Smiles: Memoir of John Murray

The Anti-Jacobin ceased to be published in 1798, when Canning, having been appointed Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, found his time fully occupied by the business of his department, as well as by his parliamentary duties, and could no longer take part in that clever publication.

Jeffrey could never appreciate the merits of Wordsworth, Southey, and Coleridge. “This will never do!” was the commencement of his review of Wordsworth’s noblest poem. Jeffrey boasted that he had “crushed the ‘Excursion.’” “He might as well say,” observed Southey, “that he could crush Skiddaw.” Miss Seward, whose ‘Life of Dr. Darwin’ had received a cutting notice, wrote to Scott: “Jefferies ought to have been his name. Ignorance and envy are the only possible parents of such criticisms as disgrace the publication which assumes the name of your city.”

Ignorance seems to have pervaded the article written by Brougham, in the second number of the Edinburgh on Dr. Thomas Young’s discovery of the true principles of interferences in the undulatory theory of light. Brougham was then only twenty-four years old, and he undertook to condemn the principles upon which science had set its seal. Sir John Herschell said of Young’s discovery, that it was sufficient of itself to have placed its author in the highest rank of scientific immortality.

The articles contained in some of the early numbers of the Edinburgh made many enemies, especially, in politics. The Government was bitterly denounced, whether its measures were good or bad. Mr. Murray observing with indignation the undue power acquired by the northern Review, the roughshod way in which it endeavoured to crush down rising authors and men of science, as well as its extreme democratic views, while there was no other periodical publication to counteract its influence, resolved to address Mr. Canning in the following letter.

I venture to address you upon a subject that is not, perhaps, undeserving of one moment of your attention. There is a work entitled the Edinburgh Review, written with such unquestionable talent that it has already attained an extent of circulation not equalled by any similar publication. The principles of this work are, however, so radically bad that I have been led to consider the effect that such sentiments, so generally diffused, are likely to produce, and to think that some means equally popular ought to be adopted to counteract their dangerous tendency. But the publication in question is conducted with so much ability, and is sanctioned with such high and decisive authority by the party of whose opinions it is the organ, that there is little hope of producing against it any effectual opposition, unless it arise from you, Sir, and your friends. Should you, Sir, think the idea worthy of encouragement, I should, with equal pride and willingness, engage my arduous exertions to promote its success; but as my object is nothing short of producing a work of the greatest talent and importance, I shall entertain it no longer if it be not so fortunate as to obtain the high patronage which I have thus taken the liberty to solicit.

So far as can be ascertained, Mr. Canning did not answer this letter in writing. But a communication was shortly after opened with him through Mr. Stratford Canning, whose acquaintance Mr. Murray had made through the

MEMOIRS OF JOHN MURRAY

publication of the ‘Miniature,’ referred to in a preceding chapter. Mr. Canning was still acting as Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, and was necessarily cautious of committing himself to a project which was meant to embrace political objects, and which might embarrass him in his political position. Mr. Stratford Canning, his cousin, was not bound by any such official restraints. In January 1808 he introduced Mr. Gifford to Mr. Murray, and the starting of the proposed new periodical was the subject of many consultations between them. It was some time, however, before any practical steps could be adopted.

Walter Scott still continued to write for the Edinburgh, notwithstanding the differences of opinion which existed between himself and the editor as to political questions. He was rather proud of the Review, inasmuch as it was an outgrowth of Scottish literature. Moreover, it kept authors and literary men up to the mark, and though it crushed the seemingly weak, it stimulated the strong. Scott even endeavoured to enlist new contributors, for the purpose of strengthening the Review. He wrote to Robert Southey in May 1807, inviting him to contribute to the Edinburgh. The honorarium was to be ten guineas per sheet of sixteen pages. This was a very tempting invitation to Southey, as he was by no means rich at the time, and the pay was more than he received for his contributions to the Annual Register. But he replied to Scott as follows:—

Walter Scott, however, was very soon led to entertain the same views of the Edinburgh Review as Southey. A severe and unjust review of ‘Marmion,’ by Jeffrey, appeared in 1808, accusing Scott of a mercenary spirit in writing for money (though Jeffrey himself was writing for money in the same article), and further irritating Scott by asserting that he “had neglected Scottish feelings and Scottish characters.” Scott was much nettled by these observations. He at once severed his connection with Constable, not so much because of his conduct, but because of the intemperate remarks of Hunter, Constable’s partner. Hunter had already been the cause of disagreement between Constable & Company and the Longmans, and now he broke off the connection betwixt Constable and Scott. And perhaps to this circumstance, as well as to Jeffrey’s biting review, may be ascribed Scott’s early connection with the foundation of the Quarterly. “Constable,” writes Scott to his brother Thomas, in November 1808, “or rather that Bear, his partner, has behaved by me of late not very civilly, and I owe Jeffrey a flap with a foxtail on account of his review of ‘Marmion,’ and thus doth the whirligig of time bring about my revenges.”

* ‘The Life and Correspondence of Robert Southey,’ iii. pp. 124-5.

MEMOIRS OF JOHN MURRAY

Murray, too, was greatly annoyed by the review of ‘Marmion.’ “Scott” he used to say, “may forgive but he can never forget this treatment;” and, to quote the words of Mr. Lockhart: “When he read the article on ‘Marmion,’ and another on foreign politics, in the same number of the Edinburgh Review, Murray said to himself, ‘Walter Scott has feelings, both as a gentleman and a Tory, which these people must now have wounded; the alliance between him and the whole clique of the Edinburgh Review is now shaken;’” and, as far at least as the political part of the affair was concerned, John Murray’s sagacity was not at fault.

Mr. Murray at once took advantage of this opening to draw closer the bonds between himself and Ballantyne, for he well knew who was the leading spirit in the firm, and was desirous of obtaining the London agency of the publishing business, which, as he rightly discerned, would soon be started in connection with the Canongate Press, and in opposition to Constable. The large increase of work which Murray was prepared to place in the hands of the printers induced Ballantyne to invite him to come as far as Ferrybridge in Yorkshire for a personal conference. At this interview various new projects were discussed—among them the proposed Novelists’ Library—and from the information which he then obtained as to Scott’s personal feelings and literary projects, Murray considered himself justified in at once proceeding to Ashestiel, in order to lay before Scott himself, in a personal interview, his great scheme for the new Review. He arrived there about the middle of October 1808, and was hospitably welcomed and entertained. He stated his plans, mentioned the proposed editor of the Review, the probable contributors, and earnestly invited the assistance of Scott himself.

Mr. Murray never forgot his visit to Ashestiel. Scott was kindness itself; Mrs. Scott was equally cordial and hospitable. Richard Heber was there at the time, and the three went out daily to explore the scenery of the neighbourhood. They visited Melrose Abbey, the Tweed, and Dryburgh Abbey, not very remote from Melrose, where Scott was himself to lie; they ascended the Eildon Hills, Scott on his sheltie often stopping by the way to point out to Murray and Heber, who were on foot, some broad meadow or heather-clad ground, as a spot where some legend held its seat, or some notable deed had been achieved during the wars of the Borders. Scott thus converted the barren hillside into a region of interest and delight. From the top of the Eildons he pointed out the scene of some twenty battles.

Mr. Murray then proceeded to discuss the question of the Novelists’ Library, described in the preceding chapter, and continued:—

This project is tolerably mechanical, and does not require in its production the mental energies of every kind which are indispensable in the other grand plan of a Review, which I perceive to be imperiously demanded. You have probably seen the advertisement of the New Review, which is to appear from the shop of the publisher of the Satirist, each critique to be signed by its author, and the whole phalanx to be headed by the notorious veteran Richard Cumberland, Esq. The miserable existence of such a Review cannot possibly linger beyond the third number; but it assists in showing practically how much a good Review is wanted in London by every class. I understand—indeed, I may say with certainty—that Marmion is to be the second article in the first number, after Fox, and it will probably bear the signature of your friend Cumberland himself. It happens very luckily, both for himself and the admirers of this gentleman, that he is about to publish a novel (now in the press), ‘John de Lancaster,’ in which he relies upon his talents as a writer, and his moral character as a man; for, having made two or three slips in former novels, he intends in this work to give his recantation, so that, whatever figure he may make in his own Review, he would certainly be a most admirable subject, and it will be hard if, upon this occasion, he does not receive that justice which his writings and character have so long merited. But I am diverging too much. I have seen Mr. William

GIFFORD ACCEPTS THE EDITORSHIP.

Gifford, hinting distantly at a Review; he admitted the most imperious necessity for one, and that too in a way that leads me to think that he has had very important communications upon the subject. He has been so obliging as to give me a work by the learned Dr. Ireland to publish. This is one of those gentlemen whom you may remember to have been suggested by Mr. Heber as capable of contributing to our Review. I feel more than ever confident that the higher powers are exceedingly desirous for the establishment of some counteracting publication; and it will, I suspect, remain only for your appearance in London to urge some very formidable plan into activity. I will trouble you no further upon these subjects until I am favoured with your wishes, and I will only add, that you shall ever find me active and faithful. I trust that Mrs. Scott and the family have returned with you in perfect health, and that you are preparing for your journey to London. I beg leave to offer my most respectful compliments to Mrs. Scott, and to assure you that Dear Sir,

What Scott thought of Murray’s visit to Ashestiel may be inferred from his letter to his political confidant, George Ellis, of which, as it has already appeared in Scott’s Life, it is only necessary to give extracts here:—

Now, I think there is balm in Gilead for all this, and that the cure lies in instituting such a Review in London as should be conducted totally independent of bookselling influence, on a plan as liberal as that of the Edinburgh, its literature as well supported, and its principles English and constitutional. Accordingly, I have been given to understand that Mr. William Gifford is willing to become the conductor of such a work, and I have written to him, at the Lord Advocate’s desire, a very voluminous letter on the subject. Now, should this plan succeed, you must hang your birding-piece on its hook, take down your old Anti-Jacobin armour, and “remember your swashing blow.” It is not that I think this projected Review ought to be exclusively or principally political; this would, in my opinion, absolutely counteract its purpose, which I think should be to offer to those who love their country, and to those whom we would wish to love it, a periodical work of criticism conducted with equal talent, but upon sounder principles. Is not this very possible? In point of learning, you Englishmen have ten times our scholarship; and, as for talent and genius, “Are not Abana and Pharpar, rivers of Damascus, better than any of the rivers in Israel?” Have we not yourself and your cousin, the Roses, Malthus, Matthias, Gifford, Heber, and his brother? Can I not

102

MEMOIRS OF JOHN MURRAY

procure you a score of blue-caps who would rather write for us than for the Edinburgh Review if they got as much pay by it? “A good plot, good friends, and full of expectation—an excellent plot, very good friends!”

Heber’s fear was lest we should fail in procuring regular steady contributors; but I know so much of the interior discipline of reviewing as to have no apprehension of that. Provided we are once set a-going by a few dashing numbers, there would be no fear of enlisting regular contributors; but the amateurs must bestir themselves in the first instance. From the Government we should be entitled to expect confidential communications as to points of fact (so far as fit to be made public) in our political disquisitions. With this advantage, our good cause and St. George to boot, we may at least divide the field with our formidable competitors, who, after all, are much better at cutting than parrying, and whose uninterrupted triumph has as much unfitted them for resisting a serious attack as it has done Buonaparte for the Spanish war. Jeffrey is, to be sure, a man of the most uncommon versatility of talent, but what then?

“General Howe is a gallant commander,

There are others as gallant as he.”

Think of all this, and let me hear from you very soon on the subject. Canning is, I have good reason to know, very anxious about the plan. I mentioned it to Robert Dundas, who was here with his lady for a few days on a pilgrimage to Melrose, and he highly approved of it. Though no literary man, he is judicious, clair-voyant, and uncommonly sound-headed, like his father, Lord Melville. With the exceptions I have mentioned, the thing continues a secret . . . .

The points on which I chiefly insisted with Mr. Gifford were that the Review should be independent both as to bookselling and ministerial influences—meaning that we were not to be advocates of party through thick and thin, but to maintain constitutional principles. Moreover, I stated as essential that the literary part of the work should be as sedulously attended to as the political, because it is by means of that alone that the work can acquire any firm and extended reputation.

Scott was most assiduous in his preparations for the first number. He wrote to his brother, Thomas Scott, asking him to contribute an article; to Charles Kirkpatrick Sharpe, of Christ Church, Oxford; to Mr. Morritt, of Rokeby Park, Yorkshire; and to Robert Southey, of Keswick, asking them for contributions. To Mr. Sharpe he says:—

“The Hebers are engaged, item Rogers, Southey, Moore (Anacreon), and others whose reputations Jeffrey has murdered, and who are rising to cry woe upon him, like the ghosts in ‘King Richard.’”

Scott’s letter to Gifford, the intended editor, was full of excellent advice. It was dated “Edinburgh, October 25th, 1808.” We quote from it several important passages:—

Thus instructed, Gifford proceeded to rally his forces. There was no want of contributors. Some came invited, some came unsought; but, as the matter was still a secret, the editor endeavoured to secure contributions through his personal friends. For instance, he called upon Mr. Rogers to request him to secure the help of Moore.

“I must confess,” said Rogers to Moore, “I heard of the new quarterly with pleasure, as I thought it might correct an evil we had long lamented together. Gifford wishes much for contributors, and is exceedingly anxious that you should assist him as often as you can afford time. . . . All this in confidence of course, as the secret is not my own.”

Gifford also endeavoured to secure the assistance of Southey, through his friend, Mr. Grosvenor Bedford. Southey was requested to write for the first number an article on the Affairs of Spain. This, however, he declined to do; but promised to send an article on the subject of Missionaries.

“Let not Gifford,” he wrote to Bedford, in reply to his letter, “suppose me a troublesome man to deal with, pertinacious about trifles, or standing upon punctilios of authorship. No, Grosvenor, I am a quiet, patient, easy-going hack of the male breed; regular as clockwork in my pace, sure-footed, bearing the burden which is laid on me, and only obstinate in choosing my own path. If Gifford could see me by this fireside, where, like Nicodemus, one candle suffices me in a large room, he would see a man in a coat ‘still more threadbare than his own’ when he wrote his ‘Imitation,’ working hard and getting little—a bare maintenance, and hardly that; writing poems and history for posterity with his whole heart and soul; one daily progressive in learning, not so learned as he is poor, not so poor as proud, not so proud as happy.”

“Well, you have of course heard from Mr. Scott of the progress of the ‘Great Plan.’ Canning bites at the hook eagerly. A review, termed by Mr. Jeffrey a tickler, is to appear of Dryden in this No. of the Edinburgh. By the Lord! they will rue it. You know Scott’s present feelings, excited by the review of ‘Marmion.’ What will they be when that of Dryden appears?”

Mr. Gifford also told me, with very great stress, that among the articles he had submitted to you was Hodgson’s Translation of Juvenal, which at no time could be a very interesting article for us, and having been published more than six months ago, would probably be a very stupid one. Then, you must observe, that it would necessarily involve a comparison with Mr. Gifford’s own translation, which must of course be praised, and thus show an individual feeling—the least spark of which, in our early numbers, would both betray and ruin us. He talks of reviewing himself a late translation of ‘Persius,’ for (entre nous) a similar reason. He has himself nearly completed a translation, which will be published in a few months.

It will be observed from this letter, that Mr. Murray was aware that, besides skilful editing, sound and practical business management was necessary to render the new Review a success. The way in which he informs Mr. Scott about Gifford’s proposed review of ‘Juvenal’ and ‘Persius,’ shows that he fully comprehended the situation, and the dangers which would beset an editor like Gifford, who lived for the most part amongst his books, and was, to a large extent, secluded from the active world.

I received two days ago a letter from Mr. Gifford highly approving of the particulars of the plan which I had sketched for the Review. But there are two points to be considered. In the first place, I cannot be in town as I proposed, for the Commissioners under the Judicial Bill, to whom I am to act as clerk, have resolved that their final sittings shall be held here, so that I have now no chance of being in London before spring. This is very unlucky, as Mr. Gifford proposes to wait for my arrival in town to set the great machine a-going. I shall write to him that this is impossible, and that I wish he would, with your assistance and that of his other friends, make up a list of the works which the first number is to contain, and consider what is the extent of the aid he will require from the North. The other circumstance is, that Mr. Gifford pleads the state of his health and his retired habits as sequestrating him from the world, and rendering him less capable of active exertion, and in the kindest and most polite manner he expresses his hope that he should receive very extensive assistance and support from me, without which he is pleased to say he would utterly despair of success. Now between ourselves (for this is strictly confidential) I am rather alarmed at this prospect. I am willing, and anxiously so, to do all in my power to serve the work; but, my dear sir, you know how many of our

114

MEMOIRS OF JOHN MURRAY

very ablest hands are engaged in the Edinburgh Review, and what a dismal work it will be to wring assistance from the few whose indolence has left them neutral. I can, to be sure, work like a horse myself, but then I have two heavy works on my hands already, namely, ‘Somers’ and ‘Swift.’ Constable had lately very nearly relinquished the latter work, and I now heartily wish it had never commenced; but two volumes are nearly printed, so I conclude it will now go on. If this work had not stood in the way, I should have liked Beaumont and Fletcher much better. It would not have required half the research, and occupied much less time. I plainly see that, according to Mr. Gifford’s view, I should have almost all the trouble of a co-editor, both in collecting and revising the articles which are to come from Scotland, as well as in supplying all deficiencies from my own stores.

I retired my name among others, after explaining the reasons both to Mr. Jeffrey and Mr. Constable, so that there never was such an opening for a new Review. I shall be glad to hear what you think on the subject ot terms, for my Northern troops will not move without pay; but there is no hurry about fixing this point, as most of the writers in the first number will be more or less indifferent on the subject. For my own share, I care not what the conditions are, unless the labour expected from me is to occupy a considerable portion of time, in which case they might become an object. While we are on this subject, I may as well mention that as you incur so large an outlay in the case of the Novels, I would not only be happy that my remuneration should depend on the profits of the work, but I also think I could command a few hundreds to assist in carrying it on.

You have no doubt heard, ere this time, of the universal indignation and disgust which the last number of the Edinburgh Review has given. Many people have given it up, and, if I may judge from what I hear, the general dissatisfaction is increasing. Mr. Scott was, I believe, the first who discontinued it. Constable was greatly affected by the annunciation; and I tell you in entire confidence that, from the aid which Mr. Scott determines to give your glorious work, and other causes, he anticipates an entire rupture with that house. He further told me, that if that event took place, you, if you chose it, should have the first offer of his future works. Indeed, he on every occasion expresses himself respecting you in the most flattering terms of approbation and respect.

I am sorry I was from home when you called; but Mr. Canning would not let me return till he came back himself, and he has this moment set me down at my door. . . . You will be glad to hear that Mr. Ellis has readily undertaken the Spanish article, but of this more when we meet.

“Mr. Gifford has communicated to me an important piece of news. He met his friend, Lord Teignmouth,

ARTICLES FOR THE FIRST NUMBER.

117

and learned from him that he and the Wilberforce party had some idea of starting a journal to oppose the Edinburgh Review, that Henry Thornton and Mr. [Zachary] Macaulay were to be the conductors, that they had met, and that some able men were mentioned. Upon sounding Lord T. as to their giving us their assistance, he thought this might be adopted in preference to their own plans. . . . It will happen fortunately that we intend opening with an article on the missionaries, which, as it will be written in opposition to the sentiments in the Edinburgh Review, is very likely to gain that large body of which Wilberforce is the head. I have collected from every Missionary Society in London, of which there are no less than five, all their curious reports, proceedings and history, which, I know, Sydney Smith never saw; and which I could only procure by personal application. Southey will give a complete view of the subject, and if he will enter heartily into it, and do it well, it will be as much as he can do for the first number. These transactions contain, amidst a great deal of fanaticism, the most curious information you can imagine upon the history, literature, topography and manners of nations and countries of which we are otherwise totally ignorant. . . . If you have occasion to write to Southey, pray urge the vast importance of this subject, and entreat him to give it all his ability. I find that a new volume of Burns’ (‘The Reliques’) will be published by the end of this month, which will form the subject of another capital article under your hands. I presume ‘Sir John Carr (Tour in Scotland)’ will be another article, which even you, I fancy, will like; ‘Mrs. Grant of Laggan,’ too, and perhaps your friend Mr. Cumberland’s ‘John de Lancaster.’ . . . Are you not sufficiently well acquainted with Miss (Joanna) Baillie, both to confide in her, and command her talents? If so, you will probably think of what may suit her, and what may apply to her. Mr. Heber, too, would apply to his brother at your request, and his friend Coplestone, who will also be written to by a friend of Gifford’s. . . . Would you also urge Mr. S. particularly upon the opening article on Spain, which should contain the most valuable information, and, at the same time, be written with the utmost possible care and ability.”

“Mr. Long expresses his doubts about publishing the first number in January next, and entreats the greatest consideration in every line, as so much depends on the first number; and, therefore, I proposed that, although every contributor should be required to send in his article by January 10th, yet that the time of publication should be determined merely by that moment when we are satisfied that we have got a really valuable number.”

On the 1st of December, Murray informed Scott that the article on Spain was proceeding under Mr. Canning’s immediate superintendence. Canning and Gifford went down to Mr. Ellis’s house at Sunninghill, where the three remained together for four days, during which time the article was hatched and completed. Mr. Murray further communicated that Mr. Rogers and Thomas Moore were likely to be secured as contributors; that Mr. Sotheby was proceeding with an article; that Mr. Hoppner was reviewing Lord Orford’s ‘Anecdotes of Painters;’ and that two or three able hands were upon the point of employment at Oxford and Cambridge. “In fact,” he says, “by the end of this month I think the machine will be in motion.”

Mr. Scott’s reply not only indicates his energy on behalf of the Quarterly, but shows that already the toils of the Ballantyne business were closing around him, and that the demands of the presses were inexorable.

“Tell Mr. Canning that the old women of Scotland will defend the country with their distaffs, rather than that troops enough be not sent to make good so noble a pledge. Were the thousands that have mouldered away in petty conquests or Liliputian expeditions united to those we have now in that country, what a band would Sir John Moore have under him! . . . Jeffrey has offered terms of pacification, engaging that no party politics should again appear in his Review. I told him I thought it was now too late, and reminded him that I had often pointed out to him the consequences of letting his work become a party tool. He said ‘he did not fear for the consequences—there were but four men he feared as opponents.’ ‘Who are these?’ ‘Yourself for one.’ ‘Certainly you pay me a great compliment; depend upon it I will endeavour to deserve it.’ ‘Why, you would not join against me?’ ‘Yes, I would, if I saw a proper opportunity: not against you personally, but against your politics.’ ‘You are privileged to be violent.’ ‘I don’t ask any privilege for undue violence. But who are your other foemen?’ ‘George Ellis and Southey.’ The other he did not name. All this was in great good humour; and next day I had a very affecting note from him, in answer to an invitation to dinner. He has no suspicion of the Review whatever.”

“If I have any objection to it, it is this, that he (Mr. Lowe) does not show the connection between the book he reviews and the argument which forms the principal part of his critique in a light sufficiently strong. This he should be made to alter. There will be time enough for it, if you and your editor are sufficiently pleased with the latter part of it to reserve a place for the article.”

On further consideration, however, Mrs. Inchbald modestly declined to become a contributor. Notwithstanding her great merits as an author, she had the extremest diffidence in her own abilities.

Mr. Pillans, then a Master at Eton, and afterwards Rector of the Edinburgh High School, offered to contribute an article on Pitt and Warton’s ‘Virgil.’ It was forwarded and put in type. Mr. Gifford did not think it “quite correct,” but the corrections, he added, might be made “in the proofs.”

“I am unwilling,” he wrote to Mr. Murray, “to give up the idea of doing something for your first number. I have therefore determined to prepare you a few pages on a late work of Laplace, the supplement to his ‘Mécanique Celeste.’ This work would have been my first choice, as nothing can be better calculated for the purpose, but for the extreme difficulty of keeping my own speculations out of the question, and of avoiding too open a declaration of my being the author. I shall, however, hope to attain both these ends, and I shall beg that as little as possible may be said of my having contributed the article.”

In a subsequent letter, enclosing the article, Dr. Young writes to Mr. Murray:—“I hope you will not compare me with Balaam, of asinine memory, who was sent to curse the people of Israel, and then blessed them three times; but perhaps what I have written will produce a better effect than if I had been more severe.” Gifford, on enclosing the corrected proofs of the article to Murray, said, “I trust Dr. Young will prove to be a powerful combatant for us. . . I have enlisted to-day a recruit in Finance! Be active and secret.”

≪ PREV

NEXT ≫

Joanna Baillie (1762-1851) Scottish poet and dramatist whose Plays on the Passions (1798-1812) were much admired, especially the gothic De Montfort, produced at Drury Lane in 1800.

James Ballantyne (1772-1833) Edinburgh printer in partnership with his younger brother John; the company failed in the financial collapse of 1826.

Francis Beaumont (1585-1616) English playwright, often in collaboration with John Fletcher; author of The Knight of the Burning Pestle (1607).

Grosvenor Charles Bedford (1773-1839) The son of Horace Walpole's correspondent Charles Bedford; he was auditor of the Exchequer and a friend of Robert Southey who contributed to several of Southey's publications.

Henry Peter Brougham, first baron Brougham and Vaux (1778-1868) Educated at Edinburgh University, he was a founder of the Edinburgh Review in which he chastised Byron's Hours of Idleness; he defended Queen Caroline in her trial for adultery (1820), established the London University (1828), and was appointed lord chancellor (1830).

Thomas Brown (1778-1820) Scottish philosopher, poet, and Professor of Moral Philosophy at Edinburgh (1810); Sydney Smith recalled him as “a Lake poet, a profound metaphysician, and one of the most virtuous men that ever lived.”

Robert Burns (1759-1796) Scottish poet and song collector; author of Poems, chiefly in the Scottish Dialect (1786).

Thomas Cadell the younger (1773-1836) London bookseller, son of his better-known father; the younger Cadell entered into partnership with William Davies in 1793. In 1802 he married Sophia Smith, sister of James and Horace Smith of the Rejected Addresses.

George Canning (1770-1827) Tory statesman; he was foreign minister (1807-1809) and prime minister (1827); a supporter of Greek independence and Catholic emancipation.

Stratford Canning, viscount Stratford (1786-1880) English diplomat; the cousin of George Canning, he was envoy (1825) and later ambassador (1842) to Constantinople.

Sir John Carr (1772-1832) English travel writer educated at Rugby School who, beginning with The Stranger in Paris (1803), published popular volumes on Ireland, Holland, Scotland, and Spain.

William Cobbett [Peter Porcupine] (1763-1835) English journalist and populist social critic; author of Rural Rides (1829).

Samuel Taylor Coleridge (1772-1834) English poet and philosopher who projected Lyrical Ballads (1798) with William Wordsworth; author of Biographia Literaria (1817), On the Constitution of the Church and State (1829) and other works.

Archibald Campbell Colquhoun (1754-1820) Originally Campbell; he was Lord Advocate (1807) and MP for Elgin (1807-10) and Dumbartonshire (1810-20); he was a friend of Walter Scott.

Archibald Constable (1774-1827) Edinburgh bookseller who published the Edinburgh Review and works of Sir Walter Scott; he went bankrupt in 1826.

Edward Copleston, bishop of Llandaff (1776-1849) Educated at Corpus Christi College, Oxford, he was a fellow of Oriel, Oxford Professor of Poetry (1802-12), dean of St. Paul's (1827-1849), and bishop of Llandaff (1827-49); he published Three Replies to the Calumnies of the Edinburgh Review (1810-11).

Sophie Ristaud Cottin (1770-1807) French novelist, author of Elisabeth ou les Exilés de Sibérie (1806).

Richard Cumberland (1732-1811) English playwright and man of letters caricatured by Sheridan as “Sir Fretful Plagiary.” Memoirs of Richard Cumberland, written by himself was published in two volumes (1806-07).

John Philpot Curran (1750-1817) Irish statesman and orator; as a Whig MP (from 1783) he defended the United Irishmen in Parliament (1798).

John Dryden (1631-1700) English poet laureate, dramatist, and critic; author of Of Dramatick Poesie (1667), Absalom and Achitophel (1681), Alexander's Feast; or the Power of Musique (1697), The Works of Virgil translated into English Verse (1697), and Fables (1700).

Henry Dundas, first viscount Melville (1742-1811) Scottish politician, president of the board of control (1793-1801), secretary of war (1794-1801); first lord of the Admiralty (1804-05).

Robert Saunders Dundas, second viscount Melville (1771-1851) Son of the first viscount (d. 1811); he was keeper of the signet for Scotland, MP, president of the board of control, and first lord of the Admiralty (1812-27).

Charles Rose Ellis, first baron Seaford (1771-1845) English MP; he was the cousin of George Ellis and friend of George Canning, who had him created Lord Seaford in 1826. He had been Canning's second in the 1809 duel with Castlereagh.

George Ellis (1753-1815) English antiquary and critic, editor of Specimens of Early English Poets (1790), friend of Walter Scott.

William Erskine, Lord Kinneder (1768-1822) The son of an episcopal clergyman of the same name, he was a Scottish advocate and a close friend and literary advisor to Sir Walter Scott.

John Fletcher (1579-1625) English playwright, author of The Faithful Shepherdess (1610) and of some fifteen plays in collaboration with Francis Beaumont.

John Hookham Frere (1769-1846) English diplomat and poet; educated at Eton and Cambridge, he was envoy to Lisbon (1800-02) and Madrid (1802-04, 1808-09); with Canning conducted the The Anti-Jacobin (1797-98); author of Prospectus and Specimen of an intended National Work, by William and Robert Whistlecraft (1817, 1818).

Edmund Gayton (1608-1666) English physician and satirist, author of Pleasant Notes upon Don Quixot (1654).

King George III of Great Britain (1738-1820) King of Great Britain (1760-1820).

William Gifford (1756-1826) Poet, scholar, and editor who began as a shoemaker's apprentice; after Oxford he published The Baviad (1794), The Maeviad (1795), and The Satires of Juvenal translated (1802) before becoming the founding editor of the Quarterly Review (1809-24).

Anne Grant [née MacVicar] (1755-1838) Scottish poet and essayist; author of a popular account of the Scottish Highlands, Letters from the Mountains (1806).

Reginald Heber, bishop of Calcutta (1783-1826) English poet and Bishop of Calcutta, author of Palestine: a Prize Poem (1807) and the hymn “From Greenland's Icy Mountains.” He was the half-brother of the book-collector Richard Heber.

Richard Heber (1774-1833) English book collector, he was the elder half-brother of the poet Reginald Heber and the friend of Walter Scott: member of the Roxburghe Club and MP for Oxford 1821-1826.

Sir John Herschel, first baronet (1792-1871) English astronomer, the son of William Herschel; he was secretary to the Royal Society (1827-30).

Francis Hodgson (1781-1852) Provost of Eton College, translator of Juvenal (1807) and close friend of Byron. He wrote for the Monthly and Critical Reviews, and was author of (among other volumes of poetry) Childe Harold's Monitor; or Lines occasioned by the last Canto of Childe Harold (1818).

Abiel Holmes (1763-1837) Congregationalist minister, the father of Oliver Wendell Holmes; he published American Annals (1805).

Francis Horner (1778-1817) Scottish barrister and frequent contributor to the Edinburgh Review; he was a Whig MP and member of the Holland House circle.

John Hoppner (1758-1810) English portrait painter and member of the Royal Academy (1795); he was a close friend of William Gifford and the father of Byron's correspondent Richard Belgrave Hoppner.

Alexander Gibson Hunter (1771-1812) The eldest son of David Hunter, of Blackness; he was a Writer to the Signet (1797) who in 1804 became a partner of the Edinburgh bookseller Archibald Constable.

Elizabeth Inchbald (1753-1821) English actress and playwright; author of two popular novels, A Simple Story (1791) and Nature and Art (1796).

John Ireland (1761-1842) Dean of Westminster and a close friend of William Gifford; he published Nuptiae sacrae, or, An Enquiry into the Scriptural Doctrine of Marriage and Divorce (1801).

Francis Jeffrey, Lord Jeffrey (1773-1850) Scottish barrister, Whig MP, and co-founder and editor of the Edinburgh Review (1802-29). As a reviewer he was the implacable foe of the Lake School of poetry.

George Jeffreys, first baron Jeffreys (1645-1689) Known as the “hanging judge,” he was chief justice of king's bench (1683-1685) in which capacity he presided over the trial of Algernon Sidney and the Rye House plotters; he died in the Tower of London.

Robert Banks Jenkinson, second earl of Liverpool (1770-1828) The son of the first earl (d. 1808); he was Tory prime minister, 1812-1827, succeeding Spencer Percival.

Pierre-Simon, marquis de Laplace (1749-1827) French astronomer and mathematician; author of Théorie analytique des probabilités (1812).

Matthew Gregory Lewis [Monk Lewis] (1775-1818) English poet and novelist; author of The Monk: a Romance (1796), Castle Spectre (1797), and Tales of Wonder (1800).

John Gibson Lockhart (1794-1854) Editor of the Quarterly Review (1825-1853); son-in-law of Walter Scott and author of the Life of Scott 5 vols (1838).

Charles Long, baron Farnborough (1760-1838) Tory politician, connoisseur, and advisor to George IV on matters of taste; he was paymaster general 1807-26, and raised to the peerage in 1826.

Thomas Norton Longman (1771-1842) A leading London publisher whose authors included Southey, Wordsworth, Scott, and Moore.

Joseph Lowe (1831 fl.) A Scottish friend of James Mill; he was author of An Inquiry into the State of the British West Indies (1807) and was appointed professor of commerce at King's College London (1831).

Zachary Macaulay (1768-1838) Writer, abolitionist, and father of Thomas Babington Macaulay; he edited the Anti-Slavery Reporter.

Francis Humberston Mackenzie, baron Seaforth (1754-1815) Scottish military officer, MP for Ross-shire (1784-90, 1795-96) and governor of Barbados; he was given his title in 1797 for services to the Pitt administration.

Henry Mackenzie (1745-1831) Scottish man of letters, author of The Man of Feeling (1770) and editor of The Mirror (1779-80) and The Lounger (1785-87).

Hector Macneill (1746-1818) Scottish poet and West Indian merchant; author of Scotland's Skaith, or, The History of Will and Jean (1795) and other popular ballads and lyrics.

Allan Maconochie, Lord Meadowbank (1748-1816) One of the founders of the Speculative Society; he was regius professor of public law at Edinburgh.

Thomas Robert Malthus (1766-1834) English political economist educated at Jesus College, Cambridge; he was author of An Essay on the Principles of Population (1798; 1803).

Thomas James Mathias (1755-1835) English satirist, the anonymous author of Pursuits of Literature (1794-98) and editor of The Works of Thomas Gray, 2 vols (1814). From 1817 he lived in Italy, where he translated classic English poets into Italian.

James Mill (1773-1836) English political philosopher allied with the radical Joseph Hume; he was the father of John Stuart Mill.

Sir John Moore (1761-1809) A hero of the Peninsular Campaign, killed at the Battle of Corunna; he was the son of Dr. John Moore, the author of Zeluco.

Thomas Moore (1779-1852) Irish poet and biographer, author of the Irish Melodies (1807-34), The Fudge Family in Paris (1818), and Lalla Rookh (1817); he was Byron's close friend and designated biographer.

John Bacon Sawrey Morritt of Rokeby (1771-1843) Of Rokeby, classical scholar, close friend of Sir Walter Scott, and member of the Society of Dilettanti.

John Murray II (1778-1843) The second John Murray began the Quarterly Review in 1809 and published works by Scott, Byron, Austen, Crabbe, and other literary notables.

Emperor Napoleon I (1769-1821) Military leader, First Consul (1799), and Emperor of the French (1804), after his abdication he was exiled to Elba (1814); after his defeat at Waterloo he was exiled to St. Helena (1815).

James Pillans (1778-1864) Edinburgh Reviewer and rector of Edinburgh High School, afterwards professor of Latin at Edinburgh University. He earned Byron's enmity for his review of Francis Hodgson's Juvenal.

Christopher Pitt (1699-1748) English poet and translator; he published The Aeneid of Virgil, translated, 2 vols (1740).

William Pitt the younger (1759-1806) The second son of William Pitt, earl of Chatham (1708-1778); he was Tory prime minister 1783-1801.

Samuel Rogers (1763-1855) English poet, banker, and aesthete, author of the ever-popular Pleasures of Memory (1792), Columbus (1810), Jaqueline (1814), and Italy (1822-28).

William Stewart Rose (1775-1843) Second son of George Rose, treasurer of the navy (1744-1818); he introduced Byron to Frere's Whistlecraft poems and translated Casti's Animale parlante (1819).

Lady Margaret Charlotte Scott [née Carpenter] (1770-1826) The impoverished daughter of French parents who married Walter Scott in 1797.

Thomas Scott (1774-1823) The younger brother of Walter Scott rumored to have written Waverley; after working in the family legal business he was an officer in the Manx Fencibles (1806-10) and Paymaster of the 70th Foot (1812-14). He died in Canada.

Sir Walter Scott, baronet (1771-1832) Scottish poet, novelist, antiquary, biographer, editor, and sheriff.

Anna Seward [the Swan of Lichfield] (1742-1809) English poet, patron, and letter-writer; she was the center of a literary circle at Lichfield. Her Poetical Works, 3 vols (1810) were edited by Walter Scott.

Charles Kirkpatrick Sharpe (1781-1851) Scottish poet, painter, editor, antiquary, and eccentric; he edited James Kirkton's Secret and True History of the Church of Scotland (1817) with elaborate notes mocking his author.

John Shore, first baron Teignmouth (1751-1834) Governor-general of Bengal, founder and first president of the British and Foreign Bible Society, and biographer of Sir William Jones.

Sydney Smith (1771-1845) Clergyman, wit, and one of the original projectors of the Edinburgh Review; afterwards lecturer in London and one of the Holland House denizens.

William Sotheby (1757-1833) English man of letters; after Harrow he joined the dragoons, married well, and published Poems (1790) and became a prolific poet and translator, prominent in literary society.

Robert Southey (1774-1843) Poet laureate and man of letters whose contemporary reputation depended upon his prose works, among them the Life of Nelson, 2 vols (1813), History of the Peninsular War, 3 vols (1823-32) and The Doctor, 7 vols (1834-47).

Henry Thornton (1760-1815) Banker, MP, and cousin of William Wilberforce; he wrote An Enquiry into the Nature and Effects of the Paper Credit of Great Britain (1802).

Josiah Walker (1761-1831) Scottish poet, tutor to the Duke of Athol; he corresponded with Robert Burns, to whom he was introduced by the poet Thomas Blacklock.

Horace Walpole, fourth earl of Orford (1717-1797) English biographer, letter-writer, and antiquary; son of Sir Robert Walpole; author of The Castle of Otranto (1764).

Joseph Warton (1722-1800) English poet and literary critic; headmaster of Winchester School (1766-1800); author of An Essay on the Writings and Genius of Pope (1756, 1782).

William Wilberforce (1759-1833) British statesman, evangelical Christian, and humanitarian who worked for the abolition of slavery. He was an MP for Yorkshire aligned with Fox and Sheridan.

William Wordsworth (1770-1850) With Coleridge, author of Lyrical Ballads (1798), Wordsworth survived his early unpopularity to succeed Robert Southey as poet laureate in 1843.

Thomas Young (1773-1829) English physician, naturalist, and Egyptologist; he was foreign secretary to the Royal Society (1802-09). He was a frequent contributor to the Quarterly Review.

The Annual Register, or, a View of the History, Politics, and Literature. 80 vols (1758-1837). The original publisher was Robert Dodsley, with Edmund Burke the chief contributor.

The Anti-Jacobin. (1797-1798). A weekly magazine edited by William Gifford with contributions by George Canning, John Hookham Frere, and George Ellis. It was the model for many later satirical periodicals.

The Anti-Jacobin Review and Magazine. (1798-1821). Edited by John Gifford as a continuation of the brilliant Anti-Jacobin Magazine (1797-98) with no plates, less poetry, and more book reviews.

Edinburgh Annual Register. 19 vols (1808-1826). Edited by Walter Scott; it was a perennial money-sink for the Ballantyne concern.

The Edinburgh Review, or Critical Journal. (1802-1929). Founded by Francis Jeffery, Sydney Smith, and Henry Brougham, the Edinburgh Review was for decades a principal organ of Whig opinion in Britain.

London Review. (1809). Edited by Richard Cumberland; only two numbers appeared; in a departure from usual practice the reviews were signed.

The Miniature, a Periodical Paper. (1804-1805). Containing pieces by Eton students George Canning, Henry Gally Knight, and Thomas Rennell; 34 numbers were published. It was conceived as a successor to the more successful Microcosm (1786).

The Quarterly Review. (1809-1967). Published by John Murray, the Quarterly was instigated by Walter Scott as a Tory rival to the Edinburgh Review. It was edited by William Gifford to 1824, and by John Gibson Lockhart from 1826 to 1853.

The Satirist, or, Monthly Meteor. (1807-1814). Originally issued with colored plates, the Tory-inspired Satirist was edited by George Manners (1778–1853) from October 1807 to June 1812, and William Jerdan (1782–1869) from July 1812 to August 1814; it was continued as Tripod, or, New Satirist (July-Aug. 1814). The humor was coarse, and Byron the target in a series of pieces by Hewson Clarke (1787-1845 fl.).

Henry Peter Brougham, first baron Brougham and Vaux (1778-1868) “Don Pedro Cevallos on the French usurpation of Spain” in Edinburgh Review. Vol. 13 (October 1808): 215-35. This inflammatory article led Walter Scott to cancel his subscription to the Edinburgh Review.

Robert Burns (1759-1796) Reliques of Robert Burns: consisting chiefly of original Letters, Poems, and Critical Observations on Scottish Songs. (London: T. Cadell, and W. Davies, 1808). Edited by R. H. Cromek.

Sir John Carr (1772-1832) Caledonian Sketches, or, a Tour through Scotland in 1807. (London: Mathews and Leigh, 1809).

Sophie Ristaud Cottin (1770-1807) Malvina. 3 vols (Paris: 1800). Several times reprinted.

Richard Cumberland (1732-1811) John de Lancaster. A Novel. 3 vols (London: Lackington, Allen, and Co., 1809).

John Philpot Curran (1750-1817) Speeches of John Philpot Curran. To which is added Henry Gratten, Esq's celebrated Speech on the Catholic Question. (Dublin: Stockdale, 1805). Reprinted 1808.

Sir William Drummond (1770 c.-1828) The Satires of Persius translated: with Notes. (London: J. Ginger, 1803).

Edmund Gayton (1608-1666) Pleasant Notes upon Don Quixot. (London: William Hunt, 1654). Reprinted 1768.

Anne Grant [née MacVicar] (1755-1838) Memoirs of an American Lady: with Sketches of Manners and Scenery in America, as they existed previous to the Revolution. 2 vols (London: Longman, Hurst, Rees and Orme, 1808). Autobiography.

Francis Hodgson (1781-1852) The Satires of Juvenal. (London: Payne and MacKinlay, 1807). Translated by Francis Hodgson.

Abiel Holmes (1763-1837) American Annals: or, a Chronological History of America, from its Discovery in MCCCCXCII to MDCCCVI. 2 vols (Cambridge: W. Hilliard, 1805).

Elizabeth Inchbald (1753-1821) A Simple Story. 4 vols (London: G. G. J. and J. Robinson, 1791). A domestic tale with a Catholic heroine.

Pierre-Simon, marquis de Laplace (1749-1827) Traité de mécanique céleste. 5 vols (Paris: 1798-1825).

Matthew Gregory Lewis [Monk Lewis] (1775-1818) Romantic Tales. 4 vols (London: Longman, Hurst, Rees, and Orme, 1808). A best-selling collection of tales in prose.

John Gibson Lockhart (1794-1854) Memoirs of the Life of Sir Walter Scott, bart.. 7 vols (Edinburgh: R. Cadell, 1837-38).

Hector Macneill (1746-1818) The Pastoral, or Lyric Muse of Scotland; in Three Cantos. (Edinburgh: A. Constable, 1808). An allegorical poem in Spenserian stanzas.

Alexander Murray (1775-1813) Account of the Life and Writings of James Bruce. (Edinburgh: A. Constable and Co., 1808).

Sir Walter Scott, baronet (1771-1832) A Collection of scarce and valuable Tracts, on the most interesting and entertaining Subjects: but chiefly such as relate to the History and Constitution of these Kingdoms. Selected from an infinite number in print and manuscript, in the Royal, Cotton, Sion, and other public, as well as private Libraries; particularly that of the late Lord Somers. 13 vols (London: T. Cadell, W. Davies, 1809-1815). Edited by Sir Walter Scott.

Sir Walter Scott, baronet (1771-1832) Marmion; a Tale of Flodden Field. (Edinburgh: Constable, 1808). A narrative poem set in the sixteenth century; the six cantos are introduced by epistles addressed to William Stewart Rose, James Marriot, William Erskine, James Skene, George Ellis, and Richard Heber.

Sir Walter Scott, baronet (1771-1832) The Works of Jonathan Swift, D.D.: containing additional Letters, Tracts, and Poems, not hitherto published; with Notes, and a Life of the Author. 19 vols (Edinburgh: Archibald Constable and Co., 1814). Edited by Walter Scott; a revised edition was issued in 1823.

Anna Seward [the Swan of Lichfield] (1742-1809) Memoirs of the Life of Dr. Darwin chiefly during his Residence at Lichfield: with Anecdotes of his Friends, and Criticisms on his Writings. (London: J. Johnson, 1804). On the literary circle at Lichfield.

William Shakespeare (1564-1616) King Richard III. (London: 1597). First printed in a 1597 quarto.

Robert Southey (1774-1843) “Periodical Accounts relative to the Baptist Missionary Society” in Quarterly Review. Vol. 1 No. 1 (February 1809): 193-226. Robert Southey claims this review in his Life and Correspondence.

Robert Southey (1774-1843) Chronicle of the Cid, from the Spanish. (London: Longman, Hurst, Rees, and Orme, 1808). The Spanish original (from a twelfth-century work) was first published in 1544.

Robert Southey (1774-1843) The Life and Correspondence of Robert Southey. 6 vols (London: Longman, Brown, Green, and Longmans, 1849-1850). Edited by Charles Cuthbert Southey.

Virgil (70 BC-19 BC) The Works of Virgil, in Latin and English. 4 vols (London: R. Dodsley, 1753). The Eclogues and Georgics translated by Joseph Warton, the Aeneid by Christopher Pitt.

Horace Walpole, fourth earl of Orford (1717-1797) Anecdotes of Painting in England: with some Account of the Principal Artists: and Incidental Notes on other Arts. 4 vols (London: J. Dodsley, 1782).

Horace Walpole, fourth earl of Orford (1717-1797) Anecdotes of Painters, who have resided or been born in England, with Critical Remarks on their Productions. (London: Leigh and Sotheby, 1808). With additions by Edward Edwards (1738-1806).

William Wordsworth (1770-1850) The Excursion, being a portion of The Recluse, a Poem. (London: Longman, Hurst, Rees, Orme, and Brown, 1814). A poem in nine books of blank verse.

INFORMATION FROM TEI HEADER

Source Description:

Author: Smiles, Samuel, 1812-1904

Title: Memoir of John Murray 2 Vols (London: John Murray, 1891).

Electronic Edition:

Series: Lord Byron and his Times: http://lordbyron.org

Encoding Description: Any dashes occurring in line breaks have been removed. Obvious and unambiguous compositors’ errors have been silently corrected.

Markup and editing by: David Hill Radcliffe

Completed April 2009

Publication Statement:

Publisher: Center for Applied Technologies in the Humanities, Virginia Tech

Availability: Published under Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-Share Alike 3.0 Unported License