Much is written about success and failure in the career of
literature, about the reasons which enable one man to reach the
front, and another to earn his livelihood, while a third, in
appearance as likely as either of them, fails and, perhaps,
faints by the way. Mr. R. F. Murray, the author of The
Scarlet Gown, was among those who do not attain success, in
spite of qualities which seem destined to ensure it, and who fall
out of the ranks. To him, indeed, success and the rewards
of this world, money, and praise, did by no means seem things to
be snatched at. To him success meant earning by his pen the
very modest sum which sufficed for his wants, and the leisure
necessary for serious essays in poetry. Fate denied him
even this, in spite of his charming natural endowment of humour,
of tenderness, of delight in good letters, and in nature.
He died young; he was one of those whose talent matures slowly,
and he died before he came into the full possession of his
intellectual kingdom. He had the ambition to excel,
αίεν
αριστευειν,
as the Homeric motto of his University runs, and he was on the
way to excellence when his health broke down. He lingered
for two years and passed away.
It is a familiar story, the story of lettered youth; of an
ambition, or rather of an ideal; of poverty; of struggles in the
‘dusty and stony ways’; of intellectual task-work; of
a true love consoling the last months of weakness and pain.
The tale is not repeated here because it is novel, nor even
because in its hero we have to regret an ‘inheritor of
unfulfilled renown.’ It is not the genius so much as
the character of this St. Andrews student which has won the
sympathy of his biographer, and may win, he hopes, the sympathy
of others. In Mr. Murray I feel that I have lost that rare
thing, a friend; a friend whom the chances of life threw in my
way, and withdrew again ere we had time and opportunity for
perfect recognition. Those who read his Letters and Remains
may also feel this emotion of sympathy and regret.
He was young in years, and younger in heart, a lover of youth;
and youth, if it could learn and could be warned, might win a
lesson from his life. Many of us have trod in his path,
and, by some kindness of fate, have found from it a sunnier exit
into longer days and more fortunate conditions. Others have
followed this well-beaten road to the same early and quiet end as
his.
The life and the letters of Murray remind one strongly of
Thomas Davidson’s, as published in that admirable and
touching biography, A Scottish Probationer. It was
my own chance to be almost in touch with both these gentle,
tuneful, and kindly humorists. Davidson was a Borderer,
born on the skirts of ‘stormy Ruberslaw,’ in the
country of James Thomson, of Leyden, of the old Ballad
minstrels. The son of a Scottish peasant line of the old
sort, honourable, refined, devout, he was educated in Edinburgh
for the ministry of the United Presbyterian Church. Some
beautiful verses of his appeared in the St. Andrews University
Magazine about 1863, at the time when I first ‘saw
myself in print’ in the same periodical.
Davidson’s poem delighted me: another of his,
‘Ariadne in Naxos,’ appeared in the Cornhill
Magazine about the same time. Mr. Thackeray, who was
then editor, no doubt remembered Pen’s prize poem on the
same subject. I did not succeed in learning anything about
the author, did not know that he lived within a drive of my own
home. When next I heard of him, it was in his
biography. As a ‘Probationer,’ or unplaced
minister, he, somehow, was not successful. A humorist, a
poet, a delightful companion, he never became ‘a placed
minister.’ It was the old story of an imprudence, a
journey made in damp clothes, of consumption, of the end of his
earthly life and love. His letters to his betrothed, his
poems, his career, constantly remind one of Murray’s, who
must often have joined in singing Davidson’s song, so
popular with St. Andrews students, The Banks of the
Yang-tse-kiang. Love of the Border, love of
Murray’s ‘dear St. Andrews Bay,’ love of
letters, make one akin to both of these friends who were lost
before their friendship was won. Why did not Murray succeed
to the measure of his most modest desire? If we examine the
records of literary success, we find it won, in the highest
fields, by what, for want of a better word, we call genius; in
the lower paths, by an energy which can take pleasure in all and
every exercise of pen and ink, and can communicate its pleasure
to others. Now for Murray one does not venture, in face of
his still not wholly developed talent, and of his checked career,
to claim genius. He was not a Keats, a Burns, a Shelley: he
was not, if one may choose modern examples, a Kipling or a
Stevenson. On the other hand, his was a high ideal; he
believed, with André Chénier, that he had
‘something there,’ something worthy of reverence and
of careful training within him. Consequently, as we shall
see, the drudgery of the pressman was excessively repulsive to
him. He could take no delight in making the best of
it. We learn that Mr. Kipling’s early tales were
written as part of hard daily journalistic work in India; written
in torrid newspaper offices, to fill columns. Yet they were
written with the delight of the artist, and are masterpieces in
their genre. Murray could not make the best of
ordinary pen-work in this manner. Again, he was incapable
of ‘transactions,’ of compromises; most honourably
incapable of earning his bread by agreeing, or seeming to agree
with opinions which were not his. He could not endure (here
I think he was wrong) to have his pieces of light and mirthful
verse touched in any way by an editor. Even where no
opinions were concerned, even where an editor has (to my mind) a
perfect right to alter anonymous contributions, Murray declined
to be edited. I ventured to remonstrate with him, to say
non est tanti, but I spoke too late, or spoke in
vain. He carried independence too far, or carried it into
the wrong field, for a piece of humorous verse, say in
Punch, is not an original masterpiece and immaculate work
of art, but more or less of a joint-stock product between the
editor, the author, and the public. Macaulay, and Carlyle,
and Sir Walter Scott suffered editors gladly or with
indifference, and who are we that we should complain? This
extreme sensitiveness would always have stood in Murray’s
way.
Once more, Murray’s interest in letters was much more
energetic than his zeal in the ordinary industry of a
student. As a general rule, men of original literary bent
are not exemplary students at college. ‘The common
curricoolum,’ as the Scottish laird called academic studies
generally, rather repels them. Macaulay took no honours at
Cambridge; mathematics defied him. Scott was ‘the
Greek dunce,’ at Edinburgh. Thackeray, Shelley,
Gibbon, did not cover themselves with college laurels; they read
what pleased them, they did not read ‘for the
schools.’ In short, this behaviour at college is the
rule among men who are to be distinguished in literature, not the
exception. The honours attained at Oxford by Mr. Swinburne,
whose Greek verses are no less poetical than his English poetry,
were inconspicuous. At St. Andrews, Murray read only
‘for human pleasure,’ like Scott, Thackeray, Shelley,
and the rest, at Edinburgh, Oxford, and Cambridge. In this
matter, I think, he made an error, and one which affected his
whole career. He was not a man of private fortune, like
some of those whom we have mentioned. He had not a business
ready for him to step into. He had to force his own way in
life, had to make himself ‘self-supporting.’
This was all the more essential to a man of his honourable
independence of character, a man who not only would not ask a
favour, but who actually shrunk back from such chances as were
offered to him, if these chances seemed to be connected with the
least discernible shadow of an obligation. At St. Andrews,
had he chosen to work hard in certain branches of study, he might
probably have gained an exhibition, gone to Oxford or elsewhere,
and, by winning a fellowship, secured the leisure which was
necessary for the development of his powers. I confess to
believing in strenuous work at the classics, as offering, apart
from all material reward, the best and most solid basis,
especially where there is no exuberant original genius, for the
career of a man of letters. The mental discipline is
invaluable, the training in accuracy is invaluable, and
invaluable is the life led in the society of the greatest minds,
the noblest poets, the most faultless artists of the world.
To descend to ordinary truths, scholarship is, at lowest, an
honourable gagne-pain. But Murray, like the majority
of students endowed with literary originality, did not share
these rather old-fashioned ideas. The clever Scottish
student is apt to work only too hard, and, perhaps, is frequently
in danger of exhausting his powers before they are mature, and of
injuring his health before it is confirmed. His ambitions,
to lookers-on, may seem narrow and school-boyish, as if he were
merely emulous, and eager for a high place in his
‘class,’ as lectures are called in Scotland.
This was Murray’s own view, and he certainly avoided the
dangers of academic over-work. He read abundantly, but, as
Fitzgerald says, he read ‘for human pleasure.’
He never was a Greek scholar, he disliked Philosophy, as
presented to him in class-work; the gods had made him poetical,
not metaphysical.
There was one other cause of his lack of even such slender
commercial success in letters as was really necessary to a man
who liked ‘plain living and high thinking.’ He
fell early in love with a city, with a place—he lost his
heart to St. Andrews. Here, at all events, his critic can
sympathise with him. His ‘dear St. Andrews
Bay,’ beautiful alike in winter mists and in the crystal
days of still winter sunshine; the quiet brown streets brightened
by the scarlet gowns; the long limitless sands; the dark blue
distant hills, and far-off snowy peaks of the Grampians; the
majestic melancholy towers, monuments of old religion overthrown;
the deep dusky porch of the college chapel, with Kennedy’s
arms in wrought iron on the oaken door; the solid houses with
their crow steps and gables, all the forlorn memories of civil
and religious feud, of inhabitants saintly, royal, heroic,
endeared St. Andrews to Murray. He could not say, like our
other poet to Oxford, ‘Farewell, dear city of youth and
dream!’ His whole nature needed the air, ‘like
wine.’ He found, as he remarks, ‘health and
happiness in the German Ocean,’ swimming out beyond the
‘lake’ where the witches were dipped; walking to the
grey little coast-towns, with their wealth of historic documents,
their ancient kirks and graves; dreaming in the vernal woods of
Mount Melville or Strathtyrum; rambling (without a fishing-rod)
in the charmed ‘dens’ of the Kenley burn, a place
like Tempe in miniature: these things were Murray’s usual
enjoyments, and they became his indispensable needs. His
peculiarly shy and, as it were, silvan nature, made it physically
impossible for him to live in crowded streets and push his way
through throngs of indifferent men. He could not live even
in Edinburgh; he made the effort, and his health, at no time
strong, seems never to have recovered from the effects of a few
months spent under a roof in a large town. He hurried back
to St. Andrews: her fascination was too powerful. Hence it
is that, dying with his work scarcely begun, he will always be
best remembered as the poet of The Scarlet Gown, the
Calverley or J. K. S. of Kilrymont; endowed with their humour,
their skill in parody, their love of youth, but (if I am not
prejudiced) with more than the tenderness and natural magic of
these regretted writers. Not to be able to endure crowds
and towns, (a matter of physical health and constitution, as well
as of temperament) was, of course, fatal to an ordinary success
in journalism. On the other hand, Murray’s name is
inseparably connected with the life of youth in the little old
college, in the University of the Admirable Crichton and
Claverhouse, of the great Montrose and of Ferguson,—the
harmless Villon of Scotland,—the University of almost all
the famous Covenanters, and of all the valiant
poet-Cavaliers. Murray has sung of the life and pleasures
of its students, of examinations and
Gaudeamuses—supper parties—he has sung of the
sands, the links, the sea, the towers, and his name and fame are
for ever blended with the air of his city of youth and
dream. It is not a wide name or a great fame, but it is
what he would have desired, and we trust that it may be
long-lived and enduring. We are not to wax elegiac, and
adopt a tearful tone over one so gallant and so
uncomplaining. He failed, but he was undefeated.
In the following sketch of Murray’s life and work use is
made of his letters, chiefly of letters to his mother. They
always illustrate his own ideas and attempts; frequently they
throw the light of an impartial and critical mind on the
distinguished people whom Murray observed from without. It
is worth remarking that among many remarks on persons, I have
found not one of a censorious, cynical, envious, or unfriendly
nature. Youth is often captious and keenly critical; partly
because youth generally has an ideal, partly, perhaps chiefly,
from mere intellectual high spirits and sense of the incongruous;
occasionally the motive is jealousy or spite.
Murray’s sense of fun was keen, his ideal was lofty; of
envy, of an injured sense of being neglected, he does not show
one trace. To make fun of their masters and pastors,
tutors, professors, is the general and not necessarily unkind
tendency of pupils. Murray rarely mentions any of the
professors in St. Andrews except in terms of praise, which is
often enthusiastic. Now, as he was by no means a prize
student, or pattern young man for a story-book, this generosity
is a high proof of an admirable nature. If he chances to
speak to his mother about a bore, and he did not suffer bores
gladly, he not only does not name the person, but gives no hint
by which he might be identified. He had much to embitter
him, for he had a keen consciousness of ‘the something
within him,’ of the powers which never found full
expression; and he saw others advancing and prospering while he
seemed to be standing still, or losing ground in all ways.
But no word of bitterness ever escapes him in the correspondence
which I have seen. In one case he has to speak of a
disagreeable and disappointing interview with a man from whom he
had been led to expect sympathy and encouragement. He told
me about this affair in conversation; ‘There were tears in
my eyes as I turned from the house,’ he said, and he was
not effusive. In a letter to Mrs. Murray he describes this
unlucky interview,—a discouragement caused by a manner
which was strange to Murray, rather than by real
unkindness,—and he describes it with a delicacy, with a
reserve, with a toleration, beyond all praise. These are
traits of a character which was greater and more rare than his
literary talent: a character quite developed, while his talent
was only beginning to unfold itself, and to justify his belief in
his powers.
Robert Murray was the eldest child of John and Emmeline
Murray: the father a Scot, the mother of American birth. He
was born at Roxbury, in Massachusetts, on December 26th,
1863. It may be fancy, but, in his shy reserve, his almost
farouche independence, one seems to recognise the Scot;
while in his cast of literary talent, in his natural
‘culture,’ we observe the son of a refined American
lady. To his mother he could always write about the books
which were interesting him, with full reliance on her sympathy,
though indeed, he does not often say very much about
literature.
Till 1869 he lived in various parts of New England, his father
being a Unitarian minister. ‘He was a remarkably
cheerful and affectionate child, and seldom seemed to find
anything to trouble him.’ In 1869 his father carried
him to England, Mrs. Murray and a child remaining in
America. For more than a year the boy lived with kinsfolk
near Kelso, the beautiful old town on the Tweed where Scott
passed some of his childish days. In 1871 the family were
reunited at York, where he was fond of attending the services in
the Cathedral. Mr. Murray then took charge of the small
Unitarian chapel of Blackfriars, at Canterbury. Thus
Murray’s early youth was passed in the mingled influences
of Unitarianism at home, and of Cathedral services at York, and
in the church where Becket suffered martyrdom. A not
unnatural result was a somewhat eclectic and unconstrained
religion. He thought but little of the differences of
creed, believing that all good men held, in essentials, much the
same faith. His view of essentials was generous, as he
admitted. He occasionally spoke of himself as
‘sceptical,’ that is, in contrast with those whose
faith was more definite, more dogmatic, more securely based on
‘articles.’ To illustrate Murray’s
religious attitude, at least as it was in 1887, one may quote
from a letter of that year (April 17).
‘There was a University sermon, and I
thought I would go and hear it. So I donned my old cap and
gown and felt quite proud of them. The preacher was Bishop
Wordsworth. He goes in for the union of the Presbyterian
and Episcopalian Churches, and is glad to preach in a
Presbyterian Church, as he did this morning. How the
aforesaid Union is to be brought about, I’m sure I
don’t know, for I am pretty certain that the Episcopalians
won’t give up their bishops, and the Presbyterians
won’t have them on any account. However, that’s
neither here nor there—at least it does not affect the fact
that Wordsworth is a first-rate man, and a fine preacher. I
dare say you know he is a nephew or grand-nephew of the
Poet. He is a most venerable old man, and worth looking at,
merely for his exterior. He is so feeble with age that he
can with difficulty climb the three short steps that lead into
the pulpit; but, once in the pulpit, it is another thing.
There is no feebleness when he begins to preach. He is one
of the last voices of the old orthodox school, and I wish there
were hundreds like him. If ever a man believed in his
message, Wordsworth does. And though I cannot follow him in
his veneration for the Thirty-nine Articles, the way in which he
does makes me half wish I could. . . . It was full of wisdom and
the beauty of holiness, which even I, poor sceptic and outcast,
could recognise and appreciate. After all, he didn’t
get it from the Articles, but from his own human heart, which, he
told us, was deceitful and desperately wicked.
‘Confound it, how stupid we all are!
Episcopalians, Presbyterians, Unitarians, Agnostics; the whole
lot of us. We all believe the same things, to a great
extent; but we must keep wrangling about the data from which we
infer these beliefs . . . I believe a great deal that he does,
but I certainly don’t act up to my belief as he does to
his.’
The belief ‘up to’ which Murray lived was, if it
may be judged by its fruits, that of a Christian man. But,
in this age, we do find the most exemplary Christian conduct in
some who have discarded dogma and resigned hope. Probably
Murray would not the less have regarded these persons as
Christians. If we must make a choice, it is better to have
love and charity without belief, than belief of the most intense
kind, accompanied by such love and charity as John Knox bore to
all who differed from him about a mass or a chasuble, a priest or
a presbyter. This letter, illustrative of the effect of
cathedral services on a young Unitarian, is taken out of its
proper chronological place.
From Canterbury Mr. Murray went to Ilminster in
Somerset. Here Robert attended the Grammar School; in 1879
he went to the Grammar School of Crewkerne. In 1881 he
entered at the University of St. Andrews, with a scholarship won
as an external student of Manchester New College. This he
resigned not long after, as he had abandoned the idea of becoming
a Unitarian minister.
No longer a schoolboy, he was now a Bejant (bec
jaune?), to use the old Scotch term for
‘freshman.’ He liked the picturesque word, and
opposed the introduction of ‘freshman.’ Indeed
he liked all things old, and, as a senior man, was a supporter of
ancient customs and of esprit de corps in college.
He fell in love for life with that old and grey enchantress, the
city of St. Margaret, of Cardinal Beaton, of Knox and Andrew
Melville, of Archbishop Sharp, and Samuel Rutherford. The
nature of life and education in a Scottish university is now,
probably, better understood in England than it used to be.
Of the Scottish universities, St. Andrews varies least, though it
varies much, from Oxford and Cambridge. Unlike the others,
Aberdeen, Glasgow, and Edinburgh, the United College of St.
Leonard and St. Salvator is not lost in a large town. The
College and the Divinity Hall of St. Mary’s are a survival
from the Middle Ages. The University itself arose from a
voluntary association of the learned in 1410. Privileges
were conferred on this association by Bishop Wardlaw in
1411. It was intended as a bulwark against Lollard
ideas. In 1413 the Antipope Benedict XIII., to whom
Scotland then adhered, granted six bulls of confirmation to the
new University. Not till 1430 did Bishop Wardlaw give a
building in South Street, the Pædagogium. St.
Salvator’s College was founded by Bishop Kennedy
(1440-1466): it was confirmed by Pius II. in 1458. Kennedy
endowed his foundation richly with plate (a silver mace is still
extant) and with gorgeous furniture and cloth of gold. St.
Leonard’s was founded by Prior Hepburn in 1512. Of
St. Salvator’s the ancient chapel still remains, and is in
use. St. Leonard’s was merged with St.
Salvator’s in the last century: its chapel is now roofless,
some of the old buildings remain, much modernised, but on the
south side fronting the gardens they are still picturesque.
Both Colleges were, originally, places of residence for the
students, as at Oxford and Cambridge, and the discipline,
especially at St. Leonard’s, was rather monastic. The
Reformation caused violent changes; all through these troubled
ages the new doctrines, and then the violent Presbyterian
pretensions to clerical influence in politics, and the Covenant
and the Restoration and Revolution, kept busy the dwellers in
what should have been ‘quiet collegiate
cloisters.’ St. Leonard’s was more extreme, on
Knox’s side, than St. Salvator’s, but was also more
devoted to King James in 1715. From St. Andrews Simon Lovat
went to lead his abominable old father’s clan, on the
Prince Regent’s side, in 1745. Golf and archery,
since the Reformation at least, were the chief recreations of the
students, and the archery medals bear all the noblest names of
the North, including those of Argyll and the great Marquis of
Montrose. Early in the present century the old ruinous
college buildings of St. Salvator’s ceased to be habitable,
except by a ghost! There is another spectre of a noisy sort
in St. Leonard’s. The new buildings are mere sets of
class-rooms, the students live where they please, generally in
lodgings, which they modestly call bunks. There is a
hall for dinners in common; it is part of the buildings of the
Union, a new hall added to an ancient house.
It was thus to a university with ancient associations, with a
religio loci, and with more united and harmonious
student-life than is customary in Scotland, that Murray came in
1881. How clearly his biographer remembers coming to the
same place, twenty years earlier! how vivid is his memory of
quaint streets, grey towers, and the North Sea breaking in heavy
rollers on the little pier!
Though, like a descendant of Archbishop Sharp, and a winner of
the archery medal, I boast myself Sancti Leonardi alumnus
addictissimus, I am unable to give a description, at first
hand, of student life in St. Andrews. In my time, a small
set of ‘men’ lived together in what was then St.
Leonard’s Hall. The buildings that remain on the site
of Prior Hepburn’s foundation, or some of them, were turned
into a hall, where we lived together, not scattered in
bunks. The existence was mainly like that of pupils
of a private tutor; seven-eighths of private tutor to one-eighth
of a college in the English universities. We attended the
lectures in the University, we distinguished ourselves no more
than Murray would have approved of, and many of us have remained
united by friendship through half a lifetime.
It was a pleasant existence, and the perfume of buds and
flowers in the old gardens, hard by those where John Knox sat and
talked with James Melville and our other predecessors at St.
Leonard’s, is fragrant in our memories. It was
pleasant, but St. Leonard’s Hall has ceased to be, and the
life there was not the life of the free and hardy
bunk-dwellers. Whoso pined for such dissipated pleasures as
the chill and dark streets of St. Andrews offer to the gay and
rousing blade, was not encouraged. We were very strictly
‘gated,’ though the whole society once got out of
window, and, by way of protest, made a moonlight march into the
country. We attended ‘gaudeamuses’ and
solatia—University suppers—but little; indeed,
he who writes does not remember any such diversions of boys who
beat the floor, and break the glass. To plant the standard
of cricket in the remoter gardens of our country, in a region
devastated by golf, was our ambition, and here we had no
assistance at all from the University. It was chiefly at
lecture, at football on the links, and in the debating societies
that we met our fellow-students; like the celebrated starling,
‘we could not get out,’ except to permitted dinners
and evening parties. Consequently one could only sketch
student life with a hand faltering and untrained. It was
very different with Murray and his friends. They were their
own masters, could sit up to all hours, smoking, talking, and, I
dare say, drinking. As I gather from his letters, Murray
drank nothing stronger than water. There was a certain kind
of humour in drink, he said, but he thought it was chiefly
obvious to the sober spectator. As the sober spectator, he
sang of violent delights which have violent ends. He may
best be left to illustrate student life for himself. The
‘waster’ of whom he chants is the slang name borne by
the local fast man.
Loud he sang the song Ta Phershon
For his personal diversion,
Sang the chorus U-pi-dee,
Sang about the Barley Bree.
In that hour when all is quiet
Sang he songs of noise and riot,
In a voice so loud and queer
That I wakened up to hear.
Songs that distantly resembled
Those one hears from men assembled
In the old Cross Keys Hotel,
Only sung not half so well.
For the time of this ecstatic
Amateur was most erratic,
And he only hit the key
Once in every melody.
If “he wot prigs wot isn’t his’n
Ven he’s cotched is sent to prison,”
He who murders sleep might well
Adorn a solitary cell.
But, if no obliging peeler
Will arrest this midnight squealer,
My own peculiar arm of might
Must undertake the job to-night.
The following fragment is but doubtfully
autobiographical. ‘The swift four-wheeler’
seldom devastates the streets where, of old, the
Archbishop’s jackmen sliced Presbyterian professors with
the claymore, as James Melville tells us:—
Beloved Peeler! friend and guide
And guard of many a midnight reeler,
None worthier, though the world is wide,
Beloved Peeler.
Thou from before the swift four-wheeler
Didst pluck me, and didst thrust aside
A strongly built provision-dealer
Who menaced me with blows, and cried
‘Come on! come on!’ O Paian,
Healer,
Then but for thee I must have died,
Beloved Peeler!
The following presentiment, though he was no
‘waster,’ may very well have been his own. He
was only half Scotch, and not at all metaphysical:—
I shall be spun. There is a voice within
Which tells me plainly I am all undone;
For though I toil not, neither do I spin,
I shall be spun.
April approaches. I have not begun
Schwegler or Mackintosh, nor will begin
Those lucid works till April 21.
So my degree I do not hope to win,
For not by ways like mine degrees are won;
And though, to please my uncle, I go in,
I shall be spun.
Here we must quote, from The Scarlet Gown, one of his
most tender pieces of affectionate praise bestowed on his
favourite city:—
Blue, blue is the sea to-day,
Warmly the light
Sleeps on St. Andrews Bay—
Blue, fringed with white.
That’s no December sky!
Surely ’tis June
Holds now her state on high,
Queen of the noon.
Only the tree-tops bare
Crowning the hill,
Clear-cut in perfect air,
Warn us that still
Winter, the aged chief,
Mighty in power,
Exiles the tender leaf,
Exiles the flower.
Is there a heart to-day,
A heart that grieves
For flowers that fade away,
For fallen leaves?
Oh, not in leaves or flowers
Endures the charm
That clothes those naked towers
With love-light warm.
O dear St. Andrews Bay,
Winter or Spring
Gives not nor takes away
Memories that cling
All round thy girdling reefs,
That walk thy shore,
Memories of joys and griefs
Ours evermore.
‘I have not worked for my classes this
session,’ he writes (1884), ‘and shall not take any
places.’ The five or six most distinguished pupils
used, at least in my time, to receive prize-books decorated with
the University’s arms. These prize-men, no doubt,
held the ‘places’ alluded to by Murray. If
he was idle, ‘I speak of him but brotherly,’
having never held any ‘place’ but that of second to
Mr. Wallace, now Professor of Moral Philosophy at Oxford, in the
Greek Class (Mr. Sellar’s). Why was one so idle, in
Latin (Mr. Shairp), in Morals (Mr. Ferrier), in Logic (Mr.
Veitch)? but Logic was unintelligible.
‘I must confess,’ remarks Murray, in a similar
spirit of pensive regret, ‘that I have not had any ambition
to distinguish myself either in Knight’s (Moral Philosophy)
or in Butler’s.’ [1]
Murray then speaks with some acrimony about earnest students,
whose motive, he thinks, is a small ambition. But surely a
man may be fond of metaphysics for the sweet sake of Queen
Entelechy, and, moreover, these students looked forward to days
in which real work would bear fruit.
‘You must grind up the opinions of Plato, Aristotle, and
a lot of other men, concerning things about which they knew
nothing, and we know nothing, taking these opinions at second or
third hand, and never looking into the works of these men; for to
a man who wants to take a place, there is no time for anything of
that sort.’
Why not? The philosophers ought to be read in their own
language, as they are now read. The remarks on the most
fairy of philosophers—Plato; on the greatest of all minds,
that of Aristotle, are boyish. Again ‘I speak but
brotherly,’ remembering an old St. Leonard’s essay in
which Virgil was called ‘the furtive Mantuan,’ and
another, devoted to ridicule of Euripides. But Plato and
Aristotle we never blasphemed.
Murray adds that he thinks, next year, of taking the highest
Greek Class, and English Literature. In the latter, under
Mr. Baynes, he took the first place, which he mentions casually
to Mrs. Murray about a year after date:—
‘A sweet life and an idle
He lives from year to year,
Unknowing bit or bridle,
There are no Proctors here.’
In Greek, despite his enthusiastic admiration of the
professor, Mr. Campbell, he did not much enjoy
himself:—
‘Thrice happy are those
Who ne’er heard of Greek Prose—
Or Greek Poetry either, as far as that goes;
For Liddell and Scott
Shall cumber them not,
Nor Sargent nor Sidgwick shall break their repose.
But I, late at night,
By the very bad light
Of very bad gas, must painfully write
Some stuff that a Greek
With his delicate cheek
Would smile at as ‘barbarous’—faith, he well
might.
* * * * *
So away with Greek Prose,
The source of my woes!
(This metre’s too tough, I must draw to a close.)
May Sargent be drowned
In the ocean profound,
And Sidgwick be food for the carrion crows!’
Greek prose is a stubborn thing, and the biographer remembers
being told that his was ‘the best, with the worst
mistakes’; also frequently by Mr. Sellar, that it was
‘bald.’ But Greek prose is splendid practice,
and no less good practice is Greek and Latin verse. These
exercises, so much sneered at, are the Dwellers on the Threshold
of the life of letters. They are haunting forms of fear,
but they have to be wrestled with, like the Angel (to change the
figure), till they bless you, and make words become, in your
hands, like the clay of the modeller. Could we write Greek
like Mr. Jebb, we would never write anything else.
Murray had naturally, it seems, certainly not by dint of
wrestling with Greek prose, the mastery of language. His
light verse is wonderfully handled, quaint, fluent, right.
Modest as he was, he was ambitious, as we said, but not ambitious
of any gain; merely eager, in his own way, to excel. His
ideal is plainly stated in the following verses:—
Ever to be the best. To lead
In whatsoever things are true;
Not stand among the halting crew,
The faint of heart, the feeble-kneed,
Who tarry for a certain sign
To make them follow with the rest—
Oh, let not their reproach be thine!
But ever be the best.
For want of this aspiring soul,
Great deeds on earth remain undone,
But, sharpened by the sight of one,
Many shall press toward the goal.
Thou running foremost of the throng,
The fire of striving in thy breast,
Shalt win, although the race be long,
And ever be the best.
And wilt thou question of the prize?
’Tis not of silver or of gold,
Nor in applauses manifold,
But hidden in the heart it lies:
To know that but for thee not one
Had run the race or sought the quest,
To know that thou hast ever done
And ever been the best.
Murray was never a great athlete: his ambition did not lead
him to desire a place in the Scottish Fifteen at Football.
Probably he was more likely to be found matched against
‘The Man from Inversnaid.’
He brought a team from Inversnaid
To play our Third Fifteen,
A man whom none of us had played
And very few had seen.
He weighed not less than eighteen stone,
And to a practised eye
He seemed as little fit to run
As he was fit to fly.
He looked so clumsy and so slow,
And made so little fuss;
But he got in behind—and oh,
The difference to us!
He was never a golfer; one of his best light pieces, published
later in the Saturday Review, dealt in kindly ridicule of
The City of Golf.
‘Would you like to see a city given over,
Soul and body, to a tyrannising game?
If you would, there’s little need to be a rover,
For St. Andrews is the abject city’s
name.’
He was fond, too fond, of long midnight walks, for in these he
overtasked his strength, and he had all a young man’s
contempt for maxims about not sitting in wet clothes and wet
boots. Early in his letters he speaks of bad colds, and it
is matter of tradition that he despised flannel. Most of us
have been like him, and have found pleasure in wading Tweed, for
example, when chill with snaw-bree. In brief, while reading
about Murray’s youth most men must feel that they are
reading, with slight differences, about their own. He
writes thus of his long darkling tramps, in a rhymed epistle to
his friend C. C. C.
‘And I fear we never again shall go,
The cold and weariness scorning,
For a ten mile walk through the frozen snow
At one o’clock in the morning:
Out by Cameron, in by the Grange,
And to bed as the moon descended . . .
To you and to me there has come a change,
And the days of our youth are ended.’
One fancies him roaming solitary, after midnight, in the dark
deserted streets. He passes the deep porch of the College
Church, and the spot where Patrick Hamilton was burned. He
goes down to the Castle by the sea, where, some say, the murdered
Cardinal may now and again be seen, in his red hat. In
South Street he hears the roll and rattle of the viewless
carriage which sounds in that thoroughfare. He loiters
under the haunted tower on Hepburn’s precinct wall, the
tower where the lady of the bright locks lies, with white gloves
on her hands. Might he not share, in the desolate
Cathedral, La Messe des Morts, when all the lost souls of
true lovers are allowed to meet once a year. Here be they
who were too fond when Culdees ruled, or who loved young monks of
the Priory; here be ladies of Queen Mary’s Court, and the
fair inscrutable Queen herself, with Chastelard, that died at St.
Andrews for desire of her; and poor lassies and lads who were
over gay for Andrew Melville and Mr. Blair; and Miss Pett, who
tended young Montrose, and may have had a tenderness for his
love-locks. They are a triste good company, tender
and true, as the lovers of whom M. Anatole France has written
(La Messe des Morts). Above the witches’ lake
come shadows of the women who suffered under Knox and the Bastard
of Scotland, poor creatures burned to ashes with none to help or
pity. The shades of Dominicans flit by the Black Friars
wall—verily the place is haunted, and among Murray’s
pleasures was this of pacing alone, by night, in that airy press
and throng of those who lived and loved and suffered so long
ago—
‘The mist hangs round the College tower,
The ghostly street
Is silent at this midnight hour,
Save for my feet.
With none to see, with none to hear,
Downward I go
To where, beside the rugged pier,
The sea sings low.
It sings a tune well loved and known
In days gone by,
When often here, and not alone,
I watched the sky.’
But he was not always, nor often, lonely. He was fond of
making his speech at the Debating Societies, and his speeches are
remembered as good. If he declined the whisky and water, he
did not flee the weed. I borrow from College
Echoes—
So in the village inn the poet dwelt.
His honey-dew was gone; only the pouch,
His cousin’s work, her empty labour, left.
But still he sniffed it, still a fragrance clung
And lingered all about the broidered flowers.
Then came his landlord, saying in broad Scotch,
‘Smoke plug, mon,’ whom he looked at doubtfully.
Then came the grocer saying, ‘Hae some twist
At tippence,’ whom he answered with a qualm.
But when they left him to himself again,
Twist, like a fiend’s breath from a distant room
Diffusing through the passage, crept; the smell
Deepening had power upon him, and he mixt
His fancies with the billow-lifted bay
Of Biscay, and the rollings of a ship.
And on that night he made a little song,
And called his song ‘The Song of Twist and Plug,’
And sang it; scarcely could he make or sing.
‘Rank is black plug, though smoked in wind and rain;
And rank is twist, which gives no end of pain;
I know not which is ranker, no, not I.
‘Plug, art thou rank? then milder twist must be;
Plug, thou art milder: rank is twist to me.
O twist, if plug be milder, let me buy.
‘Rank twist, that seems to make me fade away,
Rank plug, that navvies smoke in loveless clay,
I know not which is ranker, no, not I.
‘I fain would purchase flake, if that could be;
I needs must purchase plug, ah, woe is me!
Plug and a cutty, a cutty, let me buy.
His was the best good thing of the night’s talk, and the
thing that was remembered. He excited himself a good deal
over Rectorial Elections. The duties of the Lord Rector and
the mode of his election have varied frequently in near five
hundred years. In Murray’s day, as in my own, the
students elected their own Rector, and before Lord Bute’s
energetic reign, the Rector had little to do, but to make a
speech, and give a prize. I vaguely remember proposing the
author of Tom Brown long ago: he was not, however, in the
running.
Politics often inspire the electors; occasionally (I have
heard) grave seniors use their influence, mainly for reasons of
academic policy.
In December 1887 Murray writes about an election in which Mr.
Lowell was a candidate. ‘A pitiful protest was
entered by an’ (epithets followed by a proper name)
‘against Lowell, on the score of his being an alien.
Mallock, as you learn, was withdrawn, for which I am truly
thankful.’ Unlucky Mr. Mallock! ‘Lowell
polled 100 and Gibson 92 . . . The intrigues and corruption
appear to be almost worthy of an American Presidential
election.’ Mr. Lowell could not accept a compliment
which pleased him, because of his official position, and the
misfortune of his birth!
Murray was already doing a very little ‘miniature
journalism,’ in the form of University Notes for a local
paper. He complains of the ultra Caledonian frankness with
which men told him that they were very bad. A needless, if
friendly, outspokenness was a feature in Scottish character which
he did not easily endure. He wrote a good deal of verse in
the little University paper, now called College
Echoes.
If Murray ever had any definite idea of being ordained for the
ministry in any ‘denomination,’ he abandoned
it. His ‘bursaries’ (scholarships or
exhibitions), on which he had been passing rich, expired, and he
had to earn a livelihood. It seems plain to myself that he
might easily have done so with his pen. A young friend of
my own (who will excuse me for thinking that his bright verses
are not better than Murray’s) promptly made, by
these alone, an income which to Murray would have been
affluence. But this could not be done at St. Andrews.
Again, Murray was not in contact with people in the centre of
newspapers and magazines. He went very little into general
society, even at St. Andrews, and thus failed, perhaps, to make
acquaintances who might have been ‘useful.’ He
would have scorned the idea of making useful acquaintances.
But without seeking them, why should we reject any friendliness
when it offers itself? We are all members one of
another. Murray speaks of his experience of human beings,
as rich in examples of kindness and good-will. His shyness,
his reserve, his extreme unselfishness,—carried to the
point of diffidence,—made him rather shun than seek older
people who were dangerously likely to be serviceable. His
manner, when once he could be induced to meet strangers, was
extremely frank and pleasant, but from meeting strangers he
shrunk, in his inveterate modesty.
In 1886 Murray had the misfortune to lose is father, and it
became, perhaps, more prominently needful that he should find a
profession. He now assisted Professor Meiklejohn of St.
Andrews in various kinds of literary and academic work, and in
him found a friend, with whom he remained in close intercourse to
the last. He began the weary path, which all literary
beginners must tread, of sending contributions to
magazines. He seldom read magazine articles. ‘I
do not greatly care for “Problems” and “vexed
questions.” I am so much of a problem and a vexed
question that I have quite enough to do in searching for a
solution of my own personality.’ He tried a story,
based on ‘a midnight experience’ of his own;
unluckily he does not tell us what that experience was. Had
he encountered one of the local ghosts?
‘My blood-curdling romance I offered to the editor of
Longman’s Magazine, but that misguided person was so
ill-advised as to return it, accompanied with one of these
abominable lithographed forms conveying his hypocritical
regrets.’ Murray sent a directed envelope with a
twopenny-halfpenny stamp. The paper came back for
three-halfpence by book-post. ‘I have serious
thoughts of sueing him for the odd penny!’ ‘Why
should people be fools enough to read my rot when they have
twenty volumes of Scott at their command?’ He
confesses to ‘a Scott-mania almost as intense as if he were
the last new sensation.’ ‘I was always fond of
him, but I am fonder than ever now.’ This plunge into
the immortal romances seems really to have discouraged Murray; at
all events he says very little more about attempts in fiction of
his own. ‘I am a barren rascal,’ he writes,
quoting Johnson on Fielding. Like other men, Murray felt
extreme difficulty in writing articles or tales which have an
infinitesimal chance of being accepted. It needs a stout
heart to face this almost fixed certainty of rejection: a man is
weakened by his apprehensions of a lithographed form, and of his
old manuscript coming home to roost, like the Graces of
Theocritus, to pine in the dusty chest where is their chill
abode. If the Alexandrian poets knew this ill-fortune, so
do all beginners in letters. There is nothing for it but
‘putting a stout heart to a stey brae,’ as the Scotch
proverb says. Editors want good work, and on finding a new
man who is good, they greatly rejoice. But it is so
difficult to do vigorous and spontaneous work, as it were, in the
dark. Murray had not, it is probable, the qualities of the
novelist, the narrator. An excellent critic he might have
been if he had ‘descended to criticism,’ but he had,
at this time, no introductions, and probably did not address
reviews at random to editors. As to poetry, these
much-vexed men receive such enormous quantities of poetry that
they usually reject it at a venture, and obtain the small
necessary supplies from agreeable young ladies. Had Murray
been in London, with a few literary friends, he might soon have
been a thriving writer of light prose and light verse. But
the enchantress held him; he hated London, he had no literary
friends, he could write gaily for pleasure, not for gain.
So, like the Scholar Gypsy, he remained contemplative,
‘Waiting for the spark from heaven to
fall.’
About this time the present writer was in St. Andrews as
Gifford Lecturer in Natural Theology. To say that an
enthusiasm for totems and taboos, ghosts and gods of savage men,
was aroused by these lectures, would be to exaggerate
unpardonably. Efforts to make the students write essays or
ask questions were so entire a failure that only one question was
received—as to the proper pronunciation of
‘Myth.’ Had one been fortunate enough to
interest Murray, it must have led to some discussion of his
literary attempts. He mentions having attended a lecture
given by myself to the Literary Society on ‘Literature as a
Profession,’ and he found the lecturer ‘far more at
home in such a subject than in the Gifford Lectures.’
Possibly the hearer was ‘more at home’ in literature
than in discussions as to the origin of Huitzilopochtli.
‘Literature,’ he says, ‘never was, is not, and
never will be, in the ordinary sense of the term, a
profession. You can’t teach it as you can the
professions, you can’t succeed in it as you can in the
professions, by dint of mere diligence and without special
aptitude . . . I think all this chatter about the technical and
pecuniary sides of literature is extremely foolish and worse than
useless. It only serves to glut the idle curiosity of the
general public about matters with which they have no concern, a
curiosity which (thanks partly to American methods of journalism)
has become simply outrageous.’
Into chatter about the pecuniary aspect of literature the
Lecturer need hardly say that he did not meander. It is
absolutely true that literature cannot be taught.
Maupassant could have dispensed with the instructions of
Flaubert. But an ‘aptitude’ is needed in all
professions, and in such arts as music, and painting, and
sculpture, teaching is necessary. In literature, teaching
can only come from general education in letters, from experience,
from friendly private criticism. But if you cannot succeed
in literature ‘by dint of mere diligence,’ mere
diligence is absolutely essential. Men must read, must
observe, must practise. Diligence is as necessary to the
author as to the grocer, the solicitor, the dentist, the
barrister, the soldier. Nothing but nature can give the
aptitude; diligence must improve it, and experience may direct
it. It is not enough to wait for the spark from heaven to
fall; the spark must be caught, and tended, and cherished.
A man must labour till he finds his vein, and himself.
Again, if literature is an art, it is also a profession. A
man’s very first duty is to support himself and those, if
any, who are dependent on him. If he cannot do it by epics,
tragedies, lyrics, he must do it by articles, essays, tales, or
how he honestly can. He must win his leisure by his labour,
and give his leisure to his art. Murray, at this time, was
diligent in helping to compile and correct educational
works. He might, but for the various conditions of reserve,
hatred of towns, and the rest, have been earning his leisure by
work more brilliant and more congenial to most men. But his
theory of literature was so lofty that he probably found the
other, the harder, the less remunerative, the less attractive
work, more congenial to his tastes.
He describes, to Mrs. Murray, various notable visitors to St.
Andrews: Professor Butcher, who lectured on Lucian, and is
‘very handsome,’ Mr. Arthur Balfour, the Lord Rector,
who is ‘rather handsome,’ and delights the listener
by his eloquence; Mr. Chamberlain, who pleases him too, though he
finds Mr. Chamberlain rather acrimonious in his political
reflections. About Lucian, the subject of Mr.
Butcher’s lecture, Murray says nothing. That
brilliant man of letters in general, the Alcibiades of
literature, the wittiest, and, rarely, the most tender, and,
always, the most graceful, was a model who does not seem to have
attracted Murray. Lucian amused, and amuses, and lived by
amusing: the vein of romance and poetry that was his he worked
but rarely: perhaps the Samosatene did not take himself too
seriously, yet he lives through the ages, an example, in many
ways to be followed, of a man who obviously delighted in all that
he wrought. He was no model to Murray, who only delighted
in his moments of inspiration, and could not make himself happy
even in the trifles which are demanded from the professional
pen.
He did, at last, endeavour to ply that servile engine of which
Pendennis conceived so exalted an opinion. Certainly a
false pride did not stand in his way when, on May 5, 1889, he
announced that he was about to leave St. Andrews, and attempt to
get work at proof-correcting and in the humblest sorts of
journalism in Edinburgh. The chapter is honourable to his
resolution, but most melancholy. There were competence and
ease waiting for him, probably, in London, if he would but let
his pen have its way in bright comment and occasional
verse. But he chose the other course. With letters of
introduction from Mr. Meiklejohn, he consulted the houses of
Messrs. Clark and Messrs. Constable in Edinburgh. He did
not find that his knowledge of Greek was adequate to the higher
and more remunerative branches of proof-reading, that weary
meticulous toil, so fatiguing to the eyesight. The hours,
too, were very long; he could do more and better work in fewer
hours. No time, no strength, were left for reading and
writing. He did, while in Edinburgh, send a few things to
magazines, but he did not actually ‘bombard’
editors. He is ‘to live in one room, and dine, if not
on a red herring, on the next cheapest article of
diet.’ These months of privation, at which he
laughed, and some weeks of reading proofs, appear to have quite
undermined health which was never strong, and which had been
sorely tried by ‘the wind of a cursed to-day, the curse of
a windy to-morrow,’ at St. Andrews. If a reader
observes in Murray a lack of strenuous diligence, he must
attribute it less to lack of resolution, than to defect of
physical force and energy. The many bad colds of which he
speaks were warnings of the end, which came in the form of
consumption. This lurking malady it was that made him wait,
and dally with his talent. He hit on the idea of
translating some of Bossuet’s orations for a Scotch
theological publisher. Alas! the publisher did not
anticipate a demand, among Scotch ministers, for the Eagle of
Meaux. Murray, in his innocence, was startled by the
caution of the publisher, who certainly would have been a heavy
loser. ‘I honestly believe that, if Charles Dickens
were now alive and unknown, and were to offer the MS. of
Pickwick to an Edinburgh publisher, that sagacious old
individual would shake his prudent old head, and refuse (with the
utmost politeness) to publish it!’ There is a good
deal of difference between Pickwick and a translation of
old French sermons about Madame, and Condé, and people of
whom few modern readers ever heard.
Alone, in Edinburgh, Murray was saddened by the
‘unregarding’ irresponsive faces of the people as
they passed. In St. Andrews he probably knew every face;
even in Edinburgh (a visitor from London thinks) there is a
friendly look among the passers. Murray did not find it
so. He approached a newspaper office: ‘he [the Editor
whom he met] was extremely frank, and told me that the tone of my
article on—was underbred, while the verses I had sent him
had nothing in them. Very pleasant for the feelings of a
young author, was it not? . . . Unfavourable criticism is an
excellent tonic, but it should be a little diluted . . . I must,
however, do him the justice to say that he did me a good turn by
introducing me to ---, . . . who was kind and encouraging in the
extreme.’
Murray now called on the Editor of the Scottish Leader,
the Gladstonian organ, whom he found very courteous. He was
asked to write some ‘leader-notes’ as they are
called, paragraphs which appear in the same columns as the
leading articles. These were published, to his
astonishment, and he was ‘to be taken on at a salary
of—a week.’ Let us avoid pecuniary chatter, and
merely say that the sum, while he was on trial, was not likely to
tempt many young men into the career of journalism. Yet
‘the work will be very exacting, and almost preclude the
possibility of my doing anything else.’ Now, as four
leader notes, or, say, six, can be written in an hour, it is
difficult to see the necessity for this fatigue. Probably
there were many duties more exacting, and less agreeable, than
the turning out of epigrams. Indeed there was other work of
some more or less mechanical kind, and the manufacture of
‘leader notes’ was the least part of Murray’s
industry. At the end of two years there was ‘the
prospect of a very fair salary.’ But there was
‘night-work and everlasting hurry.’ ‘The
interviewing of a half-bred Town-Councillor on the subject of gas
and paving’ did not exhilarate Murray. Again, he had
to compile a column of Literary News, from the
Athenæum, the Academy, and so on, ‘with
comments and enlargements where possible.’ This might
have been made extremely amusing, it sounds like a delightful
task,—the making of comments on ‘Mr. --- has finished
a sonnet:’ ‘Mr. ---’s poems are in their
fiftieth thousand:’ ‘Miss --- has gone on a tour of
health to the banks of the Yang-tse-kiang:’ ‘Mrs. ---
is engaged on a novel about the Pilchard Fishery.’
One could make comments (if permitted) on these topics for love,
and they might not be unpopular. But perhaps Murray was
shackled a little by human respect, or the prejudices of his
editor. At all events he calls it ‘not very inspiring
employment.’ The bare idea, I confess, inspirits me
extremely.
But the literary follet, who delights in mild mischief,
did not haunt Murray. He found an opportunity to write on
the Canongate Churchyard, where Fergusson lies, under the
monument erected by Burns to the boy of genius whom he called his
master. Of course the part of the article which dealt with
Fergusson, himself a poet of the Scarlet Gown, was cut out.
The Scotch do not care to hear about Fergusson, in spite of their
‘myriad mutchkined enthusiasm’ for his more
illustrious imitator and successor, Burns.
At this time Edinburgh was honouring itself, and Mr. Parnell,
by conferring its citizenship on that patriot. Murray was
actually told off ‘to stand at a given point of the line on
which the hero marched,’ and to write some lines of
‘picturesque description.’ This kind of thing
could not go on. It was at Nelson’s Monument that he
stood: his enthusiasm was more for Nelson than for Mr. Parnell;
and he caught a severe cold on this noble occasion.
Murray’s opinions clashed with those of the Scottish
Leader, and he withdrew from its service.
Just a week passed between the Parnellian triumph and
Murray’s retreat from daily journalism. ‘On a
newspaper one must have no opinions except those which are
favourable to the sale of the paper and the filling of its
advertisement columns.’ That is not precisely an
accurate theory. Without knowing anything of the
circumstances, one may imagine that Murray was rather
impracticable. Of course he could not write against his own
opinions, but it is unusual to expect any one to do that, or to
find any one who will do it. ‘Incompatibility of
temper’ probably caused this secession from the
newspaper.
After various attempts to find occupation, he did some
proof-reading for Messrs. Constable. Among other things he
‘read’ the journal of Lady Mary Coke, privately
printed for Lord Home. Lady Mary, who appears as a lively
child in The Heart of Midlothian, ‘had a taste for
loo, gossip, and gardening, but the greatest of these is
gossip.’ The best part of the book is Lady Louisa
Stuart’s inimitable introduction. Early in October he
decided to give up proof-reading: the confinement had already
told on his health. In the letter which announces this
determination he describes a sermon of Principal Caird:
‘Voice, gesture, language, thought—all in the highest
degree,—combined to make it the most moving and exalted
speech of a man to men that I ever listened to.’
‘The world is too much with me,’ he adds, as if he
and the world were ever friends, or ever likely to be
friendly.
October 27th found him dating from St. Andrews again.
‘St. Andrews after Edinburgh is Paradise.’ His
Dalilah had called him home to her, and he was never again
unfaithful. He worked for his firm friend, Professor
Meiklejohn, he undertook some teaching, and he wrote a
little. It was at this time that his biographer made
Murray’s acquaintance. I had been delighted with his
verses in College Echoes, and I asked him to bring me some
of his more serious work. But he never brought them: his
old enemy, reserve, overcame him. A few of his pieces were
published ‘At the Sign of the Ship’ in
Longman’s Magazine, to which he contributed
occasionally.
From this point there is little in Murray’s life to be
chronicled. In 1890 his health broke down entirely, and
consumption declared itself. Very early in 1891 he visited
Egypt, where it was thought that some educational work might be
found for him. But he found Egypt cold, wet, and windy; of
Alexandria and the Mediterranean he says little: indeed he was
almost too weak and ill to see what is delightful either in
nature or art.
‘To aching eyes each landscape lowers,
To feverish pulse each gale blows chill,
And Araby’s or Eden’s bowers
Were barren as this moorland hill,’
says the least self-conscious of poets. Even so barren
were the rich Nile and so bleak the blue Mediterranean
waters. Though received by the kindest and most hospitable
friends, Murray was homesick, and pined to be in England, now
that spring was there. He made the great mistake of coming
home too early. At Ilminster, in his mother’s home,
he slowly faded out of life. I have not the heart to quote
his descriptions of brief yet laborious saunters in the coppices,
from the letters which he wrote to the lady of his heart.
He was calm, cheerful, even buoyant. His letters to his
college friends are all concerned with literature, or with happy
old times, and are full of interest in them and in their
happiness.
He was not wholly idle. He wrote a number of short
pieces of verse in Punch, and two or three in the St.
James’s Gazette. Other work, no doubt, he
planned, but his strength was gone. In 1891 his book,
The Scarlet Gown, was published by his friend, Mr. A. M.
Holden. The little volume, despite its local character, was
kindly received by the Reviews. Here, it was plain, we had
a poet who was to St. Andrews what the regretted J. K. S. was to
Eton and Cambridge. This measure of success was not
calculated to displease our alumnus addictissimus.
Friendship and love, he said, made the summer of 1892 very
happy to him. I last heard from him in the summer of 1893,
when he sent me some of his most pleasing verses. He was in
Scotland; he had wandered back, a shadow of himself, to his dear
St. Andrews. I conceived that he was better; he said
nothing about his health. It is not easy to quote from his
letters to his friend, Mr. Wallace, still written in his
beautiful firm hand. They are too full of affectionate
banter: they also contain criticisms on living poets: he shows an
admiration, discriminating and not wholesale, of Mr.
Kipling’s verse: he censures Mr. Swinburne, whose Jacobite
song (as he wrote to myself) did not precisely strike him as the
kind of thing that Jacobites used to sing.
They certainly celebrated
‘The faith our fathers fought for,
The kings our fathers knew,’
in a different tone in the North.
The perfect health of mind, in these letters of a dying man,
is admirable. Reading old letters over, he writes to Miss
---, ‘I have known a wonderful number of wonderfully
kind-hearted people.’ That is his criticism of a
world which had given him but a scanty welcome, and a life of
foiled endeavour, of disappointed hope. Even now there was
a disappointment. His poems did not find a publisher: what
publisher can take the risk of adding another volume of poetry to
the enormous stock of verse brought out at the author’s
expense? This did not sour or sadden him: he took
Montaigne’s advice, ‘not to make too much marvel of
our own fortunes.’ His biographer, hearing in the
winter of 1893 that Murray’s illness was now considered
hopeless, though its rapid close was not expected, began, with
Professor Meiklejohn, to make arrangements for the publication of
the poems. But the poet did not live to have this poor
gratification. He died in the early hours of 1894.
Of the merits of his more serious poetry others must
speak. To the Editor it seems that he is always at his best
when he is inspired by the Northern Sea, and the long sands and
grey sea grasses. Then he is most himself. He was
improving in his art with every year: his development, indeed,
was somewhat late.
It is less of the writer than the man that we prefer to
think. His letters display, in passages which he would not
have desired to see quoted, the depth and tenderness and
thoughtfulness of his affections. He must have been a
delightful friend: illness could not make him peevish, and his
correspondence with old college companions could never be taken
for that of a consciously dying man. He had perfect
courage, and resolution even in his seeming irresoluteness.
He was resolved to be, and continued to be, himself.
‘He had kept the bird in his bosom.’ We, who
regret him, may wish that he had been granted a longer life, and
a secure success. Happier fortunes might have mellowed him,
no fortunes could have altered for the worse his admirable
nature. He lives in the hearts of his friends, and in the
pride and sympathy of those who, after him, have worn and shall
wear the scarlet gown.
The following examples of his poetry were selected by
Murray’s biographer from a considerable mass, and have been
seen through the press by Professor Meiklejohn, who possesses the
original manuscript, beautifully written.