S.T. COLERIDGE.
Mr. Murray"s reply to this letter has not been preserved. At all events, nothing further was done by Coleridge with respect to the translation of "Faust," which is to be deplored, as his exquisite and original melody of versification might have produced a translation almost as great as the original.
Shortly after Coleridge took up his residence with the Gillmans at Highgate, and his intercourse with Murray recommenced. Lord Byron, while on the managing committee of Drury Lane Theatre, had been instrumental in getting Coleridge"s "Remorse" played upon the stage, as he entertained a great respect for its author. He was now encouraging Mr.
Murray to publish other works by Coleridge--among others, "Zapolya" and "Christabel."
On April 12, 1816, Coleridge gave the following lines to Mr. Murray, written in his own hand: [Footnote: The "Song, by Glycine" was first published in "Zapolya: A Christmas Tale," 1817, Part II., Act ii., Scene I. It was set to music by W. Patten in 1836; and again, with the t.i.tle "May Song," in 1879, by B.H. Loehr.]
GLYCINE: Song.
"A sunny shaft did I behold, From sky to earth it slanted, And pois"d therein a Bird so bold-- Sweet bird! thou wert enchanted!
He sank, he rose, he twinkled, he troll"d, Within that shaft of sunny mist: His Eyes of Fire, his Beak of Gold, All else of Amethyst!
And thus he sang: Adieu! Adieu!
Love"s dreams prove seldom true.
Sweet month of May! we must away!
Far, far away!
Today! today!"
In the following month (May 8, 1816) Mr. Coleridge offered Mr. Murray his "Remorse" for publication, with a Preface. He also offered his poem of "Christabel," still unfinished. For the latter Mr. Murray agreed to give him seventy guineas, "until the other poems shall be completed, when the copyright shall revert to the author," and also 20 for permission to publish the poem ent.i.tled "Kubla Khan."
Next month (June 6) Murray allowed Coleridge 50 for an edition of "Zapolya: A Christmas Tale," which was then in MS.; and he also advanced him another 50 for a play which was still to be written.
"Zapolya" was afterwards entrusted to another publisher (Rest Fenner), and Coleridge repaid Murray 50. Apparently (see _letter_ of March 29, 1817) Murray very kindly forewent repayment of the second advance of 50. There was, of course, no obligation to excuse a just debt, but the three issues of "Christabel" had resulted in a net profit of a little over 100 to the publisher.
_Mr. Coleridge to John Murray_.
HIGHGATE, _July_ 4, 1816.
I have often thought that there might be set on foot a review of old books, _i.e.,_ of all works important or remarkable, the authors of which are deceased, with a probability of a tolerable sale, if only the original _plan_ were a good one, and if no articles were admitted but from men who understood and recognized the Principles and Rules of Criticism, which should form the first number. I would not take the works chronologically, but according to the likeness or contrast of the _kind_ of genius--_ex. gr_. Jeremy Taylor, Milton (his prose works), and Burke--Dante and Milton--Scaliger and Dr. Johnson. Secondly, if especial attention were paid to all men who had produced, or aided in producing, any great revolution in the Taste or opinions of an age, as Petrarch, Ulrich von Hutten, etc. (here I will dare risk the charge of self-conceit by referring to my own parallel of Voltaire and Erasmus, of Luther and Rousseau in the seventh number of "The Friend "). Lastly, if proper care was taken that in every number of the _Review_ there should be a fair proportion of positively _amusing_ matter, such as a review of Paracelsus, Cardan, Old Fuller; a review of Jest Books, tracing the various metempsychosis of the same joke through all ages and countries; a History of Court Fools, for which a laborious German has furnished ample and highly interesting materials; foreign writers, though alive, not to be excluded, if only their works are of established character in their own country, and scarcely heard of, much less translated, in English literature. Jean Paul Richter would supply two or three delightful articles.
Any works which should fall in your way respecting the Jews since the destruction of the Temple, I should of course be glad to look through.
Above all, Mezeray"s (no! that is not the name, I think) "History of the Jews," that I _must_ have.
I shall be impatient for the rest of Mr. Frere"s sheets. Most unfeignedly can I declare that I am unable to decide whether the _admiration_ which the _excellence_ inspires, or the wonder which the knowledge of the countless _difficulties_ so happily overcome, never ceases to excite in my mind during the re-perusal and collation of them with the original Greek, be the greater. I have not a moment"s hesitation in fixing on Mr. Frere as the man of the correctest and most genial taste among all our contemporaries whom I have ever met with, personally or in their works. Should choice or chance lead you to sun and air yourself on Highgate Hill during any of your holiday excursions, my worthy friend and his amiable and accomplished wife will be happy to see you. We dine at four, and drink tea at six.
Yours, dear Sir, respectfully, S.T. COLERIDGE.
Mr. Murray did not accept Mr. Coleridge"s proposal to publish his works in a collected form or his articles for the _Quarterly_, as appears from the following letter:
_Mr. Coleridge to John Murray_.
HIGHGATE, _March_ 26, 1817.
DEAR SIR,
I cannot be offended by your opinion that my talents are not adequate to the requisites of matter and manner for the _Quarterly Review,_ nor should I consider it as a disgrace to fall short of Robert Southey in any department of literature. I owe, however, an honest gratification to the conversation between you and Mr. Gillman, for I read Southey"s article, on which Mr. Gillman and I have, it appears, formed very different opinions. It is, in my judgment, a very masterly article.
[Footnote: This must have been Southey"s article on Parliamentary Reform in No. 31, which, though due in October 1816, was not, published until February 1817.] I would to heaven, my dear sir, that the opinions of Southey, Walter Scott, Lord Byron, Mr. Frere, and of men like these in learning and genius, concerning my comparative claims to be a man of letters, were to be received as the criterion, instead of the wretched, and in deed and in truth mystical jargon of the _Examiner_ and _Edinburgh Review_.
Mr. Randall will be so good as to repay you the 50, and I understand from Mr. Gillman that you are willing to receive this as a settlement respecting the "Zapolya." The corrections and additions to the two first books of the "Christabel" may become of more value to you when the work is finished, as I trust it will be in the course of the spring, than they are at present. And let it not be forgotten, that while I had the utmost malignity of personal enmity to cry down the work, with the exception of Lord Byron, there was not one of the many who had so many years together spoken so warmly in its praise who gave it the least positive furtherance after its publication. It was openly a.s.serted that the _Quarterly Review_ did not wish to attack it, but was ashamed to say a word in its favor. Thank G.o.d! these things pa.s.s from me like drops from a duck"s back, except as far as they take the bread out of my mouth; and this I can avoid by consenting to publish only for the _present_ times whatever I may write. You will be so kind as to acknowledge the receipt of the 50 in such manner as to make all matters as clear between us as possible; for, though you, I am sure, could not have intended to injure my character, yet the misconceptions, and perhaps misrepresentations, of your words have had that tendency. By a letter from R. Southey I find that he will be in town on the 17th. The article in Tuesday"s _Courier_ was by me, and two other articles on Apostacy and Renegadoism, which will appear this week.
Believe me, with respect, your obliged,
S.T. COLERIDGE.
The following letter completes Coleridge"s correspondence with Murray on this subject:
_Mr. Coleridge to John Murray_.
[Highgate], _March_ 29, 1817.
Dear Sir,
From not referring to the paper dictated by yourself, and signed by me in your presence, you have wronged yourself in the receipt you have been so good as to send me, and on which I have therefore written as follows--"A mistake; I am still indebted to Mr. Murray 20 _legally_ (which I shall pay the moment it is in my power), and 30 from whatever sum I may receive from the "Christabel" when it is finished. Should Mr.
Murray decline its publication, I conceive myself bound _in honor_ to repay." I strive in vain to discover any single act or expression of my own, or for which I could be directly or indirectly responsible as a moral being, that would account for the change in your mode of thinking respecting me. But with every due acknowledgment of the kindness and courtesy that I received from you on my first coming to town,
I remain, dear Sir, your obliged, S.T. COLERIDGE.
Leigh Hunt was another of Murray"s correspondents. When the _Quarterly_ was started, Hunt, in his Autography, says that "he had been invited, nay pressed by the publisher, to write in the new Review, which surprised me, considering its politics and the great difference of my own." Hunt adds that he had no doubt that the invitation had been made at the instance of Gifford himself. Murray had a high opinion of Hunt as a critic, but not as a politician. Writing to Walter Scott in 1810 he said:
_John Murray to Mr. Scott_,
"Have you got or seen Hunt"s critical essays, prefixed to a few novels that he edited. Lest you should not, I send them. Hunt is most vilely wrongheaded in politics, and has thereby been turned away from the path of elegant criticism, which might have led him to eminence and respectability."
Hunt was then, with his brother, joint editor of the _Examiner_, and preferred writing for the newspaper to contributing articles to the _Quarterly_.
On Leigh Hunt"s release from Horsemonger Lane Gaol, where he had been imprisoned for his libel on the Prince Regent, he proceeded, on the strength of his reputation, to compose the "Story of Rimini," the publication of which gave the author a place among the poets of the day.
He sent a portion of the ma.n.u.script to Mr. Murray before the poem was finished, saying that it would amount to about 1,400 lines. Hunt then proceeded (December 18, 1815) to mention the terms which he proposed to be paid for his work when finished. "Booksellers," he said, "tell me that I ought not to ask less than 450 (which is a sum I happen to want just now); and my friends, not in the trade, say I ought not to ask less than 500, with such a trifling acknowledgment upon the various editions after the second and third, as shall enable me to say that I am still profiting by it."
Mr. Murray sent his reply to Hunt through their common friend, Lord Byron:
_John Murray to Lord Byron_.
_December_ 27, 1815.
"I wish your lordship to do me the favour to look at and to consider with your usual kindness the accompanying note to Mr. Leigh Hunt respecting his poem, for which he requests 450. This would presuppose a sale of, at least, 10,000 copies. Now, if I may trust to my own experience in these matters, I am by no means certain that the sale would do more than repay the expenses of paper and print. But the poem is peculiar, and may be more successful than I imagine, in which event the proposition which I have made to the author will secure to him all the advantages of such a result, I trust that you will see in this an anxious desire to serve Mr. Hunt, although as a mere matter of business I cannot avail myself of his offer. I would have preferred calling upon you today were I not confined by a temporary indisposition; but I think you will not be displeased at a determination founded upon the best judgment I can form of my own business. I am really uneasy at your feelings in this affair, but I think I may venture to a.s.sume that you know me sufficiently well to allow me to trust my decision entirely to your usual kindness."
_John Murray to Mr. Leigh Hunt_.
_December_ 27, 1815.
"I have now read the MS. poem, which you confided to me, with particular attention, and find that it differs so much from any that I have published that I am fearful of venturing upon the extensive speculation to which your estimate would carry it. I therefore wish that you would propose its publication and purchase to such houses as Cadell, Longman, Baldwin, Mawman, etc., who are capable of becoming and likely to become purchasers, and then, should you not have found any arrangement to your mind, I would undertake to print an edition of 500 or 750 copies as a trial at my own risk, and give you one half of the profits. After this edition the copyright shall be entirely your own property. By this arrangement, in case the work turn out a prize, as it may do, I mean that you should have every advantage of its success, for its popularity once ascertained, I am sure you will find no difficulty in procuring purchasers, even if you should be suspicious of my liberality from this specimen of fearfulness in the first instance. I shall be most happy to a.s.sist you with any advice which my experience in these matters may render serviceable to you."
Leigh Hunt at once accepted the offer.
After the poem was printed and published, being pressed for money, he wished to sell the copyright. After a recitation of his pecuniary troubles, Hunt concluded a lengthy letter as follows:
"What I wanted to ask you then is simply this--whether, in the first instance, you think well enough of the "Story of Rimini" to make you bargain with me for the copyright at once; or, in the second instance, whether, if you would rather wait a little, as I myself would do, I confess, if it were convenient, you have still enough hopes of the work, and enough reliance on myself personally, to advance me 450 on security, to be repaid in case you do not conclude the bargain, or merged in the payment of the poem in case you do."
Mr. Murray"s reply was not satisfactory, as will be observed from the following letter of Leigh Hunt: