| ( 392 ) |
Lord Byron informed Mr. Murray, on the 12th of October, 1817, that he had written “a poem in or after the excellent manner of Mr. Whistlecraft (whom I take to be Frere);” and in a subsequent letter he said, “Mr. Whistlecraft has no greater admirer than myself. I have written a story in eighty-nine stanzas in imitation of him, called ‘Beppo,’ the short name for Giuseppe, that is the Joe, of the Italian Joseph.” Lord Byron required that it should be printed anonymously, and in any form that Mr. Murray pleased. The manuscript of the poem was not, however, sent off until the beginning of 1818; and it reached the publisher about a month later. When it was set up in type and published, Mr. Murray sent Lord Byron the following letter:—
Having waited, from day to day, in the incessant expectation
of the opportunity of sending my letters and various packages by Hanson’s clerk, I gathered from
Mr. Hobhouse yesterday the continued
uncertainty of his setting out, but I can therefore delay no longer to thank
you, in the first instance, for your several kind as well as entertaining
letters. Mr. Hobhouse told me yesterday that
Hanson had not yet been paid any sums upon your
account by your bankers; and I have therefore sent this morning to Messrs.
Ransom, Morland, and Co. a
thousand guineas,
| ‘BEPPO.’ | 393 |
Mr. Frere is at length satisfied that you are the author of ‘Beppo.’ He had no conception that you possessed the protean talent of Shakespeare, thus to assume at will so different a character. He, and every one, continues in the same very high opinion of its great beauties. I am glad to find that you are disposed to pursue this strain, which has occasioned so much delight. Do you never think of prose?
* The proprietor of the Apollo Library and the principal publisher and bookseller in Venice, to whom Lord Byron gave an introduction to Murray, April 12, 1818. See Moore’s Life. |
| 394 | MEMOIRS OF JOHN MURRAY |
* Of the Fourth Canto of ‘Childe Harold.’ |
| DEATH OF MONK LEWIS. | 395 |
Mr. Murray’s next letter to Lord Byron was:—
I do assure you I have rarely greater pleasure than when I am addressing you, unless it be when I am honoured by the favour of a letter from you. Latterly, I conceived that Mr. Hobhouse had been so constantly in communication with you that my omissions would not have been heeded, but I implore forgiveness, and will be less remiss in future.
I assure you that the success of the fourth canto has been equal to either of the former volumes. It is more desultory, as Gifford said at first, but the parts taken separately are each and all considered equal, and in some instances surpassing, anything preceding them. No critique of note has yet appeared upon the poem, but if anything able on the subject appears I shall instantly send it to you.
You will have read with surprise and regret an account of the death of your friend Monk Lewis† on his return from a second voyage to the West Indies. He sent me his MS. notes upon the place to read, and very curious
* The answer to this letter, under date July 10, 1818, is printed in Moore’s Life. |
† Matthew Gregory Lewis, commonly called “Monk” Lewis, after the title of his first novel. He had just died at the age of forty-two. |
| 396 | MEMOIRS OF JOHN MURRAY |
May I hope that you will favour me with some work to open my campaign in November with! Have you not another lively tale like ‘Beppo’? or will you not give me some prose in three volumes?—all the adventures that you have undergone, seen, heard of, or imagined, with your reflections on life and manners. Do tell me that I may at any rate expect something by the end of September. There will be three more volumes of ‘Tales of my Landlord’ this month, which I will convey to you as speedily as possible, with Madame de Staël’s new work, ‘Sur la Révolution Française,’ which has fallen almost stillborn from the press. It is by no means good.
Lord Byron, in the midst of his Venetian and Ravenna life, seems to have forgotten his sister, Mrs. Leigh, who was much in want of ready cash about this time, and frequently applied to Mr. Murray, and from him obtained what she needed. In one of her letters she writes:—
I return the Edinburgh Review, with a thousand thanks for your kindness in lending it to me. It will surely please him (Byron) whom it most concerns. I enclose a stupid letter from him, and I think you had better be silent on the subject of his silence to me. After all, regrets are
and in Byron’s ‘Detached Thoughts’ is an account of him concluding thus: “Poor fellow! he died—a martyr to his new riches—of a second visit to Jamaica.” |
| MURRAY AT ABBOTSFORD. | 397 |
Mr. Murray writes again:—
I was much pleased to find, on my arrival from Edinburgh on Saturday night, your letter of the 26th of August. The former one of the 21st I received whilst in Scotland. The Saturday and Sunday previous I passed most delightfully with Walter Scott, who was incessant in his inquiries after your welfare. He entertains the noblest sentiments of regard towards you, and speaks of you with the best feelings. I walked about ten miles with him round a very beautiful estate, which he has purchased by degrees, within two miles of his favourite Melrose. He has nearly completed the centre and one wing of a castle on the banks of the Tweed, where he is the happiness as well as pride of the whole neighbourhood. He is one of the most hospitable, merry, and entertaining of mortals. He would, I am confident, do anything to serve you; and as the paper* which I now enclose is a second substantial proof of the interest he takes in your literary character, perhaps it may naturally enough afford occasion for a letter from you to him. I sent you by Mr. Hanson four volumes of a second series of ‘Tales of my Landlord,’ and four others are actually in the press. Scott does not yet avow them, but no one doubts his being their author. I should have much liked to see how you look in a full suit of prose; and the slight drapery which you have occasionally put on affords a very promising specimen. I regret, of course, your procrastination of the Memoir; but this is a subject of delicacy which should be regulated entirely by your own feelings; but the ‘Tales’* I yet hope the spirit may move
* The Review of the fourth Canto of ‘Childe Harold,’ Q. R., No. 37. |
| 398 | MEMOIRS OF JOHN MURRAY |
The following letter is inserted here, as it does not appear in Moore’s ‘Biography’:—
Mr. Hanson has been here a week, and went five days ago. He brought nothing but his papers, some corn-
* Byron had written to Mr. Murray telling him that he “had several things begun, verse and prose,” that “the ‘Tales’ also are in an unfinished state. I can fix no time for their completion: they are not in the best manner.” |
† Dr. Aglietti, who was collecting these letters for publication. |
| BYRON’S OPINION OF SOUTHEY. | 399 |
Lord Lauderdale set off from hence twelve days ago accompanied by a cargo of Poesy directed to Mr. Hobhouse, all spick and span, and in MS.; you will see what it is like. I have given it to Master Southey, and he shall have more before I have done with him.
You may make what I say here as public as you please, more particularly to Southey, whom I look upon—and will say so publicly—to be a dirty, lying rascal, and will prove it in ink—or in his blood, if I did not believe him to be too much of a poet to risk it! If he has forty reviews at his back, as he has the Quarterly, I would have at him in his scribbling capacity now that he has begun with me; but I will do nothing underhand; tell him what I say from me and every one else you please.
You will see what I have said, if the parcel arrives safe. I understand Coleridge went about repeating Southey’s lie with pleasure. I can believe it, for I had done him what is called a favour. . . . I can understand Coleridge’s abusing me—but how or why Southey, whom I had never obliged in any sort of way, or done him the remotest service, should go about fibbing and calumniating is more than I readily comprehend. Does he think to put me down with his Canting, not being able to do it with his poetry? We will try the question. I have read his review of Hunt, where he has attacked Shelley in an oblique and shabby manner. Does he know what that review has done? I will tell you; it has sold an edition of the ‘Revolt of Islam’ which otherwise nobody would have thought of reading, and few who read can understand, I for one.
Southey would have attacked me too there, if he durst, further than by hints about Hunt’s friends in general, and some outcry about an “Epicurean System” carried on by
* Of ‘Childe Harold.’ |
| 400 | MEMOIRS OF JOHN MURRAY |
I got some books a few weeks ago—many thanks. Amongst them is Israeli’s new edition; it was not fair in you to show him my copy of his former one, with all the marginal notes and nonsense made in Greece when I was not two-and-twenty, and which certainly were not meant for his perusal, nor for that of his readers. I have a great respect for Israeli and his talents, and have read his works over and over and over repeatedly, and been amused by them greatly, and instructed often. Besides, I hate giving pain, unless provoked; and he is an author, and must feel like his brethren; and although his Liberality repaid my marginal flippancies with a compliment—the highest compliment—that don’t reconcile me to myself—nor to you. It was a breach of confidence to do this without my leave; I don’t know a living man’s book I take up so often or lay down more reluctantly than Israeli’s, and I never will forgive you—that is, for many weeks. If he had got out of humour I should have been less sorry; but even then I should have been sorry; but really he has heaped his “coals of fire” so handsomely upon my head that they burn unquenchably.
You ask me of the two reviews*—I will tell you. Scott’s is the review of one poet on another—his friend; Wilson’s, the review of a poet too, on another—his Idol; for he likes me better than he chooses to avow to the public with all his eulogy. I speak judging only from the article, for I don’t know him personally.
Here is a long letter—can you read it?
|
* Of ‘Childe Harold’ in the Quarterly and the Edinburgh. |
| COMMENCEMENT OF ‘DON JUAN.’ | 401 |
In the course of September, 1818, Lord Byron communicated to Mr. Moore that he had finished the first canto of a poem in the style and manner of ‘Beppo.’ “It is called,” he said, “‘Don Juan,’ and is meant to be a little quietly facetious upon everything; but,” he added, “I doubt whether it is not—at least so far as it has yet gone—too free for these very modest days.” In January, 1819, Lord Byron requested Mr. Murray to print for private distribution fifty copies of ‘Don Juan.” Mr. Murray urged him to occupy himself with some great work worthy of his reputation. “This you have promised to Gifford long ago, and to Hobhouse and Kinnaird since.” Lord Byron, however, continued to write out his ‘Don Juan,’ and sent the second canto in April, 1819, together with the ‘Letter of Julia,” to be inserted in the first canto.
Mr. Murray, in acknowledging the receipt of the first and second cantos, was not so congratulatory as he had formerly been. The verses contained, no doubt, some of the author’s finest poetry, but he had some objections to suggest. “I think,” he said, “you may modify or substitute other words for the lines on Romilly, whose death should save him.” But Byron entertained an extreme detestation for Romilly, because, he said, he had been “one of my assassins,” and had sacrificed him on “his legal altar”; and the verse* was allowed to stand over. “Your history,” wrote Murray, “of the plan of the progress of ‘Don Juan’ is very entertaining, but I am clear for sending him to hell, because he may favour us with a description of some of the characters whom he finds there.” Mr. Murray suggested the removal of some offensive words in Canto II. “These,” he said, “ladies may not read; the Shipwreck is a little
* St. 15, First Canto. |
| 402 | MEMOIRS OF JOHN MURRAY |
From the following letter we see that Mr. Murray continued his remonstrances:—
I find that ‘Julia’s Letter’ has been safely received, and is with the printer. The whole remainder of the second canto will be sent by Friday’s post. The inquiries after its appearance are not a few. Pray use your most tasteful discretion so as to wrap up or leave out certain approximations to indelicacy.
Mr. Douglas Kinnaird, who was entrusted with the business portion of this transaction, wrote to Mr. Murray:—
Since I had the pleasure of seeing you, I have received from
Lord Byron a letter in which he
expresses himself as having left to Mr.
Hobhouse and myself the sole and whole discretion and duty of
settling with the publisher of the MSS. which are now in your hands, the
consideration
| ‘MAZEPPA,’ ‘DON JUAN,’ ETC. | 403 |
The parties met, and Mr. Murray agreed to give £525 for ‘Mazeppa,’ and £1575 for the first and second cantos of ‘Don Juan,’ with ‘The Ode to Venice’ thrown in These terms were considered satisfactory, and Mr. Murray proceeded with the publication of the works. ‘Mazeppa’ came out first; and, being published with Lord Byron’s name on the title-page, that “lively, spirited, and pleasant tale,” as Gifford described it on the margin of the MS., proved exceedingly successful.
In accordance with Lord Byron’s directions to his publisher to “keep the anonymous,” Cantos I. and II. of ‘Don Juan’ appeared in London, in quarto, in July, 1819, without the name of either author, publisher, or bookseller. The book was immediately pounced upon by the critics; but it is unnecessary to quote their reviews, as they are impartially given in the latest accredited editions of Lord Byron’s poems. We may, however, give a few of those less known, from Mr. Murray’s intimate friends.
“Lord B.’s letter is shockingly amusing.* He must be mad; but then there’s method in his madness. I dread,
* Probably that written in May; printed in the ‘Life.’ |
| 404 | MEMOIRS OF JOHN MURRAY |
On ‘Don Juan’ being published, Gifford again wrote to Murray from Ryde:—
“How goes on, or rather how goes off, the Don? I read the second canto this morning, and lost all patience at seeing so much beauty so wantonly and perversely disfigured. A little care, and a little wish to do right, would have made this a superlative thing. As it is, it is better than any other could have done; but this is poor praise for Lord Byron. What a store of shame and sorrow is he laying up for himself! I never much admired the vaunt of Draconianism, ‘And all this I dare do, because I dare,’ yet what but this is Lord Byron’s plea!”
Mr. Murray, who was still in communication with Mr. Blackwood, found that he refused to sell ‘Don Juan,’ because it contained personalities which he regarded as even more objectionable than those of which Murray had complained in the Magazine.
“I received this morning by the coach 25 copies of ‘Don Juan,’ but without any letter to
tell me who had sent them. I am sorry to say it is a book which I could not sell on any
account whatever. I have therefore laid the copies aside till I receive directions
whether I shall send them back, or deliver them to any one else. Had I not received a
copy two days ago for the Magazine, I should probably not have had time to have looked at
it, but have sold the copies to-day, without thinking about the matter. I hope you
| OUTCRY AGAINST ‘DON JUAN.’ | 405 |
Miss Jane Waldie wrote to Mr. Murray: “Why will Lord Byron write what we may not read? The world says that you are the publisher of ‘Don Juan,’ though not nominally so. Is this true?” On the other hand, Lady Caroline Lamb informed Murray: “You cannot think how clever I think ‘Don Juan’ is, in my heart.” The poem was severely criticised, but this only increased the public interest in it, and as it bore no name, and was therefore not copyright, it was republished in cheap editions by the pirates.
“What a tremendous attack on your friend Byron in Blackwood! If he has any feeling it must be daggers to him, but I believe he is callous to every feeling except such as we imagine demons to feel. The Quarterly, I suppose, however, will not touch him; or, if so, touch his graceful locks and blue eyes with great tenderness.”
When the copyright of ‘Don Juan’ was infringed by other publishers, it became necessary to take steps to protect it at law, and Mr. Sharon Turner was consulted on the subject. An injunction was applied for in Chancery, and the course of the negotiation will be best ascertained from the following letters:—
. . . On ‘Don
Juan’ I have much apprehension. I had from the beginning, and
therefore advised the separate
| 406 | MEMOIRS OF JOHN MURRAY |
Mr. Bell gave his opinion that the Court would not afford protection to the book, which, however, he admitted that he had not had time to study.
The next letter relates to the opinion of Mr. Shadwell, afterwards Vice-Chancellor:—
|
* In the case of Wat Tyler, see Murray’s letter to Byron in preceding chapter, April 12th, 1817. |
| COPYRIGHT OF ‘DON JUAN.’ | 407 |
I saw Mr. Shadwell to-day on ‘Don Juan.’ He has gone through the book with more attention than Mr. Bell had time to do. He desires me to say that he does not think the Chancellor would refuse an injunction, or would overturn it if obtained. He thinks that the passages are not of such a nature as to overturn the property of it. He has expressed to me his opinion so strongly on this point that I thought it right to mention it to you, because he is a very conscientious man. He says, “I cannot of course answer for the event, but it is my full belief that the passages will not prevent the Chancellor from suppressing the piracy.” He says it should certainly be brought forward by yourself. Judge now for yourself. Shall I have a consultation between him and Horne on the subject, for you to attend? Horne is our first man now before the Chancellor. Or will you try it without this, or abandon it?
The last letter from Mr. Turner to Mr. Murray on the same subject was dated a few days after the above:—
The truth about ‘Don Juan’ seems to be this. Shadwell, in settling the bill with
Downer’s name, went carefully through the poem.
He afterwards took it with him to Westminster, and I think has expressed not
only his own opinion, but that of some others at the Chancery bar; for he has
apologised for not returning it to me, because S. had borrowed it. His decided
tone that the Court will not let the copyright be invaded has much struck me,
and the more because in the case of ‘Wat Tyler’ he told me that he thought
that book could not be supported. His general opinions are also not favourable
to Lord B., and his taste
| 408 | MEMOIRS OF JOHN MURRAY |
Whatever becomes of this, I think your idea of getting Lord B. to prune and replace highly laudable, provided he will do it effectually.
The injunction to restrain the publication of ‘Don Juan’ by piratical publishers was granted, but Lord Byron would not make any alterations in the poem as suggested by Mr. Murray. “With regard to the copyright, it is hard that you should pay for a nonentity. I will therefore refund it, which I can very well do, not having spent it, nor begun upon it; and so we shall be quits on that score.” It was not, however, necessary for Murray to claim an abatement of the copyright money, as he was now enabled to sell the work as before. Lord Byron was not deterred by the outcry about ‘Don Juan,’ for he informed Mr. Murray that he was proceeding with the third canto, as well as with the ‘Prophecy of Dante.’
Towards the end of 1819, Byron thought
of returning
| BYRON AND BOLIVAR. | 409 |
“If she [the Countess Guiccioli] and her husband make it up, you will perhaps see me in England sooner than you expect. If not, I will retire with her to France or America, change my name, and lead a quiet provincial life. If she gets over this, and I get over my Tertian ague, I will perhaps look in at Albemarle Street en passant to Bolivar.”
When Mr. Hobhouse, then living at Ramsbury, heard of Byron’s intention to go to South America, he wrote to Mr. Murray as follows:—
I own my delay, but I have been absent from Ramsbury some days, and immersed in the miserable provincial politics of my brother moon-rakers of this county. I have to thank you for your former communication, and for this of to-day. To be sure it is impossible that Lord B. should seriously contemplate, or, if he does, he must not expect us to encourage, this mad scheme. I do not know what in the world to say, but presume some one has been talking nonsense to him. Let Jim Perry go to Venezuela if he will—he may edit his ‘Independent Gazette’ amongst the Independents themselves, and reproduce his stale puns and politics without let or hindrance. But our poet is too good for a planter—too good to sit down before a fire made of mare’s legs, to a dinner of beef without salt and bread. It is the wildest of all his meditations—pray tell him. The plague and Yellow Jack, and famine and free quarter, besides a thousand other ills, will stare him in the face. No tooth-brushes, no corn-rubbers, no Quarterly Reviews. In short, plenty of all he abominates and nothing of all he loves. I shall write, but you can tell facts, which will be better than my arguments.
| 410 | MEMOIRS OF JOHN MURRAY |
Byron’s half-formed intention was soon abandoned, and the Countess Guiccioli’s serious illness recalled him to Ravenna, where he remained for the next year and a half.
Hobhouse’s next letter to Murray (Jan., 1820), in which he reported “Bad news from Ravenna—a great pity indeed;” it was dated Newgate, where he had been lodged in consequence of his pamphlet entitled ‘A Trifling Mistake in Thomas Lord Erskine’s Recent Pamphlet,’ containing several very strong reflections on the House of Commons as then constituted. The matter was brought under the consideration of the House (10th Dec., 1819) by Mr. Stuart Wortley (afterwards Lord Wharncliffe), when the publication of the pamphlet was declared to be a breach of privilege, and Mr. Hobhouse, who had authorized the Right Hon. Edward Ellice to declare that he was the author, was committed to Newgate, where he remained until the dissolution of Parliament in the following February.
During his imprisonment, Mr. Hobhouse was visited by Mr. Murray and Ugo Foscolo, as well as by many of his political friends. After Mr. Murray’s visit, the Countess of Bessborough (mother of Lady Caroline Lamb) wrote to him:—
“I hope your charitable visit to Newgate succeeded. I have scarcely seen Caroline to speak to since, so know nothing about it. Pray do not mention the Waldegrave manuscripts to Sir J. Mackintosh, or any one, till after my son, Col. Ponsonby, returns from Ireland when the elections are over. I think I can almost promise you that you shall have them, but as it still depends on some circumstances that cannot be quite settled until Frederick comes back, any mention of such a project beforehand might totally defeat the whole.”
| PROGRESS OF ‘DON JUAN.’ | 411 |
Lady Caroline Lamb also wrote to Mr. Murray from Brockett Hall, asking for information about Byron and Hobhouse.
You have never written to tell me about him. Now, did you know the pain and agony this has given me, you had not been so remiss. If you could come here on Wednesday for one night, I have a few people and a supper. You could come by the Mail in two hours, much swifter than even in your swift carriage; and I have one million of things to say and ask also. Do tell me how that dear Radical Hob is, and pray remember me to him. I really hope you will be here at dinner or supper on Wednesday. Your bedroom shall be ready, and you can be back in Town before most people are up, though I rise here at seven.
Yours quite disturbed my mind, for want of your telling me how he [Byron] looks, what he says, if he is grown fat, if he is no uglier than he used to be, if he is good-humoured or cross-grained, putting his brows down—if his hair curls or is straight as somebody said, if he has seen Hobhouse, if he is going to stay long, if you went to Dover as you intended, and a great deal more, which, if you had the smallest tact or aught else, you would have written long ago; for as to me, I shall certainly not see him, neither do I care he should know that I ever asked after him. It is from mere curiosity I should like to hear all you can tell me about him. Pray come here immediately.
Byron sent Murray from Ravenna (21st July, 1820) the third and fourth cantos of ‘Don Juan.’
“Recollect,” he said, “that these two cantos reckon as
only one between you and me, being, in fact, the third canto cut into two, because I
found it too long. . .. I have finished my translation of the ‘Morgante Maggiore’ of Pulci, which I will transcribe and send. . . . You
| 412 | MEMOIRS OF JOHN MURRAY |
During the summer months of 1820, Lord Byron proceeded with his tragedy of ‘Marino Faliero, Doge of Venice,’ which was finished in July 1820, and published at the end of the year. It was produced on the stage of Drury Lane Theatre in the beginning of the following year, in spite of the poet’s urgent and repeated remonstrances. It was a play, he observed, for the closet, and not for the theatre. Mr. Gifford, much to Byron’s delight, pronounced it to be “English—genuine English.” To Murray, Mr. Gifford wrote privately:—
“Lord Byron will have a pretty collection of dramas by-and-by. Let him proceed, he will do something at last. Never mind his plays not being stage-worthy; in these times it signifies not much; but he has the true dramatic turn, and fails only in his plots. If he could but get a little into the bustle of our old dramatists, absurd as it sometimes was, it would do; otherwise he must die a martyr to his simplicity and singleness. . . . After all, he is a wonderful creature. If I had him, I would keep him very carefully, and show him only on high days and holidays.”
Meanwhile, Byron proceeded with his
fifth canto of ‘Don Juan,’ which,
begun on October 16th, was finished on November 20th, 1820, that is, in little more than a
month.
| CROKER’S OPINION OF ‘DON JUAN.’ | 413 |
Notwithstanding this remarkable sale of ‘Don Juan,’ Murray hesitated about publishing any more of the cantos. After the fifth canto was published, Lord Byron informed Murray that it was “hardly the beginning of the work,” that he intended to take Don Juan through the tour of Europe, put him through the Divorce Court, and make him finish as Anacharsis Cloots in the French Revolution. Besides being influenced by his own feelings, it is possible that the following letter of Mr. Croker may have induced Mr. Murray to have nothing further to do with the work:—
I have to thank you for letting me see your two new cantos
[the 3rd and 4th], which I return. What sublimity! what levity! what boldness!
what tenderness! what majesty! what trifling! what variety! what tediousness!—for tedious to a strange degree, it
must be confessed that whole passages are, particularly the earlier stanzas of
the fourth canto. I know no man of such general powers of intellect as
Brougham, yet I think him insufferably tedious; and I fancy the
reason to be that he has such facility of expression
that he is never recalled to a selection of his
thoughts. A more costive orator would be obliged to choose, and a man of his
talents could not fail to choose the best; but the power of uttering all and
everything which passes across his mind, tempts him to say all. He goes on
without thought—I should rather say, without pause.
| 414 | MEMOIRS OF JOHN MURRAY |
As to the principles, all the
world, and you, Mr. Murray, first of
all, have done this poem great injustice. There are levities here and there,
more than good taste approves, but nothing to make such a terrible rout
about—nothing so bad as ‘Tom Jones,’ nor within a hundred
degrees of ‘Count
Fathom.’ I know that it is no justification of one fault to
produce a greater, neither am I justifying Lord
Byron. I have acquaintance none, or next to none, with him, and
of course no interest beyond what we must all take in a poet who, on the whole,
is one of the first, if not the very first, of our age; but I direct my
observations against you and those whom you deferred to. If you print and sell
‘Tom Jones’ and ‘Peregrine Pickle,’
why did you start at ‘Don
Juan’? Why smuggle it into the world and, as it were,
pronounce it illegitimate in its birth, and induce so many of the learned
rabble, when they could find so little specific offence in it, to refer to its
supposed original state as one of original sin? If instead of this you had
touched the right string and in the right place, Lord
Byron’s own good taste and good nature would have revised
and corrected some phrases in his poem which in reality disparage it more than
its imputed looseness of principle; I mean some expressions of political and
personal feelings which, I believe, he, in fact, never felt, and threw in
wantonly and de gaieté de cœur, and which he would
have omitted, advisedly and de bonté de cœur, if he had not been
goaded by indiscreet, contradictory, and urgent criticisms,
| CROKER’S OPINION OF BYRON. | 415 |
| 416 | MEMOIRS OF JOHN MURRAY |
But Byron would alter nothing more in
his ‘Don Juan.’ He accepted the
corrections of Gifford in his
‘Tragedies,’
| ‘MY BOY HOBBY O!’ | 417 |
“Who are now the People’s men? My boy Hobby O! Yourself and Burdett, Gentlemen, |
“When to the mob you make a speech, My boy Hobby O! How do you keep without their reach The watch within your fobby O?” * |
Lord Byron asked Murray to show the song not only to some of his friends—who got it by heart and had it printed in the newspapers—but also to Hobhouse himself. “I know,” said his Lordship, “that he will never forgive me, but I really have no patience with him for letting himself be put in quod by such a set of ragamuffins.” Mr. Hobhouse, however, was angry with Byron for his lampoon and with Murray for showing it to his friends. He accordingly wrote the following letter, which contains some interesting particulars of the Whig Club at Cambridge in Byron’s University days:—
I have received your letter, and return to you Lord Byron’s. I shall tell you very frankly, because I think it
* The rest of the song is printed in Murray’s Magazine, No. 3. |
| 418 | MEMOIRS OF JOHN MURRAY |
|
| HOBHOUSE’S ANNOYANCE. | 419 |
I have troubled you with this detail in consequence of Lord Byron’s charge, which he, who despises and defies, and has lampooned the Whigs all round, only invented out of wantonness, and for the sake of annoying me—and he has certainly succeeded, thanks to your circulating this filthy ballad. As for his Lordship’s vulgar notions about the mob, they are very fit for the Poet of the Morning Post, and for nobody else. Nothing in the ballad annoyed me but the charge about the Cambridge club, because nothing else had the semblance of truth; and I own it has hurt me very much to find Lord Byron playing into the hands of the Holland House sycophants, for whom he has himself the most sovereign contempt, and whom in other days I myself have tried to induce him to tolerate.
I shall say no more on this unpleasant subject except that, by a letter which I have just received from Lord Byron, I think he is ashamed of his song. I shall certainly speak as plainly to him as I have taken the liberty to do to you on this matter. He was very wanton and you very indiscreet; but I trust neither one nor the other meant mischief, and there’s an end of it. Do not aggravate matters by telling how much I have been annoyed. Lord Byron has sent me a list of his new poems and some prose, all of which he requests me to prepare for the press for him. The monied arrangement is to be made by Mr. Kinnaird. When you are ready for me, the materials may be s’ent to me at this place, where I have taken up my abode for the season.
Towards the end of 1820, Lord Byron
wrote a long letter to Mr. Murray on Mr. Bowles’s strictures on the ‘Life and Writings of Pope.’ It was
a subject perhaps unworthy of his pen, but being an ardent admirer of
Pope, he thought it his duty to “bowl him
[Bowles] down.” “I mean to lay about me,”
said Byron, “like a dragon, till I make manure of
Bowles for the top of Parnassus.”
| 420 | MEMOIRS OF JOHN MURRAY |
“It will be unsafe,” he said, “to publish it as it stands. The letter is not very refined, but it is vigorous and to the purpose. Bowles requires checking. I hope, however, that Lord B. will not continue to squander himself thus. When will he resume his majestic march, and shake the earth again?”
After some revision, the first and second letters to Bowles were published, and were well received.
The pamphlet on Bowles is deemed excellent, and is to be published on Saturday; the note on Lady M. W. Montagu, though also very good, Mr. Gifford recommends to be suppressed. The letter about the Hellespont will appear in the next London Magazine. The fatal death of its late editor, poor Scott, in a duel, you will have read of; he has left a widow, a very superior woman and two infant children, with a shilling; and a committee, of which Sir James Mackintosh is the head and your humble servant the tail, are endeavouring to form a subscription for them, and if you please I shall be glad to put your name down for £10.
The ‘Doge of Venice’ will now come out, with the ‘Prophecy of Dante,’ at a most happy time, when we are just now interested for Italy; nothing could be better; it is nearly worked off, and will be out next week.
I long to know what you propose to do; will these wars, of which our lives may not see the end, for all Europe will mingle indiscriminately,—will they bring you to England, or will Lady Noel’s death, which they tell me from good authority must immediately take place, do so?
By the way, Hobhouse
spoke to Lord Grey about the impropriety of
allowing a play, not intended for performance, to be acted on the stage.
Earl Grey spoke to
| HOBHOUSE’S LINES ON BOWLES. | 421 |
We as yet can get no certain news from Italy.
Mr. Hobhouse also had a grievance against Mr. Bowles. To Mr. Murray he wrote:—
I hear Parson Bowles goes about abusing me, relying on my forbearance, or on what he may think his vast capacity for satire. The dirty dog crouches and creeps to Lord Byron, but thinks he may safely attack me. He may find himself mistaken one day or the other. In the meantime, as he is fond of parody, he may have something in that shape which you will find overleaf.
“Should Parson Bowles
yourself or friend compare To some French cut-throat, if you please, Santerre— Or heap, malignant, on your living head The smut and trash he pour’d on Pope when dead, Say what reply—or how with him to deal— Sot without shame and fool that cannot feel? You would not parley with a printers’ hack— You cannot cane him, for his coat is black; Reproof and chastisement are idly spent On one who calls a kick a compliment. Unwhipp’d, then, leave him to lampoon and lie, Safe in his parson’s guise and infamy.” |
The tragedy of ‘Sardanapalus,’ the last three acts of which had been written in a
fortnight, was despatched to Murray, on the 30th of
May, 1821, and was within a few
| 422 | MEMOIRS OF JOHN MURRAY |
What Gifford said of Lord Byron’s works may best be shown by two extracts from his letters to Murray. The first relates to the new cantos of ‘Don Juan,’ which appeared in August, 1821; the second to the tragedy of ‘The Two Foscari.’
“What can Lord Byron propose to himself by forcing the publication of these cantos? They will not add to his fame, and this is what he should now take care of. Our friend Sir Walter makes an occasional sacrifice, but then he has a powerful motive; and besides, though he may play with his talents, he never trifles with his character. I could say more, but, alas! cui bono?”
“I knew Lord Byron would not be satisfied unless he saw himself in print. He must occupy the public eye, and all that his friends have to lament is that his taste of fame is so indiscriminate. I have often heard Lord Grosvenor say, when a young man, that he did not know the difference between boiled beef and a delicate loin of veal. Lord Byron’s case is worse.”
| CORONATION OF GEORGE IV. | 423 |
I have this day received your most obliging letter, with a packet inclosing notes for ‘Sardanapalus’ and the ‘Foscari,’ which go immediately to the printer. As you so particularly desire the immediate publication of these two tragedies it shall be done. At present Drury Lane Theatre, the most ravenous, is opened for the summer season, and therefore I presume that I am acting according to the spirit of your wishes, in having the plays ready to put forth as soon as both theatres are closed. I told you in my last what Mr. G. had said privately to me about ‘Sardanapalus.’ The two first acts of the ‘Foscari’ he thinks have more life than the first Doge. Mr. Gifford is at Ramsgate, but it is doing him no good, and I begin to entertain serious apprehensions about him, and how I am to supply his place I know not; in all my range of literary acquaintances there is not one that is the least like him in the union of so many and such variety of qualifications.
I had the good fortune to sit by Sir W. Scott in the Hall during the Coronation—a sight which I would not have missed for anything—and he declared it had infinitely surpassed all that he could have conceived possible. Scott never ceases to talk of you with the most firm regard.
I am here for a month on account of my wife’s health, which has been precarious since her late severe and dangerous illness.
I suspect Drury Lane will not close, as it has within these ten days only presented a most superb imitation of the Coronation, at a most enormous expense, and it will require a month to repay them. And the Queen’s death, too, interfered, and everybody has escaped from town. Copleston is here and Professor Monk.
| 424 | MEMOIRS OF JOHN MURRAY |
I am much delighted by your Lordship’s kind letter of the 16th of August, which allows me to hope that your rage against me [because of mistakes of the printer] has abated. The same post brings me a letter from Town, in answer to my constant inquiries after the bust: “The busts of Lord B. are arrived; the ship is now under quarantine; I enclose an order for their delivery for you to sign;” so that I expect to find them on my return. It is curious that, after waiting for this bust for years, it should at length arrive in the same week with one of Sir Walter Scott* (a very fine cast), which Chantrey has obligingly presented to me.
Don’t be offended with Holmes;† you were of great essential service in putting him in the way to make a livelihood; but it is very long before, in his profession, he can gain one. If you wanted me to come out to you it would be very different. Neither be afraid of our Funds‡ breaking. When they go, there will be so many on the highway that a noble freebooter will have a bad chance. I bet sixpence they will last our time. I will send your thanks to James Smith,§ who will be much pleased.
Many persons besides you have at first supposed that I was the person of the same name connected with the Constitutional Association, but without consideration; for on what occasion have I identified myself with a party? My connexions are, I believe, even more numerous amongst the Whigs than the Tories. Indeed the Whigs have nearly driven away the Tories from my house; and Jeffrey said, “If you wish to meet the most respectable of the Whigs, you must be introduced to Mr. Murray’s room.”
You hint that I am a little ungrateful to you, I think;
* Scott had been made a baronet in April, 1820. |
† The miniature-painter who had been summoned to Venice by Byron. |
‡ About this time Lord Byron was—or constantly professed himself to be—in great anxiety concerning the Public Funds, in which some of the proceeds of the sale of Newstead were invested. |
§ Joint author of the ‘Rejected Addresses.’ |
| BYRON’S DRAMAS. | 425 |
I forgot in my former letter to notice a hint in yours respecting an additional sum to Mr. Moore. The purchase which I have made of the ‘Memoirs’ is perfectly con amore. As a matter of mere business, if I placed the £2000 in the funds (supposing they did not break), in fourteen years (the least annuity value of the author’s life) it would become £4000. Moore should not show the ‘Memoirs’ to any one now, I think.
Gifford always mentions you with unabated regard, as do Scott, Rose, and many more. Heber (Richard) has succeeded in his long desired election for Oxford. The Jerseys have gone abroad to resuscitate. I have sent the ‘Blue Stockings’* to amuse Mr. G., and it shall be forwarded in proof on my return. If you had the local knowledge it would become an excellent work. Accept my very kindest compliments, and be assured that I always am, dearest Lord Byron,
The three dramas, ‘Sardanapalus,’ ‘The Two Foscari,’ and ‘Cain, a Mystery,’ were published together in December, 1821, and Mr. Murray paid Lord Byron for them the sum of £2710. ‘Cain’ gave rise to much controversy, while ‘Sardanapalus’ was especially admired; Mr. Hobhouse wrote that it interested him very deeply, though it might be thought fantastical and unnatural by some.
“After all,” he continued, “if it be not presumptuous in me to say so, I should venture to assert that tragedy-
| 426 | MEMOIRS OF JOHN MURRAY |
“Lord Byron asks me if you have shown his ‘Cain’ to me. If you can get a heavy frank, do send it down here. I should like to read it. He tells me he has requested you to enclose no more criticisms, as they annoy instead of improving him, and, as he says, ‘take off his attention, which may be better employed than in listening either to libels or flattery.’ I know what he means well enough, and I dare say you do. The injunction, however, will save you some trouble.”
On the appearance of ‘Cain’ it was reprinted in a cheap form by two booksellers, under the impression that the Court of Chancery would not protect it, and it therefore became necessary to take out an injunction to restrain these piratical publishers. The tragedy was, moreover, unmercifully handled in most of the critical journals, and was made the subject of a separate essay, entitled ‘A Remonstrance addressed to Mr. Murray respecting a recent publication; by Oxoniensis.’ This contained a violent attack on “the obsolete trash, the very offscourings of Bayle and Voltaire, which your noble employer has made you pay for as though it were first-rate poetry and sound metaphysics.”
And yet ‘Cain’ was a masterly work, dedicated, by his consent, to Sir Walter Scott, who, in writing to Mr. Murray, described it as “a very grand and tremendous drama.”
“I do not know that his Muse has ever taken so lofty a flight amid
her former soarings. He has certainly matched Milton on his own ground. Some part of the language is bold, and may
shock one class of readers,
| BITTER ATTACKS ON ‘CAIN.’ | 427 |
When Lord Byron heard of the violent attack on Mr. Murray by Oxoniensis, he wrote to him:—
“How, or in what manner, you can be considered responsible for
what I publish, I am at a loss to conceive. If ‘Cain’ be blasphemous, ‘Paradise Lost’ is blasphemous;
and the very words of the Oxford gentleman, ‘Evil, be thou my good,’
are from that very poem, from the mouth of Satan;
and is there anything more in that of Lucifer in
the Mystery? ‘Cain’ is nothing more than a drama,
not a piece of argument. . . . The attempt to bully you, because
they think it won’t succeed with me, seems to me as atrocious an attempt as ever
disgraced the times. What! when Gibbon’s,
Hume’s, Priestley’s, and Drummond’s publishers have been allowed to rest in peace for
seventy years, are you to be singled out for a work of fiction,
not of history or argument? There must be something at the bottom of this—some
private enemy of your own; it is otherwise incredible. I can only say,
‘Me, me; adsum qui
feci’; that any proceeding directed against you, I beg,
may be transferred to me, who am willing, and ought, to endure
them all; that if you have lost money by the publication, I will refund any or all of
the copyright; that I desire you will say that both you and
Mr. Gifford
remonstrated against the publication, as also Mr.
Hobhouse; that I alone am the person who, either legally or otherwise,
should bear the burden. If they prosecute, I will
| 428 | MEMOIRS OF JOHN MURRAY |
Mr. Murray took an early opportunity of consulting Mr. Sharon Turner on the subject of ‘Cain.’ The result was the application of Mr. Shadwell to Lord Eldon, then Chancellor, for an injunction to protect Mr. Murray’s property in Lord Byron’s ‘Cain.’ Mr. Turner reported to Mr. Murray the result of his first interview with counsel:—
“Mr. Shadwell, whom I have just seen, has told me that he had read ‘Cain’ some time ago,—that he thinks it contains nothing but what a bookseller can be fairly justified in publishing, that it is not worse than many parts in ‘Paradise Regained’ and in ‘Paradise Lost.’ It is a dramatic exhibition of Lucifer speaking as Lucifer—often very absurdly. . . He is King’s Counsel and a religious man. He thinks it can hurt no reasonable mind. He will lead the case. If you do not apply, nothing is so likely to provoke a society to an indictment as letting these men go on in their piracy.”
The case came before Lord Chancellor Eldon on the 9th of February. Mr. Shadwell, Mr. Spence, and Sergeant Copley were retained by Mr. Murray, and after considerable discussion the injunction was refused, the Lord Chancellor intimating that the publisher must establish his right to the publication at law, and obtain the decision of a jury, on which he would grant the injunction required. This was done accordingly, and the copyright in ‘Cain’ was thus secured.
During Lord Byron’s residence at
Pisa, Mr. Murray’s half-brother Archibald, an officer in H.M.S. Rochfort,
| BYRON AT PISA. | 429 |
“We arrived at Pisa yesterday, and stopped there for the night on my account, that I might see if Lord Byron, who is still there, was accessible. I sent him a note, to which a very civil answer was immediately returned; but without waiting for an answer, I proceeded to his mansion soon after my note, sent up my card, and was at once admitted, which was the more civil as I have now reason to believe that I called at an unseasonable hour, and was not expected, he having written to appoint another. However, as soon as his Lordship had apparelled (for I could perceive that my card had found him en déshabille ) he received me, and was very courteous, agreeable, and gay. I was with him about an hour, and on parting had his permission, not only graciously but cordially (as I thought), to repeat my visit on returning to Pisa. He seemed in good spirits, and careless of the evil reports against his works.”
“At my return to Pisa the noble poet granted me another interview. He conversed with me quite familiarly, speaking very freely about himself, his political sentiments, his writings, and my brother. But you must have patience and wait till we meet to know what he said on those subjects, for I cannot impart them at present.
“My Lord Byron is not tall, but
of moderate stature. He is rather stout than thin. He is considered handsome. I have
heard him called very handsome, and he certainly has very comely features; but his
countenance is not on the Roman or Grecian model of elegance. It is round and full, and
might be less agreeable in a different person. The emotions of his poetical spirit
animate and beautify his face. His eye has the expression of a man of genius. He wears
his hair rather longer than is the present custom for gentlemen, though in him it is
not unpleasing. It is just long enough to curl gracefully. The defect in one of his
feet is so well concealed by his dress that it is not
| 430 | MEMOIRS OF JOHN MURRAY |
On the death of Allegra, Lord Byron entrusted to Mr. Murray the painful duty of making arrangements for the burial of the remains in Harrow Church. Mr. Cunningham, the clergyman of Harrow, wrote in answer to Mr. Murray:—
Mr. Henry Drury was so good as to
communicate to me a request conveyed to you by Lord
Byron respecting the burial of a child in this church.
Mr. H. Drury will probably have also stated to you my
willingness to comply with the wish of Lord Byron. Will
you forgive me, however, for so far trespassing upon you (though a stranger) as
to suggest an inquiry whether it might not be practicable and desirable to
fulfil for the present only a part of his Lordship’s wish—by
burying the child, and putting up a tablet with simply its name upon the
tablet; and thus leaving Lord B. more leisure to reflect upon the character of
the inscription he may wish to be added. It does seem to me that whatever he
may wish in the moment of his distress about the loss of this child, he will
afterwards regret that he should have taken pains to proclaim to the world what
he will not, I am sure, consider as honourable to his name. And if this be
probable, then it appears to me the office of a true friend not to suffer him
to commit himself but to allow his mind an opportunity of calm deliberation. I
feel constrained to say that the inscription he proposed will be felt by every
man of
| BURIAL OF ALLEGRA. | 431 |
No communication having been received by the Rector, he placed the application from Lord Byron before the churchwardens.
“The churchwardens have been urged to issue their prohibition by several leading and influential persons, laymen, in the parish. You are aware that as to ex-parishioners the consent of the churchwardens is no less necessary than my own; and that therefore the enclosed prohibition is decisive as to the putting up of the monument. You will oblige me by making known to Lord Byron the precise circumstances of the case.
The prohibition was as follows:—
I object on behalf of the parish to admit the tablet of Lord Byron’s child into the church.
| 432 | MEMOIRS OF JOHN MURRAY |
The remains of Allegra, after long delay, were at length buried in the church, just under the present door mat, over which the congregation enter the church; but no memorial tablet or other record of Allegra appears on the walls of Harrow Church.
| ≪ PREV | NEXT ≫ |
