When 'Marmion' was little more than begun Scott's publishers offered
him a thousand pounds for the copyright, and as this soon became
known it naturally gave rise to varied comment. Lord Byron thought
it sufficient to warrant a gratuitous attack on the author in his
'English Bards and Scotch Reviewers.' This is a portion of the
passage:--
'And think'st thou, Scott! by vain conceit perchance,
On public taste to foist thy stale romance.
Though Murray with his Miller may combine
To yield thy muse just half-a-crown per line?
No! when the sons of song descend to trade,
Their bays are sear, their former laurels fade.'
As a matter of fact, there was on Scott's part no trade whatever in
the case. If a publisher chose to secure in advance what he
anticipated would be a profitable commodity, that was mainly the
publisher's affair, and the poet would have been a simpleton not to
close with the offer if he liked it. Scott admirably disposes of
Byron as follows in the 1830 Introduction:--
'The publishers of the "Lay of the Last Minstrel," emboldened by the
success of that poem, willingly offered a thousand pounds for
"Marmion." The transaction being no secret, afforded Lord Byron,
who was then at general war with all who blacked paper, an apology
for including me in his satire, entitled "English Bards and Scotch
Reviewers." I never could conceive how an arrangement between an
author and his publishers, if satisfactory to the persons concerned,
could afford matter of censure to any third party. I had taken no
unusual or ungenerous means of enhancing the value of my
merchandise--I had never higgled a moment about the bargain, but
accepted at once what I considered the handsome offer of my
publishers. These gentlemen, at least, were not of opinion that
they had been taken advantage of in the transaction, which indeed
was one of their own framing; on the contrary, the sale of the Poem
was so far beyond their expectation, as to induce them to supply the
author's cellars with what is always an acceptable present to a
young Scottish housekeeper, namely, a hogshead of excellent claret.'
A second point on which Scott was attacked was the character of
Marmion. It was held that such a knight as he undoubtedly was
should have been incapable of forgery. Scott himself; of course,
knew better than his critics whether or not this was the case, but,
with his usual good nature and generous regard for the opinion of
others, he admitted that perhaps he had committed an artistic
blunder. Dr. Leyden, in particular, for whose judgment he had
special respect, wrote him from India 'a furious remonstrance on the
subject.' Fortunately, he made no attempt to change what he had
written, his main reason being that 'corrections, however in
themselves judicious, have a bad effect after publication.' He
might have added that any modification of the hero's guilt would
have entirely altered the character of the poem, and might have
ruined it altogether. He had never, apparently, gone into the
question thoroughly after his first impressions of the type of
knights existing in feudal times, for though he states that 'similar
instances were found, and might be quoted,' he is inclined to admit
that the attribution of forgery was a 'gross defect.' Readers
interested in the subject will find by reference to Pike's 'History
of Crime,' i. 276, that Scott was perfectly justified in his
assumption that a feudal knight was capable of forgery. Those who
understand how intimate his knowledge was of the period with which
he was dealing will, of course, be the readiest to believe him
rather than his critics; but when he seems doubtful of himself, and
ready to yield the point, it is well that the strength of his
original position can thus be supported by the results of recent
investigation.
Jeffrey, in the Edinburgh Review, not being able to understand and
appreciate this new devotion to romance, and probably stimulated by
his misreading of the reference to Fox in the Introduction to Canto
I, did his utmost to cast discredit on 'Marmion.' Scott was too
large a man to confound the separate spheres of Politics and
Literature; whereas it was frequently the case with Jeffrey--as,
indeed, it was to some extent with literary critics on the other
side as well--to estimate an author's work in reference to the party
in the State to which he was known to belong. It was impossible to
deny merits to Scott's descriptions, and the extraordinary energy of
the most striking portions of the Poem, but Jeffrey groaned over the
inequalities he professed to discover, and lamented that the poet
should waste his strength on the unprofitable effort to resuscitate
an old-fashioned enthusiasm. They had been the best of friends
previously--and Scott, as we have seen, worked for the Edinburgh
Review--but it was now patent that the old literary intimacy could
not pleasantly continue. Nor is it surprising that Scott should
have felt that the Edinburgh Review had become too autocratic, and
that he should have given a helping hand towards the establishing of
the Quarterly Review, as a political and literary organ necessary to
the balance of parties.