Very truly yours,

W. Scott.

It is universally agreed here that Cumberland is five hundred degrees beneath contempt.

Ballantyne, Scott’s partner, and publisher of the Review in Edinburgh, hastened to communicate to Murray their joint views as to the success of the work.

Mr. Ballantyne to John Murray.

February 28, 1809.

My dear Murray,

I received the Quarterly an hour ago.  Before taking it to Mr. Scott, I had just time to look into the article on Burns, and at the general aspect of the book.  It looks uncommonly well....  The view of Burns’ character is better than Jeffrey’s.  It is written in a more congenial tone, with more tender, kindly feeling.  Though not perhaps written with such elaborate eloquence as Jeffrey’s, the thoughts are more original, and the style equally powerful.  The two first articles (and perhaps the rest are not inferior) will confer a name on the Review.  But why do I trouble you with my opinions, when I can give you Mr. Scott’s?  He has just been reading the Spanish article beside me, and he again and again interrupted himself with expressions of the strongest admiration.

Three days later, Ballantyne again wrote: 

“I have now read ‘Spain,’ ‘Burns,’ ‘Woman,’ ‘Curran,’ ‘Cid,’ ‘Carr,’ ‘Missionaries.’  Upon the whole, I think these articles most excellent.  Mr. Scott is in high spirits; but he says there are evident marks of haste in most of them.  With respect to his own articles, he much regrets not to have had the opportunity of revising them.  He thinks the ‘Missionaries’ very clever; but he shakes his head at ‘Sidney,’ ‘Woman,’ and ‘Public Characters.’  Our copies, which we expected this morning, have not made their appearance, which has given us no small anxiety.  We are panting to hear the public voice.  Depend upon it, if our exertions are continued, the thing will do.  Would G. were as active as Scott and Murray!”

Murray had plenty of advisers.  Gifford said he had too many.  His friend, Sharon Turner, was ready with his criticism on No. 1.  He deplored the appearance of the article by Scott on “Carr’s Tour in Scotland.” [Footnote:  Scott himself had written to Murray about this, which he calls “a whisky-frisky article,” on June 30.  “I take the advantage of forwarding Sir John’s Review, to send you back his letters under the same cover.  He is an incomparable goose, but as he is innocent and good-natured, I would not like it to be publicly known that the flagellation comes from my hand.  Secrecy therefore will oblige me.”]

Mr. Sharon Turner to John Murray.