Murray's Memoirs

A VIEW of the literature of a whole period from the publisher’s counting-room is as useful as it is novel, and the history of the house of Murray favors us with such an outlook on the world of books of the most interesting character.

The time of Scott and Byron was a great literary epoch, and Murray was its most distinguished business agent. His name is associated with its annals so closely that if he has not a literary immortality, he is yet the most famous of publishers ; the memoirs ¹ of his house are, personally and historically, most valuable. We already owed to him the best of the letters of Byron, and it was not to be expected that the papers of the house would yield anything of equal individual interest; but out of the mass of authors’ correspondence which came to him a collection has been made that is extraordinary for the breadth and diversity of its literary information. Murray himself is the central figure, and the story is of his transactions with authors. It is a work of the memoirs of trade, with a leading attention to the financial fortunes of literature. There is much about profit and loss, the prices paid, the avarice of authors, the relations of the house with Edinburgh and with other London firms, the condition of bookselling in general, the plans and ventures of business, and like unpromising matters ; but these topics are so well handled, and the persons involved are themselves so notable, that there is no tediousness even in this most barren part of knowledge. On the other hand, the literary interest, though occasionally subordinated, is unflagging. Murray’s own character is constantly felt in a human way ; and though the authors find it a hard matter to lay aside completely the traditional hostility of the craft, they show appreciation of his excellent qualities. He was, as Sir Walter said, “ much a gentleman ; ” and, so far as we observe, not only was his behavior in business handsome, but as a man he showed himself more creditably in difficult circumstances than the genteel authors who found it almost impossible to forget that he was “ in trade.”

He came in at a fortunate moment in the development of bookselling, just at the time when the association of the trade had given a certain dignity and high standards of conduct to its members, and before individual competition had worked unfavorable effects. He was attached to the older methods which were already breaking up before he died, and in his career more than one incident could be noted to show how fine a strain of business honor he maintained. His relations with authors in the delicate sphere of pecuniary transactions are well known. If the time, in consequence of the gains of Scott and Byron, is often called the 舠 golden age ” of authorship, this is always with a reference to Murray’s generosity. No doubt Murray found his advantage in large payments, especially to the great writers. He was a man of business first, and was not intentionally over-generous except when he meant to be charitable ; he lost money, for example, on Crabbe, but he did not mean to do so. He was certainly shrewd, but he was not sordid, and he was able to take large instead of short-sighted views of his own interest. He was ambitious to be distinguished in his trade, and he knew that to be Byron’s publisher was worth much more to him on business grounds than merely the profits of the sales. He thus attracted authors to him, and he also extended his custom ; and he was willing to pay for the value of the reputation which being the publisher of celebrated authors gave him, in addition to the price that would be justified by the probable cash receipts from their works. The Cookery Book might be, in fact, a more valuable property than Childe Harold, but he did not confuse the different natures of their values. There is no reason to think that he ever lost money on Byron, but if he had it would not have been a real loss ; and it was apparently on this liberal interpretation of his selfinterest generally that he adopted the policy of large prices. There were some disadvantages also in the rule. He set a standard of payment which led inferior authors, like Leigh Hunt, to ask more for their work than it was worth ; but he always had a remedy by adopting the fair procedure of assuring to the author his full share, if he proved successful, either by the system of division of profits, or by bargaining for a limited edition and leaving future contracts open. The business element is less discernible in the liberality with which he paid his reviewers for the Quarterly. In this it appears more plainly that he took pride in being generous, and there can be little question that he paid his regular contributors more than the market price. To those whom he regarded with special friendship, and to whom he felt obliged for their advice and countenance, particularly Gilford, Croker, and Southey, and in later years Lockhart, he was unwearied in attention, and most of these supporters were frank to say that they were so well treated as to feel uncomfortably overpaid. The policy of liberality to writers of distinction, and of fairness to those whose success was still doubtful, worked well. He gave it as his opinion that not one book in fifty paid expenses, but, notwithstanding all risks and at a time when several great houses failed, he made a fortune. His only error was in attempting, in conjunction with the younger Disraeli, to found a daily newspaper, with insufficient preparation. He sank in the enterprise twenty thousand pounds in six months ; but on giving it up he wrote that he hoped to replace the loss by his “shop” in a few months, and this was at the time when Constable and others broke.

These volumes, however, are far from being only a record of the fortunes of trade. Their more important interest lies in the wide view they give of bookmaking in the first half of the century. The larger number of works mentioned, and a considerable part of the correspondence, do not belong to literature in the higher sense. The history of the current reading of the day is reflected on the page, and great works appear only as incidents, just as they were at the time. We see the beginning of the vast number of travels in the East and Africa, and of polar exploration, and the earliest of the collections for popular reading, the “ cabinets ” and “ libraries,” in which the increasing spread of information that specially marks this century commenced. More curious, perhaps, to the student of letters are the dead books, which in their time had a certain vogue, often great, and are now swept away,—poetical works, by Croker, Canning, Milman, and the rest. An occasional estray of the literary life is met with, like Maturin, in whom a pathetic human interest survives apart from the dramas that have perished even in their titles. The memoirs are rich in this sort of driftwood, and not the least interesting passages are those which concern these obscurities. The task of selection would be a hopeless one.

Almost equally unsatisfactory would be any attempt to exhibit the wealth of illustration of character here contained concerning distinguished writers. Sir Walter Scott shines wherever he appears, and his pen and life contribute to the whole. His literary industry apart from writing novels is astonishing, and his large plans, such as that for the collection of British novelists, show the large mind, the inexhaustible energy that seems indifferent to the amount of labor involved in any project; and everywhere the natural kindness, the humanity and tolerance, and the sound sense of the Scott whom Lockhart first made known to the world are delightfully revealed. The attitude he held toward Byron, as it is shown here in several letters, is the most considerate morally, and the finest so far as regards the personal aspect of the matter, that could be conceived in the case. A letter recommending Lockhart, or rather defending him against some faultfinders when about to become the editor of the Quarterly, is perfect in taste and admirable in substance, — a model of what such a letter should be ; and the letter to Murray, on the resignation by him of his copyright in Marmion, is faultless. Unfortunately, Murray was seldom Scott’s publisher. In the correspondence with Byron, the other protagonist of the work, it is Murray who deserves the praise. He addressed him as the noble lord, but he retained much of the freedom of the friend, and while conveying to him in liberal measure the flattery of the coterie, he stimulated his genius, urged him to his best, and expressed his regrets at the errors of taste and heart that so much impaired the excellence of Byron’s later and satirical works. He shared in the reverence for Byron’s genius which now appears so much exaggerated, but he also spoke as a man; and when Byron used something of the insolence of rank, Murray’s reply, in the single instance in which he noticed it, was excellent in temper. The letters of the Byron connection also include several characteristic notes of Lady Caroline Lamb. The whole ends with a detailed account of the destruction of the Byron Memoirs, an act which, from the business point of view, was as honorable to him as anything in Murray’s career. Of other writers, Coleridge and Wordsworth both figure, but not in any material way, and Southey comes in often, but usually in a discontented or perverse frame of mind, since he was obliged to live by reviews and suffer Gifford to “ mutilate ” them, when he would have preferred to live by famous histories and great poems. Campbell, Hogg, and Moore are also writers who do little more than appear on the page, but in each case long enough to yield a striking portrait of their personalities. Irving is brought in principally, it would seem, to illustrate how much better his bargains were for himself than for Murray. Other authors of repute of whom we learn something are Hallam, Milman, Napier, Sir John Malcolm, Sir Francis Head, the elder D’Israeli, Madame de Staël, Hope, Cunningham, Belzoni, Ugo Foscolo, Basil Hall, Lyell, Murchison, Fanny Kemble, Mrs. Somerville, Mrs. Norton, Borrow, and a host of the less known whose books were the literature of the twenties and thirties.

The third leading interest of the work is the history of the great Quarterly, of which Murray was perhaps prouder than of his connection with Byron. There was some justice in the phrase which called this a “National Work.” The Edinburgh preceded it, and showed the power as well as the usefulness of such a publication. The Quarterly was founded to be its rival, and was intended to have political weight from the start. Canning’s interest was engaged, and from time to time an article was “ inspired.” Murray, nevertheless, was eventually disappointed in his hopes of what the party in power would do for it. He was obliged to rely virtually upon the corps of contributors which was early gathered about it and was always diligently recruited. Sir Walter lent his powerful aid from the start, and many readers may be surprised at the considerable number of reviews that he wrote for its pages down to his death. Southey and Croker were a main dependence. The former was particularly useful, both from his facility and range, and from the quality of his thought, which was largely leavened with the average opinion of the class to which it appealed ; while Croker had qualities of a more effective if less admirable kind. But the strength of the Review was its editor, Gifford. It is a pleasure to find out what sort of a man he was, and here are excellent materials for judgment. Gifford is perhaps as well hated a name as there is in English critical annals; or, if this be too strong a statement, there is certainly something sinister in his reputation, His early life, which was one of uncommon hardship and difficulty, is sketched in detail, and the fortunes of the poor and misformed boy are followed through childhood and college to the time when he was asked to preside over the destinies of the Review ; much besides is told of his personal life and character, but more noticeable than such biographical details, though honorable to him, is the light thrown on his editorial work. He wrote nothing, but he rewrote a great deal. Such supervision as he exercised would hardly be tolerated to-day by authors who were more than hacks. His judgment, if hard, was sound, and there can be no question that the quality of the Review, its English-thoroughbred quality, was due to him. He acted besides as Murray’s literary adviser, as did Croker and the elder D’ Israeli, and in his intimate connection with the house he became a sort of prime minister. Murray was devoted to him, and cared for him with the fidelity and forethought of a brother. He was highly regarded in many quarters, and the perusal of these papers must do much to convince the reader of the gross injustice that has been done to an able and conscientious, though sometimes bitter man, of very solid intellectual power. Under his guidance and with the assistance of Murray’s untiring energy, the Review became an organ of intellectual opinion of the first consequence. Its notable articles and their writers are followed here year by year, and thus a chapter is disclosed and given to the history of English writers of this century which well deserved to be written. On Gifford’s death, Sir John Coleridge succeeded for a short time, to be in turn followed by Lockhart. The reflections made upon Gifford apply also in some degree to this latter much-disliked critic. He had personal defects, but as a critic he had excellent discernment. In regard to his earlier life,—and he was barely thirty when he took the Quarterly,— more particularly in all that relates to his writings in Blackwood’s, the letter of Sir Walter Scott, already referred to, says the last word. All that we have space to say is that he had some of the best qualities of an editor for the authors and public with which he had to deal. Murray had been connected with Blackwood’s during the time of the personal articles in that review, and it is in consonance with his character that he continually protested against them, and finally severed his connection with it on this ground alone. The Quarterly, though sufficiently severe, was never afflicted by the youthful wantonness of Blackwood’s, and when Lockhart undertook the editorship he had left that mood behind. The conduct of the Review from its start to the close of Murray’s life is capitally illustrated, and on the whole effectively defended.

The little that has been said of these volumes, we are well aware, does them scanty justice, and indicates only too superficially the mine of literary information which they contain. Their wealth is almost purely of details, and cannot be generally treated. To authors, they tell the publisher’s side of the story; to literary scholars, they bring much information about persons and books that is new and historically valuable. Murray himself — and the work is essentially his biography, though his labors are dealt with more than his life — is set forth with a character of honorable dealing and liberal ideas that is most pleasing, and with a personal attractiveness which is not the less strong because its main element is something that earns our respect. His portrait was needed to complete the group of the authors of the period.