magazine passed to his sons successively. John Blackwood, the sixth son,
enjoyed the distinction of "discovering" George Eliot and beginning, by
the publication of her _Scenes of Clerical Life_ in 1857, a relationship
that was both pleasant and profitable to the firm. A few years earlier
appeared the first contributions of another remarkable literary
woman--Mrs. Margaret Oliphant, whose association with _Blackwood's_
lasted over forty years. Her history of the house of Blackwood was
published in the year of her death (1897).
_Blackwood's_ is still a strong conservative organ. The already quoted
Index of the _Review of Reviews_ says of it: "With a rare consistency it
has contrived to appear for over three score years and ten as a spirited
and defiant advocate of all those who are at least five years behind
their time. Sometimes _Blackwood_ is fifty years in the rear, but that
is a detail of circumstance. Five or fifty, it does not matter, so long
as it is well in the rear." Such gentle sarcasm merely emphasizes the
fact that _Blackwood's_ has always aimed to be more than a magazine of
_belles-lettres_. The publishers celebrated the appearance of the one
thousandth number in February, 1899, by almost doubling its size to a
volume of three hundred pages, including a latter-day addition to the
_Noctes Ambrosianae_ and other features.
An important though short-lived venture was the _London Magazine_, begun
in January, 1820, under the editorship of John Scott. By its editorial
assaults upon the _Blackwood_ criticisms of the "Cockney School," it
became the recognized champion of that loosely defined coterie. The
initial attack in the May number was further emphasized by more vigorous
articles in November and December of 1820, and January, 1821. Lockhart,
who was the recipient of the worst abuse, demanded of Scott an apology
or a hostile meeting. The outcome of the controversy was a duel on
February 16th between Scott and Lockhart's intimate friend, Jonathan
Henry Christie. Scott was mortally wounded, and died within a fortnight;
the verdict of wilful murder brought against Christie and his second at
the inquest resulted in their trial and acquittal at the old Bailey two
months later. It would have been well for the _London Magazine_ and for
literature in general if that unfortunate duel could have been prevented
or at least diverted into such a ludicrous affair as the meeting between
Jeffrey and Tom Moore in 1806.
The most famous contributions to the _London Magazine_ during Scott's
regime were Lamb's _Essays of Elia_. Those charming productions, now
ranked among our dearly treasured classics, were not received at first
with universal approbation. The long and justly forgotten Alaric A.
Watts said of them: "Charles Lamb delivers himself with infinite pain
and labour of a silly piece of trifling, every month, in this Magazine,
under the signature of Elia. It is the curse of the Cockney School that,
with all their desire to appear exceedingly off-hand and ready with all
they have to say, they are constrained to elaborate every sentence, as
though the web were woven from their own bowels. Charles Lamb says he
can make no way in an article under at least a week." In July, 1821, the
_London Magazine_ was purchased by Taylor and Hessey. Although Thomas
Hood was made working-editor, the _Blackwood_ idea of retaining
editorial supervision in the firm was followed. Within a few months De
Quincey contributed his _Confessions of an English Opium-Eater_--the
most famous of all the articles that appeared in the magazine. Lamb[D]
and De Quincey continued to write for the magazine for several years.
Other contributors, especially of literary criticism, were Barry
Cornwall, Carlyle, Hazlitt, Henry Cary and, toward the end, Walter
Savage Landor. The magazine became less conspicuous after 1824 and
dragged out an obscure existence until 1829; but it is probable that no
other periodical achieved the standard of purely literary excellence
represented by the _London Magazine_ during the first five years of its
existence.
In February, 1830, James Fraser published the first number of _Fraser's
Magazine for Town and Country_. The magazine was not named after the
publisher but after its sponsor, Hugh Fraser, a "briefless barrister"
and man about town. The latter enlisted the aid of Maginn who had
severed his connection with _Blackwood's_ in 1828. In general,
_Fraser's_ was modelled upon _Blackwood's_; but a unique and popular
feature was the publication of the "Gallery of Illustrious Literary
Characters" between 1830-38. This famous series of eighty-one caricature
portraits chiefly by Daniel Maclise, with letter-press by Maginn, has
been made accessible to present-day readers in William Bates' _Maclise
Portrait Gallery_ (1883) where much illustrative material has been added
to the original articles. It is evident that the literary standard of
_Fraser's_ soon equalled and possibly surpassed that of _Blackwood's_.
Among its writers were Carlyle (who contributed a critique to the first
number, published _Sartor Resartus_ in its pages, 1833-35, and, as late
as 1875, his _Early Kings of Norway_), Thackeray, Father Prout and
Thomas Love Peacock. Maclise's plate of "The Fraserians" also includes
Allan Cunningham, Theodore Hook, William Jerdan, Lockhart, Hogg,
Coleridge, Southey and several others. It is unlikely that all of them
wrote much for _Fraser's_; but the staff was undoubtedly a brilliant
assemblage. James Anthony Froude became editor in 1860 and was assisted
for a time by Charles Kingsley and Sir Theodore Martin. He was succeeded
by his sub-editor, William Allingham, during whose administration
(1874-79) the fortunes of _Fraser's_ suffered a decline. The gradual
failure was due to the competition of the new shilling magazines rather
than to incompetence on the part of the editor. The end came in October,
1882, when _Fraser's_ was succeeded by _Longman's Magazine_ which is
still in progress.
The magazines established soon after _Fraser's_ followed for the most
part a policy that demands for them mere passing mention in the present
connection. Literary criticism and reviews were largely abandoned in
favor of lighter and more entertaining material. The _Dublin University
Magazine_ (1833-80) and _Tait's Edinburgh Magazine_ (1832-61) best
represent the transitional stage. During its early history, the latter
employed prominent contributors, who gave it an important position. Such
magazines as the _Metropolitan_ (1831-50) and _Bentley's Miscellany_
(1837-68) set the standards for similar periodicals since that time.
Charles Dickens' experience with _Bentley's_ led to the publication of
his weeklies, _Household Words_ (1850 to date) and _All the Year Round_
(1859), which was incorporated in 1895 with the former. _Macmillan's
Magazine_, first of the popular shilling monthlies, began in 1859 and
was soon followed by Thackeray's _Cornhill Magazine_ (1860) and _Temple
Bar_ (1860). All of these magazines are still in progress. The
occasional publication of an article by a literary critic hardly
justifies their inclusion within the category of critical reviews, as
their essential purpose is to instruct and entertain, rather than to sit
in judgment upon contemporary letters.
There are in course of publication to-day numerous literary periodicals
of varying scope and importance that have not even been mentioned by
title in our hasty survey. Enough has been said, however, to give some
idea of the magnitude of the field, and to show that most of the great
names of modern English literature have been more or less closely
associated with the history of the literary reviews. Those reviews have
usually sought to foster all that is highest and best in our
intellectual development; and although English literary criticism has
been, on the whole, less convincing, less brilliant and less
authoritative than that of France, it has during the past century set a
fairly high standard of excellence. It seems difficult to understand why
the literary conditions in England, instead of developing critics like
Sainte-Beuve, Gaston Paris, Brunetiere and others whose utterances
redound to the lasting glory of French criticism, should be steadily
tending toward a lower and less influential level. Mr. Churton Collins
in his pessimistic discussion of "The Present Functions of Criticism"
deplores the spirit of tolerance and charity manifested toward the
mediocre productions of contemporary writers; he attributes the
degradation of criticism to the lack of critical standards and
principles, and indirectly to the neglect of the study of literature at
the English Universities. The plea for an English Academy has been made
at different times and with different ends in view, but under modern
conditions such an institution would hardly solve the problem. Mr.
Collins shows how the intellectual aristocracy of the past has been
superseded by the present omnivorous reading-public afflicted with a
perpetual craving for literary novelty. The inevitable rapidity of
production results in a deluge of poor books which are foisted upon
readers by a "detestable system of mutual puffery." This condition of
affairs naturally offers few opportunities for the development of
critical ideals; but it hardly applies to the incorruptible reviews of
recognized standing. The reasons for the lack of authority in modern
English criticism are more deeply grounded in an inherent objection to
the restraint imposed upon an artist by artificial canons of taste, and
in a well-founded impression that many of the greatest literary
achievements evince a violation of such canons.
It is not to be inferred that criticism is thereby disdained and
disregarded. The critical dicta of a Dryden or a Johnson, a Coleridge or
a Hazlitt, and, more recently, an Arnold or a Pater, are valued and
studied because they emphasize the vital elements essential to the
proper appreciation of a literary product; and, moreover, because such
critics, in transcending the limitations of their kind, establish higher
and juster standards for the criticism of the future. On the other hand,
the great majority of critical utterances must necessarily be ephemeral;
they may exert considerable contemporary influence, but are usually
forgotten long before the works that called them forth. Unless this
criticism is more than a perfunctory examination of the merits and
defects of the work under consideration, it cannot endure beyond its own
brief day.
Several fruitless attempts have been made to reduce criticism to an
exact science, which, quite disregarding the factor of personal taste,
could refer all literature to a more or less fixed and arbitrary set of
critical principles. The champions of this objective criticism point to
the occasionally ludicrous divergence of the views expressed in
criticism of certain poets or novelists, and insist that there is no
occasion for such a bewildering difference of opinion. They seem to
forget that the criticism which we esteem most highly at all times is
the subjective criticism in which the personality of a competent and
sincere critic is manifest. Literature, like music, painting and the
other arts, has its own laws of technique--fundamental canons that must
be observed in the successful pursuit of the art; but at a certain point
difference of opinion is not only possible but profitable. The critics
who would unite in condemning a thirteen-line sonnet or a ten-act
tragedy could not be expected to agree on the relative merits of
Milton's and Wordsworth's sonnets. Unanimity of opinion is as impossible
and undesirable concerning the poetic achievement of Browning and
Whitman as it is concerning the music of Brahms and Wagner, or the
painting of Turner and Whistler. Great artists who have taken liberties
with traditions and precedents have done much to prevent the critics
from falling into a state of self-complacency over their scientific
methods and formulas.
The most helpful form of criticism is the interpretative variety, not
necessarily the laudatory "appreciation" that is so popular in our day,
but an honest effort to understand and elucidate the intention of the
writer. The proper exercise of this art occasionally demands rare
qualifications on the part of the critic; at the same time it adds
dignity to his calling and value to his utterance. It serves to dispel
the popular conception of a critic as a disappointed _litterateur_ who
begrudges his more brilliant fellow craftsmen their success and who dogs
their triumphs with his ill-tempered snarling. Interpretative criticism
needs few rules and no system; yet it serves a noble purpose as a guide
and monitor for subsequent literary effort.
The question of anonymous criticism has occasioned much thoughtful
discussion. In former times anonymity was often a shield for the
slanderer who saw fit to abuse and assail his victim with the rancorous
outburst of his malice; but it is also clear that the earlier reviewers
were mere literary hacks whose names would have given no weight to the
critique and hence could be omitted without much loss. The authorship of
important _Edinburgh_ and _Quarterly_[E] articles in the days of their
greatness was usually an open secret. Later periodicals, like the
_Fortnightly_ and the _Academy_ found it a profitable advertisement to
publish the signatures of their eminent critics. The tendency of the
present day is largely in favor of anonymity; no longer as a cover for
the dispensation of malicious vituperation, but as a necessary
safe-guard for the unbiased and untrammeled exercise of the critical
function. Certain abuses of the privilege are inevitable. Mr. Sidney
Colvin in looking over the criticisms of Mr. Stephen Phillips' poetry
recently discovered in three periodicals convincing parallels that led
Mr. Arthur Symons to confess to the authorship of all three critiques.
The average reader would in most cases be strongly influenced by the
united verdict of the critics of the _Saturday Review_, the _Athenaeum_
and the _Quarterly Review_; in this instance his convictions would
undoubtedly be rudely shattered when he learned the truth. Under such
conditions anonymous criticism is a menace, not an aid to the reader's
judgment.
In conclusion, it must be borne in mind that criticism is not an end but
a means to an end. All the literary criticism ever uttered would be
useless as such if it did not evince a desire to further the development
of literary art. The _Iliad_ and the _Oedipus_ were written long
before Aristotle's _Poetics_, and it is not likely that either Homer or
Sophocles would have been a greater poet if he could have read the
Stagirite's treatise. Yet the _Poetics_, as a summary of the essential
features of that art, served an important purpose in later ages and
exerted far-reaching influences. Criticism in all ages has necessarily
been of less importance than art itself--it guides and suggests, but
cannot create. Literary history shows that true criticism must be in
conformity with the spirit of the age; it cannot oppose the trend of
intelligent opinion. It may praise, censure, advise, interpret--but it
will always remain subservient to the art that called it forth. There is
no reason to believe that criticism can ever be established in the
English-speaking world upon a basis that will subject to an arbitrary
and irrevocable ruling the form and spirit of the artist's message to
mankind.
[Footnote A: Reprinted in Professor Arber's _The Term Catalogues_
(1668-1709). London, privately printed, 1903.]
[Footnote B: See the centenary number of the _Edinburgh Review_
(October, 1902). During the editor's recent tenure of government office,
the review was temporarily edited by Mr. E.S. Roscoe.]
[Footnote C: See his letter in _Athenaeum_, January 19, 1878. See also
"Our Seventieth Birthday," _Athenaeum_, January 1, 1898.]
[Footnote D: Mr. Bertram Dobell in his _Side-Lights on Charles Lamb_
(1903) directs attention to some hitherto unknown articles of Lamb's in
the _London Magazine_.]
[Footnote E: In July, 1902, the _Quarterly Review_ published its first
signed article--the widely-discussed paper on Charles Dickens by Mr.
Algernon Charles Swinburne. Since then several other noteworthy articles
have appeared over the authors' signatures.]
BIBLIOGRAPHY
British Museum. Catalogue of Printed Books. Periodicals. (Revised ed.,
1900.)
Dictionary of National Biography.
Encyclopedia Britannica. Article on Periodicals, by H.R. Tedder.
Barrow, Sir John. Autobiography. London, 1847.
Bourne, H.R. Fox. English Newspapers. Chapters in the History of
Journalism. 2 vols. 8vo. London, 1887.
Cockburn, Lord. Life of Lord Jeffrey. With a Selection from his
Correspondence. 2 vols. 8vo. London, 1852.
Copinger, W.A. On the Authorship of the first Hundred Numbers of the
"Edinburgh Review." (Privately Printed.) Manchester, 1895.
Cross, Maurice. Selections from the Edinburgh Review, etc. With a
Preliminary Dissertation. 4 vols. 8vo. London, 1833.
Gates, Lewis E. Francis Jeffrey. In _Three Studies in Literature_. 12mo.
New York, 1899.
Horner, Leonard. Memoirs and Correspondence of Francis Horner, M.P.
Edited by his brother. 2 vols. 8vo. Boston, 1853.
Jennings, Louis J. The Correspondence and Diaries of John Wilson Croker.
2 vols. 8vo. New York, 1884.
Jerdan, William. Autobiography. With his Literary, Political, and Social
Reminiscences and Correspondence, etc. 4 vols. 12mo. London, 1852-53.
Laughton, John Knox. Memoirs of the Life and Correspondence of Henry
Reeve, C.B., D.C.L. 2 vols. 8vo. London, 1898.
Napier, Macvey. Selections from the Correspondence of the late Macvey
Napier, Esq. Edited by his son. 8vo. London, 1879.
Oliphant, Mrs. M.O.W., and Porter, Mrs. Gerald. William Blackwood and
his Sons, etc. 3 vols. 8vo. New York, 1897-98.
Paston, George. The "Monthly Review." In _Side-Lights on the Georgian
Period_. 8vo. London, 1903.
Smiles, Samuel. A Publisher and his Friends. Memoir and Correspondence
of the late John Murray, etc. 2 vols. 8vo. London and New York, 1891.
Last Century Magazines. (By T.H.) _Fraser's Magazine_, XCIV (325-333).
Layton, W.E. Early Periodicals. In _The Bibliographer_, III (36-39).
Lee, William. Periodical Publications during the Twenty Years 1712 to
1732. _Notes and Queries_ (Third Series), IX (53-54, 72-75, 92-95). Cf.
_ibid._, pp. 164, 268, and X, p. 134.
Niven, G.W. On some Eighteenth Century Periodicals. In _The
Bibliographer_, II (38-40).
Parkes, Samuel. An Account of the Periodical Literary Journals which
were Published in Great Britain and Ireland, from the Year 1681 to the
Commencement of the Monthly Review in the year 1749. In _The Quarterly
Journal of Science, Literature and the Arts_ (1822), XIII (36-58,
289-312).
Stephen, (Sir) Leslie. The First Edinburgh Reviewers. In _Cornhill
Magazine_, XXXVIII (218-234). Also in _Living Age_, CXXXVIII (643-653).
Waugh, Arthur. The English Reviewers. A Sketch of their History and
Principles. In _The Critic_, XL (26-37).
Allingham, William. Varieties in Prose. 3 vols. 12mo. London, 1893. Vol.
III contains _Some Curiosities of Criticism_, reprinted from _Fraser's
Magazine_, LXXXVII (43-51).
Arnold, Matthew. Essays in Criticism. First Series. 12mo. London, 1865.
Contains _The Function of Criticism at the Present Time._
Birrell, Augustine. Men, Women, and Books. 16mo. London, 1894. Contains
_Authors and Critics_.
Collins, J. Churton. Ephemera Critica, or Plain Truths about Current
Literature. 12mo. Westminster and New York, 1901.
[Copleston, Edward.] Advice to a Young Reviewer, with a Specimen of the
Art. 8vo. Oxford and London, 1807. Reprinted in _An English Garner,
Critical Essays and Literary Fragments_, ed. J.C. Collins. New York,
1903.
Disraeli, I. Calamities and Quarrels of Authors. A New Edition, etc.
12mo. London, n.d. Contains _Undue Severity of Criticism_.
Gayley, C.M., and Scott, F.N. An Introduction to the Methods and
Materials of Literary Criticism, etc. 12mo. Boston, 1899.
Jennings, Henry J. Curiosities of Criticism. 12mo. London, 1881. See
_Eclectic Magazine_, XCVII (420-423).
Johnson, Charles F. Elements of Literary Criticism. 12mo. New York,
1898.
Mabie, Hamilton W. Essays in Literary Interpretation. 12mo. New York,
1896. Contains _The Significance of Modern Criticism_.
Matthews, William. The Great Conversers, and other Essays. 12mo.
Chicago, 1874. Contains _Curiosities of Criticism_.
Repplier, Agnes. Books and Men. 16mo. Boston, 1888. Contains
_Curiosities of Criticism_.
Robertson, John M. Essays toward a Critical Method. Sm. 8vo. London,
1889. Contains _Science in Criticism_.
Robertson, John M. New Essays toward a Critical Method. Sm. 8vo. London,
1897.
Sears, Lorenzo. Principles and Methods of Literary Criticism. 12mo. New
York and London, 1898.
Stevenson, E. Early Reviews of Great Writers (1786-1832): Selected and
Edited with an Introduction. 12mo. London, n.d.
Trent, W.P. The Authority of Criticism and other Essays. 12mo. New York,
1899.
Winchester, C.T. Some Principles of Literary Criticism. 12mo. New York,
1899.
Worsfold, W. Basil. The Principles of Criticism. An Introduction to the
Study of Literature. New Edition. 8vo. New York, 1902.
Wylie, Laura Johnson. Studies in the Evolution of English Criticism.
16mo. Boston, 1894.
Allen, Grant. The Decay of Criticism. In _Fortnightly Review_, XXXVII
(339-351).
Clarke, Helen A. The Value of Contemporary Judgment. In _Poet-Lore_, V
(201-209).
Critical Errors. In _Chamber's Journal_, XLII (164-166).
Criticism Extraordinary. In _All the Year Round_, XXXIII (558-563).
G.L.A. Some Curiosities of Criticism. In _Temple Bar_, LXXX (241-247).
Howe, Herbert Crombie. The Contradictions of Literary Criticism. In
_North American Review_, CLXXV (399-408).
Hunt, T.W. Critics and Criticism. In _Modern Language Notes_, IV, p.
161.
EARLY REVIEWS OF ENGLISH POETS
THOMAS GRAY
ODES. _By Mr._ Gray. 4to. 1s. Dodsley.
As this publication seems designed for those who have formed their taste
by the models of antiquity, the generality of Readers cannot be supposed
adequate Judges of its merit; nor will the Poet, it is presumed, be
greatly disappointed if he finds them backward in commending a
performance not entirely suited to their apprehensions. We cannot,
however, without some regret behold those talents so capable of giving
pleasure to all, exerted in efforts that, at best, can amuse only the
few; we cannot behold this rising Poet seeking fame among the learned,
without hinting to him the same advice that Isocrates used to give his
Scholars, _Study the People_. This study it is that has conducted the
great Masters of antiquity up to immortality. Pindar himself, of whom
our modern Lyrist is an imitator, appears entirely guided by it. He
adapted his works exactly to the dispositions of his countrymen.
Irregular[,] enthusiastic, and quick in transition,--he wrote for a
people inconstant, of warm imaginations and exquisite sensibility. He
chose the most popular subjects, and all his allusions are to customs
well known, in his day, to the meanest person.[F]