_September_ 22, 1818.
"I was much pleased to find, on my arrival from Edinburgh on Sat.u.r.day night, your letter of August 26. The former one of the 21st I received whilst in Scotland. The Sat.u.r.day and Sunday previous I pa.s.sed most delightfully with Walter Scott, who was incessant in his inquiries after your welfare. He entertains the n.o.blest sentiments of regard towards you, and speaks of you with the best feelings. I walked about ten miles with him round a very beautiful estate, which he has purchased by degrees, within two miles of his favourite Melrose. He has nearly completed the centre and one wing of a castle on the banks of the Tweed, where he is the happiness as well as pride of the whole neighbourhood.
He is one of the most hospitable, merry, and entertaining of mortals. He would, I am confident, do anything to serve you; and as the Paper [Footnote: The review of the fourth canto of "Childe Harold," _Q.R.,_ No.37.] which I now enclose is a second substantial proof of the interest he takes in your literary character, perhaps it may naturally enough afford occasion for a letter from you to him. I sent you by Mr.
Hanson four volumes of a second series of "Tales of my Landlord," and four others are actually in the press. Scott does not yet avow them, but no one doubts his being their author.... I sent also by Mr. Hanson a number or two of _Blackwood"s Edinburgh Magazine,_ and I have in a recent parcel sent the whole. I think that you will find in it a very great share of talent, and some most incomparable fun.... John Wilson, who wrote the article on Canto IV. of "Childe Harold" (of which, by the way, I am anxious to know your opinion), has very much interested himself in the journal, and has communicated some most admirable papers.
Indeed, he possesses very great talents and a variety of knowledge. I send you a very well-constructed kaleidoscope, a newly-invented toy which, if not yet seen in Venice, will I trust amuse some of your female friends."
The following letter is inserted here, as it does not appear in Moore"s "Biography":
_Lord Byron to John Murray_.
VENICE, _November_ 24, 1818,
DEAR. MR. MURRAY,
Mr. Hanson has been here a week, and went five days ago. He brought nothing but his papers, some corn-rubbers, and a kaleidoscope. "For what we have received the Lord make us thankful"! for without His aid I shall not be so. He--Hanson-left everything else in _Chancery Lane_ whatever, except your copy-papers for the last Canto, [Footnote: Of "Childe Harold."] etc., which having a degree of parchment he brought with him.
You may imagine his reception; he swore the books were a "waggon-load"; if they were, he should have come in a waggon; he would in that case have come quicker than he did.
Lord Lauderdale set off from hence twelve days ago accompanied by a cargo of Poesy directed to Mr. Hobhouse, all spick and span, and in MS.; you will see what it is like. I have given it to Master Southey, and he shall have more before I have done with him.
You may make what I say here as public as you please, more particularly to Southey, whom I look upon--and will say so publicly-to be a dirty, lying rascal, and will prove it in ink--or in his blood, if I did not believe him to be too much of a poet to risk it! If he has forty reviews at his back, as he has the _Quarterly_, I would have at him in his scribbling capacity now that he has begun with me; but I will do nothing underhand; tell him what I say from _me_ and every one else you please.
You will see what I have said, if the parcel arrives safe. I understand Coleridge went about repeating Southey"s lie with pleasure. I can believe it, for I had done him what is called a favour.... I can understand Coleridge"s abusing me--but how or why _Southey_, whom I had never obliged in any sort of way, or done him the remotest service, should go about fibbing and calumniating is more than I readily comprehend. Does he think to put me down with his _Canting_, not being able to do it with his poetry? We will try the question. I have read his review of Hunt, where he has attacked Sh.e.l.ley in an oblique and shabby manner. Does he know what that review has done? I will tell you; it has _sold_ an edition of the "Revolt of Islam" which otherwise n.o.body would have thought of reading, and few who read can understand, I for one.
Southey would have attacked me too there, if he durst, further than by hints about Hunt"s friends in general, and some outcry about an "Epicurean System" carried on by men of the most opposite habits and tastes and opinions in life and poetry (I believe) that ever had their names in the same volume--Moore, Byron, Sh.e.l.ley, Hazlitt, Haydon, Leigh Hunt, Lamb. What resemblance do ye find among all or any of these men?
And how could any sort of system or plan be carried on or attempted amongst them? However, let Mr. Southey look to himself; since the wine is tapped, he shall drink it.
I got some books a few weeks ago--many thanks. Amongst them is Israeli"s new edition; it was not fair in you to show him my copy of his former one, with all the marginal notes and nonsense made in Greece when I was not two-and-twenty, and which certainly were not meant for his perusal, nor for that of his readers.
I have a great respect for Israeli and his talents, and have read his works over and over and over repeatedly, and been amused by them greatly, and instructed often. Besides, I hate giving pain, unless provoked; and he is an author, and must feel like his brethren; and although his Liberality repaid my marginal flippancies with a compliment--the highest compliment--that don"t reconcile me to myself--nor to _you_. It was a breach of confidence to do this without my leave; I don"t know a living man"s book I take up so often or lay down more reluctantly than Israeli"s, and I never will forgive you--that is, for many weeks. If he had got out of humour I should have been less sorry; but even then I should have been sorry; but really he has heaped his "coals of fire" so handsomely upon my head that they burn unquenchably.
You ask me of the two reviews [Footnote: Of "Childe Harold" in the _Quarterly_ and _Blackwood._]--I will tell you. Scott"s is the review of one poet on another--his friend; Wilson"s, the review of a poet too, on another--his _Idol_; for he likes me better than he chooses to avow to the public with all his eulogy. I speak judging only from the article, for I don"t know him personally.
Here is a long letter--can you read it?
Yours ever,
B.
In the course of September 1818 Lord Byron communicated to Mr. Moore that he had finished the first canto of a poem in the style and manner of "Beppo." "It is called," he said, ""Don Juan," and is meant to be a little quietly facetious upon everything; but," he added, "I doubt whether it is not--at least so far as it has yet gone--too free for these very modest days." In January 1819 Lord Byron requested Mr. Murray to print for private distribution fifty copies of "Don Juan." Mr. Murray urged him to occupy himself with some great work worthy of his reputation. "This you have promised to Gifford long ago, and to Hobhouse and Kinnaird since." Lord Byron, however, continued to write out his "Don Juan," and sent the second canto in April 1819, together with the "Letter of Julia," to be inserted in the first canto.
Mr. Murray, in acknowledging the receipt of the first and second cantos, was not so congratulatory as he had formerly been. The verses contained, no doubt, some of the author"s finest poetry, but he had some objections to suggest. "I think," he said, "you may modify or subst.i.tute other words for the lines on Romilly, whose death should save him." But Byron entertained an extreme detestation for Romilly, because, he said, he had been "one of my a.s.sa.s.sins," and had sacrificed him on "his legal altar"; and the verse [Footnote: St. 16, First Canto.] was allowed to stand over. "Your history," wrote Murray, "of the plan of the progress of "Don Juan" is very entertaining, but I am clear for sending him to h.e.l.l, because he may favour us with a description of some of the characters whom he finds there." Mr. Murray suggested the removal of some offensive words in Canto II. "These," he said, "ladies may not read; the Shipwreck is a little too particular, and out of proportion to the rest of the picture. But if you do anything it must be done with extreme caution; think of the effects of such seductive poetry! It probably surpa.s.ses in talent anything that you ever wrote. Tell me if you think seriously of completing this work, or if you have sketched the story. I am very sorry to have occasioned you the trouble of writing again the "Letter of Julia"; but you are always very forgiving in such cases." The lines in which the objectionable words appeared were obliterated by Lord Byron.
From the following letter we see that Mr. Murray continued his remonstrances:
_John Murray to Lord Byron_.
_May 3_, 1819.
"I find that "Julia"s Letter" has been safely received, and is with the printer. The whole remainder of the second canto will be sent by Friday"s post. The inquiries after its appearance are not a few. Pray use your most tasteful discretion so as to wrap up or leave out certain approximations to indelicacy."
Mr. Douglas Kinnaird, who was entrusted with the business portion of this transaction, wrote to Mr. Murray:
_Mr. Douglas Kinnaird to John Murray_.
_June 7_, 1819.
My Dear Sir,
Since I had the pleasure of seeing you, I have received from Lord Byron a letter in which he expresses himself as having left to Mr. Hobhouse and myself the sole and whole discretion and duty of settling with the publisher of the MSS. which are now in your hands the consideration to be given for them. Observing that you have advertised "Mazeppa," I feel that it is my duty to request you will name an early day--of course previous to your publishing that or any other part of the MSS.--when we may meet and receive your offer of such terms as you may deem proper for the purchase of the copyright of them. The very liberal footing on which Lord Byron"s intercourse with you in your character of publisher of his Lordship"s works has. .h.i.therto been placed, leaves no doubt in my mind that our interview need be but very short, and that the terms you will propose will be met by our a.s.sent.
The parties met, and Mr. Murray agreed to give 525 for "Mazeppa," and 1,575 for the first and second cantos of "Don Juan," with "The Ode to Venice" thrown in.
In accordance with Lord Byron"s directions to his publisher to "keep the anonymous," Cantos I. and II. of "Don Juan" appeared in London, in quarto, in July 1819, without the name of either author, publisher, or bookseller. The book was immediately pounced upon by the critics; but it is unnecessary to quote their reviews, as they are impartially given in the latest accredited editions of Lord Byron"s poems. A few criticisms from Mr. Murray"s private correspondence may be given.
_Mr. Gifford to John Murray_.
RYDE, _July_ 1, 1819.
"Lord B."s letter is shockingly amusing. [Footnote: Probably that written in May; printed in the "Life."] He must be mad; but then there"s method in his madness. I dread, however, the end. He is, or rather might be, the most extraordinary character of his age. I have lived to see three great men--men to whom none come near in their respective provinces--Pitt, Nelson, Wellington. Morality and religion would have placed our friend among them as the fourth boast of the time; even a decent respect for the good opinion of mankind might have done much now; but all is tending to displace him."
Mr. Murray, who was still in communication with Mr. Blackwood, found that he refused to sell "Don Juan" because it contained personalities which he regarded as even more objectionable than those of which Murray had complained in the _Magazine_.
When the copyright of "Don Juan" was infringed by other publishers, it became necessary to take steps to protect it at law, and Mr. Sharon Turner was consulted on the subject. An injunction was applied for in Chancery, and the course of the negotiation will be best ascertained from the following letters:
_Mr. Sharon Turner to John Murray_.
_October_ 21, 1819.
DEAR MURRAY,
... on "Don Juan" I have much apprehension. I had from the beginning, and therefore advised the separate a.s.signment. The counsel who is settling the bill also doubts if the Chancellor will sustain the injunction. I think, when Mr. Bell comes to town, it will be best to have a consultation with him on the subject. The counsel, Mr. Loraine, shall state to him his view on the subject, and you shall hear what Mr.
Bell feels upon it. Shall I appoint the consultation? The evil, if not stopped, will be great. It will circulate in a cheap form very extensively, injuring society wherever it spreads. Yet one consideration strikes me. You could wish Lord Byron to write less objectionably. You may also wish him to return you part of the 1,625. If the Chancellor should dissolve the injunction on this ground, that will show Lord B.
that he must expect no more copyright money for such things, and that they are too bad for law to uphold. Will not this affect his mind and purify his pen? It is true that to get this good result you must encounter the risk and expense of the injunction and of the argument upon it. Will you do this? If I laid the case separately before three of our ablest counsel, and they concurred in as many opinions that it could not be supported, would this equally affect his Lordship"s mind, and also induce him to return you an adequate proportion of the purchase money? Perhaps nothing but the Court treating him as it treated Southey [Footnote: In the case of "Wat Tyler," see Murray"s letter to Byron in preceding chapter, April 12, 1817.] may sufficiently impress Lord B.
After the consultation with Bell you will better judge. Shall I get it appointed as soon as he comes to town?
Ever yours faithfully,
SHARON TURNER.
Mr. Bell gave his opinion that the Court would not afford protection to the book. He admitted, however, that he had not had time to study it.
The next letter relates to the opinion of Mr. Shadwell, afterwards Vice-Chancellor:
_Mr. Sharon Turner to John Murray_.
_November_ 12, 1819.
Dear Murray,