review was then made a monthly without, however, changing its now
inappropriate name, and the editorship was accepted by Mr. John Morley,
who conducted the _Fortnightly_ with great success for sixteen years.
Most of the earlier contributors were retained; others like Mr.
Swinburne, J.A. Symonds, Professor Edward Dowden and (Sir) Leslie
Stephen established a standard of literary criticism that was
practically unrivalled. The authority of its scientific and political
writers was equally high; as for serial fiction, Mr. Morley published
Mr. Meredith's _Beauchamp's Career_ and _The Tragic Comedians_, besides
less important novels by Trollope and others. More recently the
publication of fiction has been exceptional. The (1890) _Review of
Reviews_ Index said of the _Fortnightly_:
"While disclaiming 'party' or 'editorial consistency,' and
proclaiming that its pages were open to all views, the
_Fortnightly_ seldom included the orthodox among its contributors.
The articles which startled people and made small earthquakes
beneath the crust of conventional orthodoxy, political and
religious, usually appeared in the _Fortnightly_. It was here that
Professor Huxley seemed to foreshadow the expulsion of the
spiritual from the world, by his paper on 'The Physical Basis of
Life,' and that Professor Tyndall propounded his famous suggestion
for the establishment of a prayerless union or hospital as a
scientific method for testing the therapeutic value of prayer. Mr.
Frederic Harrison chanted in its pages the praises of the Commune,
and prepared the old ladies of both sexes for the imminent advent
of an English Terror by his plea for Trade Unionism. It was in the
_Fortnightly_ also that Mr. Chamberlain was introduced to the
world, when he was permitted to explain his proposals for Free
Labour, Free Land, Free Education, and Free Church. Mr. Morley's
papers on the heroes and saints (Heaven save the mark!) of the
French Revolution appeared here, and every month in an editorial
survey he summed up the leading features of the progress of the
world."
Since Mr. Morley's retirement in 1883, the editors of the _Fortnightly_
have been Mr. T.H.S. Escott (1883-86), Mr. Frank Harris (1886-94) and
the present incumbent, Mr. W.L. Courtney.
The _Fortnightly_ was not long permitted to enjoy undisputed possession
of the field. In 1866, while it was still published semi-monthly, the
_Contemporary Review_ was launched. Alexander Strahan, the publisher,
selected Dean Alford as its editor in order to assure a more reserved
tone than that of its popular predecessor. Although Liberal in politics,
like the _Fortnightly_, it assumed a very different and apparently
corrective attitude in religious matters. Most of its articles for many
years were upon theological subjects and were written by scholars
comparatively unknown to the public. The gradual change in policy
furthered by its later editors, especially Mr. James Knowles and Mr.
Percy Bunting has brought the _Contemporary_ nearer to the general type
of popular monthlies. Its principles seem to tend toward "broad
evangelical, semi-socialistic Liberalism."
In 1877 Mr. Knowles found it impossible to conduct the _Contemporary_
any longer in the independent manner that seemed essential to him;
accordingly, he withdrew and established the _Nineteenth Century_, which
in deference to the new era and a desire to be abreast of the times,
recently adopted the somewhat awkward title of the _Nineteenth Century
and After_. Like the _Fortnightly_, it presented a brilliant array of
names from the first. The initial number contained a Prefatory Sonnet by
Tennyson, and articles by Gladstone, Matthew Arnold, Cardinal Manning,
and the Dean of Gloucester and Bristol. It is sufficient to state that
this standard has since been maintained by Mr. Knowles and has made his
_Nineteenth Century and After_ the most popular of the monthlies.
The _National Review_ (not to be confounded with Bagehot and Hutton's
quarterly of that name), is the youngest and least important of the
monthly reviews. It was established in 1883 as a Conservative organ
under the editorship of Mr. Alfred Austin and Professor W.J. Courthope.
Well-known writers have contributed to its pages, yet it has never
assumed a place of first importance in the periodical world. Its present
editor is Mr. Louis J. Maxse.
It is well to bear in mind that these reviews all seek to discuss the
most important subjects of contemporary interest, and to secure the
services of writers best qualified to treat those subjects. In the
narrow sense of the term, they are not literary reviews; the function of
periodicals that discuss present day politics, sociology, theology,
history, science, art and numerous other generic subjects is more
inclusive and appeals to a much larger audience than the periodical of
literary criticism. In the quarterlies and monthlies we look for the
most authoritative reviews of the important books of the day; but for
general literary review and gossip, a new class of monthlies, best
represented by Dr. Robertson Nicoll's _Bookman_ (1891) and the American
_Bookman_ (1895) and _The Critic_ (1881) has appeared. These fill a gap
between the more substantial monthlies and the very popular weekly
papers.
The last-mentioned class was practically developed during the nineteenth
century. The frequency of publication forbade a strict devotion to the
cause of _belles-lettres_; hence, in most cases, politics or music and
art were included in the scheme. At first literature was granted meagre
space in newspapers of the _Weekly Register_ and _Examiner_ type.
William Cobbett, profiting by his previous experience with _Porcupine's
Gazette_ and the _Porcupine_, began his _Weekly Political Register_ in
1802 and continued its publication until his death in 1835. It was so
thoroughly political in character that it hardly merits recognition as a
literary periodical. The _Examiner_, begun in 1808 by John Hunt, enjoyed
during the thirteen years of his brother Leigh's cooeperation a wide
reputation for the excellence of its political and literary criticism.
Under Albany Fonblanque, John Forster and William Minto it continued
with varying success until 1880.
The first truly literary weekly review was the _Literary Gazette_,
established in 1817 by Henry Colburn, of the _New Monthly Magazine_,
under the joint editorship of Mr. H.E. Lloyd and Miss Ross. After the
first half-year of its existence, Colburn sold a third share to the
Messrs. Longman and another third to William Jerdan, who became sole
editor and eventually (1842) sole proprietor. The original price of a
shilling was soon reduced to eight pence. Jerdan set the prototype for
later literary weeklies in his plan, which embraced "foreign and
domestic correspondence, critical analyses of new publications,
varieties connected with polite literature, philosophical researches,
scientific inventions, sketches of society, biographical memoirs, essays
on fine arts, and miscellaneous articles on drama, music and literary
intelligence." Thus Jerdan followed his friend Canning's advice by
avoiding "politics and polemics" and by aiming to present "a clear and
instructive picture of the moral and literary improvement of the times,
and a complete and authentic chronological literary record for general
reference." He secured the services of Crabbe, Barry Cornwall, Maginn,
Campbell, Mrs. Hemans and others: with such an array of contributors he
was able to crush the several rival weeklies that soon entered the
field.
Toward the end of its prosperous first decade, however, the misfortunes
of the _Literary Gazette_ began. Colburn's publications had been roughly
handled in its pages and he accordingly aided James Silk Buckingham in
founding the _Athenaeum_. The first number appeared on January 2, 1828,
as an evident rival of the older weekly. For a time the new venture was
on the verge of failure and the proprietors actually offered to sell it
to Jerdan. Within half a year Buckingham was succeeded by John Sterling
as editor. Frederic Denison Maurice's friends purchased the _Literary
Chronicle and Weekly Review_ (begun 1819) and merged it with the
_Athenaeum_ in July, 1828. For a year Sterling and Maurice contributed
some of the most brilliant critical articles that have appeared in its
pages. The working editor at that time was Henry Stebbing who had been
associated with the _Athenaeum_ since its inception and who was the only
survivor[C] of the original staff when the semi-centennial number was
published on January 5, 1878.
Even the high standards set by Maurice and Sterling failed to win
public favor. The crisis came about the middle of 1830 when Charles
Wentworth Dilke became "supreme editor," enlisted Lamb, George Darley,
Barry Cornwall and others on his staff, and reduced the price of the
_Athenaeum_ from eightpence to fourpence. The apparent folly of reducing
the price and increasing the expenses did not lead to the generally
prophesied collapse; this first experiment in modern methods resulted in
the rapid growth of the _Athenaeum's_ circulation, to the serious
detriment of the _Literary Gazette_. Jerdan tried to stem the tide by
publishing lampoons on the dullness of Dilke's paper; but when the
_Athenaeum_ was enlarged in 1835 from sixteen to twenty-four pages
Dilke's triumph was evident. The _Literary Gazette_ was compelled to
reduce its price to fourpence in its effort to regain the lost
subscriptions. Dilke labored earnestly to improve his paper and when, in
1846, he felt that it was established on a firm basis, he made Thomas
Kibble Hervey editor and devoted his own time to furthering his
journalistic enterprises. However, he continued to contribute to the
weekly; his valuable articles on Junius and Pope together with several
others were afterwards reprinted as _Papers of a Critic_.
Jerdan withdrew from the _Literary Gazette_ in 1850. The hopeless
struggle with the _Athenaeum_, involving a third reduction in price to
threepence, lasted until 1862, when the _Gazette_ was incorporated with
the _Parthenon_ and came to an end during the following year. Hervey
edited the _Athenaeum_ until 1853 when ill-health necessitated his
resignation. The later editors include William Hepworth Dixon, Norman
MacColl and at present Mr. Vernon Rendall. After the withdrawal of Dixon
in 1869 a reformation in the staff and management of the _Athenaeum_ took
place.
"Some old writers were parted with, and a great many fresh
contributors were found. While special departments, such as
science, art, music and the drama, were of necessity entrusted to
regular hands, indeed, the reviewing of books, now more than ever
the principal business of 'The Athenaeum,' was distributed over a
very large staff, the plan being to assign each work to a writer
familiar with its subject and competent to deal with it
intelligently, but rigidly to exclude personal favouritism or
prejudice, and to secure as much impartiality as possible. The rule
of anonymity has been more carefully observed in 'The Athenaeum'
than in most other papers. Its authority as a literary censor is
not lessened, however, and is in some respects increased, by the
fact that the paper itself, and not any particular critic of great
or small account, is responsible for the verdicts passed in its
columns." (Fox Bourne.)
Half a year after the inception of the _Athenaeum_, the first number of
the _Spectator_ was issued (July 6, 1828) by Robert Stephen Rintoul, an
experienced journalist who had launched the ill-fated semi-political
_Atlas_ two years before and therefore decided to confine his new
venture to literary and social topics. The political excitement of the
time soon aroused Rintoul's interest, and he undertook the advocacy of
the Reform Bill with all possible ardor. From him emanated the famous
battle-cry: "The Bill, the whole Bill, and nothing but the Bill." He
conducted the _Spectator_ with great skill until 1858, when he sold it
two months before his death. Although he wrote little for its pages,
Rintoul made the _Spectator_ a power in furthering all reforms. The
literary standard, while somewhat obscured for a time by its politics,
was high. In 1861 the _Spectator_ passed into the hands of Mr. Meredith
Townsend who sold a half share to the late Richard Holt Hutton with the
understanding that they should act as political and literary editors
respectively. During the four years of the American Civil War, the
_Spectator_ espoused the cause of the North and was consequently
unpopular; but the outcome turned the sentiment in England and likewise
the fortunes of the _Spectator_. Hutton's contributions included his
most memorable utterances upon theological and literary subjects. In the
midst of religious controversy he was able to discuss delicate questions
without giving offense, to enlist all parties by refraining from
expressed allegiance to one. The _Spectator_ of Hutton's day was, in
Mrs. Oliphant's opinion, "specially distinguished by the thoughtful tone
of its writing, the almost Quixotic fairness of its judgments, and the
profoundly religious spirit which pervades its more serious articles."
Hutton retired shortly before his death in 1897. The present editor is
Mr. J. St. Loe Strachey.
The _Saturday Review_ was established in November, 1855, by A.J.
Beresford Hope. Its first editor was John Douglass Cook, who had indexed
the early volumes of the _Quarterly_ for Murray and had gained his
journalistic experience with the _Times_ and the _Morning Chronicle_.
Though possessed of no great personal ability, Cook had the useful
editorial faculty of recognizing talent, and consequently gathered about
himself the most promising writers of the younger generation, including,
among others, Robert Talbot Cecil, the late Lord Salisbury. The
_Saturday Review_ at once became the most influential and most energetic
of the weekly papers. Its politics, independent at first, later assumed
a pronounced Conservative complexion. Cook remained editor until his
death (1868) when he was succeeded by his assistant, Philip Harwood.
Since the latter's retirement in 1883 the more recent editors include
Mr. Walter H. Pollock, Mr. Frank Harris and the present incumbent, Mr.
Harold Hodge. Professor Saintsbury wrote of the _Saturday Review_:
"Its staff was, as a rule, recruited from the two Universities
(though there was no kind of exclusion for the unmatriculated; as a
matter of fact, neither of its first two editors was a son either
of Oxford or Cambridge), and it always insisted on the necessity of
classical culture.... It observed, for perhaps a longer time than
any other paper, the salutary principles of anonymity (real as well
as ostensible) in regard to the authorship of particular articles;
and those who knew were constantly amused at the public mistakes on
this subject."
Such "salutary principles of anonymity" were not observed by the
_Academy, a Monthly Record of Literature, Learning, Science and Art_,
which began to appear in October, 1869, and was published for a short
time by John Murray. Its founder, Dr. Charles E. Appleton, edited the
_Academy_ until his death in 1879. All the leading articles bore the
authors' signatures, and, following the example of the more ambitious
monthlies, Dr. Appleton secured the best known writers as contributors.
The first number opened with an interesting unpublished letter of Lord
Byron's; its literary articles were by Matthew Arnold, Gustave Masson
and Mr. Sidney Colvin, theology was represented by the Rev. T.K. Cheyne
and J.B. Lightfoot (later Bishop of Durham), science by Thomas Huxley
and Sir John Lubbock (now Lord Avebury), and classical learning by Mark
Pattison and John Conington. This remarkable array of names did not
diminish in subsequent numbers. Besides those mentioned Mr. W.M.
Rossetti, Max Mueller, G. Maspero, J.A. Symonds, F.T. Palgrave and others
contributed to the first volume. Later such names as William Morris,
John Tyndall, Dante Gabriel Rossetti, Walter Pater and Robert Louis
Stevenson appeared in its pages.
In spite of its brilliant program, the size of the _Academy_, even at
its price of sixpence, was too slight to rank as a monthly. After four
years' experience, first as a monthly, then as a fortnightly, it became
and has remained a weekly. The editorial succession since the death of
Dr. Appleton has been C.E. Doble (1879-81); Mr. James Sutherland Cotton
(1881-96); Mr. C. Lewis Hind (1896-1903); and Mr. W. Teignmouth Shore.
The issue of November 7, 1896, announced Mr. Cotton's retirement and the
inauguration of a new policy, which, in addition to technical
improvements, promised the issue of occasional supplements of a purely
academic and educational character, and the beginning of the series of
_Academy Portraits_ of men of letters. At the same time the publication
of signed articles was abolished and the _Academy_ remained anonymous
until the recent editorial change. A new departure in October, 1898,
made the _Academy_ an illustrated paper--the most attractive though not
the most authoritative of the weeklies. It has departed widely from the
set traditions of Dr. Appleton, but most readers will agree that the
departure has been justified by the needs of the hour. There is small
satisfaction in reading a one-page review from the pen of an Arnold or a
Pater; we feel that such authorities should express themselves at length
in the pages of the literary monthlies; that the reader of the weekly
should be content with the anonymous (and less expensive) review written
by the staff-critic. Whatever the personal bias, it is at least certain
that under present conditions the _Academy_ appeals more generally to
the popular taste. Its recent absorption of a younger periodical is
indicated in the compounding of its title into the _Academy and
Literature_--a change that does not commend itself on abstract grounds
of literary fitness and tradition.
A consideration of periodicals of the _Tatler_, _Spectator_ and
_Rambler_ class evidently lies beyond our present purpose; though
Addison's papers on _Paradise Lost_ and similar articles show an
occasional critical intent. The magazines, however, have in various
instances shown such an extensive interest in matters literary that a
brief account of their development will not be amiss. The primary
distinction between the review and the magazine is well understood; the
former criticizes, the latter entertains. Hence fiction, poetry and
essays are better adapted than book-reviews to the needs of the literary
magazine. As already stated, Peter Motteux's _Gentleman's Journal_
(1692-94) probably deserves recognition as the first English magazine,
though its brief career is forgotten in the honor accorded to the
_Gentleman's Magazine_, established in 1731 by Edward Cave and which,
still under the editorship of "Sylvanus Urban, Gentleman," is now
approaching its three hundredth volume. In the early days its lists of
births, deaths, marriages, bankrupts, events, etc., must have made it a
useful summary for the public. In literature it printed merely a
"Register of New Books" without comment of any sort. It is exasperating
to find such books as _Pamela_ or _Tom Jones_ listed among "New
Publications" without a word of criticism or commendation. We could
spare whole reams of pages devoted to "Army Promotions" and "Monthly
Chronicle" for a few lines of literary review.
Although the booksellers refused to aid Cave in establishing his
magazine, the demonstration of its success brought forth numerous
rivals. As they all followed Cave's precedent in ignoring literary
criticism, it will suffice to mention merely the names of the _London
Magazine_ (1732-79); the _Scots Magazine_ (1739-1817), continued as the
_Edinburgh Magazine_ until 1826; the _Universal Magazine_ (1743-1815);
the _British Magazine_ (1746-50); the _Royal Magazine_ (1759-71); and
finally the _British Magazine, or Monthly Repository for Gentlemen and
Ladies_ (1760-67) edited by Tobias Smollett, who published his _Sir
Launcelot Greaves_ in its pages--perhaps the first instance of the
serial publication of fiction. Goldsmith wrote some of his most
interesting essays for Smollett's magazine.
An important addition to the ranks was the _Monthly Magazine_ begun in
1796 by Sir Richard Phillips under the editorship of John Aikin. The
principal contributor was William Taylor of Norwich who, during a period
of thirty years, supplied to the _Monthly Magazine_ and other
periodicals a series of 1,750 articles of remarkable quality. His
contributions gave the Magazine standing as a literary review. Hazlitt
accorded to Taylor the honor of writing the first reviews in the style
afterwards adopted by the Edinburgh Reviewers, which established their
reputations as original and impartial critics. He is remembered to-day
as the author of an unread _Historic Survey of German Poetry_ which was
vigorously assailed by Carlyle in the _Edinburgh Review_. The _New
Monthly Magazine_ was started in 1814 by Henry Colburn and Frederick
Shoberl in opposition to Phillips' magazine. Its first editors were Dr.
Watkins and Alaric A. Watts. At a later time Campbell, Bulwer, Theodore
Hook and Harrison Ainsworth successively assumed charge. Under such
capable direction the magazine naturally won a prominent place among the
periodicals of the day. During its later years the _New Monthly_ was
obscured by more ambitious ventures and came to an inglorious end in
1875--thirty-two years after the suspension of Phillips' _Monthly
Magazine_.
A most significant event in the history of the magazine was the founding
of the _Edinburgh Monthly Magazine_ in April, 1817, by William
Blackwood. The new magazine was projected to counteract the influence
of the _Edinburgh Review_, but under its first editors, James Cleghorn
and Thomas Pringle, it failed to win favor. After six numbers were
issued, a final disagreement between Blackwood and the editors resulted
in the withdrawal of the latter. The name of the monthly was changed to
_Blackwood's Edinburgh Magazine_--popularly _Blackwood's_ or "Maga"--and
henceforth until his death Blackwood was his own editor. John Wilson
(Christopher North) and John Gibson Lockhart, the most important of the
early contributors to _Blackwood's_, published in that famous seventh
number the clever _Chaldee Manuscript_--an audacious satire upon the
original editors, the rival publisher Constable, the _Edinburgh Review_
and various literary personages under a thinly veiled allegory in
apocalyptic style. It at once attracted wide attention (including a
costly action for libel within a fortnight) and was suppressed in the
second impression of the number. The same number of _Blackwood's_ set
the precedent for the subsequent critical vituperation that made the
magazine notorious. It contained an abusive article on Coleridge's
_Biographia Literaria_ and the first of a series of virulent attacks on
"The Cockney School of Poetry." Much of the literary criticism in the
first few volumes is inexcusably brutal; fortunately, _Blackwood's_ soon
became less rampant in its critical outbursts. The cooeperation of James
Hogg and the ill-fated Maginn introduced new articles of varied
interest, particularly the witty letters and the parodies of "Ensign
O'Doherty." Wilson's _Noctes Ambrosianae_ became a characteristic feature
of _Blackwood's_; John Galt and Susan Ferrier won popularity among the
novel readers of the day; and in the trenchant literary criticism of
Lockhart, Wilson, Hogg and their confreres an equally high standard was
maintained.