This thesis has been submitted in fulfilment of the requirements for a postgraduate degree (e.g. PhD, MPhil, DClinPsychol) at the University of Edinburgh. Please note the following terms and conditions of use: This work is protected by copyright and other intellectual property rights, which are retained by the thesis author, unless otherwise stated. A copy can be downloaded for personal non-commercial research or study, without prior permission or charge. This thesis cannot be reproduced or quoted extensively from without first obtaining permission in writing from the author. The content must not be changed in any way or sold commercially in any format or medium without the formal permission of the author. When referring to this work, full bibliographic details including the author, title, awarding institution and date of the thesis must be given. THE JOHN MURRAY ARCHIVE, 1820s-1840s: (RE)ESTABLISHING THE HOUSE IDENTITY By KIRSTEN BANKS A thesis submitted to The University of Edinburgh for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY 2013 Declaration I declare that this thesis is my own work and has not been submitted for any other degree of professional qualification. Kirsten Banks 23rd December 2013 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I could not have undertaken this research without the financial assistance of the AHRC, who provided me with a stipend between 2009-2012. I also received annual contributions from the National Library of Scotland during this time to help with research expenses, for which I am very grateful. Whilst on a research trip in London, I had the pleasure of meeting John and Virginia Murray at 50 Albemarle Street, whose time and interest in my thesis was much appreciated. I would like to thank Rachel Beattie, and all the archival staff at the National Library of Scotland and the Radcliffe Science Library, who have helped me with my many requests over the years. I owe a debt of thanks to Bill Bell, Jonathan Wild, and David McClay, who have supervised the research and writing of this thesis throughout the duration of my time at the University of Edinburgh. Finally, I offer my warmest thanks to my family and friends whose generosity, kindness, and understanding has made the completion of this thesis possible. ABSTRACT This thesis examines the continuing growth of the House of Murray during the 1820s-1840s. Prior to the 1820s, Murray had enjoyed massive success with the publications of the work of Lord Byron, whose celebrity, and the profits generated, contributed significantly to the House’s prestigious reputation. Murray’s move from Fleet Street to Albemarle Street in 1812 also signified the House’s shift from bookselling to publishing, which enabled Murray to attract an increasing number of high-profile names from the worlds of literature, travel and exploration, the sciences, and politics. Murray’s drawing-room at Albemarle Street became renowned throughout the trade for its gentlemanly gatherings, comprising of the luminaries of the day. The four chapters of this thesis explore how Murray (re)established the House identity in different markets during the 1820s-1840s, as the Romantic epoch diffused into an increasingly commercialised era, with new production methods, an expanding marketplace, and increasing competition. Chapter One considers Murray’s use of the drawing room at Albemarle Street to construct a House identity amongst selected members of his inner circle. It also looks at the importance of the Byronic legacy to the House and the means by which Murray sought to protect it. Chapter Two engages with the contrasting side of the House, namely the ‘cheap’ publications, which Murray published in response to the growth of this market in the late-1820s and early-1830s. During this time Murray used some of his well-established assets, such as Byron, Crabbe and the Quarterly Review, to retain the prestige of the House, while attempting to reach new readers within the burgeoning middle class. Chapter Three examines Murray’s correspondence with some of his female authors to consider how the House responded to authors of both genders, and, with reference to ongoing scholarship regarding ‘women’s writing’, questions the veracity of a gender-centric approach when applied to the study of archival materials; the chapter’s findings suggest that both Murray’s male and female authors were treated similarly. The final chapter explores how Murray strove to retain control over the House’s reputation as international trading possibilities developed. The roots of the 'Handbooks' and the 'Colonial and Home Library' are also traced back further than has previously been considered, and read within the context of the ongoing re- branding of Byron discussed in Chapters One and Two. The House’s literary figures, and the Quarterly Review, were used by Murray in the 1840s to promote the values and prestige of the House in America, Europe and the Colonies. This thesis offers much previously unpublished archival material from the John Murray Archive at the National Library of Scotland. It builds upon previous scholarship on John Murray and seeks to contextualise some of these lines of enquiry through providing a sustained study of the House during the 1820s-1840s. It uses quantitative analysis, where possible, to provide further grounding for some of its claims, and situates the findings within the growing body of research in this area. It is the underlying aim of this thesis to foreground the House’s shift from the ‘Romanticism’ of the early-nineteenth century towards the ‘commercialism’ of the mid-nineteenth century, whilst serving as a point of reference for further scholarship on the John Murray Archive during this time period. CONTENTS Introduction 1 1. 50 Albemarle Street and the Branding of the 17 House Identity 2. ‘Cheap’ Literature 66 3. Murray and ‘Women’s Writing’ 117 4. The Role of Domestic and International Dissemination 169 in Shaping the House Identity Conclusion 217 Appendix One 220 Appendix Two 221 Appendix Three 223 Appendix Four 225 Appendix Five 226 Appendix Six 228 Figure One 231 Bibliography 232 1 Introduction The prestige which [Murray] obtained as Byron’s publisher, naturally drew to him all that was vigorous and original in the intellect of the day, so that there was a general desire among young authors to be introduced to the public under his auspices. The relations between author and publisher which had prevailed in the eighteenth century were, in his case, curiously inverted, and, in the place of a solitary scholar like Johnson, surrounded by an association of booksellers, the drawing room of Murray now presented the remarkable spectacle of a single publisher acting as the centre of attraction to a host of distinguished writers. – Samuel Smiles, A Publisher and His Friends (1891): 395 [F]or all his success and for all his fame there was one title he never earned – that of the business man. He was naturally indolent, he hated writing letters, he loathed reading manuscripts, and his procrastination drove his authors frantic. But he enjoyed life to the full and saw that others enjoyed it too; he loved good wine, good food, good company – in a word, his most appropriate title is “The Playboy of the Publishing World.”’ – George Paston, At John Murray’s: Records of a Literary Circle (1932): 6 As the above excerpt taken from Samuel Smiles’ A Publisher and His Friends suggests, John Murray II was known first and foremost for publishing Lord Byron’s works.1 From the publication of Childe Harold (1812) when Byron ‘awoke one morning and found myself famous’ (Moore 139), to the publication of Werner (1822), Murray secured unprecedented financial and personal gain through the high profits and symbolic capital which Byron’s name commanded. The intertwined fortunes of both author and publisher were, however, also a cause of concern to Murray as their relationship began to deteriorate during the latter years of Byron’s exile in Italy. In a letter to Byron in October 1822, Murray communicates the disadvantages that were lately besetting the association: ‘My company used to be 1 This thesis is mainly concerned with the period during which Murray II (1778-1843) was head of the House. His father, and predecessor, is referred to as Murray I (1737-1793), and his son, and successor, is referred to as Murray III (1808-1892). This is predominately for the sake of critical fluidity, as this thesis is more concerned with exploring the overall brand of ‘Murray’, which, towards the end of the 1830s, increasingly encapsulated both Murray II’s and Murray III’s contributions to the House. 2 courted for the pleasure of talking about you – it is totally the reverse now – and, by a reaction, even your former works are considerably deteriorated in sale – It is impossible for you to have a more purely attached friend than I am, my name is connected with your fame – and I beseech you to take care of it’ (Nicolson 456). Although Murray recognised the importance of Byron’s reputation to the sanctity of his own, his name was also established through other publishing ventures. As the publisher to the Admiralty, of the Quarterly Review, and of an array of successful works from Maria Rundell’s Domestic Cookery to Franklin and Parry’s exploration narratives, the House of Murray was a veritable establishment with a prestigious reputation. It is unsurprising, then, that in March 1832, Murray wrote a letter to the comparatively lesser known Rev E.R. Gleig echoing the message sent to Byron in 1822: ‘[T]he reputation of the author is so intimately connected with the interest of the publisher that Mr Murray is led to hope that for your own sake as well as for his you will not let this work pass out of your hands except in a state calculated to do you credit’ (MS.41911).