"A PUBLISHER AND HIS FRIENDS.”

Woodville Examiner, Volume VII, Issue 734, 31 July 1891, Page 1 (Supplement)

"A PUBLISHER AND HIS FRIENDS.”

THE NEW HISTORY OF THE HOUSE OF MURRAY.

(tail hall gazette.)

There can be no question that “ A Publisher •and his Friends,” issued by Mr. John Murray, is one of the most important contributions to English literary history that have been published for many a long year. The period which it covers saw the production of some of the best literary work of the century—the poems of Lord Byron, the novels of Sir Walter Scott, and the prose essays of Robert Southey, to quote merely the examples with which the late John Murray was most intimately connected. Among other writers who came into contact with “ the Anak of Publishers”—asLord Byron called his friend—were Isaac D’lsraeli ana his still more famous son, the late Earl of Beaconafield, Canning, Gifford,'the two Mills, Leigh Hunt, Mai thus, John Wilson Croker, Thomas ■Campbell, James Hogg, Mdme. de Staid, Monk Lewis, Moore, Lockhart, Hallom, Milmau, Washington Irving, Carlyle, Lord Mahon, Fanny Kemble, Mrs. Somerville, Mrs, Norton (and other literary" ladies), John Sterling, and Borrow. The mere recital of these names will he sufficient to indicate the value of the correspondence which Dr. Smiles has edited and which John Murray the third has published in -the two portly volumes now lying before us. And such recital will also show how hopeless a task it wpuldbe to attempt, within the limits of a single newspaper article, to give an adequate idea of the wealth of interesting and valuable information which the book contains. Dr. Smiles (it may be added) is as unobtrusive an editor as could well be desired; and the letters are for the most part left to tell their own story—an arrangement which lends a happy discursiveness to the hook. With these few lines of introduction we proceed to a more detailed, but necessarily imperfect, examination of the hook. FOUNDING THE “ QUARTERLY REVIEW.” John Murray, the son of a marine officer, was bom in 1778. His father had in 17GS purchased a small publishing business in Fleet street, to which the son in due course succeeded. From this business—small and unpretentious at first—grew the house of Murray as we now know it. Isaac DTsraelt—the author •of the “ Curiosities of Literature”—was one of ithe first authors for whom young Murray published; and he was also for a time connected with Constable and Co.—the important Edin- ' burgh publishing firm—on whose behalf he undertook the London agency of the Edinburgh Review, But this agency did not last long. John Murray was a Tory of the old school, . while the Edinburgh strenuously opposed the Administration and expressed democratic views • of the most extreme character. The outcome of this divergence in opinion was that Murray not only ceased to sell the Edinburgh , but straightway set to work to found a periodical publication which shouldcounteractitsinfluence. He wrote to Canning pointing out that the principles of the Edinburgh were radically bad : “ But the publication in question (he continued) is conducted with so much ability, and is sanctioned with such high and decisive authority by the party of whose opinions it is the organ, that there is little hope of producing against it any effectual opposition unless it arises from you, sir, and your friends. Should you, sir, think the idea worthy of encouragement, 1 should, with equal pride and willingness, engage my arduous exertions to promote its success; but as my object is nothing short of producing a work of the greatest talent and importance, I shall entertain it no longer if it be not so fortunate as to obtain the high • patronage which 1 have thus taken the liberty to solicit.” It did obtain this 44 high patronage,” and •something more. Canning thought the idea so worthy of encouragement that he consented to ■write for the Review himself; and an article on Spanish affairs, largely from his pen, duly appeared in No. 3. Scott was another who approved of Murray’s scheme from the first. He had quarrelled with both the editor and publisher of the Edinburgh Reriew. 44 Constable” —he writes in 1808 —“ or rather that Bear, his partner, has behaved by me of late not very civilly, and I oweJJeffrey a flap with a foxtail on account of his review of 4 Marmion,’ and thus doth the whirligig of time bring about my i revenges.”

THE FIRST EDITOR OF THE “ REVIEW.” Things having advanced thus far, it became necessary to look around for a prospective editor. William Gifford, a literary man of repute, who had already been in harness as editor of the Anti-Jacobin , was sounded upon the subject, and was found willing to take the post. Scott’s letter to him was full of excellent advice, a few sentences of which may he quoted;— “ The office of editor is of such importance -that had you not been pleased to undertake it I fear the plan would have fallen wholly to the ground. The full power of control must, of course, be vested in the editor for selecting, curtailing, and correcting the contributions to the Review. But this is not all; for, as he is the person immediately responsible to the bookseller that the work (amounting to a certain number of pages, more or less) shall be before the public at a certain time, it will be the editor’s duty to consider in due turn the articles of which each number ought to consist, and to take measures for procuring them from the persons best qualified to write upon such •and such subject. If you will accept of my services, as a sort of jackal or lion’s provider, I will do all in my power to assist in this troublesome department of editorial duty.” Gifford wanted help of this kind badly, and eagerly availed himself of Scott’s services. To -edit a review was not in those days so simple a matter as it has since become. It was not then -sufficient to procure eight or 10 essays by more or less well-known writers, and to issue them between the same eovets and label them “ Eeview.”

LOUD BTEON AND “ CHILDE HAROLD.” We must now devote a small portion of our ■space to Lord Byron, and to Murray’s long and interesting friendship with him. Here is the story of their first meeting as told by Dr. Smiles:— “Mr. Murray had long desired to make lord Byron’s acquaintance, and now that Mr. Dallas had arranged with him for the publication of the first two cantos of ‘ Childe Harold’ be had many opportunities of seeing Byron at his place of business. The first time that he saw" him was when he called one day with Mr. Hobhousein Fleet street. He afterwards looked in from time to time, while the sheets were passing through the press, fresh from the fencing-rooms of Angelo and Jackson, and used to amuse himself by renewing his practice of ‘ Cajjte et Tierce’ with his walking stick directed against the bookshelves, while Murray was reading passages from the poem, with occasional ejaculations of admiration ; on which Byron would say, ‘ You think that a good idea, do you, Murray f” Then he would fence and lunge with his walking-stick at some special book which he had picked out on the shelves bofoae him. As Murray afterwards said, ‘ I was very often glad to get rid of him!’”

BYRON AND SCOTT IN MURRAY’S DRAWINGROOM.

Byron and Scott met for the’first time in John Murray’s drawingroom at 50 Albemarle street (whither the publisher removed in 1812) on the 7th of April, 1815. They conversed together for two hours. The present Mr. Murray—then John Murray, jun.—gives his recollections as follows : “ I can recollect seeing Lord Byron iu Albemarle street. So far as I can remember, be 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, bis shirt open at the neck. Lord Byron’s deformity in his foot was very evidant, especially as he walked downstairs. He carried a stick. After Scott and he had ended their conversation in the drawingroom, it was a curious sight to see the two greatest poets of the age—both lame—stumping downstairs side by side.” BYRON’S MARRIAGE, The story of Byron’s connection witk Murray is, iu its main outlines, already known. “ Childe Harold” was a tremendous success—as Byron himself iudicates in an entry made in his Journal at the time. Other equally successful poems followed, in regard to every one of which the poet was treated by Murray with the utmost generosity. Never in the whole history of literature have the relations between author and publisher been more cordial. Byron sent for Murray one evening; and, “ says he, ‘ Gan you keep a secret ?’ ‘ Certainly—positively—my wife’s out of town!’ ‘ Then —I am going to bo MARRIED !’ ‘ The devil! I shall have no poem this winter, then ?’ ‘ No.’ ‘ Who is the lady who is to do me this injury ?’ * Miss Milbanko—do you know her ?’ ‘ No, my lord.’ ” The marriage, as everybody knows, was not exactly made in heaven, and in 1816 Byron left England, During his travels he corresponded frequently

•“Memoir and Correspondence of the late John Murray ; with an Account of the Origin and Progress of the House, 1703-1313. By Samuel Smiles, JAt-D. Two volumes. Portraits. Price. 325, (John Murray, 1831.)

with Mr. Murray, partly by means of the brilliant letters which are familiar to every reader of Moore’s “ Life,” partly by the hand of his secretary, Dr. PoUdori. Murray’s replies, which form the complement of the correspondence, are now published for the first time. DIFFICULTIES WMXI “ DON JUAN.” “Don Juan” seems to have caused the worthy publisher a good deal of worry. Writing on3rd May, 181‘J, he says : “ I find that 4 Julia’s Letter’ has been safely received, and it is with tho printer. The whole remainder of the second canto will be sent by Friday’s post. The inquiries after its appearance are not a few. Pray, use your most tasteful discretion, so as to wrap up, or leave out, certain approximations to.Jindelicacy.” The two cantos (tor which Murray gave the poet £1,575} came out and created a great stir. The book bore no name, and being therefore not was re-published in cheap editions by the pirates. Application had consequently to be made for an injunction, and for a time it was seriously questioned whether the Court of Chancery would afford protection to the book. However, the injunction was duly obtained; but Lord Byron strenuously refused to make any alterations in the poem as suggested by Mr. Murray. Byron died in 1824 ; his “ Memoirs,” which had been sold in MS. to Murray, being burnt at the family’s request a few months afterwards. It was thought that portions of them were too gross for publication.

BENJAMIN DISRAELI AND THE 44 REPRESENTATIVE.”

We must now leave Lord Byron for another 1 “ celebrity of the century,” Benjamin Disraeli, who, oddly enough, is connected with Murray’s one great failure as a publisher. The late Lord Beacousfield was the son of Murray’s oldest friends ; and intent upon gaining a position in the world he saw a prospect of advancing his own interests—by obtaining the influential position of director of a Conservative daily paper, which he fuhy imagined was destined to equal The Times, and, unfortunately for Murray, he succeeded in imbuing him with the like fallacious hopes. An agreement was entered into and preliminary arrangements were made; but alas ! everything went wrong from the very beginning. There was a difficulty about getting a good editor for the Representative—Lac&iiaxi having refused the post—and throughout Murray seemed very dubious as to the result. Not so young Disraeli. He visited City men for the purpose of obtaining articles on commercial subjects ; he took a large house in Great George street, which was - fitted up as a printing-office, and he engaged a Parliamentary reporter and general adviser. Having done this much, and having christened the new journal the Representative, he appears to have retired from the scene altogether, _ for nothing more is heard of him in connection with that ill-starred venture. CAMPBELL, COLERIDGE, AND CARLYLE. Thomas Campbell and Murray were great friends; and one of the earliest results of their association was to start a new magazine. The arrangements, however, fell through, and “Essays and Selections of English Poetry” were substituted in its stead. There appears to have been very little correspondence between Murray and Samuel Taylor Coleridge. The latter proposed a translation of Goethe’s “Faust,” which, no doubt, he would have done excellently well, and Murray offered him a hundred pounds for it. For some reason or other this aiangement was never carried out. Carlyle, again, is another author with whom Murray had a brief and purposeless correspondence. 44 Sartor Resartus" was submitted to the publisher, who agreed to print an edition of 750 at his own cost, sharing the net profits with the author and leaving the copyright in his hands. Carlyle subsequently tried to got better terms from other nouses, which annoyed Murray, and the manuscript wa? eventually returned. We have left no space to speak of the late Mr. Murray himself. But this is the less to be regretted because an excellent summary of his characteristic traits as publisher forms the concluding chapter of the 44 Memoir.” It is from the pen of Mr. W. J. Courthope, the accomplished editor of Pope.