Produced by David Starner, Taavi Kalju and the Online
Distributed Proofreading Team at http://www.pgdp.net
EARLY REVIEWS
OF
ENGLISH POETS
EDITED WITH AN INTRODUCTION
BY
JOHN LOUIS HANEY, PH.D.
_Assistant Professor of English and History, Central High School,
Philadelphia; Research Fellow in English, University of Pennsylvania_
PHILADELPHIA
THE EGERTON PRESS
1904
COPYRIGHT, 1904
BY JOHN LOUIS HANEY
PRESS OF
THE NEW ERA PRINTING COMPANY,
LANCASTER, PA.
TO
MY FRIEND AND TEACHER
PROFESSOR FELIX E. SCHELLING
OF THE UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA
PREFACE
"Among the amusing and instructive books that remain to be written, one
of the most piquant would be a history of the criticism with which the
most celebrated literary productions have been greeted on their first
appearance before the world." It is quite possible that when Dr. William
Matthews began his essay on _Curiosities of Criticism_ with these words,
he failed to grasp the full significance of that future undertaking. Mr.
Churton Collins recently declared that "a very amusing and edifying
record might be compiled partly out of a selection of the various
verdicts passed contemporaneously by reviews on particular works, and
partly out of comparisons of the subsequent fortunes of works with their
fortunes while submitted to this censorship." Both critics recognize the
fact that such a volume would be entertaining and instructive; but, from
another point of view, it would also be a somewhat doleful book. Even a
reader of meagre imagination and rude sensibilities could not peruse
such a volume without picturing in his mind the anguish and the
heart-ache which those bitter and often vicious attacks inflicted upon
the unfortunate victims whose works were being assailed.
Authors (particularly sensitive poets) have been at all times the sport
and plaything of the critics. Mrs. Oliphant, in her _Literary History of
England_, said with much truth: "There are few things so amusing as to
read a really 'slashing article'--except perhaps to write it. It is
infinitely easier and gayer work than a well-weighed and serious
criticism, and will always be more popular. The lively and brilliant
examples of the art which dwell in the mind of the reader are
invariably of this class." Thus it happens that we remember the witty
onslaughts of the reviewers, and often ignore the fact that certain
witticisms drove Byron, for example, into a frenzy of anger that called
forth the most vigorous satire of the century; and others so completely
unnerved Shelley that he felt tempted to write no more; and still others
were so unanimously hostile in tone that Coleridge thought the whole
detested tribe of critics was in league against his literary success.
There were, of course, such admirable personalities as Wordsworth's--for
the most part indifferent to the strongest torrent of abuse; and clever
craftsmen like Tennyson, who, although hurt, read the criticisms and
profited by them; but, on the other hand, there are still well-informed
readers who believe that the _Quarterly Review_ at least hastened the
death of poor Keats.
It has been suggested that such a volume of the "choice crudities of
criticism" as is here proposed would likewise fulfill the desirable
purpose of avenging the author upon his ancient enemy, the critic, by
showing how absurd the latter's utterances often are, and what a
veritable farrago of folly those collected utterances can make. We may
rest assured that however much hostile criticism may have pained an
author, it has never inflicted a permanent injury upon a good book. If
there appear to be works that have been thus more or less obscured, the
fault will probably be found not in the critic but in the works
themselves. According to this agreeable theory, which we would all fain
believe, the triumph of the ignorant or malevolent critic cannot endure;
sooner or later the author's merit will be recognized and he will come
into his own.
The present volume does not attempt to fulfill the conditions suggested
by Dr. Matthews and Mr. Collins. A history of contemporary criticism of
famous authors would be a more ambitious undertaking, necessitating an
extensive apparatus of notes and references. It seeks merely to gather a
number of interesting anomalies of criticism--reviews of famous poems
and famous poets differing more or less from the modern consensus of
opinion concerning those poems and their authors. Although most of the
chosen reviews are unfavorable, several others have been selected to
afford evidence of an early appreciation of certain poets. A few
unexpectedly favorable notices, such as the _Monthly Review's_ critique
of Browning's _Sordello_, are printed because they appear to be unique.
The chief criterion in selecting these reviews (apart from the effort to
represent most of the periodicals and the principal poets between Gray
and Browning) has been that of interest to the modern reader. In most
cases, criticisms of a writer's earlier works were preferred as more
likely to be spontaneous and uninfluenced by his growing literary
reputation. Thus the volume does not attempt to trace the development of
English critical methods, nor to supply a hand-book of representative
English criticism; it offers merely a selection of bygone but readable
reviews--what the critics thought, or, in some cases, pretended to
think, of works of poets whom we have since held in honorable esteem.
The short notices and the well-known longer reviews are printed entire;
but considerations of space and interest necessitated excisions in a few
cases, all of which are, of course, properly indicated. The spelling and
punctuation of the original texts have been carefully followed.
The history of English critical journals has not yet been adequately
written. The following introduction offers a rapid survey of the
subject, compiled principally from the sources indicated in the
bibliographical list. I am indebted to Professor Felix E. Schelling of
the University of Pennsylvania, and to Dr. Robert Ellis Thompson and
Professor Albert H. Smyth of the Philadelphia Central High School for
many suggestions that have been of value in writing the introduction.
Dr. Edward Z. Davis examined at my request certain pamphlets in the
British Museum that threw additional light upon the history of the early
reviews. Dr. A.S.W. Rosenbach and Professor J.H. Moffatt read the proofs
of the introduction and notes respectively, and suggested several
noteworthy improvements.
J.L.H.
CENTRAL HIGH SCHOOL,
PHILADELPHIA.
CONTENTS
Preface vii
Introduction xiii
Bibliography lvi
REVIEWS
GRAY Odes (_Monthly Review_) 1
GOLDSMITH The Traveller (_Critical Review_) 5
COWPER Poems, 1782 (_Critical Review_) 10
BURNS Poems, 1786 (_Edinburgh Magazine_) 13
Poems, 1786 (_Critical Review_) 15
WORDSWORTH Descriptive Sketches (_Monthly Review_) 16
An Evening Walk (_Monthly Review_) 19
Lyrical Ballads (_Critical Review_) 20
Poems, 1807 (_Edinburgh Review_) 24
COLERIDGE Christabel (_Edinburgh Review_) 47
SOUTHEY Madoc (_Monthly Review_) 60
LAMB Blank Verse (_Monthly Review_) 65
Album Verses (_Literary Gazette_) 66
LANDOR Gebir (_British Critic_) 68
Gebir (_Monthly Review_) 69
SCOTT Marmion (_Edinburgh Review_) 70
BYRON Hours of Idleness (_Edinburgh Review_) 94
Childe Harold (_Christian Observer_) 101
SHELLEY Alastor (_Monthly Review_) 115
The Cenci (_London Magazine_) 116
Adonais (_Literary Gazette_) 129
KEATS Endymion (_Quarterly Review_) 135
Endymion (_Blackwood's Magazine_) 141
TENNYSON Timbuctoo (_Athenaeum_) 151
Poems, 1833 (_Quarterly Review_) 152
The Princess (_Literary Gazette_) 176
BROWNING Paracelsus (_Athenaeum_) 187
Sordello (_Monthly Review_) 188
Men and Women (_Saturday Review_) 189
Notes 197
Index 223
INTRODUCTION
To the modern reader, with an abundance of periodicals of all sorts and
upon all subjects at hand, it seems hardly possible that this wealth of
ephemeral literature was virtually developed within the past two
centuries. It offers such a rational means for the dissemination of the
latest scientific and literary news that the mind undeceived by facts
would naturally place the origin of the periodical near the invention of
printing itself. Apart from certain sporadic manifestations of what is
termed, by courtesy, periodical literature, the real beginning of that
important department of letters was in the innumerable _Mercurii_ that
flourished in London after the outbreak of the Civil War. Although the
_British Museum Catalogue_ presents a long list of these curious
messengers and news-carriers, the only one that could be of interest in
the present connection is the _Mercurius Librarius; or a Catalogue of
Books Printed and Published at London_[A] (1668-70), the contents of
which simply fulfilled the promise of its title.
Literary journals in England were, however, not a native development,
but were copied, like the fashions and artistic norms of that period,
from the French. The famous and long-lived _Journal des Scavans_ was
begun at Paris in 1665 by M. Denis de Sallo, who has been called, since
the time of Voltaire, the "inventor" of literary journals. In 1684
Pierre Bayle began at Amsterdam the publication of _Nouvelles de la
Republique des Lettres_, which continued under various hands until
1718. These French periodicals were the acknowledged inspiration for
similar ventures in England, beginning in 1682 with the _Weekly Memorial
for the Ingenious: or an Account of Books lately set forth in Several
Languages, with some other Curious Novelties relating to Arts and
Sciences_. The preface stated the intention of the publishers to notice
foreign as well as domestic works, and to transcribe the "curious
novelties" from the _Journal des Scavans_. Fifty weekly numbers appeared
(1682-83), consisting principally of translations of the best articles
in the French journal.
A few years later (1686), the Genevan theologian, Jean Le Clerc, then a
resident of London, established the _Universal Historical Bibliotheque;
or, an Account of most of the Considerable Books printed in All
Languages_, which was continued by various hands until 1693 in a series
of twenty-five quarto volumes. Contemporary with this review was a
number of similar publications which had for the most part a brief
existence. Among them was the _Athenian Mercury_, published on Tuesdays
and Saturdays (1691-1696), the _History of Learning_, which appeared for
a short time in 1691 and again in 1694; _Works of the Learned_
(1691-92); the _Young Student's Library_ (1692) and its continuation,
the _Compleat Library_ (1692-94); _Memoirs for the Ingenious_ (1693);
the _Universal Mercury_ (1694) and _Miscellaneous Letters, etc._
(1694-96). Samuel Parkes includes among the reviews of this period Sir
Thomas Pope Blount's remarkable _Censura Celebrium Authorum_ (1690).
That popular bibliographical dictionary of criticism (reprinted 1694,
1710 and 1718) is only remembered now for its omission of Shakespeare,
Spenser, Jonson and Milton from its list of "celebrated authors."
Neither that volume nor the same author's _De Re Poetica_ (1694) finds a
proper place in a list of periodicals. They should be grouped with such
works as Phillips' _Theatrum Poetarum_ (1675) and Langbaine's _Account
of the English Dramatic Poets_ (1691) among the more deliberate attempts
at literary criticism.
Between 1692-94 appeared the _Gentleman's Journal; or, the Monthly
Miscellany. Consisting of News, History, Philosophy, Poetry, Music,
Translations, etc._ This noteworthy paper, edited by Peter Anthony
Motteux while he was translating Rabelais, included among its
contributors Aphra Behn, Oldmixon, Dennis, D'Urfey and others. In many
ways it anticipated the plan of the _Gentleman's Magazine_ (1731), which
has usually been accorded the honor of priority among English literary
magazines. The _History of the Works of the Learned; or, an Impartial
Account of Books lately printed in all Parts of Europe_ was begun in
1699 and succumbed after the publication of its thirteenth volume
(1711). Among its editors was George Ridpath, who was afterwards
immortalized in Pope's _Dunciad_. The careers of the _Monthly
Miscellany_ (1707-09) and _Censura Temporum_ (1709-10) were brief. About
the same time an extensive series of periodicals was begun by a Huguenot
refugee, Michael De la Roche, who fled to England after the revocation
of the Edict of Nantes and became an Episcopalian. After several years
of hack-work for the booksellers, he published (1710) the first numbers
of his _Memoirs of Literature, containing a Weekly Account of the State
of Learning at Home and Abroad_, which he continued until 1714 and for a
few months in 1717. In the latter year he began at Amsterdam his
_Bibliotheque Angloise_ (1717-27), continued by his _Memoires
Litteraires de la Grande Bretagne_ (1720-1724) after the editorship of
the former had been placed in other hands on account of his pronounced
anti-Calvinistic views. At Amsterdam, Daniel Le Clerc, a brother of the
Jean Le Clerc already mentioned, published his _Bibliotheque Choisee_
(1703-14) and his _Bibliotheque Ancienne et Moderne_ (1714-28). Both of
these periodicals suggested numerous ideas to De la Roche, who returned
to London and conducted the _New Memoirs of Literature_ (1725-27). His
last venture was a _Literary Journal, or a Continuation of the Memoirs
of Literature_, which lasted about a year.
Contemporary with De la Roche, Samuel Jebb conducted _Bibliotheca
Literaria_ (1722-24), dealing with "inscriptions, medals, dissertations,
etc." In 1728 Andrew Reid began the _Present State of the Republick of
Letters_, which reached its eighteenth volume in 1736. It was then
incorporated with the _Literary Magazine; or the History of the Works of
the Learned_ (1735-36) and the joint periodical was henceforth published
as a _History of the Works of the Learned_ until 1743. Other less
extensive literary journals of the same period were Archibald Bower's
_Historia Literaria_ (1730-34); the _Bee; or, Universal Weekly Pamphlet_
(1733-35), edited by Addison's cousin, Eustace Budgell; the _British
Librarian, exhibiting a Compendious Review or Abstract of our most
Scarce, Useful and Valuable Books, etc._, published anonymously by the
antiquarian William Oldys, from January to June, 1737, and much esteemed
by modern bibliophiles as a pioneer and a curiosity of its kind; a
_Literary Journal_ (1744-49) published at Dublin; and, finally, the
_Museum; or the Literary and Historical Register_. This interesting
periodical printed essays, poems and reviews by such contributors as
Spence, Horace Walpole, the brothers Warton, Akenside, Lowth and others.
It was published fortnightly from March, 1746 to September, 1747, making
three octavo volumes.
The periodicals enumerated thus far can hardly be regarded as literary
in the modern acceptation of the term; they were, for the most part,
ponderous, learned and scientific in character, and, with the exception
of the _Gentleman's Journal_ and Dodsley's _Museum_, rarely ventured
into the domain of _belles-lettres_. An occasional erudite dissertation
on classical poetry or on the French canons of taste suggested a
literary intent, but the bulk of the journals was supplied by articles
on natural history, curious experiments, physiological treatises and
historical essays. During the latter half of the eighteenth century
theological and political writings, and accounts of travels in distant
lands became the staple offering of the reviews.
A new era in the history of English periodicals was marked by the
publication, on May 1, 1749, of the first number of the _Monthly
Review_, destined to continue through ninety-six years of varying
fortune and to reach its 249th volume. It bore the subtitle: _A
Periodical Work giving an Account, with Proper Abstracts of, and
Extracts from, the New Books, Pamphlets, etc., as they come out. By
Several Hands._ The publisher was Ralph Griffiths, who continued to
manage the review until his death in 1803. It seems remarkable that this
periodical which set the norm for half a century should have appeared
not only without preface or advertisement, but likewise without
patronage or support of any kind. From the first it reviewed poetry,
fiction and drama as well as the customary classes of applied
literature, and thus appealed primarily to the public rather than, like
most of its predecessors, to the learned. Its politics were Whig and its
theology Non-conformist. Griffiths was not successful at first, but
determined to achieve popularity by enlisting Ruffhead, Kippis,
Langhorne and several other minor writers on his critical staff. In
1757 Oliver Goldsmith became one of those unfortunate hacks as a result
of his well-known agreement with Griffiths to serve as an
assistant-editor in exchange for his board, lodging and "an adequate
salary." About a score of miscellaneous reviews from Goldsmith's
pen--including critiques of Home's _Douglas_, Burke's _On the Sublime
and the Beautiful_, Smollett's _History of England_ and Gray's
_Odes_--appeared in the _Monthly Review_ during 1757-58. The contract
with Griffiths was soon broken, probably on account of incompatibility
of temper. Goldsmith declared that he had been over-worked and badly
treated; but it is quite likely that his idleness and irregular habits
contributed largely to the misunderstanding.
Meanwhile, a Tory rival and a champion of the Established Church had
appeared on the field. A printer named Archibald Hamilton projected the
_Critical Review: or, Annals of Literature. By a Society of Gentlemen_,
which began to appear in February, 1756, under the editorship of Tobias
Smollett and extended to a total of 144 volumes when it ceased
publication in 1817. Its articles were of a high order for the time and
the new review soon became popular. The open rivalry between the reviews
was fostered by an exchange of editorial compliments. Griffiths
published a statement that the _Monthly_ was not written by "physicians
without practice, authors without learning, men without decency,
gentlemen without manners, and critics without judgment." Smollett
retorted that "the _Critical Review_ is not written by a parcel of
obscure hirelings, under the restraint of a bookseller and his wife, who
presume to revise, alter and amend the articles occasionally. The
principal writers in the _Critical Review_ are unconnected with
booksellers, unawed by old women, and independent of each other." Such
literary encounters did not fail to stimulate public interest in both
reviews and to add materially to their circulation.
When the first volume of the _Critical Review_ was complete, the
"Society of Gentlemen" enriched it with an ornate, self-congratulatory
Preface in which they said of themselves:
"However they may have erred in judgment, they have declared their
thoughts without prejudice, fear, or affectation; and strove to
forget the author's person, while his works fell under their
consideration. They have treated simple dulness as the object of
mirth or compassion, according to the nature of its appearance.
Petulance and self-conceit they have corrected with more severe
strictures; and though they have given no quarter to insolence,
scurrility and sedition, they will venture to affirm, that no
production of merit has been defrauded of its due share of
applause. On the contrary, they have cherished with commendation,
the very faintest bloom of genius, even when vapid and unformed, in
hopes of its being warmed into flavour, and afterwards producing
agreeable fruit by dint of proper care and culture; and never,
without reluctance disapproved, even of a bad writer, who had the
least title to indulgence. The judicious reader will perceive that
their aim has been to exhibit a succinct plan of every performance;
to point out the most striking beauties and glaring defects; to
illustrate their remarks with proper quotations; and to convey
these remarks in such a manner, as might best conduce to the
entertainment of the public."
Moreover, these high ideals were entertained under the most unfavorable
circumstances. By the time the second volume was complete, the editors
took pleasure in announcing that in spite of "open assault and private
assassination," "published reproach and printed letters of abuse,
distributed like poisoned arrows in the dark," yea, in spite of the
"breath of secret calumny" and the "loud blasts of obloquy," the
_Critical Review_ was more strongly entrenched than before.
There was more than mere rhodomontade in these words. Not only did open
rivalry exist between the two reviews, but they were both made the
subject of violent attacks by authors whose productions had been
condemned on their pages. John Brine (1755), John Shebbeare (1757),
Horace Walpole (1759), William Kenrick (1759), James Grainger (1759) and
Joseph Reed (1759) are the earliest of the many writers who issued
pamphlets in reply to articles in the reviews. In 1759 Smollett was
tried at the King's Bench for aspersions upon the character of Admiral
Sir Charles Knowles published in the _Critical Review_. He was declared
guilty, fined L100, and sentenced to three months' imprisonment. Yet in
spite of such difficulties, the _Critical Review_ continued to find
favor among its readers. The articles written by its "Society of
Gentlemen" were on the whole far more interesting in subject and
treatment than the work of Griffiths' unfortunate hacks; but the
_Monthly_ was also prospering, as in 1761 a fourth share in that review
was sold for more than L755.
In 1760 appeared a curious anonymous satire entitled _The Battle of the
Reviews_, which presented, upon the model of Swift's spirited account of
the contest between ancient and modern learning, a fantastic description
of the open warfare between the two reviews. After a formal declaration
of hostilities both sides marshal their forces for the struggle. The
"noble patron" of the _Monthly_ is but slightly disguised as the Right
Honourable Rehoboam Gruffy, Esq. His associates Sir Imp Brazen, Mynheer
Tanaquil Limmonad, Martin Problem, and others were probably recognized
by contemporary readers. To oppose this array the _Critical_ summons a
force that contains only two names of distinction, Sampson MacJackson
and Sawney MacSmallhead (_i.e._, Smollett). The ensuing battle, which is
described at great length, results in a victory for the _Critical
Review_, and the banishment of Squire Gruffy to the land of the
Hottentots.
Dr. Johnson's well-known characterization of the two reviews was quite
just. On the occasion of his memorable interview (1767) with George III,
Johnson gave the King information concerning the _Journal des Savans_
and said of the two English reviews that "the _Monthly Review_ was done
with most care; the _Critical_ upon the best principles; adding that the
authors of the _Monthly Review_ were enemies to the Church." Some years
later Johnson said of the reviews:
"I think them very impartial: I do not know an instance of
partiality.... The Monthly Reviewers are not Deists; but they are
Christians with as little Christianity as may be; and are for
pulling down all establishments. The Critical Reviewers are for
supporting the constitution both in church and state. The Critical
Reviewers, I believe, often review without reading the books
through; but lay hold of a topick and write chiefly from their own
minds. The Monthly Reviewers are duller men and are glad to read
the books through."
Goldsmith's successor on the _Monthly_ staff was the notorious libeller
and "superlative scoundrel," Dr. William Kenrick, who signalized his
advent (November, 1759) by writing an outrageous attack upon Goldsmith's
_Enquiry into the Present State of Polite Learning in Europe_. His
utterances were so thoroughly unjustified that Griffiths, who had scant
reason for praising poor Oliver, made an indirect apology for his
unworthy minion by a favorable though brief review (June, 1762) of _The
Citizen of the World_. During 1759 the _Critical Review_ published a
number of Goldsmith's articles which probably enabled the impecunious
author to effect his removal from the garret in Salisbury Square to the
famous lodgings in Green Arbour Court. After March, 1760, we find no
record of his association with either review, although he afterwards
wrote for the _British Magazine_ and others.
During the latter half of the century several reviews appeared and
flourished for a time without serious damage to their well-established
rivals. The _Literary Magazine; or Universal Review_ (1756-58) is
memorable for Johnson's cooeperation and a half-dozen articles by
Goldsmith. Boswell tells us that Johnson wrote for the magazine until
the fifteenth number and "that he never gave better proofs of the force,
acuteness and vivacity of his mind, than in this miscellany, whether we
consider his original essays, or his reviews of the works of others."
The _London Review of English and Foreign Literature_ (1775-80) was
conducted by the infamous Kenrick and others who faithfully maintained
the editor's well-recognized policy of vicious onslaught and personal
abuse. Paul Henry Maty, an assistant-librarian of the British Museum,
conducted for five years a _New Review_ (1782-86), often called _Maty's
Review_, and dealing principally with learned works. It apparently
enjoyed some authority, but both Walpole and Gibbon spoke unfavorably of
Maty's critical pretensions. _The English Review; or, an Abstract of
English and Foreign Literature_ (1783-96), extended to twenty-eight
volumes modelled upon the plan of the older periodicals. In 1796 it was
incorporated with the _Analytical Review_ (1788) and survived under the
latter title until 1799. The _Analytical Review_ deprecated the
self-sufficient attitude of contemporary criticism and advocated
extensive quotations from the works under consideration so that readers
might be able to judge for themselves. It likewise hinted at the tacit
understanding then existing between certain authors, publishers and
reviews for their mutual advantage, but which was arousing a growing
feeling of distrust on the part of the public. The _British Critic_
(1793-1843) was edited by William Beloe and Robert Nares as the organ of
the High Church Party. This "dull mass of orthodoxy" concerned itself
extensively with literary reviews; but its articles were best known for
their lack of interest and authority. The foibles of the _British
Critic_ were satirized in Bishop Copleston's _Advice to a Young
Reviewer_ (1807) with an appended mock critique of Milton's _L'Allegro_.
In 1826 it was united with the _Quarterly Theological Review_ and
continued until 1843.
_The Anti-Jacobin Review and Magazine; or, Monthly Political and
Literary Censor_ (1799-1821) played a strenuous role in the troublous
times of the Napoleonic wars. It continued the policy of the
_Anti-Jacobin, or Weekly Examiner_ (1797-98) conducted with such marked
vigor by William Gifford, but it numbered among its contributors none of
the brilliant men whose witty verses for the weekly paper are still read
in the popular _Poetry of the Anti-Jacobin_. The _Review_ was conducted
by John Richards Green, better known as John Gifford. Its articles were
at times sensational in character, viciously abusing writers of known or
suspected republican sentiments. From its pages could be culled a new
series of "Beauties of the Anti-Jacobin" which for sheer vituperation
and relentless abuse would be without a rival among such anthologies.
At the beginning of the nineteenth century, the principal reviews in
course of publication were the _Monthly_, the _Critical_, the _British
Critic_, and the _Anti-Jacobin_. The latter was preeminently vulgar in
its appeal, the _Critical_ had lost its former prestige, and the other
two had never risen above a level of mediocrity. There was more than a
lurking suspicion that these periodicals were, to a certain extent,
booksellers' organs, quite unreliable on account of the partial and
biassed criticisms which they offered the dissatisfied public. The time
was evidently ripe for a new departure in literary reviews--for the
establishment of a trustworthy critical journal, conducted by capable
editors and printing readable notices of important books. People were
quite willing to have an unfortunate author assailed and flayed for
their entertainment; but they did not care to be deceived by laudatory
criticisms that were inspired by the publisher's name instead of the
intrinsic merits of the work itself.
Such was the state of affairs when Francis Jeffrey, Henry Brougham and
Sydney Smith launched the _Edinburgh Review_ in 1802, choosing a name
that had been borne in 1755-56 by a short-lived semi-annual review.
There were several significant facts associated with the new enterprise.
It was the first important literary periodical to be published beyond
the metropolis. It was the first review to appear quarterly--an interval
that most contemporary journalists would have condemned as too long for
a successful review. Moreover, it was conducted upon an entirely
different principle than any previous review; by restricting its
attention to the most important works of each quarter, it gave extensive
critiques of only a few books in each number and thus avoided the
multitude of perfunctory notices that had made previous reviews so
dreary and unreadable.
The idea of founding the _Edinburgh Review_ was apparently suggested by
Sydney Smith in March, 1802. Jeffrey and Francis Horner were his
immediate associates; but during the period of preparation Henry
Brougham, Dr. Thomas Brown, Dr. John Thomson and others became
interested. After some delay, the first number appeared on October 10,
1802, containing among its twenty-nine articles three by Brougham, five
by Horner, six by Jeffrey and nine by Smith. Although there was a
slight feeling of disappointment over the mild political tone of the new
review, its success was immediate. The edition of 750 copies was
speedily disposed of, and within a month a second edition of equal size
was printed. There was no regular editor at first, although the
publication of the first three numbers was practically superintended by
Smith. Afterwards Jeffrey became editor at a salary of L300. He had
previously written some articles (including a critique of Southey's
_Thalaba_) for the _Monthly Review_ and was pessimistic enough to
anticipate an early failure for the new venture. However, at the time he
assumed control (July, 1803) the circulation was 2500, and within five
years it reached 8,000 or 9,000 copies. Jeffrey's articles were
recognized and much admired; but the success of the _Edinburgh_ was due
to its independent tone and general excellence rather than to the
individual contributions of its editor. Its prosperity enabled the
publishers to offer the contributors attractive remuneration for their
articles, thus assuring the cooeperation of specialists and of the most
capable men of letters of the day. At the outset, ten guineas per sheet
were paid; later sixteen became the minimum, and the average ranged from
twenty to twenty-five guineas. When we recall that the _Critical Review_
paid two, and the _Monthly Review_ sometimes four guineas per sheet, we
can readily understand the distinctly higher standard of the _Edinburgh
Review_.
Horner left Scotland for London in 1803 to embark upon a political
career. During the next six years occasional articles from his pen--less
than a score in all--appeared in the review. Smith and Brougham likewise
left Edinburgh in 1803 and 1805 respectively; but they ably supported
Jeffrey by sending numerous contributions for many years. During the
first quarter-century of the review's existence, this trio, with the
cooeperation of Sir James Mackintosh and a few others, constituted the
mainstay of its success. Jeffrey's remarkable critical faculty was
displayed to best advantage in the wide range of articles (two hundred
in number) which he wrote during his editorship. It is true that his
otherwise sound judgment was unable to grasp the significance of the new
poetic movement of his day, and that his best remembered efforts are the
diatribes against the Lake Poets. Hence, in the eyes of the modern
literary dilettante, he figures as a misguided, domineering Zoilus whose
mission in life was to heap ridicule upon the poetical efforts of
Wordsworth, Coleridge and the lesser disciples of romanticism.
There are in the early volumes of the _Edinburgh_ no more conspicuous
qualities than that air of vivacity and graceful wit, so thoroughly
characteristic of Sydney Smith. The reader who turns to those early
numbers may be disappointed in the literary quality of the average
article, for he will instinctively and unfairly make comparison with
more recent standards, instead of considering the immeasurably inferior
conditions that had previously prevailed; but we may safely assert that
the majority of Smith's articles can be read with interest to-day. He
was sufficiently sedate and serious when occasion demanded; yet at all
times he delighted in the display of his native and sparkling humor.
Although most of his important articles have been collected, far too
much of his work lies buried in that securest of literary
sepulchres--the back numbers of a critical review.
Henry Brougham at first wrote the scientific articles for the
_Edinburgh_. Soon his ability to deal with a wide range of subjects was
recognized and he proved the most versatile of the early reviewers. In
the first twenty numbers are eighty articles from his pen. A story that
does not admit of verification attributes to Brougham a whole number of
the _Edinburgh_, including an article on lithotomy and another on
Chinese music. Later he became especially distinguished for his
political articles, and remained a contributor long after Jeffrey and
Smith had withdrawn. A comparatively small portion of his _Edinburgh_
articles was reprinted (1856) in three volumes.
Although the young men who guided the early fortunes of the review were
Whigs, the _Edinburgh_ was not (as is generally believed) founded as a
Whig organ. In fact, the political complexion of their articles was so
subdued that even stalwart Tories like Walter Scott did not refrain from
contributing to its pages. Scott's _Marmion_ was somewhat sharply
reviewed by Jeffrey in April, 1808, and in the following October
appeared the article by Jeffrey and Brougham upon Don Pedro Cevallos'
_French Usurpation of Spain_. The pronounced Whiggism of that critique
led to an open rupture with the Tory contributors. Scott, who was no
longer on the best terms with Constable, the publisher of the
_Edinburgh_, declared that henceforth he could neither receive nor read
the review. He proposed to John Murray--then of Fleet Street--the
founding of a Tory quarterly in London as a rival to the northern review
that had thus far enjoyed undisputed possession of the field, because it
afforded "the only valuable literary criticism which can be met with."
Murray, who had already entertained the idea of establishing such a
review, naturally welcomed the prospect of so powerful an ally. Like a
good Tory, Scott felt that the "flashy and bold character of the
_Edinburgh's_ politics was likely to produce an indelible impression
upon the youth of the country." He ascertained that William Gifford,
formerly editor of the _Anti-Jacobin_ newspaper, was willing to take
charge of the new review, which Scott desired to be not exclusively nor
principally political, but a "periodical work of criticism conducted
with equal talent, but upon sounder principle than that which had gained
so high a station in the world of letters."
In February, 1809, appeared the first number of the _Quarterly Review_.
Three of its articles were by Scott, who continued to contribute for
some time and whose advice was frequently sought by both editor and
publisher. Canning, Ellis, and others who had written for the then
defunct _Anti-Jacobin_ became interested in the _Quarterly_; but the
principal contributors for many years were Robert Southey, John Wilson
Croker and Sir John Barrow. This trio contributed an aggregate of almost
five hundred articles to the _Quarterly_. In spite of its high standard,
the new venture was a financial failure for at least the first two
years; later, especially in the days of Tory triumph after the overthrow
of Napoleon, the _Quarterly_ flourished beyond all expectation.
Gifford's salary as editor was raised from the original L200 to L900;
for many years Southey was paid L100 for each article. Gifford was
distinctly an editor of the old school, with well-defined ideas of his
official privilege of altering contributed articles to suit himself--a
weakness that likewise afflicted Francis Jeffrey. While it appears that
Gifford wrote practically nothing for the review and that the savage
_Endymion_ article so persistently attributed to him was really the work
of Croker, he was an excellent manager and conducted the literary
affairs of the _Quarterly_ with considerable skill. His lack of system
and of business qualifications, however, resulted in the frequently
irregular appearance of the early numbers.
On account of his failing health, Gifford resigned the editorship of the
_Quarterly_ in 1824, and was succeeded by John Taylor Coleridge, whose
brief and unimportant administration served merely to fill the gap until
an efficient successor for Gifford could be found. The choice fell upon
Scott's son-in-law, John Gibson Lockhart, who, from 1825 to 1853, proved
to be a most capable editor. The subsequent history of the review under
Whitwell Elwin (1853-1860), William Macpherson (1860-1867), Sir William
Smith (1867-1893), Mr. Rowland Prothero (1894-1899) and the latter's
brother, Mr. George Prothero, the present editor, naturally lies beyond
the purposes of this introduction.
The period of Lockhart's editorship of the _Quarterly_ was likewise the
golden epoch of the _Edinburgh_. Sydney Smith's contributions ceased
about 1828. In the following year Jeffrey was elected Dean of the
Faculty of Advocates. He felt that the tenure of his new dignity
demanded the relinquishment of the editorship of an independent literary
and political review; accordingly, after editing the ninety-eighth
number of the _Edinburgh_, he retired in favor of Macvey Napier, who had
been a contributor since 1805. Napier conducted the review with great
success from 1829 until his death in 1847. His policy was to prefer
shorter articles than those printed when he assumed control. At first,
each number contained from fifteen to twenty-five articles; but the
growing length and importance of the political contributions had reduced
the average to ten. The return to the original policy naturally resulted
in a greater variety of purely literary articles.
Macaulay had begun his association with the _Edinburgh_ by his
remarkable essay on _Milton_ in 1825--a bold, striking piece of
criticism, full of the fire of youth, which established his literary
reputation and gave a renewed impetus to the already prosperous review.
During Napier's editorship he contributed his essays on _Croker's
Boswell_, _Hampden_, _Burleigh_, _Horace Walpole_, _Lord Chatham_,
_Bacon_, _Clive_, _Hastings_ and many others. Napier experienced some
difficulty in steering a middle course for the review between Lord
Brougham, who sought to use its pages to further his own political
ambitions, and Macaulay, who vigorously denounced the procedure. The
_Edinburgh_ was no longer conspicuous among its numerous contemporaries;
but the literary quality was much higher than at first. Among the other
famous contributors of this period were Carlyle, John Stuart Mill,
Thackeray, Bulwer, Hallam, Sir William Hamilton and many others. This
was undoubtedly the greatest period in the history of the review. Its
power in Whig politics is shown by the fact that Lord Melbourne and Lord
John Russell sought to make it the organ of the government.
Napier's successor in 1847 was William Empson, who had contributed to
the _Edinburgh_ since 1823 and who held the editorship until his demise
in 1852. Next followed Sir George Cornewall Lewis, who, however,
resigned in 1855 to become Chancellor of the Exchequer in Lord
Palmerston's cabinet. During his regime he wrote less than a score of
articles for the review. His immediate successor was the late Henry
Reeve, whose forty years of faithful service until his death in 1895
brings the review practically to our own day. When Reeve began his
duties by editing No. 206 (April, 1855) Lord Brougham was the only
survivor of the contributors to the original number. In 1857, when a
discussion arose between editor and publisher concerning the
denunciatory attitude assumed by the review toward Lord Palmerston's
ministry, Reeve drew up a list of his contributors at that time,
including Bishop (afterwards Archbishop) Tait, George Grote, John
Forster, M. Guizot, the Duke of Argyll, Rev. Canon Moseley, George S.
Venables, Richard Monckton Milnes and a score of others--most of them
"names of the highest honour and the most consistent adherence to
Liberal principles." Within the four decades that followed, the
personnel of the review has made another almost complete change. A new
group of contributors, under the editorship of Hon. Arthur R.D. Elliot,
is now striving to maintain the standards of old "blue and yellow." A
caustic note in the (1890) Annual Index of _Review of Reviews_ said of
the _Edinburgh_:
"It has long since subsided into a respectable exponent of high and
dry Whiggery, which in these later days has undergone a further
degeneration or evolution into Unionism.... Audacity, wit,
unconventionality, enthusiasm--all these qualities have long since
evaporated, and with them has disappeared the political influence
of the _Edinburgh_."
The two great rivals which are now reaching their centenary[B] are still
the most prominent, in fact the only well-known literary quarterlies of
England. During their life-time many quarterlies have risen, flourished
for a time and perished. The _Westminster Review_, founded 1824, by
Jeremy Bentham, appeared under the editorship of Sir John Bowring and
Henry Southern. As the avowed organ of the Radicals it lost no time in
assailing (principally through the vigorous pens of James Mill and John
Stuart Mill) both the _Edinburgh_ and the _Quarterly_. In 1836 Sir
William Molesworth's recently established _London Review_ was united
with the _Westminster_, and, after several changes of joint title,
continued since 1851 as the _Westminster Review_. Since 1887 it has been
published as a monthly of Liberal policy and "high-class philosophy."
The _Dublin Review_ (London, 1836) still continues quarterly as a Roman
Catholic organ; similarly the _London Quarterly Review_, a Wesleyan
organ, has been published since 1853. Of the quarterlies now defunct, it
will suffice to mention the dissenting _Eclectic Review_ (1805-68) owned
and edited for a time by Josiah Conder; the _British Review_ (1811-25);
the _Christian Remembrancer_ (1819-68), which was a monthly during its
early history; the _Retrospective Review_ (1820-26, 1853-54) conducted
by Henry Southern and afterwards Sir Nicholas Harris Nicolas as a
critical review for old and curious books; the _English Review_
(1844-53); and the _North British Review_ (1844-71), published at
Edinburgh. The impulse toward the study of continental literature during
the third decade of the century gave rise to the _Foreign Quarterly
Review_ (1827-46); the _Foreign Review and Continental Miscellany_
(1828-30) and the _British and Foreign Review_ (1835-44), continued as
the _British Quarterly Review_ (1845-86).
A most determined effort to rival the older quarterlies resulted in the
_National Review_, founded in 1855 by Walter Bagehot and Richard Holt
Hutton. Its articles were exhaustive, well-written and thoroughly
characteristic of their class. In addition to the excellent work of both
editors, there were contributions by James Martineau, Matthew Arnold,
and Hutton's brother-in-law, William Caldwell Roscoe. Yet, in spite of
the high standards maintained until the end, the _National_ ceased
publication in 1864. The many failures in this class of periodicals seem
to indicate quite clearly that the spirit of the age no longer favors a
quarterly. For our energetic and progressive era such an interval is too
long. The confirmed admirer of the elaborate essays of the _Edinburgh_
and the _Quarterly_ will continue to welcome their bulky numbers; but
the average reader is strongly prejudiced in favor of the more frequent,
more attractive and more thoroughly entertaining monthlies.
It is one of the curiosities in the history of periodical literature
that no popular monthly developed during the first half of the
nineteenth century: the great quarterlies apparently usurped the entire
field. We have already seen that the _Critical Review_ came to an end in
1817 whilst the _Monthly_ continued until 1843. In both cases, however,
the publication amounted to little more than a sheer struggle for
existence. The _Monthly's_ attempt to imitate in a smaller way the plan
of the quarterlies proved an unqualified failure. Neither of the two
periodicals established at the beginning of the century ever achieved a
position of critical authority. The _Christian Observer_, started (1802)
by Josiah Pratt and conducted by Zachary Macaulay until 1816, was
devoted mainly to the abolition of the slave-trade. Its subsequent
history until its demise in 1877 is confined almost wholly to the
theological pale. The second periodical was the _Monthly Repository of
Theology and General Literature_ (1806-37), which achieved some literary
prominence for a time under the editorship of W.J. Fox. During the last
two years of its existence, Richard Hengist Horne and Leigh Hunt became
its successive editors, but failed to avert the final collapse.
It would be useless to enumerate the many short-lived attempts, such as
the _Monthly Censor_ (1822) and Longman's _Monthly Chronicle_ (1838-41)
that were made to provide a successful monthly review. The first of the
modern literary monthlies was the _Fortnightly Review_, established in
1865, evidently upon the model of _Revue des Deux Mondes_, which had
been published at Paris since 1831. Like the great French periodical,
it was issued fortnightly (at first) and printed signed articles. It was
Liberal in politics, agnostic in religion and abreast of the times in
science. The publishers, Messrs. Chapman and Hall, secured an
experienced editor in George Henry Lewes, who had contributed
extensively to most of the reviews then in progress. The success of the
new review was assured by the presence of such names as Walter Bagehot,
George Eliot, Sir John Herschel, Mr. Frederic Harrison and Herbert
Spencer on its list of contributors. It provided articles of timely
interest in politics, literature, art and science; in its early volumes
appeared serially Anthony Trollope's _Belton Estate_ and Mr. George
Meredith's _Vittoria_.