Benbow and Another, as
reported
in the _Examiner_, February
17, 1822; and cases of Wolcot _v_.
17, 1822; and cases of Wolcot _v_.
Byron
In the following January,
"_Cain: A Mystery_, by the author of _Don Juan_," was issued by W.
Benbow, at Castle Street, Leicester Square (the notorious "Byron Head,"
which Southey described as "one of those preparatory schools for the
brothel and the gallows, where obscenity, sedition, and blasphemy are
retailed in drams for the vulgar"! ).
Murray had paid Byron ? 2710 for the three tragedies, and in order to
protect the copyright, he applied, through counsel (Lancelot Shadwell,
afterwards Vice-Chancellor), for an injunction in Chancery to stop the
sale of piratical editions of _Cain_. In delivering judgment (February
12, 1822), the Chancellor, Lord Eldon (see _Courier_, Wednesday,
February 13), replying to Shadwell, drew a comparison between _Cain_ and
_Paradise Lost_, "which he had read from beginning to end during the
course of the last Long Vacation--_solicitae jucunda oblivia vitae_. " No
one, he argued, could deny that the object and effects of _Paradise
Lost_ were "not to bring into disrepute," but "to promote reverence for
our religion," and, _per contra_, no one could affirm that it was
impossible to arrive at an opposite conclusion with regard to "the
Preface, the poem, the general tone and manner of _Cain_. " It was a
question for a jury. A jury might decide that _Cain_ was blasphemous,
and void of copyright; and as there was a reasonable doubt in his mind
as to the character of the book, and a doubt as to the conclusion at
which a jury would arrive, he was compelled to refuse the injunction.
According to Dr. Smiles (_Memoir of John Murray_, 1891, i. 428), the
decision of a jury was taken, and an injunction eventually granted. If
so, it was ineffectual, for Benbow issued another edition of _Cain_ in
1824 (see Jacob's _Reports_, p. 474, note). See, too, the case of
Murray _v_.
Benbow and Another, as reported in the _Examiner_, February
17, 1822; and cases of Wolcot _v_. Walker, Southey _v_. Sherwood, Murray
_v_. Benbow, and Lawrence _v_. Smith [_Quarterly Review_, April, 1822,
vol. xxvii. pp. 120-138].
"_Cain_," said Moore (February 9, 1822), "has made a sensation. " Friends
and champions, the press, the public "turned up their thumbs. " Gifford
shook his head; Hobhouse "launched out into a most violent invective"
(letter to Murray, November 24, 1821); Jeffrey, in the _Edinburgh_, was
regretful and hortatory; Heber, in the _Quarterly_, was fault-finding
and contemptuous. The "parsons preached at it from Kentish Town to Pisa"
(letter to Moore, February 20, 1822). Even "the very highest authority
in the land," his Majesty King George IV. , "expressed his disapprobation
of the blasphemy and licentiousness of Lord Byron's writings"
(_Examiner_, February 17, 1822). Byron himself was forced to admit that
"my Mont Saint Jean seems Cain" (_Don Juan_, Canto XI. stanza lvi.
"_Cain: A Mystery_, by the author of _Don Juan_," was issued by W.
Benbow, at Castle Street, Leicester Square (the notorious "Byron Head,"
which Southey described as "one of those preparatory schools for the
brothel and the gallows, where obscenity, sedition, and blasphemy are
retailed in drams for the vulgar"! ).
Murray had paid Byron ? 2710 for the three tragedies, and in order to
protect the copyright, he applied, through counsel (Lancelot Shadwell,
afterwards Vice-Chancellor), for an injunction in Chancery to stop the
sale of piratical editions of _Cain_. In delivering judgment (February
12, 1822), the Chancellor, Lord Eldon (see _Courier_, Wednesday,
February 13), replying to Shadwell, drew a comparison between _Cain_ and
_Paradise Lost_, "which he had read from beginning to end during the
course of the last Long Vacation--_solicitae jucunda oblivia vitae_. " No
one, he argued, could deny that the object and effects of _Paradise
Lost_ were "not to bring into disrepute," but "to promote reverence for
our religion," and, _per contra_, no one could affirm that it was
impossible to arrive at an opposite conclusion with regard to "the
Preface, the poem, the general tone and manner of _Cain_. " It was a
question for a jury. A jury might decide that _Cain_ was blasphemous,
and void of copyright; and as there was a reasonable doubt in his mind
as to the character of the book, and a doubt as to the conclusion at
which a jury would arrive, he was compelled to refuse the injunction.
According to Dr. Smiles (_Memoir of John Murray_, 1891, i. 428), the
decision of a jury was taken, and an injunction eventually granted. If
so, it was ineffectual, for Benbow issued another edition of _Cain_ in
1824 (see Jacob's _Reports_, p. 474, note). See, too, the case of
Murray _v_.
Benbow and Another, as reported in the _Examiner_, February
17, 1822; and cases of Wolcot _v_. Walker, Southey _v_. Sherwood, Murray
_v_. Benbow, and Lawrence _v_. Smith [_Quarterly Review_, April, 1822,
vol. xxvii. pp. 120-138].
"_Cain_," said Moore (February 9, 1822), "has made a sensation. " Friends
and champions, the press, the public "turned up their thumbs. " Gifford
shook his head; Hobhouse "launched out into a most violent invective"
(letter to Murray, November 24, 1821); Jeffrey, in the _Edinburgh_, was
regretful and hortatory; Heber, in the _Quarterly_, was fault-finding
and contemptuous. The "parsons preached at it from Kentish Town to Pisa"
(letter to Moore, February 20, 1822). Even "the very highest authority
in the land," his Majesty King George IV. , "expressed his disapprobation
of the blasphemy and licentiousness of Lord Byron's writings"
(_Examiner_, February 17, 1822). Byron himself was forced to admit that
"my Mont Saint Jean seems Cain" (_Don Juan_, Canto XI. stanza lvi.
