MURRAY AND GIFFORD--RUPTURE WITH CONSTABLE--PROSPERITY OF THE
"QUARTERLY"
A good understanding was now established between Mr. Murray and his
editor, and the _Quarterly_ went on improving and gradually increased in
circulation. Though regular in the irregularity of its publication, the
subscribers seem to have become accustomed to the delay, and when it did
make its appearance it was read with eagerness and avidity. The interest
and variety of its contents, and the skill of the editor in the
arrangement of his materials, made up for many shortcomings.
Murray and Gifford were in constant communication, and it is interesting
to remember that the writer of the following judicious criticism had
been editor of the _Anti-Jacobin_ before he was editor of the
_Quarterly_.
_Mr. Gifford to John Murray_.
_May_ 17, 1811.
"I have seldom been more pleased and vexed at a time than with the
perusal of the enclosed MS. It has wit, it has ingenuity, but both are
absolutely lost in a negligence of composition which mortifies me. Why
will your young friend fling away talent which might so honourably
distinguish him? He might, if be chose, be the ornament of our _Review_,
instead of creating in one mingled regret and admiration. It is utterly
impossible to insert such a composition as the present; there are
expressions which would not be borne; and if, as you say, it will be
sent to Jeffrey's if I do not admit it, however I may grieve, I must
submit to the alternative. Articles of pure humour should be written
with extraordinary attention. A vulgar laugh is detestable. I never saw
much merit in writing rapidly. You will believe me when I tell you that
I have been present at the production of more genuine wit and humour
than almost any person of my time, and that it was revised and polished
and arranged with a scrupulous care which overlooked nothing. I have
not often seen fairer promises of excellence in this department than in
your correspondent; but I tell you frankly that they will all be
blighted and perish prematurely unless sedulously cultivated. It is a
poor ambition to raise a casual laugh in the unreflecting.
The article did not appear in the _Quarterly_, and Mr. Pillans, the
writer, afterwards became a contributor to the _Edinburgh Review_.
In a letter of August 25, 1811, we find Gifford writing to a
correspondent: "Since the hour I was born I never enjoyed, as far as I
can recollect, what you call _health_ for a single day." In November,
after discussing in a letter the articles which were about to appear in
the next _Review_, he concluded: "I write in pain and must break off."
In the following month Mr. Murray, no doubt in consideration of the
start which his _Review_ had made, sent him a present of £500. "I thank
you," he answered (December 6), "very sincerely for your magnificent
present; but £500 is a vast sum. However, you know your own business."
Yet Mr. Murray was by no means abounding in wealth. There were always
those overdrawn bills from Edinburgh to be met, and Ballantyne and
Constable were both tugging at him for accommodation at the same time.
The business arrangements with Constable & Co., which, save for the
short interruption which has already been related, had extended over
many years, were now about to come to an end. The following refers to
the purchase of Mr. Miller's stock and the removal of Mr. Murray's
business to Albemarle Street.
_John Murray to Mr. Constable_.
ALBEMARLE ST., _October_ 27, 1812.
"I do not see any existing reason why we, who have so long been so very
intimate, should now be placed in a situation of negative hostility. I
am sure that we are well calculated to render to each other great
services; you are the best judge whether your interests were ever before
so well attended to as by me ... The great connexion which I have for
the last two years been maturing in Fleet Street I am now going to bring
into action here; and it is not with any view to, or with any reliance
upon, what Miller has done, but upon what I know I can do in such a
situation, that I had long made up my mind to move. It is no sudden
thing, but one long matured; and it is only from the accident of
Miller's moving that I have taken his house; so that the notions which,
I am told, you entertain respecting my plans are totally outside the
ideas upon which it was formed.... I repeat, it is in my power to do you
many services; and, certainly, I have bought very largely of you, and
you never of me; and you know very well that I will serve you heartily
if I can deal with you confidentially."
A truce was, for a time, made between the firms, but it proved hollow.
The never-ending imposition of accommodation bills sent for acceptance
had now reached a point beyond endurance, having regard to Murray's
credit. The last letter from Murray to Constable & Co. was as follows:
_John Murray to Constable & Co_.
_April 30_, 1813.
GENTLEMEN,
I did not answer the letter to which the enclosed alludes, because its
impropriety in all respects rendered it impossible for me to do so
without involving myself in a personal dispute, which it is my anxious
resolution to avoid: and because my determination was fully taken to
abide by what I told you in my former letter, to which alone I can or
could have referred you. You made an express proposition to me, to
which, as you have deviated from it, it is not my intention to accede.
The books may remain with me upon sale or return, until you please to
order them elsewhere; and in the meantime I shall continue to avail
myself of every opportunity to sell them. I return, therefore, an
account and bills, with which I have nothing to do, and desire to have a
regular invoice.
I am, gentlemen, yours truly,
J. MURRAY.
Constable & Co. fired off a final shot on May 28 following, and the
correspondence and business between the firms then terminated.
No. 12 of the _Quarterly_ appeared in December 1811, and perhaps the
most interesting article in the number was that by Canning and Ellis, on
Trotter's "Life of Fox." Gifford writes to Murray about this article:
"I have not seen Canning yet, but he is undoubtedly at work by this
time. Pray take care that no one gets a sight of the slips. It will be a
delightful article, but say not a word till it comes out."
A pamphlet had been published by W.S. Landor, dedicated to the President
of the United States, entitled, "Remarks upon Memoirs of Mr. Fox lately
published." Gifford was furious about it. He wrote to Murray:
_Mr. Gifford to John Murray_.
"I never read so rascally a thing as the Dedication. It is almost too
bad for the Eatons and other publishers of mad democratic books. In the
pamphlet itself there are many clever bits, but there is no taste and
little judgment. His attacks on private men are very bad. Those on Mr.
C. are too stupid to do much harm, or, indeed, any. The Dedication is
the most abject piece of business that I ever read. It shows Landor to
have a most rancorous and malicious heart. Nothing but a rooted hatred
of his country could have made him dedicate his Jacobinical book to the
most contemptible wretch that ever crept into authority, and whose only
recommendation to him is his implacable enmity to his country. I think
you might write to Southey; but I would not, on any account, have you
publish such a scoundrel address."
The only entire article ever contributed to the _Review_ by Gifford
himself was that which he wrote, in conjunction with Barron Field, on
Ford's "Dramatic Works." It was an able paper, but it contained a
passage, the publication of which occasioned Gifford the deepest regret.
Towards the conclusion of the article these words occurred: The Editor
"has polluted his pages with the blasphemies of a poor maniac, who, it
seems, once published some detached scenes of the 'Broken Heart.'" This
referred to Charles Lamb, who likened the "transcendent scene [of the
Spartan boy and Calantha] in imagination to Calvary and the Cross." Now
Gifford had never heard of the personal history of Lamb, nor of the
occasional fits of lunacy to which his sister Mary was subject; and when
the paragraph was brought to his notice by Southey, through Murray, it
caused him unspeakable distress. He at once wrote to Southey [Footnote:
When the subject of a memoir of Charles Lamb by Serjeant Talfourd was
under consideration, Southey wrote to a friend: "I wish that I had
looked out for Mr. Talfourd the letter which Gifford wrote in reply to
one in which I remonstrated with him upon his designation of Lamb as a
poor maniac. The words were used in complete ignorance of their peculiar
bearings, and I believe nothing in the course of Gifford's life ever
occasioned him so much self-reproach. He was a man with whom I had no
literary sympathies; perhaps there was nothing upon which we agreed,
except great political questions; but I liked him the better ever after
for his conduct on this occasion."] the following letter:
_Mr. W. Gifford to Mr. Southey_.
_February_ 13, 1812.
MY DEAR SIR,
I break off here to say that I have this moment received your last
letter to Murray. It has grieved and shocked me beyond expression; but,
my dear friend, I am innocent so far as the intent goes. I call God to
witness that in the whole course of my life I never heard one syllable
of Mr. Lamb or his family. I knew not that he ever had a sister, or that
he had parents living, or that he or any person connected with him had
ever manifested the slightest tendency to insanity. In a word, I declare
to you _in the most solemn manner_ that all I ever knew or ever heard of
Mr. Lamb was merely his name. Had I been aware of one of the
circumstances which you mention, I would have lost my right arm sooner
than have written what I have. The truth is, that I was shocked at
seeing him compare the sufferings and death of a person who just
continues to dance after the death of his lover is announced (for this
is all his merit) to the pangs of Mount Calvary; and not choosing to
attribute it to folly, because I reserved that charge for Weber, I
unhappily in the present case ascribed it to madness, for which I pray
God to forgive me, since the blow has fallen heavily when I really
thought it would not be felt. I considered Lamb as a thoughtless
scribbler, who, in circumstances of ease, amused himself by writing on
any subject. Why I thought so, I cannot tell, but it was the opinion I
formed to myself, for I now regret to say I never made any inquiry upon
the subject; nor by any accident in the whole course of my life did I
hear him mentioned beyond the name.
I remain, my dear Sir,
Yours most sincerely,
W. GIFFORD.
It is unnecessary to describe in detail the further progress of the
_Quarterly_. The venture was now fairly launched. Occasionally, when
some friction arose from the editorial pruning of Southey's articles, or
when Mr. Murray remonstrated with the exclusion or inclusion of some
particular article, Mr. Gifford became depressed, or complained, "This
business begins to get too heavy for me, and I must soon have done, I
fear." Such discouragement was only momentary. Gifford continued to edit
the _Review_ for many years, until and long after its complete success
had become assured.
The following extract, from a letter of Southey's to his friend Bedford,
describes very happily the position which Mr. Murray had now attained.
"Murray offers me a thousand guineas for my intended poem in blank
verse, and begs it may not be a line longer than "Thomson's Seasons"! I
rather think the poem will be a post obit, and in that case, twice that
sum, at least, may be demanded for it. What his real feelings may be
towards me, I cannot tell; but he is a happy fellow, living in the light
of his own glory. The _Review_ is the greatest of all works, and it is
all his own creation; he prints 10,000, and fifty times ten thousand
read its contents, in the East and in the West. Joy be with him and his
journal!"