A Publisher and His Friends Part 9

"I have found means to get at Mr. G., and have procured a letter to be written to him, which may possibly produce one to you signed Rutherford or Richardson, or some such name, and dated from the North of England; or, if he does not write to you, enquiry is to be made whether he would choose you should address him. The secrecy to be observed in this business must be most profound, even to Ballantyne and all the world. If you get articles from him (which will and must draw attention) you must throw out a false scent for enquirers. I believe this unfortunate man will soon be in London."

In reply, Mr. Murray wrote on March 24 to Mr. Scott, urging him to come to London, and offering, "if there be no plea for charging your expenses to Government," to "undertake that the _Review_ shall pay them as far as one hundred guineas." To this Scott replied:

_Mr. Scott to John Murray_.

Edinburgh, _March_ 27, 1809.

I have only time to give a very short answer to your letter. Some very important business detains me here till Monday or Tuesday, on the last of which days at farthest I will set off for town, and will be with you of course at the end of the week. As to my travelling expenses, if Government pay me, good and well; if they do not, depend on it I will never take a farthing from you. You have, my good friend, enough of expense to incur in forwarding this great and dubious undertaking, and G.o.d forbid I should add so unreasonable a charge as your liberality points at. I am very frank in money matters, and always take my price when I think I can give money's worth for money, but this is quite extravagant, and you must think no more of it. Should I want money for any purpose I will readily make _you_ my banker and give you value in reviews. John Ballantyne's last remittance continues to go off briskly; the devil's in you in London, you don't know good writing when you get it. All depends on our cutting in before the next _Edinburgh_, when instead of following their lead they shall follow ours.

Mrs. Scott is my fellow-traveller in virtue of an old promise. I am, dear Sir, yours truly,

Walter Scott.

_April_ 4, at night.

I have been detained a day later than I intended, but set off to-morrow at mid-day. I believe I shall get _franked_, so will have my generosity for nothing. I hope to be in London on Monday.

In sending out copies of the first number, Mr. Murray was not forgetful of one friend who had taken a leading part in originating the _Review_.

In 1808 Mr. Stratford Canning, when only twenty years of age, had been selected to accompany Mr. Adair on a special mission to Constantinople.

The following year, on Mr. Adair being appointed H.B.M. Minister to the Sublime Porte, Stratford Canning became Secretary of Legation. Mr.

Murray wrote to him:

_John Murray to Mr. Stratford Canning_.

32, Fleet St., London, _March_ 12, 1809.

Dear Sir,

It is with no small degree of pleasure that I send, for the favour of your acceptance, the first number of the _Quarterly Review_, a work which owes its birth to your obliging countenance and introduction of me to Mr. Gifford. I flatter myself that upon the whole you will not be dissatisfied with our first attempt, which is universally allowed to be so very respectable. Had you been in London during its progress, it would, I am confident, have been rendered more deserving of public attention.

The letter goes on to ask for information on foreign works of importance or interest.

Mr. Stratford Canning replied:

"With regard to the comission which you have given me, it is, I fear, completely out of my power to execute it. Literature neither resides at Constantinople nor pa.s.ses through it. Even were I able to obtain the publications of France and Germany by way of Vienna, the road is so circuitous, that you would have them later than others who contrive to smuggle them across the North Sea. Every London newspaper that retails its daily sixpennyworth of false reports, publishes the French, the Hamburgh, the Vienna, the Frankfort, and other journals, full as soon as we receive any of them here. This is the case at all times; at present it is much worse. We are entirely insulated. The Russians block up the usual road through Bucharest, and the Servians prevent the pa.s.sage of couriers through Bosnia. And in addition to these difficulties, the present state of the Continent must at least interrupt all literary works. You will not, I am sure, look upon these as idle excuses. Things may probably improve, and I will not quit this country without commissioning some one here to send you anything that may be of use to so promising a publication as your _Review_."

No sooner was one number published, than preparations were made for the next. Every periodical is a continuous work--never ending, still beginning. New contributors must be gained; new books reviewed; new views criticised. Mr. Murray was, even more than the editor, the backbone of the enterprise: he was indefatigable in soliciting new writers for the _Quarterly_, and in finding the books fit for review, and the appropriate reviewers of the books. Sometimes the reviews were printed before the editor was consulted, but everything pa.s.sed under the notice of Gifford, and received his emendations and final approval.

Mr. Murray went so far as to invite Leigh Hunt to contribute an article on Literature or Poetry for the _Quarterly_. The reply came from John Hunt, Leigh's brother. He said:

_Mr. John Hunt to John Murray_.

"My brother some days back requested me to present to you his thanks for the polite note you favoured him with on the subject of the _Review_, to which he should have been most willing to have contributed in the manner you propose, did he not perceive that the political sentiments contained in it are in direct opposition to his own."

This was honest, and it did not interfere with the personal intercourse of the publisher and the poet. Murray afterwards wrote to Scott: "Hunt is most vilely wrong-headed in politics, which he has allowed to turn him away from the path of elegant criticism, which might have led him to eminence and respectability."

James Mill, author of the "History of British India," sent an article for the second number; but the sentiments and principles not being in accordance with those of the editor, it was not at once accepted. On learning this, he wrote to Mr. Murray as follows:

_Mr. James Mill to John Murray_.

My dear Sir,

I can have no objection in the world to your delaying the article I have sent you till it altogether suits your arrangements to make use of it.

Besides this point, a few words of explanation may not be altogether useless with regard to another. I am half inclined to suspect that the objection of your Editor goes a little farther than you state. If so, I beg you will not hesitate a moment about what you are to do with it. I wrote it solely with a view to oblige and to benefit _you personally_, but with very little idea, as I told you at our first conversation on the subject, that it would be in my power to be of any use to you, as the views which I entertained respecting what is good for our country were very different from the views entertained by the gentlemen with whom in your projected concern you told me you were to be connected. To convince you, however, of my good-will, I am perfectly ready to give you a specimen, and if it appears to be such as likely to give offence to your friends, or not to harmonise with the general style of your work, commit it to the flames without the smallest scruple. Be a.s.sured that it will not make the smallest difference in my sentiments towards you, or render me in the smallest degree less disposed to lend you my aid (such as it is) on any other occasion when it may be better calculated to be of use to you.

Yours very truly,

J. Mill.

Gifford was not a man of business; he was unpunctual. The second number of the _Quarterly_ appeared behind its time, and the publisher felt himself under the necessity of expostulating with the editor.

_John Murray to Mr. Gifford_.

_May_ 11, 1809.

Dear Mr. Gifford,

I begin to suspect that you are not aware of the complete misery which is occasioned to me, and the certain ruin which must attend the _Review_, by our unfortunate procrastination. Long before this, every line of copy for the present number ought to have been in the hands of the printer. Yet the whole of the _Review_ is yet to print. I know not what to do to facilitate your labour, for the articles which you have long had he scattered without attention, and those which I ventured to send to the printer undergo such r.e.t.a.r.ding corrections, that even by this mode we do not advance. I entreat the favour of your exertion. For the last five months my most imperative concerns have yielded to this, without the hope of my anxiety or labour ceasing.

"Tanti miserere laboris,"

in my distress and with regret from

John Murray.

Mr. Gifford's reply was as follows:

"The delay and confusion which have arisen must be attributed to a want of confidential communication. In a word, you have too many advisers, and I too many masters."

At last the second number of the _Quarterly_ appeared, at the end of May instead of at the middle of April. The new contributors to this number were Dr. D'Oyley, the Rev. Mr. Walpole, and George Canning, who, in conjunction with Sharon Turner, contributed the last article on Austrian State Papers.

As soon as the second number was published, Mr. Gifford, whose health was hardly equal to the constant strain of preparing and editing the successive numbers, hastened away, as was his custom, to the seaside. He wrote to Mr. Murray from Ryde:

_Mr. Gifford to John Murray_.

_June_ 18, 1809.

"I rejoice to hear of our success, and feel very anxious to carry it further. A fortnight's complete abstraction from all sublunary cares has done me much good, and I am now ready to put on my spectacles and look about me.... Hoppner is here, and has been at Death's door. The third day after his arrival, he had an apoplectic fit, from which blisters, etc., have miraculously recovered him.... This morning I received a letter from Mr. Erskine. He speaks very highly of the second number, and of the Austrian article, which is thought its chief attraction.

Theology, he says, few people read or care about. On this, I wish to say a word seriously. I am sorry that Mr. E. has fallen into that notion, too general I fear in Scotland; but this is his own concern. I differ with him totally, however, as to the few readers which such subjects find; for as far as my knowledge reaches, the reverse is the fact. The strongest letter which I have received since I came down, in our favour, points out the two serious articles as masterly productions and of decided superiority. We have taught the truth I mention to the _Edinburgh Review_, and in their last number they have also attempted to be serious, and abstain from their flippant impiety. It is not done with the best grace, but it has done them credit, I hear.... When you make up your parcel, pray put in some small cheap 'Horace,' which I can no more do without than Parson Adams _ex_ 'Aeschylus.' I have left it somewhere on the road. Any common thing will do."

Mr. Murray sent Gifford a splendid copy of "Horace" in the next parcel of books and ma.n.u.scripts. In his reply Gifford, expostulating, "Why, my dear Sir, will you do these things?" thanked him warmly for his gift.

Mr. George Ellis was, as usual, ready with his criticism. Differing from Gifford, he wrote:

"I confess that, to my taste, the long article on the New Testament is very tedious, and that the progress of Socinianism is, to my apprehension, a bugbear which _we_ have no immediate reason to be scared by; but it may alarm some people, and what I think a dull prosing piece of orthodoxy may have its admirers, and promote our sale."

Even Constable had a good word to say of it. In a letter to his partner, Hunter, then in London, he said: