Among the friends that welcomed Mr. Murray to Edinburgh was Mr. William
Blackwood, who then, and for a long time after, was closely connected
with him in his business transactions. Blackwood was a native of
Edinburgh; having served his apprenticeship with Messrs. Bell &
Bradfute, booksellers, he was selected by Mundell & Company to take
charge of a branch of their extensive publishing business in Glasgow. He
returned to Edinburgh, and again entered the service of Bell et
Bradfute; but after a time went to London to master the secrets of the
old book trade under the well-known Mr. Cuthill. Returning to Edinburgh,
he set up for himself in 1804, at the age of twenty-eight, at a shop in
South Bridge Street--confining himself, for the most part, to old books.
He was a man of great energy and decision of character, and his early
education enabled him to conduct his correspondence with a remarkable
degree of precision and accuracy. Mr. Murray seems to have done business
with him as far back as June 1807, and was in the habit of calling upon
Blackwood, who was about his own age, whenever he visited Edinburgh. The
two became intimate, and corresponded frequently; and at last, when
Murray withdrew from the Ballantynes, in August 1810 he transferred the
whole of his Scottish agency to the house of William Blackwood. In
return for the publishing business sent to him from London, Blackwood
made Murray his agent for any new works published by him in Edinburgh.
In this way Murray became the London publisher for Hogg's new poems, and
"The Queen's Wake," which had reached its fourth edition.

Mr. Murray paid at this time another visit to Abbotsford. Towards the
end of 1814 Scott had surrounded the original farmhouse with a number of
buildings--kitchen, laundry, and spare bedrooms--and was able to
entertain company. He received Murray with great cordiality, and made
many enquiries as to Lord Byron, to whom Murray wrote on his return to
London:


_John Murray to Lord Byron_.

"Walter Scott commissioned me to be the bearer of his warmest greetings
to you. His house was full the day I passed with him; and yet, both in
corners and at the surrounded table, he talked incessantly of you.
Unwilling that I should part without bearing some mark of his love (a
poet's love) for you, he gave me a superb Turkish dagger to present to
you, as the only remembrance which, at the moment, he could think of to
offer you. He was greatly pleased with the engraving of your portrait,
which I recollected to carry with me; and during the whole dinner--when
all were admiring the taste with which Scott had fitted up a sort of
Gothic cottage--he expressed his anxious wishes that you might honour
him with a visit, which I ventured to assure him you would feel no less
happy than certain in effecting when you should go to Scotland; and I am
sure he would hail your lordship as 'a very brother.'"


After all his visits had been paid, and he had made his arrangements
with his printers and publishers, Mr. Murray returned to London with his
wife and family. Shortly after his arrival he received a letter from Mr.
Blackwood.


_Mr. Wm. Blackwood to John Murray_.

_November 8_, 1814.

"I was much gratified by your letter informing me of your safe arrival.
How much you must be overwhelmed just now, and your mind distracted by
so many calls upon your attention at once. I hope that you are now in
one of your best frames of mind, by which you are enabled, as you have
told me, to go through, with more satisfaction to yourself, ten times
the business you can do at other times. While you are so occupied with
your great concerns, I feel doubly obliged to you for your remembrance
of my small matters."


After referring to his illness, he proceeds:


"Do not reflect upon your visit to the bard (Walter Scott). You would
have blamed yourself much more if you had not gone. The advance was made
by him through Ballantyne, and you only did what was open and candid. We
shall be at the bottom of these peoples' views by-and-bye; at present I
confess I only see very darkly--but let us have patience; a little time
will develop all these mysteries. I have not seen Ballantyne since, and
when I do see him I shall say very little indeed. If there really is a
disappointment in not being connected with Scott's new poem, you should
feel it much less than any man living--having such a poet as Lord
Byron."


Although Murray failed to obtain an interest in "The Lady of the Lake,"
he was offered and accepted, at Scott's desire, a share in a new edition
of "Don Roderick."




CHAPTER XI

MURRAY'S DRAWING-ROOM--BYRON AND SCOTT--WORKS PUBLISHED IN 1815


During Mrs. Murray's absence in Edinburgh, the dwelling-house at 50,
Albemarle Street was made over to the carpenters, painters, and house
decorators. "I hope," said Mr. Murray to his wife, "to leave the
drawing-room entirely at your ladyship's exclusive command." But the
drawing-room was used for other purposes than the reception of ordinary
visitors. It became for some time the centre of literary friendship and
intercommunication at the West End. In those days there was no Athenaeum
Club for the association of gentlemen known for their literary,
artistic, or scientific attainments. That institution was only
established in 1823, through the instrumentality of Croker, Lawrence,
Chantrey, Sir Humphry Davy, and their friends. Until then, Murray's
drawing-room was the main centre of literary intercourse in that quarter
of London. Men of distinction, from the Continent and America, presented
their letters of introduction to Mr. Murray, and were cordially and
hospitably entertained by him; meeting, in the course of their visits,
many distinguished and notable personages.

In these rooms, early in 1815, young George Ticknor, from Boston, in
America, then only twenty-three, met Moore, Campbell, D'Israeli,
Gifford, Humphry Davy, and others. He thus records his impressions of
Gifford:

"Among other persons, I brought letters to Gifford, the satirist, but
never saw him till yesterday. Never was I so mistaken in my
anticipations. Instead of a tall and handsome man, as I had supposed him
from his picture--a man of severe and bitter remarks in conversation,
such as I had good reason to believe him from his books, I found him a
short, deformed, and ugly little man, with a large head sunk between
his shoulders, and one of his eyes turned outward, but withal, one of
the best-natured, most open and well-bred gentlemen I have ever met. He
is editor of the _Quarterly Review_, and was not a little surprised and
pleased to hear that it was reprinted with us, which I told him, with an
indirect allusion to the review of 'Inchiquen's United States.'.... He
carried me to a handsome room over Murray's book-store, which he has
fitted up as a sort of literary lounge, where authors resort to read
newspapers, and talk literary gossip. I found there Elmsley, Hallam,
Lord Byron's 'Classic Hallam, much renowned for Greek,' now as famous as
being one of his lordship's friends, Boswell, a son of Johnson's
biographer, etc., so that I finished a long forenoon very pleasantly."
[Footnote: "Life, Letters, and Journal of George Ticknor," i. 48.]

The following letter and Ticknor's reference to Gifford only confirm the
testimony of all who knew him that in private life the redoubtable
editor and severe critic was an amiable and affectionate man.


_Mr. Gifford to John Murray_,

JAMES STREET, _October_ 20, 1814.

My DEAR SIR,

What can I say in return for your interesting and amusing letter? I live
here quite alone, and see nobody, so that I have not a word of news for
you. I delight in your visit to Scotland, which I am sure would turn to
good, and which I hope you will, as you say, periodically repeat. It
makes me quite happy to find you beating up for recruits, and most
ardently do I wish you success. Mention me kindly to Scott, and tell him
how much I long to renew our wonted acquaintance. Southey's article is,
I think, excellent. I have softened matters a little. Barrow is hard at
work on Flinders [_Q. R_. 23]. I have still a most melancholy house. My
poor housekeeper is going fast. Nothing can save her, and I lend all my
care to soften her declining days. She has a physician every second day,
and takes a world of medicines, more for their profit than her own, poor
thing. She lives on fruit, grapes principally, and a little game, which
is the only food she can digest. Guess at my expenses; but I owe in some
measure the extension of my feeble life to her care through a long
succession of years, and I would cheerfully divide my last farthing with
her. I will not trouble you again on this subject, which is a mere
concern of my own; but you have been very kind to her, and she is
sensible of it."


With respect to this worthy woman, it may be added that she died on
February 6, 1815, carefully waited on to the last by her affectionate
master. She was buried in South Audley Churchyard, where Gifford erected
a tomb over her, and placed on it a very touching epitaph, concluding
with these words: "Her deeply-affected master erected this stone to her
memory, as a faithful testimony of her uncommon worth, and of his
gratitude, respect, and affection for her long and meritorious
services." [Footnote: It will serve to connect the narrative with one of
the famous literary quarrels of the day, if we remind the reader that
Hazlitt published a cruel and libellous pamphlet in 1819, entitled "A
Letter to William Gifford," in which he hinted that some improper
connection had subsisted between himself and his "frail memorial."
Hazlitt wrote this pamphlet because of a criticism on the "Round Table"
in the _Quarterly_, which Gifford did not write, and of a criticism of
Hunt's "Rimini," published by Mr. Murray, which was also the work of
another writer. But Gifford never took any notice of these libellous
attacks upon him. He held that secrecy between himself and the
contributors to the _Quarterly_ was absolutely necessary. Hazlitt, in
the above pamphlet, also attacks Murray, Croker, Canning, Southey, and
others whom he supposed to be connected with the _Review_.]

Murray's own description of his famous drawing-room may also be given,
from a letter to a relative:


"I have lately ventured on the bold step of quitting the old
establishment to which I have been so long attached, and have moved to
one of the best, in every respect, that is known in my business, where I
have succeeded in a manner the most complete and flattering. My house is
excellent; and I transact all the departments of my business in an
elegant library, which my drawing-room becomes during the morning; and
there I am in the habit of seeing persons of the highest rank in
literature and talent, such as Canning, Frere, Mackintosh, Southey,
Campbell, Walter Scott, Madame de Staël, Gifford, Croker, Barrow, Lord
Byron, and others; thus leading the most delightful life, with means of
prosecuting my business with the highest honour and emolument."


It was in Murray's drawing-room that Walter Scott and Lord Byron first
met. They had already had some friendly intercourse by letter and had
exchanged gifts, but in the early part of 1815 Scott was summoned to
London on matters connected with his works. Mr. Murray wrote to Lord
Byron on April 7:


"Walter Scott has this moment arrived, and will call to-day between
three and four, for the chance of having the pleasure of seeing you
before he sets out for Scotland. I will show you a beautiful caricature
of Buonaparte."

Lord Byron called at the hour appointed, and was at once introduced to
Mr. Scott, who was in waiting. They greeted each other in the most
affectionate manner, and entered into a cordial conversation. How
greatly Mr. Murray was gratified by a meeting which he had taken such
pains to bring about, is shown by the following memorandum carefully
preserved by him:

"1815. _Friday, April_ 7.--This day Lord Byron and Walter Scott met for
the first time and were introduced by me to each other. They conversed
together for nearly two hours. There were present, at different times,
Mr. William Gifford, James Boswell (son of the biographer of Johnson),
William Sotheby, Robert Wilmot, Richard Heber, and Mr. Dusgate."

Mr. Murray's son--then John Murray, Junior--gives his recollections as
follows:

"I can recollect seeing Lord Byron in Albemarle Street. So far as I can
remember, he appeared to me rather a short man, with a handsome
countenance, remarkable for the fine blue veins which ran over his pale,
marble temples. He wore many rings on his fingers, and a brooch in his
shirt-front, which was embroidered. When he called, he used to be
dressed in a black dress-coat (as we should now call it), with grey, and
sometimes nankeen trousers, his shirt open at the neck. Lord Byron's
deformity in his foot was very evident, especially as he walked
downstairs. He carried a stick. After Scott and he had ended their
conversation in the drawing-room, it was a curious sight to see the two
greatest poets of the age--both lame--stumping downstairs side by side.
They continued to meet in Albemarle Street nearly every day, and
remained together for two or three hours at a time. Lord Byron dined
several times at Albemarle Street, On one of these occasions, he met Sir
John Malcolm--a most agreeable and accomplished man--who was all the
more interesting to Lord Byron, because of his intimate knowledge of
Persia and India. After dinner, Sir John observed to Lord Byron, how
much gratified he had been to meet him, and how surprised he was to find
him so full of gaiety and entertaining conversation. Byron replied,
'Perhaps you see me now at my best.' Sometimes, though not often, Lord
Byron read passages from his poems to my father. His voice and manner
were very impressive. His voice, in the deeper tones, bore some
resemblance to that of Mrs. Siddons."

Shortly before this first interview between Scott and Byron the news had
arrived that Bonaparte had escaped from Elba, and landed at Cannes on
March 1, 1815.

A few days before--indeed on the day the battle was fought--Blackwood
gave great praise to the new number of the _Quarterly_, containing the
contrast of Bonaparte and Wellington. It happened that Southey wrote the
article in No. 25, on the "Life and Achievements of Lord Wellington," in
order to influence public opinion as much as possible, and to encourage
the hearts of men throughout the country for the great contest about to
take place in the Low Countries. About the same time Sir James
Mackintosh had written an able and elaborate article for the
_Edinburgh_, to show that the war ought to have been avoided, and that
the consequences to England could only be unfortunate and inglorious.
The number was actually printed, stitched, and ready for distribution in
June; but it was thought better to wait a little, for fear of accidents,
and especially for the purpose of using it instantly after the first
reverse should occur, and thus to give it the force of prophecy. The
Battle of Waterloo came like a thunderclap. The article was suppressed,
and one on "Gall and his Craniology" substituted. "I think," says
Ticknor, "Southey said he had seen the repudiated article." [Footnote:
"Life, Letters, and Journals of George Ticknor "(2nd ed.), i. p. 41.]

Lord Byron did not write another "Ode on Napoleon." He was altogether
disappointed in his expectations. Nevertheless, he still, like Hazlitt,
admired Napoleon, and hated Wellington. When he heard of the result of
the Battle of Waterloo, and that Bonaparte was in full retreat upon
Paris, he said, "I'm d----d sorry for it!"

Mr. Murray, about this time, began to adorn his dining-room with
portraits of the distinguished men who met at his table. His portraits
include those of Gifford, [Footnote: This portrait was not painted for
Mr. Murray, but was purchased by him.] by Hoppner, R.A.; Byron and
Southey, by Phillips; Scott and Washington Irving, by Stewart Newton;
Croker, by Eddis, after Lawrence; Coleridge, Crabbe, Mrs. Somerville,
Hallam, T. Moore, Lockhart, and others. In April 1815 we find Thomas
Phillips, afterwards R.A., in communication with Mr. Murray, offering to
paint for him a series of Kit-cat size at eighty guineas each, and in
course of time his pictures, together with those of John Jackson, R.A.,
formed a most interesting gallery of the great literary men of the
time, men and women of science, essayists, critics, Arctic voyagers, and
discoverers in the regions of Central Africa.

Byron and Southey were asked to sit for their portraits to Phillips.
Though Byron was willing, and even thought it an honour, Southey
pretended to grumble. To Miss Barker he wrote (November 9, 1815):


"Here, in London, I can find time for nothing; and, to make things
worse, the Devil, who owes me an old grudge, has made me sit to Phillips
for a picture for Murray. I have in my time been tormented in this
manner so often, and to such little purpose, that I am half tempted to
suppose the Devil was the inventor of portrait painting."


Meanwhile Mr. Murray was again in treaty for a share in a further work
by Walter Scott. No sooner was the campaign of 1815 over, than a host of
tourists visited France and the Low Countries, and amongst them Murray
succeeded in making his long-intended trip to Paris, and Scott set out
to visit the battlefields in Belgium. Before departing, Scott made an
arrangement with John Ballantyne to publish the results of his travels,
and he authorized him to offer the work to Murray, Constable, and the
Longmans, in equal shares.

In 1815 a very remarkable collection of documents was offered to Mr.
Murray for purchase and publication. They were in the possession of one
of Napoleon's generals, a friend of Miss Waldie. [Footnote: Afterwards
Mrs. Eaton, author of "Letters from Italy."] The collection consisted of
the personal correspondence of Bonaparte, when in the height of his
power, with all the crowned heads and leading personages of Europe, upon
subjects so strictly confidential that they had not even been
communicated to their own ministers or private secretaries. They were
consequently all written by their own hands.

As regards the contents of these letters, Mr. Murray had to depend upon
his memory, after making a hurried perusal of them. He was not allowed
to copy any of them, but merely took a rough list. No record was kept of
the dates. Among them was a letter from the King of Bavaria, urging his
claims as a true and faithful ally, and claiming for his reward the
dominion of Wurtemberg.

There were several letters from the Prussian Royal family, including
one from the King, insinuating that by the cession of Hanover to him his
territorial frontier would be rendered more secure. The Emperor Paul, in
a letter written on a small scrap of paper, proposed to transfer his
whole army to Napoleon, to be employed in turning the English out of
India, provided he would prevent them passing the Gut and enclosing the
Baltic.

The Empress of Austria wrote an apology for the uncultivated state of
mind of her daughter, Marie Louise, about to become Napoleon's bride;
but added that her imperfect education presented the advantage of
allowing Napoleon to mould her opinions and principles in accordance
with his own views and wishes.

This correspondence would probably have met with an immense sale, but
Mr. Murray entertained doubts as to the propriety of publishing
documents so confidential, and declined to purchase them for the sum
proposed. The next day, after his refusal, he ascertained that Prince
Lieven had given, on behalf of his government, not less than £10,000 for
the letters emanating from the Court of Russia alone. Thus the public
missed the perusal of an important series of international scandals.

In December 1815 Mr. Murray published "Emma" for Miss Jane Austen, and
so connected his name with another English classic. Miss Austen's first
novel had been "Northanger Abbey." It remained long in manuscript, and
eventually she had succeeded in selling it to a bookseller at Bath for
£10. He had not the courage to publish it, and after it had remained in
his possession for some years, Miss Austen bought it back for the same
money he had paid for it. She next wrote "Sense and Sensibility," and
"Pride and Prejudice." The latter book was summarily rejected by Mr.
Cadell. At length these two books were published anonymously by Mr.
Egerton, and though they did not make a sensation, they gradually
attracted attention and obtained admirers. No one could be more
surprised than the authoress, when she received no less than £150 from
the profits of her first published work--"Sense and Sensibility."

When Miss Austen had finished "Emma," she put herself in communication
with Mr. Murray, who read her "Pride and Prejudice," and sent it to
Gifford. Gifford replied as follows:


_Mr. Gifford to John Murray_.

"I have for the first time looked into 'Pride and Prejudice'; and it is
really a very pretty thing. No dark passages; no secret chambers; no
wind-howlings in long galleries; no drops of blood upon a rusty
dagger--things that should now be left to ladies' maids and sentimental
washerwomen."


In a later letter he said:


_September_ 29, 1815.

"I have read 'Pride and Prejudice' _again_--'tis very good--wretchedly
printed, and so pointed as to be almost unintelligible. Make no apology
for sending me anything to read or revise. I am always happy to do
either, in the thought that it may be useful to you.

       *       *       *       *       *

"Of 'Emma,' I have nothing but good to say. I was sure of the writer
before you mentioned her. The MS., though plainly written, has yet some,
indeed many little omissions; and an expression may now and then be
amended in passing through the press. I will readily undertake the
revision."


Miss Austen's two other novels, "Northanger Abbey" and "Persuasion,"
were also published by Murray, but did not appear until after her death
in 1818. The profits of the four novels which had been published before
her death did not amount to more than seven hundred pounds.

Mr. Murray also published the works of Mr. Malthus on "Rent," the "Corn
Laws," and the "Essay on Population." His pamphlet on Rent appeared in
March 1815.

Murray's correspondence with Scott continued. On December 25, 1815, he
wrote:


"I was about to tell you that Croker was so pleased with the idea of a
Caledonian article from you, that he could not refrain from mentioning
it to the Prince Regent, who is very fond of the subject, and he said he
would be delighted, and is really anxious about it. Now, it occurs to
me, as our _Edinburgh_ friends choose on many occasions to bring in the
Prince's name to abuse it, this might offer an equally fair opportunity
of giving him that praise which is so justly due to his knowledge of the
history of his country....

"I was with Lord Byron yesterday. He enquired after you, and bid me say
how much he was indebted to your introduction of your poor Irish friend
Maturin, who had sent him a tragedy, which Lord Byron received late in
the evening, and read through, without being able to stop. He was so
delighted with it that he sent it immediately to his fellow-manager, the
Hon. George Lamb, who, late as it came to him, could not go to bed
without finishing it. The result is that they have laid it before the
rest of the Committee; they, or rather Lord Byron, feels it his duty to
the author to offer it himself to the managers of Covent Garden. The
poor fellow says in his letter that his hope of subsistence for his
family for the next year rests upon what he can get for this play. I
expressed a desire of doing something, and Lord Byron then confessed
that he had sent him fifty guineas. I shall write to him tomorrow, and I
think if you could draw some case for him and exhibit his merits,
particularly if his play succeeds, I could induce Croker and Peel to
interest themselves in his behalf, and get him a living.

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

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

_Mr. Scott to John Murray_.

_January_ 19, 1816.

Dear Sir,

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

_January_, 25, 1816.

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

The article on the "Culloden Papers," which occupied fifty pages of the
_Review_ (No. 28), described the clans of the Highlands, their number,
manners, and habits; and gave a summary history of the Rebellion of '45.
It was graphically and vigorously written, and is considered one of
Scott's best essays.




CHAPTER XII

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


Scott's "poor Irish friend Maturin," referred to in the previous
chapter, was a young Irish clergyman, who was under the necessity of
depending upon his brains and pen for the maintenance of his family.
Charles Maturin, after completing his course of education at Trinity
College, married Miss Harriet Kinsburg. His family grew, but not his
income. He took orders, and obtained the curacy of St. Peter's Church,
Dublin, but owing to his father's affairs having become embarrassed, he
was compelled to open a boarding-school, with the view of assisting the
family. Unfortunately, he became bound for a friend, who deceived him,
and eventually he was obliged to sacrifice his interest in the school.
Being thus driven to extremities, he tried to live by literature, and
produced "The Fatal Revenge; or, the Family of Montorio," the first of a
series of romances, in which he outdid Mrs. Radcliffe and Monk Lewis.
"The Fatal Revenge" was followed by "The Wild Irish Boy," for which
Colburn gave him £80, and "The Milesian Chief," all full of horrors and
misty grandeur. These works did not bring him in much money; but, in
1815, he determined to win the height of dramatic fame in his "Bertram;
or, the Castle of St. Aldebrand," a tragedy. He submitted the drama to
Walter Scott, as from an "obscure Irishman," telling him of his
sufferings as an author and the father of a family, and imploring his
kind opinion. Scott replied in the most friendly manner, gave him much
good advice, spoke of the work as "grand and powerful, the characters
being sketched with masterly enthusiasm"; and, what was practically
better, sent him £50 as a token of his esteem and sympathy, and as a
temporary stop-gap until better times came round. He moreover called the
attention of Lord Byron, then on the Committee of Management of Drury
Lane Theatre, to the play, and his Lordship strongly recommended a
performance of it. Thanks to the splendid acting of Kean, it succeeded,
and Maturin realized about £1,000.

"Bertram" was published by Murray, a circumstance which brought him into
frequent communication with the unfortunate Maturin. The latter offered
more plays, more novels, and many articles for the _Quarterly_. With
reference to one of his articles--a review of Sheil's "Apostate"
--Gifford said, "A more potatoe-headed arrangement, or rather
derangement, I have never seen. I have endeavoured to bring some order
out of the chaos. There is a sort of wild eloquence in it that makes it
worth preserving."

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

_John Murray to Lord Byron_.

_March_ 15, 1817.

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

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

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

_Mr. Coleridge to John Murray_.

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

Dear Sir,

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

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

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

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

To this letter Mr. Murray replied as follows:

_John Murray to Mr. Coleridge_.

_August_ 29, 1814.

Dear Sir,

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

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

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

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

_Mr. Coleridge to John Murray_.

_August_ 31, 1814.

Dear Sir,

I have received your letter. Considering the necessary labour, and (from
the questionable nature of the original work, both as to its fair claims
to Fame--the diction of the good and wise according to unchanging
principles--and as to its chance for Reputation, as an accidental result
of local and temporary taste), the risk of character on the part of the
Translator, who will assuredly have to answer for any disappointment of
the reader, the terms proposed are humiliatingly low; yet such as, under
modifications, I accede to. I have received testimonials from men not
merely of genius according to my belief, but of the highest accredited
reputation, that my translation of "Wallenstein" was in language and in
metre superior to the original, and the parts most admired were
substitutions of my own, on a principle of compensation. Yet the whole
work went for waste-paper. I was abused--nay, my own remarks in the
Preface were transferred to a Review, as the Reviewer's sentiments
_against_ me, without even a hint that he had copied them from my own
Preface. Such was the fate of "Wallenstein"! And yet I dare appeal to
any number of men of Genius--say, for instance, Mr. W. Scott, Mr.
Southey, Mr. Wordsworth, Mr. Wilson, Mr. Sotheby, Sir G. Beaumont, etc.,
whether the "Wallenstein" with all its defects (and it has grievous
defects), is not worth all Schiller's other plays put together. But I
wonder not. It was _too_ good, and not good enough; and the advice of
the younger Pliny: "Aim at pleasing either _all_, or _the few,"_ is as
prudentially good as it is philosophically accurate. I wrote to Mr.
Longman before the work was published, and foretold its fate, even to a
detailed accuracy, and advised him to put up with the loss from the
purchase of the MSS and of the Translation, as a much less evil than the
publication. I went so far as to declare that its success was, in the
state of public Taste, impossible; that the enthusiastic admirers of
"The Robbers," "Cabal and Love," etc., would lay the blame on me; and
that he himself would suspect that if he had only lit on _another_
Translator then, etc. Everything took place as I had foretold, even his
own feelings--so little do Prophets gain from the fulfilment of their
Prophecies!

On the other hand, though I know that executed as alone I can or dare do
it--that is, to the utmost of my power (for which the intolerable Pain,
nay the far greater Toil and Effort of doing otherwise, is a far safer
Pledge than any solicitude on my part concerning the approbation of the
PUBLIC), the translation of so very difficult a work as the "Faustus,"
will be most inadequately remunerated by the terms you propose; yet they
very probably are the highest it may be worth your while to offer to
_me_. I say this as a philosopher; for, though I have now been much
talked of, and written of, for evil and not for good, but for suspected
capability, yet none of my works have ever sold. The "Wallenstein" went
to the waste. The "Remorse," though acted twenty times, rests quietly on
the shelves in the second edition, with copies enough for seven years'
consumption, or seven times seven. I lost £200 by the non-payment, from
forgetfulness, and under various pretences, by "The Friend"; [Footnote:
Twenty-seven numbers of _The Friend_ were published by Coleridge at
Penrith in Cumberland in 1809-10, but the periodical proved a failure,
principally from the irregularity of its appearance. It was about this
time that he was addicted to opium-eating.] and for my poems I _did_ get
from £10 to £15. And yet, forsooth, the _Quarterly Review_ attacks me
for neglecting and misusing my powers! I do not quarrel with the
Public--all is as it must be--but surely the Public (if there be such a
Person) has no right to quarrel with _me_ for not getting into jail by
publishing what they will not read!

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

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

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

Respectfully, dear Sir,

S.T. COLERIDGE.

Mr. Murray's reply to this letter has not been preserved. At all events,
nothing further was done by Coleridge with respect to the translation of
"Faust," which is to be deplored, as his exquisite and original melody
of versification might have produced a translation almost as great as
the original.

Shortly after Coleridge took up his residence with the Gillmans at
Highgate, and his intercourse with Murray recommenced. Lord Byron, while
on the managing committee of Drury Lane Theatre, had been instrumental
in getting Coleridge's "Remorse" played upon the stage, as he
entertained a great respect for its author. He was now encouraging Mr.
Murray to publish other works by Coleridge--among others, "Zapolya" and
"Christabel."

On April 12, 1816, Coleridge gave the following lines to Mr. Murray,
written in his own hand: [Footnote: The "Song, by Glycine" was first
published in "Zapolya: A Christmas Tale," 1817, Part II., Act ii., Scene
I. It was set to music by W. Patten in 1836; and again, with the title
"May Song," in 1879, by B.H. Loehr.]

GLYCINE: Song.

"A sunny shaft did I behold,
  From sky to earth it slanted,
And pois'd therein a Bird so bold--
  Sweet bird! thou wert enchanted!
He sank, he rose, he twinkled, he troll'd,
  Within that shaft of sunny mist:
His Eyes of Fire, his Beak of Gold,
  All else of Amethyst!
And thus he sang: Adieu! Adieu!
  Love's dreams prove seldom true.
Sweet month of May! we must away!
  Far, far away!
  Today! today!"

In the following month (May 8, 1816) Mr. Coleridge offered Mr. Murray
his "Remorse" for publication, with a Preface. He also offered his poem
of "Christabel," still unfinished. For the latter Mr. Murray agreed to
give him seventy guineas, "until the other poems shall be completed,
when the copyright shall revert to the author," and also £20 for
permission to publish the poem entitled "Kubla Khan."

Next month (June 6) Murray allowed Coleridge £50 for an edition of
"Zapolya: A Christmas Tale," which was then in MS.; and he also
advanced him another £50 for a play which was still to be written.
"Zapolya" was afterwards entrusted to another publisher (Rest Fenner),
and Coleridge repaid Murray £50. Apparently (see _letter_ of March 29,
1817) Murray very kindly forewent repayment of the second advance of
£50. There was, of course, no obligation to excuse a just debt, but the
three issues of "Christabel" had resulted in a net profit of a little
over £100 to the publisher.

_Mr. Coleridge to John Murray_.

HIGHGATE, _July_ 4, 1816.

I have often thought that there might be set on foot a review of old
books, _i.e.,_ of all works important or remarkable, the authors of
which are deceased, with a probability of a tolerable sale, if only the
original _plan_ were a good one, and if no articles were admitted but
from men who understood and recognized the Principles and Rules of
Criticism, which should form the first number. I would not take the
works chronologically, but according to the likeness or contrast of the
_kind_ of genius--_ex. gr_. Jeremy Taylor, Milton (his prose works), and
Burke--Dante and Milton--Scaliger and Dr. Johnson. Secondly, if
especial attention were paid to all men who had produced, or aided in
producing, any great revolution in the Taste or opinions of an age, as
Petrarch, Ulrich von Hutten, etc. (here I will dare risk the charge of
self-conceit by referring to my own parallel of Voltaire and Erasmus, of
Luther and Rousseau in the seventh number of "The Friend "). Lastly, if
proper care was taken that in every number of the _Review_ there should
be a fair proportion of positively _amusing_ matter, such as a review of
Paracelsus, Cardan, Old Fuller; a review of Jest Books, tracing the
various metempsychosis of the same joke through all ages and countries;
a History of Court Fools, for which a laborious German has furnished
ample and highly interesting materials; foreign writers, though alive,
not to be excluded, if only their works are of established character in
their own country, and scarcely heard of, much less translated, in
English literature. Jean Paul Richter would supply two or three
delightful articles.

Any works which should fall in your way respecting the Jews since the
destruction of the Temple, I should of course be glad to look through.
Above all, Mezeray's (no! that is not the name, I think) "History of the
Jews," that I _must_ have.

I shall be impatient for the rest of Mr. Frere's sheets. Most
unfeignedly can I declare that I am unable to decide whether the
_admiration_ which the _excellence_ inspires, or the wonder which the
knowledge of the countless _difficulties_ so happily overcome, never
ceases to excite in my mind during the re-perusal and collation of them
with the original Greek, be the greater. I have not a moment's
hesitation in fixing on Mr. Frere as the man of the correctest and most
genial taste among all our contemporaries whom I have ever met with,
personally or in their works. Should choice or chance lead you to sun
and air yourself on Highgate Hill during any of your holiday excursions,
my worthy friend and his amiable and accomplished wife will be happy to
see you. We dine at four, and drink tea at six.

Yours, dear Sir, respectfully, S.T. COLERIDGE.

Mr. Murray did not accept Mr. Coleridge's proposal to publish his works
in a collected form or his articles for the _Quarterly_, as appears from
the following letter:

_Mr. Coleridge to John Murray_.

HIGHGATE, _March_ 26, 1817.

DEAR SIR,

I cannot be offended by your opinion that my talents are not adequate to
the requisites of matter and manner for the _Quarterly Review,_ nor
should I consider it as a disgrace to fall short of Robert Southey in
any department of literature. I owe, however, an honest gratification to
the conversation between you and Mr. Gillman, for I read Southey's
article, on which Mr. Gillman and I have, it appears, formed very
different opinions. It is, in my judgment, a very masterly article.
[Footnote: This must have been Southey's article on Parliamentary Reform
in No. 31, which, though due in October 1816, was not, published until
February 1817.] I would to heaven, my dear sir, that the opinions of
Southey, Walter Scott, Lord Byron, Mr. Frere, and of men like these in
learning and genius, concerning my comparative claims to be a man of
letters, were to be received as the criterion, instead of the wretched,
and in deed and in truth mystical jargon of the _Examiner_ and
_Edinburgh Review_.

Mr. Randall will be so good as to repay you the £50, and I understand
from Mr. Gillman that you are willing to receive this as a settlement
respecting the "Zapolya." The corrections and additions to the two first
books of the "Christabel" may become of more value to you when the work
is finished, as I trust it will be in the course of the spring, than
they are at present. And let it not be forgotten, that while I had the
utmost malignity of personal enmity to cry down the work, with the
exception of Lord Byron, there was not one of the many who had so many
years together spoken so warmly in its praise who gave it the least
positive furtherance after its publication. It was openly asserted that
the _Quarterly Review_ did not wish to attack it, but was ashamed to say
a word in its favor. Thank God! these things pass from me like drops
from a duck's back, except as far as they take the bread out of my
mouth; and this I can avoid by consenting to publish only for the
_present_ times whatever I may write. You will be so kind as to
acknowledge the receipt of the £50 in such manner as to make all matters
as clear between us as possible; for, though you, I am sure, could not
have intended to injure my character, yet the misconceptions, and
perhaps misrepresentations, of your words have had that tendency. By a
letter from R. Southey I find that he will be in town on the 17th. The
article in Tuesday's _Courier_ was by me, and two other articles on
Apostacy and Renegadoism, which will appear this week.