Smiles: Memoir of John Murray

During the year in which the Quarterly was first given to the world, the alliance between Murray and the Ballantynes was close and intimate: their correspondence was not confined to business matters but bears witness to warm personal friendship.

Murray was able to place much printing work in their hands, and amongst other books, ‘Mrs. Rundell’s Cookery,’ which was then beginning to attain to a very large circulation, was printed at the Canongate Press.

“I regret that I cannot accept a share in the ‘Edinburgh Encyclopaedia.’ I am obliged to decline by motives of prudence. I do not know anything of the agreement made by the proprietors, except in the palpable mismanagement of a very exclusive and promising concern. I am therefore fearful to risk my property in an affair so extremely unsuitable.

“You distress me sadly by the announcement of having put the ‘Secret Memoirs’ to press, and that the paper for it was actually purchased six months ago! How can you, my good sirs, act in this way? How can you imagine that a bookseller can afford to pay eternal advances upon almost every work in which he takes a share with you? And how can you continue to destroy every speculation by entering upon new ones before the previous ones are properly completed? . . . Why, with your influence, will you not urge the completion of the ‘Minstrelsy’? Why not go on with and complete the series of De Foe? . . . For myself, I really do not know what to do, for when I see that you will complete nothing of your own, I am unwillingly apprehensive of having any work of mine in your power. What I thus write is in serious friendship for you. I entreat you to let us complete what we have already in hand, before we begin upon any other speculation. You will have enough to do to sell those in which we are already engaged. As to your mode of exchange and so disposing of your shares, besides the universal obloquy which attends the practice in the mind of every respectable bookseller, and the certain damnation which it invariably causes both

BALLANTYNE’S RECKLESSNESS.

173

to the book and the author, as in the case of Grahame, if persisted in, it must end in serious loss to the bookseller . . . If you cannot give me your solemn promise not to exchange a copy of Tasso, I trust you will allow me to withdraw the small share which I propose to take, for the least breath of this kind would blast the work and the author too—a most worthy man, upon whose account alone I engaged in the speculation.”

“We are sorry that the ‘Secret Memoirs’ going to press has occasioned you any uneasiness, but it is lucky it can be easily obviated. We shall, with your permission, keep all the book. I think I need scarcely add that I, who am so much more deeply interested than anybody else, have taken especial care that it neither interferes with De Foe, the ‘Tales,’ or any other work we have going on. . . . I do not wonder that you are apprehensive of trusting us with works to print, but I think the apprehension groundless; for, in order to keep the engagements in form, as well as our other accounts, you observe that we have even given up the ‘Encyclopædia.’ We certainly shall, in compliance with your desire, complete the engagements already entered into with you before we propose any new ones; and we must take our chance of selling our share in the books, in which perhaps you may be correct in supposing we have enough to do. . . . We beg, with yourself, to disclaim being actuated by any ill-temper in this letter. For your good wishes we thank you. For our success in life we must continue to pursue those means which, with rather a favourable result, we have done hitherto.”

Constable looked with jealousy at the operations of the house of Ballantyne. Their firm had indeed been started in opposition to himself; and it was not without a sort of gratification that he heard of their pecuniary difficulties. Scott’s ‘Lady of the Lake’ had been announced for publication. Constablerefers to this circumstance, at the close of his letter to Murray:—

An arrangement had been made with the Ballantynes that, in consideration of their being the sole agents for Mr. Murray in Scotland, they should give him the opportunity of taking shares in any of their publications. Instead, however, of offering a share of the ‘Lady of the Lake’ to Mr. Murray, according to the understanding between the firms, the Ballantynes had already parted with one fourth share of the work to Mr. Miller, of Albemarle Street, London, whose business was afterwards purchased by Mr. Murray. Mr. Murray’s letter to Ballantyne & Co. thus describes the arrangement:—

“Respecting my Review, you appear to forget that your engagement was that I should be your sole agent here, and

BREACH WITH THE BALLANTYNES.

175

that you were to publish nothing but what I was to have the offer of a share in. Your deviation from this must have led me to conclude that you did not desire or expect to continue my agent any longer. You cannot suppose that my estimation of Mr. Scott’s genius can have rendered me indifferent to my exclusion from a share in the ‘Lady of the Lake.’ I mention this as well to testify that I am not indifferent to this conduct in you as to point it out to you, that if you mean to withhold from me that portion which you command of the advantages of our connexion, you must surely mean to resign any that might arise from me. The sole agency for my publications in Edinburgh is worth to any man who understands his business £300 a year; but this requires zealous activity and deference on one side, and great confidence on both, otherwise the connexion cannot be advantageous or satisfactory to either party. For this number of the Review I have continued your name solely in it, and propose to make you as before sole publisher in Scotland; but as you have yourself adopted the plan of drawing upon me for the amount of each transaction, you will do me the favour to consider what quantity you will need, and upon your remitting to me a note at six months for the amount, I shall immediately ship the quantity for you.”

To return to the progress of the Quarterly. The fifth number, which was due in February 1810, but did not appear until the end of March, contained many excellent articles, though, as Mr. Ellis said, some of them were contributed by “good and steady but marvellously heavy friends.” Yet he found it better than the Edinburgh, which on that occasion was “reasonably dull.”

“The Edinburgh has at length come forth and with a good deal of spirit; but we will be better prepared for them the next time, and at least divide the public with them. I hope soon to hear all my contributions have come to hand. Not a line yet from Sharpe* or Douglas. This is the true curse of gentlemen writers. Before I come to London I hope to have at least three veterans in constant pay. I mean men that will keep their engagements for an article each.”

That Mr. Murray kept a close eye upon the contents is clear from his numerous letters to Mr. Gifford. He suggested that a note reflecting on Playfair should be left out of the article by Dr. Young on Archimedes, and also that the article on Sydney Smith was not quite proper, and might be objected to. Gifford replies:—

“The Quarterly pays me well—ten guineas per sheet; at the same measure, the Annual was only four. I have the bulky ‘Life of Nelson’ on hand, and am to be paid double. This must be for the sake of saying they give twenty guineas per sheet, as I should have been well satisfied with ten, and have taken exactly the same pains.”

Southey did not recognise the generosity of the publisher. Perhaps he did not know that the Review was not then paying its expenses.

“I have begun on ‘Nelson,’ and, though I have many erasures to make, I confess I think what remains very good.”

“You have so much upon your mind at this time that appears to be urgent, that I would be ashamed to mention the ‘Life of Nelson’ were it to press you for it, but the fact is that I think it so noble a subject for you in every respect, that I wish it to receive all your care and a good portion of what Turner calls the ‘prime’ of your mind. Besides inserting every fact respecting the Hero, it will admit of your patriotic display of our power as a nation, which we have ourselves underrated, and still do underrate. There is scarcely a Gazette published which does not detail acts of individual heroism that in any other nation would have immortalized the actors. I wish it to be made such a book as shall become the heroic text of every midshipman in the Navy, and the association of Nelson and Southey will not, I think, be ungrateful to you. If it be worth your attention in this way I am disposed to think that it will enable me to treble the sum I first offered as a slight remuneration.”

Although the ‘Life of Nelson’ is one of the most beautiful and attractive of Southey’s works, he himself said of it: “This is a subject which I should not have dreamt of touching if it had not been thrust upon me.” He received 100 guineas for the article, £100 for the enlargement of the Life, and £100 when it was afterwards published in the ‘Family Library.’

“I hope, my dear Murray, your stomach disorders do not proceed from harassing business, or any other cause of vexations from that source. Should they do so, in that case look well into the causes, and try whether they are not, by calmness and management, to be subdued and conducted by tolerable means. We may lose our balance in a moment, but sometimes a slight effort replaces us; yet if this slight effort be not made, our motion is all against us. I am only writing suggestions in the air, and request you will attribute them to the true motive. I flatter myself that, on the contrary, your success and industry in trade will serve to animate you with prospects of realized hopes. Forgive then my anxiety; but, as I know, when things do not go on smoothly, as they never can at all times, you are apt to be feelingly alive to them; and I attribute your complaints, in many respects, to the worry and cares of business. Now I conclude with a wise ancient saw of Lord Burleigh’s steward (I think) to his young master: ‘Be a good while in getting a little money, and you will then get a great deal afterwards in a short time. Lay the foundation safe and broad, and don’t hurry up the superstructure.’

“I know, dear Murray, I am writing in the dead stillness of a parlour, and in an easy chair—and the truest wisdom consists in action! However, lame persons have written some good dissertations on dancing. I thought it was now rather a dead season with you; and should have been glad to have had you and Mrs. M. for a little change down with us.

“I took the Q. R. with me. I like it well; and I do think it is far better than what you imagined it to be.

180

MEMOIRS OF JOHN MURRAY

The article on the ‘Fatal Revenge’ is exquisite in humour, and very ingenious in criticism. I long to get to the Chinese article—‘Ramayuna.’ I now conceive, when you have once established a regular period of publication, that you have good writers enough to secure a regular sale and an increasing one, besides the chance occasionally of getting at some great and commanding article. I know it has cost you too much anxiety; but I hope you can contrive to go on with less of that, and in time with a profit that will be worth your attention . . . . I hope you escape losses in the bankruptcies, among which are several bankers.”

It was certainly not “a dead season” with Mr. Murray. At the time that D’Israeli’s letter was written the August number was nearly due, though it was not yet half printed. Some of the articles were not even written, and Gifford suggested that the following notice should be placed on the cover of the forthcoming Review: “Unforeseen accidents have delayed the appearance of the present number; but arrangements have been made to ensure a more regular publication in future.”

Mr. Murray, writing to Mr. Scott (August 28th, 1810) as to the appearance of the new number, said:—

With respect to this article, written by Gifford himself, for which the lady at Bath sent him a bribe of £3, instead of sending back the money with indignation, as he at first proposed, he reviewed the romance, and assumed that the authoress had sent him the money for charitable purposes.

“I thank you,” said Gifford to Murray, from Ryde, “for Coplestone, which I read with great pleasure; it is his chef-d’œuvre—very dexterous, very cutting, and very gentlemanlike.”

I do entreat you to feel for me before you finally determine upon the insertion of the Oxford article. I cannot yet manage to make the Review pay its expenses, and it is only in the hope of having continually such a number as we expected to put forth this time, that I can in prudence proceed. The Oxford article can do Mr. Coplestone no service, because it is resting his argument upon a defence far inferior to his own in every respect. It will be of great evil to us; for everyone interested in the dispute will be disappointed if not disgusted with our having put forth, upon a subject so very difficult as regards ourselves, a weaker defence than they have previously read. It were hard to insert what I know would be so very prejudicial to me. I know indeed that you would not press it but for the dilemma in which its rejection would place you; but I think that a letter from you to Mr. C. would show it to be his own interest to retain it for the present; and the writer

182

MEMOIRS OF JOHN MURRAY

might be informed that Mr. C. wishes, before any more is published on the subject, to see if his adversaries answer his last reply.

Pitt arrived so late that it is impossible to get the number out this week. We may yet, therefore, hope for Crabbe, and this with Southey’s article on the Faroe Islands* will make a number good enough to apologise for a delay which otherwise carries ruin with it. For all this, I do most sincerely and devotedly rely upon your judgment and energy, in consideration of the great capital (nearly £5000) that I have embarked in this concern. I mention this for the purpose of showing that no ordinary man of business would have done this. But I will venture twice that sum upon what I know to be able. I have not yet, upon my honour, paid my expenses in any one single number of the Review. You will not be displeased, therefore, if I am over anxious to improve in every number, and desirous of printing the very best material that we can procure. I will only add that whatever I may say respecting the articles is entirely from the suggestion of my own point of view—I mean that I neither show them to, nor consult with, any friend of mine. Having mentioned this, I leave the whole entirely to you. I am only anxious for our mutual satisfaction.

Mr. Ellis also interfered. Although, he said, the article was at once “tedious and feeble,” yet there were two considerations on which he would plead for its admission: “First, the positive request of Coplestone himself; second, the utter impossibility of filling our number without it.” The article was accordingly inserted. On the 1st of October, Mr. Ellis wrote to the publisher:—

“Gifford, though the best-tempered man alive, is terribly severe with his pen; but S. S. would suffer ten times more by being turned into ridicule (and never did man expose himself so much as he did in that sermon) than from being slashed and cauterized in that manner.”

“I have now erased, in conformity with your wishes, some of the allusions to the E. R., and have left, indeed, only one prominent quotation from them (that relating to Astrachan); to evince the extreme bad taste of which I have, instead of making any comment of my own, subjoined a note at the bottom of the page from Bell’s very valuable ‘Travels.’ You will readily believe that I am never very anxious to enter the lists with our adversaries, and I generally wish to avoid it, because it is certain that, if in such a conflict we should ever be guilty of the sort of grossness which they employ, we should injure ourselves with rational readers. But I cannot agree with you in thinking that when they have formally thrown down the gauntlet (as they have done on the subject of Dr. Clarke), we are bound altogether to abstain from noticing their defiance, because, as they unquestionably possess, and, to a certain degree, deserve, a high reputation, we cannot, without a degree of affectation even more ridiculous than that of Sydney Smith, pretend a total ignorance of their opinions.”

Meanwhile, Mr. Murray was becoming hard pressed for money. To conduct his increasing business required a large floating capital, for long credits were the custom, and besides his own requirements, he had to bear the constant importunities of the Ballantynes to renew their bills. On the 25th of July, 1810, he wrote to them: “This will be the last renewal of the bill (£300); when it becomes due, you will have the goodness to provide for it.” It was, however, becoming impossible to continue dealing with them, and he gradually transferred his printing business to other firms. We find him about this time ordering Messrs. George Ramsay & Co., Edinburgh, to print 8000 of the ‘Domestic Cookery,’ which was still having a large sale.

To return to the Quarterly No. 8. One can easily imagine the anxiety and distress of the publisher when, owing to the repeated delay in publication, the circulation fell off from 5000 to 4000. Gifford himself often thought of giving up the editorship; he felt that his physical strength was insufficient for the proper care and management of the still struggling periodical.

Mr. George Ellis, the faithful friend of the publisher, clearly saw the injury done to the progress of the Quarterly. He wrote to Mr. Murray:—

Accordingly, increased efforts were made to have the Quarterly published with greater punctuality, though it was a considerable time before success in this respect was finally reached. Gifford pruned and pared down to the last moment, and often held back the publication until an erasure or a correction could be finally inserted.

No. 9 due in February 1811, was not published until March. From this time Southey became an almost constant contributor to the Review. He wrote with ease, grace, and rapidity, and there was scarcely a number without one, and sometimes two and even three articles from his pen. His prose style was charming—clear, masculine, and to the point, but he prided himself more upon his poetry than upon his prose. The public did not see his merits in the same light, for while they eagerly read his prose, his poetry remained unnoticed on the shelves. In December 1807, Southey said he had gained only £25 by ‘Madoc,’ and in the following year, his ‘Thalaba’ fell still-born from the press. “My whole profits upon it,” he said, “have amounted to five-and-twenty pounds. But I cast my bread upon the waters, and if I myself should’ not live to find it after many days, my children will.”

“With regard to ‘Kehama,’ I was perfectly aware that I was planting acorns while my contemporaries were setting Turkey beans. The oak will grow, and though I may never sit under its shade, my children will. Of the ‘Lady of the Lake,’ 25,000 copies have been printed; of ‘Kehama,’ 500; and if they sell in seven years, I shall be surprised.”

Scott did not act as some literary people do—cut up his friend in a review. He pointed out the beauties of the poem, in order to invite purchasers and readers. Yet his private opinion to his friend George Ellis was this:—

I have received your packet with Cromek’s additional sweepings. In his Nithesdale, &c., Sketches he has, I think, had the assistance of a Mr. Mounsey Cunningham who used to correspond with Mr. Constable’s ‘Scottish Magazine’ under the signature J. M. C. I wish you would learn how this stands, for he is a man of some genius, and I would like to treat him civilly, whereas Cromek is a perfect brain-sucker, living upon the labours of others. I have just got ‘Kehama,’ and I hope to have it ready for the Review, so I wish you would keep a corner. I shall be puzzled to do justice to the Review in noticing its great blemishes, and to the author in pointing out its numerous brilliancies, but I must do the best I can. I had Weber’s Romances in hand, but I have laid them aside for this more pressing and more interesting matter.

I beg you will keep my remittances till the end of the year, and shall write so to Mr. Gifford. It is sometimes convenient to have credit for a few guineas in London. Believe me that as I have not had any cause whatever, so I have not had the least intention to slacken our correspondence, but the dulness of the literary world, at least in those articles of lighter calibre in which I deal, gave me but little to say.

It was a good thing for Southey that he could always depend upon his contributions to the Quarterly for his daily maintenance, for he could not at all rely upon the income from his poetry.

The failure of the Edinburgh Annual Register, published by Ballantyne, led to a diminution of Southey’s income amounting to about £400 a year. He was thus led to write more and more for the Quarterly. His reputation, as well as his income, rose higher from his writings there than from any of his other works. In April 1812 he wrote to his friend Mr. Wynn:—

≪ PREV

NEXT ≫

Archimedes (287 BC c.-212 BC) Of Syracuse; Greek astronomer, physicist, and inventor.

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

John Ballantyne (1774-1821) Edinburgh publisher and literary agent for Walter Scott; he was the younger brother of the printer James Ballantyne.

John Bell (1691-1780) Scottish traveller in Russia, China, and the Levant.

William Blackwood (1776-1834) Edinburgh bookseller; he began business 1804 and for a time was John Murray's Scottish agent. He launched Blackwood's Magazine in 1817.

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.

Thomas Campbell (1777-1844) Scottish poet and man of letters; author of The Pleasures of Hope (1799), Gertrude of Wyoming (1808) and lyric odes. He edited the New Monthly Magazine (1821-30).

William Cecil, first baron Burghley (1520-1598) English statesman who was the chief advisor to Queen Elizabeth.

Edward Daniel Clarke (1769-1822) English traveler and collector, the younger brother of James Stanier Clarke; he was professor of mineralogy at Cambridge (1808) and university librarian (1817). He published Travels in various Countries of Europe, Asia and Africa (1810-23) and corresponded with Byron.

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).

Robert Hartley Cromek (1770-1812) Scottish engraver who published Blake's etchings to Robert Blair's The Grave and the Reliques of Robert Burns (1808) and Select Scottish Songs (1810).

Thomas Mounsey Cunningham (1776-1834) Scottish poet, the elder brother of the poet Allan Cunningham; he emigrated to London where he was employed as an engineer.

Isaac D'Israeli (1766-1848) English essayist and literary biographer; author of Curiosities of Literature (1791). Father of the prime minister.

John Davison (1777-1834) English theologian and writer for the Quarterly Review who supported Edward Copleston in his defense of Oxford against the Edinburgh Review.

Daniel Defoe (1660-1731) English novelist and miscellaneous writer; author of Robinson Crusoe (1719), Moll Flanders (1722) and Roxanna (1724).

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

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).

James Grahame (1765-1811) Scottish poet; author of the oft-reprinted blank-verse poem, The Sabbath (1804). He corresponded with Annabella Milbanke.

Sir Robert Grant (1780-1838) He was MP for Elgin and Inverness (1818-26), a hymn-writer, and governor of Bombay (1834-38).

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.

Sir John Leslie (1766-1832) Professor of Mathematics at Edinburgh University, author of Experimental Enquiries into the Nature and Properties of Heat (1804), and contributor to the Edinburgh Review.

William Lort Mansel, bishop of Bristol (1753-1820) Master of Trinity College, Cambridge (1798) and Bishop of Bristol (1808), a position obtained for him by his former pupil Spencer Percival.

William Richard Beckford Miller (1769-1844) Albemarle-Street bookseller; he began publishing in 1790; shortly after he rejected Byron's Childe Harold in 1811 his stock and premises were purchased by John Murray.

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.

Horatio Nelson, viscount Nelson (1758-1805) Britain's naval hero who destroyed the French fleet in the Battle of the Nile (1798) and defeated the combined French and Spanish fleets at Trafalgar (1805) in which action he was killed.

Alicia Tindal Palmer (1763-1822) Of Bath, the daughter of the actor John Palmer (1728-1768); her first novel was The Husband and Lover published in 1809.

John Playfair (1748-1819) Professor of Mathematics at Edinburgh University and Whig man of letters who contributed to the Edinburgh Review.

George Ramsay (1823 fl.) Edinburgh printer who worked in Old Fishmarket-close 1808-23.

John Rickman (1771-1840) Educated at Magdalen Hall and Lincoln College, Oxford, he was statistician and clerk to the House of Commons and an early friend of Charles Lamb and Robert Southey.

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

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.

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.

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).

Sharon Turner (1768-1847) Attorney, historian, and writer for the Quarterly Review; he wrote History of the Anglo-Saxons, 4 vols (1799-1805).

Henry William Weber (1783-1818) The son of a Moravian father and English mother, he published an edition of the works of John Ford and Beaumont and Fletcher; after working as an editorial assistant to Walter Scott he spent his latter years in a lunatic asylum.

Charles Watkin Williams Wynn (1775-1850) The son of Sir Watkin Williams Wynn, fourth baronet; educated at Westminster and Christ Church, Oxford, Robert Southey's friend and benefactor was a Whig MP for Old Sarum (1797) and Montgomeryshire (1799-1850). He was president of the Board of Control (1822-28).

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 Review, and History of Literature. 6 vols (1803-1808). Edited by Arthur Aikin; Robert Southey was a regular contributor.

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.

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 Scots Magazine. 65 vols (1739-1803). Continued as The Scots Magazine and Edinburgh Literary Miscellany (1804-17) and The Edinburgh Magazine and Literary Miscellany (1817-26).

John Ballantyne (1774-1821) English Minstrelsy. Being a Selection of Fugitive Poetry from the best English Authors; with some Original Pieces, hitherto unpublished. 2 vols (Edinburgh: J. Ballantyne and Co., 1810). Edited by John Ballantyne with assistance from Walter Scott.

John Bell (1691-1780) Travels from St. Petersburgh in Russia to various parts of Asia. (London: J. Murray, 1806). First published in 1763.

John Black (1777 c.-1825) Life of Torquato Tasso: with an Historical and Critical Account of his Writings. 2 vols (London: John Murray, 1810).

Sir David Brewster (1781-1868) The Edinburgh Encyclopædia. 18 vols (Edinburgh: William Blackwood, 1808-1830). Edited by Sir David Brewster.

Thomas Campbell (1777-1844) Specimens of the British Poets: with Biographical and Critical Notices, and an Essay on English Poetry. 7 vols (London: Murray, 1819). Campbell's prefatory remarks sparked the “Pope Controversy” between advocates of the classical and romantic schools in English poetry.

Edward Daniel Clarke (1769-1822) Travels in various Countries of Europe, Asia and Africa. 5 vols (London: W. Cadell and W. Davies, 1810-1819).

Edward Copleston, bishop of Llandaff (1776-1849) A Reply to the Calumnies of the Edinburgh review against Oxford. Containing an Account of Studies pursued in that University. (Oxford: For the Author, 1810). The first of a series of pamphlets devoted to the controversy over reform.

Robert Hartley Cromek (1770-1812) Remains of Nithsdale and Galloway Song: with historical and traditional Notices relative to the Manners and Customs of the Peasantry. (London: T. Cadell and W. Davies, 1810).

Daniel Defoe (1660-1731) The Novels of Daniel Defoe. 12 vols (Edinburgh: J. Ballantyne, 1810).

William Gifford (1756-1826) “The Daughters of Isenberg” in Quarterly Review. Vol. 4 No. 7 (August 1810): 61-67. A review of the romance by Alicia Tindal Palmer.

James Grahame (1765-1811) British Georgics. (Edinburgh: J. Ballantyne and Co., 1809). Reprinted 1812.

Sir Robert Grant (1780-1838) “Crabbe's Borough” in Quarterly Review. Vol. 4 No. 8 (November 1810): 281-312.

Sir Robert Grant (1780-1838) “Gifford's Life of the Rt. Hon. W. Pitt” in Quarterly Review. Vol. 4 No. 7 (August 1810): 207-71. A review of the biography written by John Gifford.

Sir Robert Grant (1780-1838) “Sir P. Francis and Ricardo on Bullion” in Quarterly Review. Vol. 3 No. 5 (February 1810): 152-61.

Alicia Tindal Palmer (1763-1822) The Daughters of Isenberg: a Bavarian Romance. 4 vols (London: Lackington, Allen, 1810). The author's second novel.

Maria Eliza Rundell [née Ketelby] (1745-1828) A New System of Domestic Cookery: formed upon Principles of Economy, and adapted to the use of Private Families. (London: J. Murray and J. Harding, 1806). Enlarged and embellished in successive editions.

Sir Walter Scott, baronet (1771-1832) “Fatal Revenge; or, the Family of Montorio” in Quarterly Review. Vol. 3 No. 5 (February 1810): 339-47. A review of Maturin's play.

Sir Walter Scott, baronet (1771-1832) The Lady of the Lake: a Poem. (Edinburgh: John Ballantyne, 1810). A metrical romance set in the Highlands, often regarded as Scott's most successful poem.

Sir Walter Scott, baronet (1771-1832) Secret History of the Court of James the First. 2 vols (Edinburgh: J. Ballantyne, 1811). Consisting of various court memoirs with a preface and notes by Scott.

Sir Walter Scott, baronet (1771-1832) “Southey's Curse of Kehama” in Quarterly Review. Vol. 5 No. 9 (February 1811): 40-61. Grosvenor Bedford contributed to the article.

Anna Seward [the Swan of Lichfield] (1742-1809) Letters of Anna Seward: written between the Years 1784 and 1807. 6 vols (Edinburgh: A. Constable and Co., 1811). With a preface by Archibald Constable.

Robert Southey (1774-1843) The Curse of Kehama. (London: Longman, Hurst, Rees, Orme, and Brown, 1810). A Hindoo mythological tale in twenty-four books of irregular verse.

Robert Southey (1774-1843) “Landt's Description of the Feroe Islands” in Quarterly Review. Vol. 4 No. 8 (November 1810): 333-42.

Robert Southey (1774-1843) The Life of Nelson. 2 vols (London: John Murray, 1813). Robert Southey's most popular work—with the exception of the story of Goldilocks and the Three Bears.

Robert Southey (1774-1843) “Lives of Nelson” in Quarterly Review. Vol. 3 No. 5 (February 1810): 218-62.

Robert Southey (1774-1843) “Lives of the French Revolutionists” in Quarterly Review. Vol. 7 No. 12 (June 1812): 412-38.

Robert Southey (1774-1843) Madoc. (London: Longman, Hurst, Rees, and Orme, 1805). A verse romance relating the legendary adventures of a Welsh prince in Wales and pre-Columbian America.

Robert Southey (1774-1843) Thalaba the Destroyer. 2 vols (London: T. N. Longman and O. Rees, 1801). A fantastic mythological tale, in irregular verse, set in the middle east.

Sharon Turner (1768-1847) “The Ramayuna of Valmeeki” in Quarterly Review. Vol. 3 No. 6 (May 1810): 379-99. A review of the translation by William Carey.

John William Ward, earl of Dudley (1781-1833) “Sydney Smith's Visitation Sermon” in Quarterly Review. Vol. 3 No. 5 (February 1810): 185-94. Written with assistance from William Gifford and John Ireland.

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