Dr. Brewster, Captain Head, G.R. Gleig, Palgrave, and others. The collection was headed by an admirable "Life of Napoleon," by J.G. Lockhart, partly condensed from Scott's "Life of Napoleon Bonaparte," and illustrated by George Cruikshank. When Lockhart was first invited to undertake this biography he consulted Sir Walter Scott as to the propriety of his doing so. Sir Walter replied:
Sir W. Scott to Mr. Lockhart.
October30, 1828.
"Your scruples about doing an epitome of the 'Life of Boney' for the Family Library that is to be, are a great deal over delicate. My book in nine thick volumes can never fill the place which our friend Murray wants you to fill, and which if you don't some one else will right soon. Moreover, you took much pains in helping me when I was beginning my task, and I afterwards greatly regretted that Constable had no means of remunerating you, as no doubt he intended when you were giving him so much good advice in laying down his grand plans about the Miscellany. By all means do what the Emperor [Footnote: From the time of his removal to Albemarle Street, Mr. Murray was universally known among "the Trade" as "The Emperor of the West."] asks. He is what the Emperor Napoleon was not, much a gentleman, and knowing our footing in all things, would not have proposed anything that ought to have excited scruples on your side." [Footnote: Lockhart's "Life of Scott."]
The book met with a warm reception from the public, and went through many editions.
Among other works published in "The Family Library" was the Rev. H.H. Milman's "History of the Jews," in three vols., which occasioned much adverse criticism and controversy. It is difficult for us who live in such different times to understand or account for the tempest of disapprobation with which a work, which now appears so innocent, was greeted, or the obloquy with which its author was assailed. The "History of the Jews" was pronouncedunsound; it was alleged that the miracles had been too summarily disposed of; Abraham was referred to as an Arab sheik, and Jewish history was too sacred to be submitted to the laws of ordinary investigation. Hence Milman was preached against, from Sunday to Sunday, from the University and other pulpits. Even Mr. Sharon Turner expostulated with Mr. Murray as to the publication of the book. He said he had seen it in the window of Carlile, the infidel bookseller, "as if he thought it suited his purpose." The following letter is interesting as indicating what the Jews themselves thought of the history.
Mr. Magnus to John Murray.March17, 1834.
Sir,
Will you have the goodness to inform me of the Christian name of the Rev. Mr. Milman, and the correct manner of spelling his name; as a subscription is about to be opened by individuals of the Jewish nation for the purpose of presenting him with a piece of plate for the liberal manner in which he has written their history.
The piece of plate was duly subscribed for and presented, with every demonstration of acknowledgment and thanks. Milman's "History of the Jews" did not prevent his preferment, as he was promoted from the vicarage of St. Mary's, Reading, to the rectorship of St. Margaret's, Westminster, and a canonry in the Collegiate Church of St. Peter; after which, in 1849, he was made Dean of St. Paul's.
In 1827 or 1828 Mr. Hanson, the late Lord Byron's solicitor, wrote to Murray, enquiring, on behalf of the executors, whether he would be willing to dispose of his interest in the first five cantos of "Don Juan." Mr. Murray, however, had long been desirous of publishing a complete edition of the works of Lord Byron, "for the public," he wrote, "are absolutely indignant at not being able to obtain a complete edition of Lord Byron's works in this country; and at least 15,000 copies have been brought here from France." Murray proposed that those copyrights of Lord Byron, which were the property of his executors, should be valued by three respectable publishers, and that he should purchase them at their valuation. Mr. Hobhouse, to whom as one of the executors this proposal was made, was anxious that the complete edition should be published in England with as little delay as possible, but he stated that "some obstacles have arisen in consequence of the Messrs. Hunt having upon hand some hundred copies of their two volumes, which they have asked a little time to get rid of, and for which they are now accounting to the executors."
Murray requested Mr. Hanson to apply to the executors, and inform him what sum they required for the works of Lord Byron, the copyrights of which were in their possession. This they refused to state, but after considerable delay, during which the Hunts were disposing of the two volumes, the whole of the works of Lord Byron which were not in Mr. Murray's possession were put up to auction, and bought by him for the sum of £3,885. These included the "Hours of Idleness," eleven cantos of "Don Juan," the "Age of Bronze," and other works—all of which had already been published.
Notwithstanding the destruction of Lord Byron's Memoirs, described in a previous chapter, Murray had never abandoned the intention of bringing out a Biography of his old friend the poet, for which he possessed plenteous materials in the mass of correspondence which had passed between them. Although his arrangement with Thomas Moore had been cancelled by that event, his eye rested on him as the fittest person, from his long intimacy with the poet, to be entrusted with the task, for which, indeed, Lord Byron had himself selected him.
Accordingly in 1826 author and publisher seem to have drawn together again, and begun the collection of materials, which was carried on in a leisurely way, until Leigh Hunt's scandalous attack on his old patron and benefactor [Footnote: "Recollections of Lord Byron and some of his Contemporaries," 1828. 4to.] roused Murray's ardour into immediate action.
It was eventually resolved to publish the Life and Correspondence together; and many letters passed between Murray and Moore on the subject.
From the voluminous correspondence we retain the following extract from a letter from Moore to Murray:
"One of my great objects, as you will see in reading me, is to keep my style down to as much simplicity as I am capable of; for nothing could be imagined more discordant than the mixture of any of our Asiatico-Hibernian eloquence with the simple English diction of Byron's letters."
Murray showed the early part of "Byron's Life" to Lockhart, who replied to him at once:
Mr. Lockhart to John Murray.
February23, 1829.
"I can't wait till tomorrow to say that I think the beginning of 'Byron' quite perfect in every way—the style simple, and unaffected, as the materials are rich, and how sad. It will be Moore's greatest work—at least, next to the 'Melodies,' and will be a fortune to you. My wife says it is divine. By all means engrave the early miniature. Never was anything so drearily satisfactory to the imagination as the whole picture of the lame boy's start in life."
Moore was greatly touched by this letter. He wrote from Sloperton:
Mr. Moore to John Murray.
"Lockhart's praise has given me great pleasure, and his wife's even still greater; but, after all, the merit is in my subject—in the man, not in me. He must be a sad bungler who would spoil such a story."
As the work advanced, Sir Walter Scott's opinion also was asked.
Mr. Lockhart to John Murray.
September29, 1829.
"Sir Walter has read the first 120 pages of Moore's 'Life of Byron'; and he says they are charming, and not a syllablede trop. He is now busy at a grand rummage among his papers, and has already found one of Lord Byron's letters which shall be at Mr. Moore's service forthwith. He expects to find more of them. This is curious, as being the first of 'Byron' to Scott."
The first volume of "Lord Byron's Life and Letters," published on January 1, 1830, was read with enthusiasm, and met with a very favourable reception. Moore says in his Diary that "Lady Byron was highly pleased with the 'Life,'" but among the letters received by Mr. Murray, one of the most interesting was from Mrs. Shelley, to whom a presentation copy had been sent.
Mrs. Shelley to John Murray.
January19, 1830.
Except the occupation of one or two annoyances, I have done nothing but read, since I got "Lord Byron's Life." I have no pretensions to being a critic, yet I know infinitely well what pleases me. Not to mention the judicious arrangement and happytactdisplayed by Mr. Moore, which distinguish the book, I must say a word concerning the style, which is elegant and forcible. I was particularly struck by the observations on Lord Byron's character before his departure to Greece, and on his return. There is strength and richness, as well as sweetness.
The great charm of the work to me, and it will have the same to you, is that the Lord Byron I find there isourLord Byron—the fascinating, faulty, philosophical being—daring the world, docile to a private circle, impetuous and indolent, gloomy, and yet more gay than any other. I live with him again in these pages—getting reconciled (as I used in his lifetime) to those waywardnesses which annoyed me when he was away, through the delightful tone of his conversation and manners.
His own letters and journals mirror himself as he was, and are invaluable. There is something cruelly kind in this single volume. When will the next come? Impatient before, how tenfold more so am I now. Among its many other virtues, this book is accurate to a miracle. I have not stumbled on one mistake with regard either to time, place, or feeling.
I am, dear Sir,
Your obedient and obliged Servant,
The preparation of the second volume proceeded more rapidly than the first, for Lord Byron's letters to Murray and Moore during the later years of his life covered the whole period, and gave to the record an almost autobiographical character. It appeared in January 1831, and amongst many other readers of it Mrs. Somerville, to whom Mr. Murray sent a present of the book, was full of unstinted praise.
Mrs. Somerville to John Murray.
January13, 1831.
You have kindly afforded me a source of very great interest and pleasure in the perusal of the second volume of Moore's "Life of Byron." In my opinion, it is very superior to the first; there is less repetition of the letters; they are better written, abound more in criticism and observation, and make the reader better acquainted with Lord Byron's principles and character. His morality was certainly more suited to the meridian of Italy than England; but with all his faults there is a charm about him that excites the deepest interest and admiration. His letter to Lady Byron is more affecting and beautiful than anything I have read; it must ever be a subject of regret that it was not sent; it seems impossible that it should not have made a lasting impression, and might possibly have changed the destinies of both. With kind remembrances to Mrs. Murray and the young people,
Believe me, truly yours,
Mr. Croker's opinion was as follows:
"As to what you say of Byron's volume, no doubt there arelongueurs, but really not many. The most teasing part is the blanks, which perplex without concealing. I also think that Moore went on a wrong principle, when, publishinganypersonality, he did not publishall. It is like a suppression of evidence. When such horrors are published of Sir S. Romilly, it would have been justice to his memory to show that, on theslightestprovocation, Byron would treat his dearest friend in the same style. When his sneers against Lady Byron and her mother are recorded, it would lessen their effect if it were shown that he sneered at all man and womankind in turn; and that the friend of his choicest selection, or the mistress of his maddest love, were served no better, when the maggot (selfishness) bit, than his wife or his mother-in-law."
The appearance of the Life induced Captain Medwin to publish his "Conversations with Lord Byron," a work now chiefly remembered as having called forth from Murray, who was attacked in it, a reply which, as a crashing refutation of personal charges, has seldom been surpassed. [Footnote: Mr. Murray's answer to Medwin's fabrications is published in the Appendix to the 8vo edition of "Lord Byron's Poems."]
Amongst the reviews of the biography was one by Lockhart in theQuarterly(No. 87), which was very favourable; but an article, by Mr. Croker in No. 91, on another of Moore's works—the "Life of Lord Edward Fitzgerald"—was of a very different character. Murray told Moore of the approaching appearance of the article in the next number, and Moore enters in his Diary, "Saw my 'Lord Edward Fitzgerald' announced as one of the articles in theQuarterly, to be abused of course; and this too immediately after my dinings and junketings with both author and publisher."
Mr. Moore to John Murray.
October25, 1831.
… I see that what I took for a joke of yours is true, and that you areatme in this number of theQuarterly. I have desired Power to send you back my copy when it comes, not liking to read it just now for reasons. In the meantime, here's somegood-humoured doggerel for you:
Editur et edit.
No! Editors don't care a button,What false and faithless things they do;They'll let you come and cut their mutton,And then, they'll have a cut at you.
With Barnes I oft my dinner took,Nay, met e'en Horace Twiss to please him:Yet Mister Barnes traduc'd my Book,For which may his own devils seize him!
With Doctor Bowring I drank tea,Nor of his cakes consumed a particle;And yet th' ungrateful LL.D.Let fly at me, next week, an article!
John Wilson gave me suppers hot,With bards of fame, like Hogg and Packwood;A dose of black-strap then I got,And after a still worse of Blackwood.
Alas! and must I close the listWith thee, my Lockhart of theQuarterly?So kind, with bumper in thy fist,—With pen, so very gruff and tartarly.
Now in thy parlour feasting me,Now scribbling at me from your garret,—Till, 'twixt the two, in doubt I be,Which sourest is, thy wit or claret?
Should you again see the Noble Scott before he goes, remember me most affectionately to him. Ever yours,
Thomas Moore.
Mr. Murray now found himself at liberty to proceed with his cherished scheme of a complete edition of Lord Byron's works.
John Murray to Mr. Moore.
February 28, 1832.
When I commenced this complete edition of Byron's works I was so out of heart by the loss upon the first edition of the "Life," and by the simultaneous losses from the failure of three booksellers very largely in my debt, that I had little if any hopes of its success, and I felt myself under the necessity of declining your kind offer to edit it, because I did not think that I should have had it in my power to offer you an adequate remuneration. But now that the success of this speculation is established, if you will do me the favour to do what you propose, I shall have great satisfaction in giving you 500 guineas for your labours.
Most sincerely yours,
John Murray.
In 1837, the year in which the work now in contemplation was published, the Countess Guiccioli was in London, and received much kindness from Mr. Murray. After her return to Rome, she wrote to him a long letter, acknowledging the beautifully bound volume of the landscape and portrait illustrations of Lord Byron's works. She complained, however, of Brockedon's portrait of herself.
Countess Guiccioli to John Murray.
"It is not resembling, and to tell you the truth, my dear Mr. Murray, I wish it was so; not on account of the ugliness of features (which is also remarkable), but particularly for having this portrait an expression ofstupidity, and for its beingmolto antipatico, as we say in our language. But perhaps it is not the fault of the painter, but of the original, and I am sorry for that. What is certain is that towards such a creature nobody may feel inclined to be indulgent; and if she has faults and errors to be pardoned for, she will never be so on account of herantipatia! But pray don't say that to Mr. Brockedon."
A copy was likewise sent to Sir R. Peel with the following letter:
ALBEMARLE STREET,April17, 1837.
As the invaluable instructions which you addressed to the students of the University of Glasgow have as completely associated your name with the literature of this country, as your political conduct has with its greatest statesmen, I trust that I shall be pardoned for having inscribed to you (without soliciting permission) the present edition of the works of one of our greatest poets, "your own school-and form-fellow,"Byron.
I have the honour to be, etc.,
The Right Hon. Sir R. Peel to John Murray.
WHITEHALL,April18, 1837.
I am much flattered by the compliment which you have paid to me in dedicating to me a beautiful edition of the works of my distinguished "school-and form-fellow."
I was the next boy to Lord Byron at Harrow for three or four years, and was always on very friendly terms with him, though not living in particular intimacy out of school.
I do not recollect ever having a single angry word with him, or that there ever was any the slightest jealousy or coldness between us.
It is a gratification to me to have my name associated with his in the manner in which you have placed it in friendly connection; and I do not believe, if he could have foreseen, when we were boys together at school, this continuance of a sort of amicable relation between us after his death, the idea would have been otherwise than pleasing to him.
Believe me,
My dear Sir,
Very faithfully yours,
A few words remain to be added respecting the statue of Lord Byron, which had been so splendidly executed by Thorwaldsen at Rome. Mr. Hobhouse wrote to Murray: "Thorwaldsen offers the completed work for £1,000, together with a bas-relief for the pedestal, suitable for the subject of the monument." The sculptor's offer was accepted, and the statue was forwarded from Rome to London. Murray then applied to the Dean of Westminster, on behalf of the subscribers, requesting to know "upon what terms the statue now completed could be placed in some suitable spot in Westminster Abbey." The Dean's answer was as follows:
The Dean of Westminster to John Murray.
DEANERY, WESTMINSTER,December17, 1834.
I have not had the opportunity, till this morning, of consulting with the Chapter on the subject of your note. When you formerly applied to me for leave to inter the remains of Lord Byron within this Abbey, I stated to you the principle on which, as Churchmen, we were compelled to decline the proposal. The erection of a monument in honour of his memory which you now desire is, in its proportion, subject to the same objection. I do indeed greatly wish for a figure by Thorwaldsen here; but no taste ought to be indulged to the prejudice of a duty.
With my respectful compliments to the Committee, I beg you to believe me,
Yours truly,
The statue was for some time laid up in a shed on a Thames wharf. An attempt was made in the House of Commons to alter the decision of the Dean and Chapter, but it proved of no avail. "I would do my best," said Mr. Hobhouse, "to prevail upon Sir Robert Peel to use his influence with the Dean. It is a national disgrace that the statue should lie neglected in a carrier's ware-house, and it is so felt by men of all parties. I have had a formal application from Trinity College, Cambridge, for leave to place the monument in their great library, and it has been intimated to me that the French Government desire to have it for the Louvre." The result was that the subscribers, in order to retain the statue in England, forwarded it to Trinity College, Cambridge, whose noble library it now adorns.
The only memorial to Byron in London is the contemptible leaning bronzestatue in Apsley House Gardens, nearly opposite the statue of Achilles.Its pedestal is a block of Parian marble, presented by the GreekGovernment as a national tribute to the memory of Byron.