VARIOUS PUBLICATIONS--CHARLES MATURIN--S.T. COLERIDGE--LEIGH HUNT
Scott's "poor Irish friend Maturin," referred to in the previous
chapter, was a young Irish clergyman, who was under the necessity of
depending upon his brains and pen for the maintenance of his family.
Charles Maturin, after completing his course of education at Trinity
College, married Miss Harriet Kinsburg. His family grew, but not his
income. He took orders, and obtained the curacy of St. Peter's Church,
Dublin, but owing to his father's affairs having become embarrassed, he
was compelled to open a boarding-school, with the view of assisting the
family. Unfortunately, he became bound for a friend, who deceived him,
and eventually he was obliged to sacrifice his interest in the school.
Being thus driven to extremities, he tried to live by literature, and
produced "The Fatal Revenge; or, the Family of Montorio," the first of a
series of romances, in which he outdid Mrs. Radcliffe and Monk Lewis.
"The Fatal Revenge" was followed by "The Wild Irish Boy," for which
Colburn gave him £80, and "The Milesian Chief," all full of horrors and
misty grandeur. These works did not bring him in much money; but, in
1815, he determined to win the height of dramatic fame in his "Bertram;
or, the Castle of St. Aldebrand," a tragedy. He submitted the drama to
Walter Scott, as from an "obscure Irishman," telling him of his
sufferings as an author and the father of a family, and imploring his
kind opinion. Scott replied in the most friendly manner, gave him much
good advice, spoke of the work as "grand and powerful, the characters
being sketched with masterly enthusiasm"; and, what was practically
better, sent him £50 as a token of his esteem and sympathy, and as a
temporary stop-gap until better times came round. He moreover called the
attention of Lord Byron, then on the Committee of Management of Drury
Lane Theatre, to the play, and his Lordship strongly recommended a
performance of it. Thanks to the splendid acting of Kean, it succeeded,
and Maturin realized about £1,000.
"Bertram" was published by Murray, a circumstance which brought him into
frequent communication with the unfortunate Maturin. The latter offered
more plays, more novels, and many articles for the _Quarterly_. With
reference to one of his articles--a review of Sheil's "Apostate"
--Gifford said, "A more potatoe-headed arrangement, or rather
derangement, I have never seen. I have endeavoured to bring some order
out of the chaos. There is a sort of wild eloquence in it that makes it
worth preserving."
Maturin continued to press his literary work on Murray, who however,
though he relieved him by the gift of several large sums of money,
declined all further offers of publication save the tragedy of "Manuel."
_John Murray to Lord Byron_.
_March_ 15, 1817.
"Maturin's new tragedy, 'Manuel,' appeared on Saturday last, and I am
sorry to say that the opinion of Mr. Gifford was established by the
impression made on the audience. The first act very fine, the rest
exhibiting a want of judgment not to be endured. It was brought out with
uncommon splendour, and was well acted. Kean's character as an old
man--a warrior--was new and well sustained, for he had, of course,
selected it, and professed to be--and he acted as if he were--really
pleased with it.... I have undertaken to print the tragedy at my own
expense, and to give the poor Author the whole of the profit."
In 1824 Maturin died, in Dublin, in extreme poverty.
The following correspondence introduces another great name in English
literature. It is not improbable that it was Southey who suggested to
Murray the employment of his brother-in-law, Samuel Taylor Coleridge,
from his thorough knowledge of German, as the translator of Goethe's
"Faust." The following is Mr. Coleridge's first letter to Murray:
_Mr. Coleridge to John Murray_.
JOSIAH WADE'S, Esq., 2, QUEEN'S SQUARE, BRISTOL. _[August_ 23, 1814.]
Dear Sir,
I have heard, from my friend Mr. Charles Lamb, writing by desire of Mr.
Robinson, that you wish to have the justly-celebrated "Faust" of Goethe
translated, and that some one or other of my partial friends have
induced you to consider me as the man most likely to execute the work
adequately, those excepted, of course, whose higher power (established
by the solid and satisfactory ordeal of the wide and rapid sale of their
works) it might seem profanation to employ in any other manner than in
the development of their own intellectual organization. I return my
thanks to the recommender, whoever he be, and no less to you for your
flattering faith in the recommendation; and thinking, as I do, that
among many volumes of praiseworthy German poems, the "Louisa" of Voss,
and the "Faust" of Goethe, are the two, if not the only ones, that are
emphatically _original_ in their conception, and characteristic of a new
and peculiar sort of thinking and imagining, I should not be averse from
exerting my best efforts in an attempt to import whatever is importable
of either or of both into our own language.
But let me not be suspected of a presumption of which I am not
consciously guilty, if I say that I feel two difficulties; one arising
from long disuse of versification, added to what I know, better than the
most hostile critic could inform me, of my comparative weakness; and the
other, that _any_ work in Poetry strikes me with more than common awe,
as proposed for realization by myself, because from long habits of
meditation on language, as the symbolic medium of the connection of
Thought with Thought, and of Thoughts as affected and modified by
Passion and Emotion, I should spend days in avoiding what I deemed
faults, though with the full preknowledge that their admission would not
have offended perhaps three of all my readers, and might be deemed
Beauties by 300--if so many there were; and this not out of any respect
for the Public (_i.e._ the persons who might happen to purchase and look
over the Book), but from a hobby-horsical, superstitious regard to my
own feelings and sense of Duty. Language is the sacred Fire in this
Temple of Humanity, and the Muses are its especial and vestal
Priestesses. Though I cannot prevent the vile drugs and counterfeit
Frankincense, which render its flame at once pitchy, glowing, and
unsteady, I would yet be no voluntary accomplice in the Sacrilege. With
the commencement of a PUBLIC, commences the degradation of the GOOD and
the BEAUTIFUL--both fade and retire before the accidentally AGREEABLE.
"Othello" becomes a hollow lip-worship; and the "CASTLE SPECTRE," or any
more recent thing of Froth, Noise, and Impermanence, that may have
overbillowed it on the restless sea of curiosity, is the _true_ Prayer
of Praise and Admiration.
I thought it right to state to you these opinions of mine, that you
might know that I think the Translation of the "Faust" a task demanding
(from _me_, I mean), no ordinary efforts--and why? This--that it is
painful, very painful, and even odious to me, to attempt anything of a
literary nature, with any motive of _pecuniary_ advantage; but that I
bow to the all-wise Providence, which has made me a _poor_ man, and
therefore compelled me by other duties inspiring feelings, to bring
_even my Intellect to the Market_. And the finale is this. I should like
to attempt the Translation. If you will mention your terms, at once and
irrevocably (for I am an idiot at bargaining, and shrink from the very
thought), I will return an answer by the next Post, whether in my
present circumstances, I can or cannot undertake it. If I do, I will do
it immediately; but I must have all Goethe's works, which I cannot
procure in Bristol; for to give the "Faust" without a preliminary
critical Essay would be worse than nothing, as far as regards the
PUBLIC. If you were to ask me as a Friend, whether I think it would suit
_the General Taste_, I should reply that I cannot calculate on caprice
and accident (for instance, some fashionable man or review happening to
take it up favourably), but that otherwise my fears would be stronger
than my hopes. Men of genius will admire it, of necessity. Those most,
who think deepest and most imaginatively. The "Louisa" would delight
_all_ of good hearts.
I remain, dear Sir, With due respect, S.T. COLERIDGE.
To this letter Mr. Murray replied as follows:
_John Murray to Mr. Coleridge_.
_August_ 29, 1814.
Dear Sir,
I feel greatly obliged by the favour of your attention to the request
which I had solicited our friend Mr. Robinson to make to you for the
translation of Goethe's extraordinary drama of "Faust," which I suspect
that no one could do justice to besides yourself. It will be the first
attempt to render into classical English a German work of peculiar but
certainly of unquestionable Genius; and you must allow that its effects
upon the public must be doubtful. I am desirous however of making the
experiment, and this I would not do under a less skilful agent than the
one to whom I have applied. I am no less anxious that you should
receive, as far as I think the thing can admit, a fair remuneration; and
trusting that you will not undertake it unless you feel disposed to
execute the labour perfectly _con amore_, and in a style of
versification equal to "Remorse," I venture to propose to you the sum of
One Hundred Pounds for the Translation and the preliminary Analysis,
with such passages translated as you may judge proper of the works of
Goethe, with a copy of which I will have the pleasure of supplying you
as soon as I have your final determination. The sum which I mention
shall be paid to you in two months from the day on which you place the
complete Translation and Analysis in my hands; this will allow a
reasonable time for your previous correction of the sheets through the
press. I shall be glad to hear from you by return of Post, if
convenient, as I propose to set out this week for the Continent. If this
work succeeds, I am in hopes that it will lead to many similar
undertakings.
With sincere esteem, I am, dear Sir, Your faithful Servant, J. Murray
I should hope that it might not prove inconvenient to you to complete
the whole for Press in the course of November next.
Mr. Coleridge replied as follows, from the same address:
_Mr. Coleridge to John Murray_.
_August_ 31, 1814.
Dear Sir,
I have received your letter. Considering the necessary labour, and (from
the questionable nature of the original work, both as to its fair claims
to Fame--the diction of the good and wise according to unchanging
principles--and as to its chance for Reputation, as an accidental result
of local and temporary taste), the risk of character on the part of the
Translator, who will assuredly have to answer for any disappointment of
the reader, the terms proposed are humiliatingly low; yet such as, under
modifications, I accede to. I have received testimonials from men not
merely of genius according to my belief, but of the highest accredited
reputation, that my translation of "Wallenstein" was in language and in
metre superior to the original, and the parts most admired were
substitutions of my own, on a principle of compensation. Yet the whole
work went for waste-paper. I was abused--nay, my own remarks in the
Preface were transferred to a Review, as the Reviewer's sentiments
_against_ me, without even a hint that he had copied them from my own
Preface. Such was the fate of "Wallenstein"! And yet I dare appeal to
any number of men of Genius--say, for instance, Mr. W. Scott, Mr.
Southey, Mr. Wordsworth, Mr. Wilson, Mr. Sotheby, Sir G. Beaumont, etc.,
whether the "Wallenstein" with all its defects (and it has grievous
defects), is not worth all Schiller's other plays put together. But I
wonder not. It was _too_ good, and not good enough; and the advice of
the younger Pliny: "Aim at pleasing either _all_, or _the few,"_ is as
prudentially good as it is philosophically accurate. I wrote to Mr.
Longman before the work was published, and foretold its fate, even to a
detailed accuracy, and advised him to put up with the loss from the
purchase of the MSS and of the Translation, as a much less evil than the
publication. I went so far as to declare that its success was, in the
state of public Taste, impossible; that the enthusiastic admirers of
"The Robbers," "Cabal and Love," etc., would lay the blame on me; and
that he himself would suspect that if he had only lit on _another_
Translator then, etc. Everything took place as I had foretold, even his
own feelings--so little do Prophets gain from the fulfilment of their
Prophecies!
On the other hand, though I know that executed as alone I can or dare do
it--that is, to the utmost of my power (for which the intolerable Pain,
nay the far greater Toil and Effort of doing otherwise, is a far safer
Pledge than any solicitude on my part concerning the approbation of the
PUBLIC), the translation of so very difficult a work as the "Faustus,"
will be most inadequately remunerated by the terms you propose; yet they
very probably are the highest it may be worth your while to offer to
_me_. I say this as a philosopher; for, though I have now been much
talked of, and written of, for evil and not for good, but for suspected
capability, yet none of my works have ever sold. The "Wallenstein" went
to the waste. The "Remorse," though acted twenty times, rests quietly on
the shelves in the second edition, with copies enough for seven years'
consumption, or seven times seven. I lost £200 by the non-payment, from
forgetfulness, and under various pretences, by "The Friend"; [Footnote:
Twenty-seven numbers of _The Friend_ were published by Coleridge at
Penrith in Cumberland in 1809-10, but the periodical proved a failure,
principally from the irregularity of its appearance. It was about this
time that he was addicted to opium-eating.] and for my poems I _did_ get
from £10 to £15. And yet, forsooth, the _Quarterly Review_ attacks me
for neglecting and misusing my powers! I do not quarrel with the
Public--all is as it must be--but surely the Public (if there be such a
Person) has no right to quarrel with _me_ for not getting into jail by
publishing what they will not read!
The "Faust," you perhaps know, is only a _Fragment_. Whether Goethe ever
will finish it, or whether it is ever his object to do so, is quite
unknown. A large proportion of the work cannot be rendered in blank
verse, but must be given in wild _lyrical_ metres; and Mr. Lamb informs
me that the Baroness de Staël has given a very unfavourable account of
the work. Still, however, I will undertake it, and that instantly, so as
to let you have the last sheet by the middle of November, on the
following terms:
1. That on the delivery of the last MS. sheet you remit 100 guineas to
Mrs. Coleridge, or Mr. Robert Southey, at a bill of five weeks. 2. That
I, or my widow or family, may, any time after two years from the first
publication, have the privilege of reprinting it in any collection of
all my poetical writings, or of my works in general, which set off with
a Life of me, might perhaps be made profitable to my widow. And 3rd,
that if (as I long ago meditated) I should re-model the whole, give it a
finale, and be able to bring it, thus re-written and re-cast, on the
stage, it shall not be considered as a breach of the engagement between
us, I on my part promising that you shall, for an equitable
consideration, have the copy of this new work, either as a separate
work, or forming a part of the same volume or both, as circumstances may
dictate to you. When I say that I am confident that in this _possible_
and not probable case, I should not repeat or retain one fifth of the
original, you will perceive that I consult only my dread of appearing
to act amiss, as it would be even more easy to compose the whole anew.
If these terms suit you I will commence the Task as soon as I receive
Goethe's works from you. If you could procure Goethe's late Life of
himself, which extends but a short way, or any German biographical work
of the Germans living, it would enable me to render the preliminary
Essay more entertaining.
Respectfully, dear Sir,
S.T. COLERIDGE.
Mr. Murray's reply to this letter has not been preserved. At all events,
nothing further was done by Coleridge with respect to the translation of
"Faust," which is to be deplored, as his exquisite and original melody
of versification might have produced a translation almost as great as
the original.
Shortly after Coleridge took up his residence with the Gillmans at
Highgate, and his intercourse with Murray recommenced. Lord Byron, while
on the managing committee of Drury Lane Theatre, had been instrumental
in getting Coleridge's "Remorse" played upon the stage, as he
entertained a great respect for its author. He was now encouraging Mr.
Murray to publish other works by Coleridge--among others, "Zapolya" and
"Christabel."
On April 12, 1816, Coleridge gave the following lines to Mr. Murray,
written in his own hand: [Footnote: The "Song, by Glycine" was first
published in "Zapolya: A Christmas Tale," 1817, Part II., Act ii., Scene
I. It was set to music by W. Patten in 1836; and again, with the title
"May Song," in 1879, by B.H. Loehr.]
GLYCINE: Song.
"A sunny shaft did I behold,
From sky to earth it slanted,
And pois'd therein a Bird so bold--
Sweet bird! thou wert enchanted!
He sank, he rose, he twinkled, he troll'd,
Within that shaft of sunny mist:
His Eyes of Fire, his Beak of Gold,
All else of Amethyst!
And thus he sang: Adieu! Adieu!
Love's dreams prove seldom true.
Sweet month of May! we must away!
Far, far away!
Today! today!"
In the following month (May 8, 1816) Mr. Coleridge offered Mr. Murray
his "Remorse" for publication, with a Preface. He also offered his poem
of "Christabel," still unfinished. For the latter Mr. Murray agreed to
give him seventy guineas, "until the other poems shall be completed,
when the copyright shall revert to the author," and also £20 for
permission to publish the poem entitled "Kubla Khan."
Next month (June 6) Murray allowed Coleridge £50 for an edition of
"Zapolya: A Christmas Tale," which was then in MS.; and he also
advanced him another £50 for a play which was still to be written.
"Zapolya" was afterwards entrusted to another publisher (Rest Fenner),
and Coleridge repaid Murray £50. Apparently (see _letter_ of March 29,
1817) Murray very kindly forewent repayment of the second advance of
£50. There was, of course, no obligation to excuse a just debt, but the
three issues of "Christabel" had resulted in a net profit of a little
over £100 to the publisher.
_Mr. Coleridge to John Murray_.
HIGHGATE, _July_ 4, 1816.
I have often thought that there might be set on foot a review of old
books, _i.e.,_ of all works important or remarkable, the authors of
which are deceased, with a probability of a tolerable sale, if only the
original _plan_ were a good one, and if no articles were admitted but
from men who understood and recognized the Principles and Rules of
Criticism, which should form the first number. I would not take the
works chronologically, but according to the likeness or contrast of the
_kind_ of genius--_ex. gr_. Jeremy Taylor, Milton (his prose works), and
Burke--Dante and Milton--Scaliger and Dr. Johnson. Secondly, if
especial attention were paid to all men who had produced, or aided in
producing, any great revolution in the Taste or opinions of an age, as
Petrarch, Ulrich von Hutten, etc. (here I will dare risk the charge of
self-conceit by referring to my own parallel of Voltaire and Erasmus, of
Luther and Rousseau in the seventh number of "The Friend "). Lastly, if
proper care was taken that in every number of the _Review_ there should
be a fair proportion of positively _amusing_ matter, such as a review of
Paracelsus, Cardan, Old Fuller; a review of Jest Books, tracing the
various metempsychosis of the same joke through all ages and countries;
a History of Court Fools, for which a laborious German has furnished
ample and highly interesting materials; foreign writers, though alive,
not to be excluded, if only their works are of established character in
their own country, and scarcely heard of, much less translated, in
English literature. Jean Paul Richter would supply two or three
delightful articles.
Any works which should fall in your way respecting the Jews since the
destruction of the Temple, I should of course be glad to look through.
Above all, Mezeray's (no! that is not the name, I think) "History of the
Jews," that I _must_ have.
I shall be impatient for the rest of Mr. Frere's sheets. Most
unfeignedly can I declare that I am unable to decide whether the
_admiration_ which the _excellence_ inspires, or the wonder which the
knowledge of the countless _difficulties_ so happily overcome, never
ceases to excite in my mind during the re-perusal and collation of them
with the original Greek, be the greater. I have not a moment's
hesitation in fixing on Mr. Frere as the man of the correctest and most
genial taste among all our contemporaries whom I have ever met with,
personally or in their works. Should choice or chance lead you to sun
and air yourself on Highgate Hill during any of your holiday excursions,
my worthy friend and his amiable and accomplished wife will be happy to
see you. We dine at four, and drink tea at six.
Yours, dear Sir, respectfully, S.T. COLERIDGE.
Mr. Murray did not accept Mr. Coleridge's proposal to publish his works
in a collected form or his articles for the _Quarterly_, as appears from
the following letter:
_Mr. Coleridge to John Murray_.
HIGHGATE, _March_ 26, 1817.
DEAR SIR,
I cannot be offended by your opinion that my talents are not adequate to
the requisites of matter and manner for the _Quarterly Review,_ nor
should I consider it as a disgrace to fall short of Robert Southey in
any department of literature. I owe, however, an honest gratification to
the conversation between you and Mr. Gillman, for I read Southey's
article, on which Mr. Gillman and I have, it appears, formed very
different opinions. It is, in my judgment, a very masterly article.
[Footnote: This must have been Southey's article on Parliamentary Reform
in No. 31, which, though due in October 1816, was not, published until
February 1817.] I would to heaven, my dear sir, that the opinions of
Southey, Walter Scott, Lord Byron, Mr. Frere, and of men like these in
learning and genius, concerning my comparative claims to be a man of
letters, were to be received as the criterion, instead of the wretched,
and in deed and in truth mystical jargon of the _Examiner_ and
_Edinburgh Review_.
Mr. Randall will be so good as to repay you the £50, and I understand
from Mr. Gillman that you are willing to receive this as a settlement
respecting the "Zapolya." The corrections and additions to the two first
books of the "Christabel" may become of more value to you when the work
is finished, as I trust it will be in the course of the spring, than
they are at present. And let it not be forgotten, that while I had the
utmost malignity of personal enmity to cry down the work, with the
exception of Lord Byron, there was not one of the many who had so many
years together spoken so warmly in its praise who gave it the least
positive furtherance after its publication. It was openly asserted that
the _Quarterly Review_ did not wish to attack it, but was ashamed to say
a word in its favor. Thank God! these things pass from me like drops
from a duck's back, except as far as they take the bread out of my
mouth; and this I can avoid by consenting to publish only for the
_present_ times whatever I may write. You will be so kind as to
acknowledge the receipt of the £50 in such manner as to make all matters
as clear between us as possible; for, though you, I am sure, could not
have intended to injure my character, yet the misconceptions, and
perhaps misrepresentations, of your words have had that tendency. By a
letter from R. Southey I find that he will be in town on the 17th. The
article in Tuesday's _Courier_ was by me, and two other articles on
Apostacy and Renegadoism, which will appear this week.
Believe me, with respect, your obliged,
S.T. COLERIDGE.
The following letter completes Coleridge's correspondence with Murray on
this subject:
_Mr. Coleridge to John Murray_.
[Highgate], _March_ 29, 1817.
Dear Sir,
From not referring to the paper dictated by yourself, and signed by me
in your presence, you have wronged yourself in the receipt you have been
so good as to send me, and on which I have therefore written as
follows--"A mistake; I am still indebted to Mr. Murray £20 _legally_
(which I shall pay the moment it is in my power), and £30 from whatever
sum I may receive from the 'Christabel' when it is finished. Should Mr.
Murray decline its publication, I conceive myself bound _in honor_ to
repay." I strive in vain to discover any single act or expression of my
own, or for which I could be directly or indirectly responsible as a
moral being, that would account for the change in your mode of thinking
respecting me. But with every due acknowledgment of the kindness and
courtesy that I received from you on my first coming to town,
I remain, dear Sir, your obliged, S.T. COLERIDGE.
Leigh Hunt was another of Murray's correspondents. When the _Quarterly_
was started, Hunt, in his Autography, says that "he had been invited,
nay pressed by the publisher, to write in the new Review, which
surprised me, considering its politics and the great difference of my
own." Hunt adds that he had no doubt that the invitation had been made
at the instance of Gifford himself. Murray had a high opinion of Hunt as
a critic, but not as a politician. Writing to Walter Scott in 1810 he
said:
_John Murray to Mr. Scott_,
"Have you got or seen Hunt's critical essays, prefixed to a few novels
that he edited. Lest you should not, I send them. Hunt is most vilely
wrongheaded in politics, and has thereby been turned away from the path
of elegant criticism, which might have led him to eminence and
respectability."
Hunt was then, with his brother, joint editor of the _Examiner_, and
preferred writing for the newspaper to contributing articles to the
_Quarterly_.
On Leigh Hunt's release from Horsemonger Lane Gaol, where he had been
imprisoned for his libel on the Prince Regent, he proceeded, on the
strength of his reputation, to compose the "Story of Rimini," the
publication of which gave the author a place among the poets of the day.
He sent a portion of the manuscript to Mr. Murray before the poem was
finished, saying that it would amount to about 1,400 lines. Hunt then
proceeded (December 18, 1815) to mention the terms which he proposed to
be paid for his work when finished. "Booksellers," he said, "tell me
that I ought not to ask less than £450 (which is a sum I happen to want
just now); and my friends, not in the trade, say I ought not to ask less
than £500, with such a trifling acknowledgment upon the various editions
after the second and third, as shall enable me to say that I am still
profiting by it."
Mr. Murray sent his reply to Hunt through their common friend, Lord
Byron:
_John Murray to Lord Byron_.
_December_ 27, 1815.
"I wish your lordship to do me the favour to look at and to consider
with your usual kindness the accompanying note to Mr. Leigh Hunt
respecting his poem, for which he requests £450. This would presuppose a
sale of, at least, 10,000 copies. Now, if I may trust to my own
experience in these matters, I am by no means certain that the sale
would do more than repay the expenses of paper and print. But the poem
is peculiar, and may be more successful than I imagine, in which event
the proposition which I have made to the author will secure to him all
the advantages of such a result, I trust that you will see in this an
anxious desire to serve Mr. Hunt, although as a mere matter of business
I cannot avail myself of his offer. I would have preferred calling upon
you today were I not confined by a temporary indisposition; but I think
you will not be displeased at a determination founded upon the best
judgment I can form of my own business. I am really uneasy at your
feelings in this affair, but I think I may venture to assume that you
know me sufficiently well to allow me to trust my decision entirely to
your usual kindness."
_John Murray to Mr. Leigh Hunt_.
_December_ 27, 1815.
"I have now read the MS. poem, which you confided to me, with particular
attention, and find that it differs so much from any that I have
published that I am fearful of venturing upon the extensive speculation
to which your estimate would carry it. I therefore wish that you would
propose its publication and purchase to such houses as Cadell, Longman,
Baldwin, Mawman, etc., who are capable of becoming and likely to become
purchasers, and then, should you not have found any arrangement to your
mind, I would undertake to print an edition of 500 or 750 copies as a
trial at my own risk, and give you one half of the profits. After this
edition the copyright shall be entirely your own property. By this
arrangement, in case the work turn out a prize, as it may do, I mean
that you should have every advantage of its success, for its popularity
once ascertained, I am sure you will find no difficulty in procuring
purchasers, even if you should be suspicious of my liberality from this
specimen of fearfulness in the first instance. I shall be most happy to
assist you with any advice which my experience in these matters may
render serviceable to you."
Leigh Hunt at once accepted the offer.
After the poem was printed and published, being pressed for money, he
wished to sell the copyright. After a recitation of his pecuniary
troubles, Hunt concluded a lengthy letter as follows:
"What I wanted to ask you then is simply this--whether, in the first
instance, you think well enough of the "Story of Rimini" to make you
bargain with me for the copyright at once; or, in the second instance,
whether, if you would rather wait a little, as I myself would do, I
confess, if it were convenient, you have still enough hopes of the work,
and enough reliance on myself personally, to advance me £450 on
security, to be repaid in case you do not conclude the bargain, or
merged in the payment of the poem in case you do."
Mr. Murray's reply was not satisfactory, as will be observed from the
following letter of Leigh Hunt:
_Mr. Leigh Hunt to John Murray_,
_April_ 12, 1816.
Dear Sir,
I just write to say something which I had omitted in my last, and to add
a word or two on the subject of an expression in your answer to it. I
mean the phrase "plan of assistance." I do not suppose that you had the
slightest intention of mortifying me by that phrase; but I should wish
to impress upon you, that I did not consider my application to you as
coming in the shape of what is ordinarily termed an application for
assistance. Circumstances have certainly compelled me latterly to make
requests, and resort to expedients, which, however proper in themselves,
I would not willingly have been acquainted with; but I have very good
prospects before me, and you are mistaken (I beg you to read this in the
best and most friendly tone you can present to yourself) if you have at
all apprehended that I should be in the habit of applying to you for
assistance, or for anything whatsoever, for which I did not conceive the
work in question to be more than a security.
I can only say, with regard to yourself, that I am quite contented and
ought to be so, as long as you are sincere with me, and treat me in the
same gentlemanly tone.
Very sincerely yours,
LEIGH HUNT.
This negotiation was ultimately brought to a conclusion by Mr. Hunt, at
Mr. Murray's suggestion, disposing of the copyright of "Rimini" to
another publisher.