EARLY HISTORY OF BLACKWOOD’S EDINBURGH MAGAZINE
BY
ALICE MARY DOANE
A. B. Earlham College, 1914
THESIS
Submitted in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the
Degree of
MASTER OF ARTS
IN ENGLISH
IN
THE GRADUATE SCHOOL
OF THE
UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS
1917
UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS
THE GRADUATE SCHOOL
June 1 1917
I HEREBY RECOMMEND THAT THE THESIS PREPARED UNDER MY SUPERVISION
BY Mary Alice Doane
ENTITLED Early History of Blackwood’s Magazine
------------------------------------------------------
BE ACCEPTED AS FULFILLING THIS PART OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE
DEGREE OF Master of Arts in English
Jacob Zeitlin
In Charge of Thesis
Frank W Scott
Head of Department
Recommendation concurred in:[1]
-------------------- } Committee
-------------------- } on
-------------------- } Final Examination[1]
[1] Required for doctor’s degree but not for master’s.
Contents
I. Introduction p. 1-15
II. Genesis p. 16-29
III. Dramatis Personae p. 30-36
IV. First Years of “Maga” p. 37-67
Bibliography p. 68-69
EARLY HISTORY OF BLACKWOOD’S EDINBURGH MAGAZINE
I
_Introduction_[2]
[2] The information in this chapter is taken from the following: Oliver
Elton: _A Survey of English Literature, 1780-1830_ (Arnold, London,
1912) V. i, ch. 13
_Cambridge History of English Literature_ (Cambridge, 1916) V. xii, ch.
6
John Gibson Lockhart: _Peter’s Letters to His Kinsfolk_ (Edinburgh,
1819) V. i, ii
People love to be shocked! That explains the present circulation of
_Life_. It explains, too, the clamor with which Edinburgh received
the October number of _Blackwood’s Edinburgh Magazine_ in 1817. For
the first time in periodical history, the reading public was actually
thrilled and completely shocked! Edinburgh held up its hands in
horror, looked pious, wagged its head--and bought up every number! It
is a strange parallel, perhaps, _Life_ and _Blackwood’s_,--yet not so
strange. It is hard at first glance to understand how those yellow,
musty old pages could have been so shocking which now seem to have
lost all savor for the man in the street. But before we can appreciate
just how shocking _Blackwood’s Magazine_ was, or why, it will be
necessary first to remember the Edinburgh of those days, and the men
who thought and fought in those pages, and the then state of periodical
literature.
When we call _Blackwood’s_ the first _real_ magazine it is by virtue
of worth, not fact. There were numerous periodicals preceding and
contemporary with it. Most of them have never been heard of by the
average citizen, and no doubt oblivion is the kindest shroud to fold
them in. The _Monthly Review_, founded in 1749, was the oldest. It
ran till 1845 and is remembered chiefly for the fact that it had
decided Whiggish leanings with a touch of the Nonconformist. _The
Critical Review_, a Tory organ, ran from 1756 to 1817, the natal year
of “Maga”, as _Blackwood’s_ was fondly dubbed. _The British Critic_,
1793-1843, was a mouthpiece for High Church opinion; and _The Christian
Observer_, 1802-1857, served the same purpose for the evangelicals.
_The Anti-Jacobin_, 1797-98, was almost the only journal of the time
where talent or wit appeared often enough not to be accidental, and
it ran only eight months. _The Gentleman’s Magazine_, 1731-1868, has
come in for a small share of immortality, but could never aspire to be
considered a “moulder of opinion”. It published good prose and verse,
and articles of antiquarian and literary tone; its scholarship was
fair. When this is said, all is said.
_The Edinburgh Review_ and _The Quarterly_ are the only two besides
_Blackwood’s_ which come down to the Twentieth Century with any degree
of lasting fame. In 1755 had appeared the first _Edinburgh Review_
“to be published every six months”. It survived only two numbers,
being too radical and self-sufficient in certain philosophical and
religious views for that day of orthodoxy. In October 1802 the first
number of the _Edinburgh Review and Critical Journal_, a quarterly,
appeared, which according to the advertisement in the first number was
to be “distinguished for the selection rather than for the number of
its articles”.[3] Its aim was to enlighten and guide the public mind
in the paths of literature, art, science, politics,--with perhaps a
bit of emphasis on the words _guide_ and _politics_. Francis Jeffrey,
of whom Lockhart, later one of the leading lights of _Blackwood’s_,
says, “It is impossible to conceive the existence of a more fertile,
teeming intellect”,[4] was the first editor and remained so until 1829.
In the first number, October 1802, there were twenty-nine articles,
contributed by Sydney Smith, Jeffrey, Francis Horner, Brougham, and
Thomson, Murray and Hamilton. During its first three years the _Review_
distinguished itself by adding such names to its list as Walter Scott,
Playfair, John Allen, George Ellis, and Henry Hallam. With such pens
supporting it, it would have been strange if it had not been readable.
There was indeed an air of vitality and energy throughout, which
distinguished it from any of its forerunners; it spoke as one having
authority; and men turned as instinctively to Francis Jeffrey and
the _Edinburgh Review_ for final verdicts, as it never entered their
heads to seriously consider the _Gentleman’s Magazine_ or even the
_Quarterly_.
[3] _Cambridge History of English Literature_, V. xii, ch. 6, p. 157
[4] J. G. Lockhart: _Peter’s Letters_, V. ii, p. 61
This first number, October 1802, is as representative as any.
Jeffrey wrote the first article, reviewing a book on the causes of
the revolution by Mounier, late president of the French National
Assembly. There was an article by Francis Horner on “The Paper Credit
of Great Britain”; one by Brougham on “The Crisis in the Sugar
Colonies”. Another by Jeffrey, a criticism of Southey’s “Thalaba”,
indicates the young editor’s intention to live up to the motto of
the _Review_:--“_Judex damnatur cum nocens absolvitur_--The Judge is
damned when the offender is freed”. With Jeffrey anything new in the
world of letters was taboo, and Southey he considered “a champion and
apostle” of a school of poetry which was nothing if not new. Quoting
him: “Southey is the first of these brought before us for judgment, and
we cannot discharge our inquisitorial office conscientiously without
pronouncing a few words upon the nature and tendency of the tenets
he has helped to propagate”.[5] Notice that Jeffrey uses the term
“inquisitorial office”, therein pleading guilty to the very attitude of
which Lockhart accused him, and in opposition to which in _Blackwood’s
Magazine_ he later took such a decided stand, offending how similarly,
we are later to discover.
[5] _Cambridge History of English Literature_, V. xii, ch. 6, p. 159
Lockhart admired Jeffrey and praised his talents; it was the use to
which he put those talents that Lockhart assailed. The following
words of Lockhart’s own, even though tinged with that exaggerated
vindictiveness so characteristic of him, give a pretty fair idea of
the attitude he and all the Blackwood group took against Jeffrey and
the _Edinburgh Review_; and shows the spirit underlying the rivalry
that took root before ever _Blackwood’s Magazine_ existed and prevailed
for ever after. “Endowed by nature with a keen talent for sarcasm
(Jeffrey, that is) nothing could be more easy for him than to fasten,
with the destructive effect of nonchalance upon a work which had
perhaps been composed with much earnestness of thought on the part of
the author.... The object of the critic, however, is by no means to
assist those who read his critical lucubrations, to enter with more
facility, or with better preparation into the thoughts or feelings
or truths which his author endeavors to inculcate or illustrate. His
object is merely to make the author look foolish; and he prostitutes
his own fine talents, to enable the common herd”[6]--to look down
upon the deluded author who is victim of the _Review_. This is what
Lockhart considered Jeffrey to be doing, and he was not alone in his
opinion. It is to be remembered, however, that Lockhart’s attitude was
always more tense, keener, and a little more bitter than others’, yet
his words better than any one else’s sound the keynote of the deadly
opposition to the _Review_ which “Maga” assumed from the first. Quoting
him again, "_The Edinburgh Review_ cared very little for what might
be done, or might be hoped to be done, provided it could exercise a
despotic authority in deciding on the merits of what _was_ done.
Nobody could ever regard this work as a great fostering-mother of the
infant manifestations of intellectual and imaginative power. It was
always sufficiently plain, that in all things its chief object was
to support the credit of its own appearance. It praised only where
praise was extorted--and it never praised even the highest efforts of
contemporary genius in the spirit of true and genuine earnestness which
might have been becoming”.[7] Lockhart never quite forgave Jeffrey for
failing instantly to recognize the genius of Wordsworth. He continues,
of the Reviewers: “They never spoke out of the fulness of the heart
in praising any one of our great living poets, the majesty of whose
genius would have been quite enough to take away all ideas except those
of prostrate respect”.[8] Taking all of Lockhart’s impetuosity with a
pinch of salt, the fact remains undeniably true that the _Edinburgh_
assumed the patronizing air of bestowing rather than recognizing honor
when it praised.
[6] J. G. Lockhart: _Peter’s Letters_, V. ii, p. 130
[7] J. G. Lockhart: _Peter’s Letters_, V. ii, p. 207
[8] Ibid, V. ii, p. 208
Among the builders of the _Edinburgh_ Henry Brougham stands one of the
foremost. In five years he contributed as many as eighty articles,
an average of four each number, and it is said that he once wrote
an entire number. He was capable of it! Brougham was a powerful
politician, but unfortunately did not limit his contributions to
political subjects. He wrote scientific, legal and literary papers as
well, with the air of one whose mandates go undisputed. Undisputed
they did go, too. In fact Brougham just escaped being a genius! He made
a big splash in his own little world and age, but his fame has not
outlived him. Another prominent contributor was Sydney Smith, a man of
no small reputation as a humorist. He earnestly applied his talents
to the forwarding of serious causes, and talents undoubtedly he had;
but the wit of his style, according to the Hon. Arthur R. D. Elliot,
erstwhile editor of the _Review_, its cleverness and jollity, prevented
many from recognizing the genuine sincerity of his character.
By the end of 1806, Sir Walter Scott had contributed twelve articles
in all, among them papers on Ellis’s “Early English Poets”, on
Godwin’s “Life of Chaucer”, on Chatterton’s “Works”, on Froissart’s
“Chronicles”. After 1806, he withdrew from the _Review_, and politics
became the more prominent feature. No account of the _Edinburgh Review_
has ever been given, written or told without including a remark of
Jeffrey’s to Sir Walter Scott in a letter about this time. It would
never do to omit it here! The remark is this: “The _Review_, in short,
has but two legs to stand on. Literature, no doubt, is one of them: but
its _Right Leg_ is Politics.”[9] Scott’s ideal was to keep it literary;
and his break was on account of its excessive Whiggism. In Jeffrey’s
mind, however, _The Edinburgh Review_ was destined to save the
nation! He championed the causes of Catholic emancipation, of popular
education, prison reform, even some small degree of justice in Ireland,
et cetera, all flavored, of course, with the saving grace of Whiggism.
[9] Elton: _A Survey of English Literature, 1780-1830_. V. i, p. 387
Modern critics more than once have characterized Jeffrey as that
“once-noted despot of letters”. But it is not fair only to be told that
Jeffrey once said of Wordsworth’s Excursion, “This will never do!” That
he considered the end of The Ode to Duty “utterly without meaning”;
and that the Ode on Intimations of Immortality was “unintelligible”;
that he ignored Shelley, and committed other like unpardonable sins.
Those things are true and known and by them is he judged, but they
are not _all_ by which he should be judged by any means! There is no
doubt in the world but what Jeffrey’s mind was cast in a superior
mould. Lockhart himself has already testified there could not be “a
more fertile, teeming intellect”. He was seldom, if ever, profound,
we admit; but even the most grudging critic must grant him that
large, speculative understanding and shrewd scrutiny so prominent in
his compositions. Imagination, fancy, wit, sarcasm were his own, but
not the warm and saving quality of humor. He was a great man and a
brilliant criticiser, though hardly a great critic. The great critic
is the true prophet and Jeffrey was no prophet. As late as 1829 in an
article on Mrs. Hemans in the _Edinburgh Review_, he wrote: “Since the
beginning of our critical career we have seen a vast deal of beautiful
poetry pass into oblivion in spite of our feeble efforts to recall
or retain it in remembrance. The tuneful quartos of Southey are
already little better than lumber:--and the rich melodies of Keats and
Shelley,--and the fantastical emphasis of Wordsworth,--and the plebeian
pathos of Crabbe,--are melting fast from the field of our vision. The
novels of Scott have put out his poetry. Even the splendid strains of
Moore are fading into distance and dimness, except where they have been
married to immortal music; and the blazing star of Byron himself is
receding from its place of pride.”[10] Herein he only redeems himself
from his early condemnation of Wordsworth and Shelley and Southey, to
damn himself irrevocably in our eyes again with his amazing lack of
foresight! No! Jeffrey was no prophet. He had not the range of vision
of the true critic, and “where there is no vision the people perish”.
This was indeed an epitaph written a century ago for a grave not even
yet in view. It must not be hastily concluded from this, however, that
all the criticism in the _Edinburgh Review_ was poor stuff. A vast
amount of it was splendid work; the best output of the best minds of
the time; and it was the one and only authentic and readable journal
for years. This is corroborated by a statement of Sir Walter Scott’s in
a letter to George Ellis: “No genteel family can pretend to be without
the _Edinburgh Review_; because, independent of its politics, it gives
the only valuable literary criticisms that can be met with.”[11]
[10] Elton: _A Survey of English Literature, 1780-1830_, V. i, p. 390
[11] _Cambridge History of English Literature_, V. xii, p. 164
But it was high time for a new periodical of opposite politics and
fresh outlook; and in 1809 Gifford was established as editor of
_The Quarterly Review_. Its four pillars were politics, literature,
scholarship, and science; but its main purpose was to oppose the
_Edinburgh_ and create an intellectual nucleus for the rallying of the
Tories. In October 1808 after plans were well on foot, Scott wrote to
Gifford, prospective editor: “The real reason for instituting the new
publication is the disgusting and deleterious doctrines with which
the most popular of our Reviews disgraces its pages.”[12] This of
course was a reference to the political policies of the _Edinburgh_,
yet the tone of the _Quarterly_ was not to be one of political
opposition only. Scott was eager for the success of the first number
and wrote nearly a third of it himself. Later he busied himself to
enlist the services of Southey and Rogers and Moore and Kirkpatrick
Sharpe as contributors. Southey wrote altogether about one hundred
articles on subjects varying from Lord Nelson to the Poor Laws. Scott
himself contributed about thirty with his usual versatility of subject
matter, all the way from fly fishing to Pepys’ Diary. In the issue for
January 1817 he even reviewed “Tales of my Landlord” and “ventured to
attribute them to the author of Waverley and Guy Mannering.”! John
Wilson Croker, satirist, was another prominent contributor, narrow
of mind and heart, intolerant of soul. He was an accurate and able
“argu-fier” however, and one of the ruling genii in the politics of
the _Quarterly_. In forty-five years he contributed something like
two hundred and fifty-eight articles. Sir John Barrow, traveller and
South African statesman, contributed much and copiously, multitudinous
reviews and voyages, all in his unvarying “solid food” style and tone.
Hallam and Sharon Turner wrote historical papers; Ugo Fosculo wrote
on Italian classics. Such was the tone of the _Quarterly_. It took
itself seriously, and was evidently always taken seriously. But no
modern would consider those dim old pages of criticism as a criterion
to the literature of that age. It was too heavy to be sensitive to new
excellencies, too intent on upholding failing causes to recognize new
ones. In truth, it was a periodical strangely unresponsive to artistic
or literary excellence or attainment. By 1818 and 1819 its circulation
was almost 14,000--practically the same as the _Edinburgh Review_;
but the _Quarterly_ never made the stir the _Edinburgh_ did. Ellis
spoke truth when he pronounced it, “Though profound, notoriously and
unequivocally dull”.[13] Gifford remained editor until 1824; then John
Taylor Coleridge ascended the throne for two years, and after that,
Lockhart.
[12] _Cambridge History of English Literature_, V. xii, p. 165
[13] _Cambridge History of English Literature_, V. xii, p. 166
Concerning the _Scots Magazine_ which seemed to be dying a natural
death about the time of the initial impulse of “Maga”, Lockhart
writes: “It seems as if nothing could be more dull, trite and heavy
than the bulk of this ancient work.”[14] An occasional contribution by
Hazlitt or Reynolds enlivened it a bit, but only served to emphasize in
contrast the duller parts.
[14] J. G. Lockhart: _Peter’s Letters_, V. ii, p. 227
The name of Leigh Hunt can scarcely be omitted from this panorama,
though here it is the journalist rather than the journal which attracts
attention. At various times he edited various publications, ten in all,
and all of them more or less short-lived and unsuccessful. Among them
was the _Reflector_ (1810-11), a quarterly which is remembered mainly
because Hunt was its editor and Charles Lamb one of its contributors.
Most noteworthy of his periodical projects was the _Examiner_, a
newspaper which he began to edit (1808) for his brother, and continued
to do so for the space of some thirteen years. It professed no
political allegiance, but was enough outspoken in its radical views
to land both Leigh Hunt and his brother in prison, after printing
an article on the Prince Regent. Among other things of interest, it
started a department of theatrical criticism; and on the whole, with
men like Hazlitt and Lamb contributing, it could not escape being
interesting. The Blackwood group later reacted to it and its editor
as a bull does to a red rag, testifying at least that it was far from
nondescript.
The _London Magazine_ did not start until two years after
_Blackwood’s_, and we will dismiss it with only a few words. It was a
periodical fashioned after the sprightlier manner which _Blackwood’s_,
too, strove to maintain. They were bitter rivals from the first; and as
to which was the more bitter, the more stinging in its personalities,
it would be hard to judge. At one time matters even reached such a
pitch that John Scott, the _London’s_ first editor, and Lockhart found
it necessary to “meet on the sod”. The _London_ put forth many fine
things. In September 1821 it gave to the public “Confessions of an
Opium Eater” by a certain Thomas De Quincey. A year later it offered
“A Dissertation on Roast Pig” by an author then not so well known as
now. A poem or two of one John Keats appeared in its pages; and when
all is said, there is no doubt that the _London Magazine_ did at times
splendidly illumine the poetry of the age. It ran from 1820 to 1829.
Thus in brief was the periodical world. The quarterly reviews were
avowedly pretentious, never amusing, not creative. Contents were
limited to political articles, to pompous dissertations and reviews.
There were no stories, no verse, nothing unbending, never a touch of
fantasy. Their political flavor was the least of their sins. A touch of
the Radical, the Whig or the Tory is a real contribution to the history
of literature, wherein it inevitably involves great historic divisions
of the thought of a nation concerning life and art. No. Our quarrel,
like _Blackwood’s_, is on the ground of their rigidity. It is well to
hold fast that which is good; but it is not well to insistently oppose
and blind oneself and others to the changing order and the forward
march of men and letters.
Knowing what we do of Jeffrey and the _Edinburgh Review_ it is easy
to comprehend what prompted Lockhart’s pen to say: “It is, indeed, a
very deplorable thing to observe in what an absurd state of ignorance
the majority of educated people in Scotland have been persuaded to
keep themselves, concerning much of the best and truest literature of
their own age, as well as of the ages that have gone by”.[15]... His
quarrel is ours for the nonce, and to comprehend the spirit of “Maga”
it is first necessary to comprehend the spirit which prompted much for
which it is so rigorously criticised. Lockhart speaks of the “facetious
and rejoicing ignorance” of the Reviewers. “I do not on my conscience
believe”, says he in Peter’s Letters, “that there is one Whig in
Edinburgh to whom the name of my friend Charles Lamb would convey
any distinct or definite idea.... They do not know even the names of
some of the finest poems our age has produced. They never heard of
_Ruth_ or _Michael_, or _The Brothers_ or _Hartleap Well_, or the
_Recollections of Infancy_ or the _Sonnets to Buonaparte_. They do not
know that there is such a thing as the description of a churchyard
in _The Excursion_. Alas! how severely is their ignorance punished in
itself”![16] Perhaps we can forgive the egotistic note in the following
words, also from Peter’s Letters: “There is no work which has done
so much to weaken the authority of the _Edinburgh Review_ in such
matters as _Blackwood’s Magazine_.”[17] _Blackwood’s_ is at least still
readable which is more than can be said of most of its contemporaries.
Though it did not, like the _London_, discover a Charles Lamb or a De
Quincey, it did and does still overflow with the forging energy and
ardent enthusiasms of youth. Besides the famous “Noctes Ambrosianae”
for the most part attributed to John Wilson, it published good short
stories, good papers by James Hogg, John Galt, and others, good verse,
much generous as well as much vindictive criticism. It opened up new
fields of interest: German, Italian and Norse letters, all hitherto but
slightly touched upon. But we anticipate,--and must needs begin at the
beginning.
[15] J. G. Lockhart: _Peter’s Letters_, V. ii, p. 141
[16] J. G. Lockhart: _Peter’s Letters_, V. ii, p. 142, 143
[17] Ibid. V. ii, p. 144
II
_Genesis_
We are told that William Blackwood grew impatient of “humdrum
bookselling”, and considering the spirited character of the man, it
is easy to believe. That hardly explains the whole truth concerning
the origin of “Maga”, however. The history of _Blackwood’s Edinburgh
Magazine_ might almost be considered the history of the struggle
between two rival booksellers, Mr. Constable and William Blackwood.
The personality of the man William Blackwood is no less interesting
than the personality of his magazine, and indeed, his was the spirit
which colored the periodical from start to finish. His energy and
acumen were of the sort which leave their mark on all they touch.
To know William Blackwood means to see his vigorous, unwearying
figure through and behind every page. Lockhart knew him as well as
any, and it is his able portraiture that follows: “He is a nimble
active-looking man of middle-age, and moves about from one corner to
another with great alacrity, and apparently under the influence of
high animal spirits. His complexion is very sanguineous, but nothing
can be more intelligent, keen and sagacious than the expression of the
whole physiognomy, above all, the grey eyes and eyebrows as full of
locomotion as those of Catalini. The remarks he makes are in general
extremely acute.... The shrewdness and decision of the man can,
however, stand in need of no testimony beyond what his own conduct has
afforded--above all, in the establishment of his Magazine,--(the
conception of which I am convinced was entirely his own), and the
subsequent energy with which he has supported it through every
variety of good and evil fortune.”[18] Lockhart was in a position to
know the true character of the man, for these words were written two
years after his own first connection with William Blackwood and his
periodical. Again, he describes the publisher as “a man of strong
talents, and though without anything that could be called learning,
of very respectable information, ... acute, earnest, eminently
zealous in whatever he put his hand to; upright, honest, sincere and
courageous”.[19] This was William Blackwood, and it is small wonder
such a man should grow weary of “humdrum bookselling”.
[18] J. G. Lockhart: _Peter’s Letters_, V. ii, p. 188
[19] A. Lang: _Life and Letters of John Gibson Lockhart_, V. i, p. 121
_Blackwood’s Edinburgh Magazine_ was the result of more stringent
stimuli, however, than the restlessness of its founder. It was
necessary that the sentiments of those opposed to Jeffrey and the
_Edinburgh Review_ should have a medium of expression. Blackwood
considered the _Quarterly_ “too ponderous, too sober, dignified and
middle-aged”[20] to frustrate the influence of the _Edinburgh_. It was
not stimulating, in other words, and the present day agrees with him.
His ideal was a magazine “more nimble, more frequent, more familiar”.
But not least among the many stirrings of mind and brain which gave
rise to “Maga” was Blackwood’s disappointment over the loss of the
Waverley series. The honesty and courage of the man need no other
evidence than the fact that he criticised “The Black Dwarf” and even
suggested a different ending. Scott, of course, would have none of his
meddling, and transferred his future dealings to Constable, publisher
of the despised _Edinburgh Review_, and the _Scots Magazine_, which was
at that moment more or less insignificant. It is evident that Blackwood
did not take pains to seek out any specious circumlocution in his
criticism, and the idea that any man should criticise the Great Wizard
of the North brings a catch to the breath and a tingling down one’s
spinal column!
[20] Mrs. Oliphant: _Annals of a Publishing House_, V. i, p. 97
There is no doubt that the politics, the conceit, the unappreciative
and at times irreligious tone of the _Edinburgh Review_ were the main
reasons for the bitter hatred of the _Blackwood_ writers; but there is
less doubt that thus to lose the Waverley series was a last incendiary
straw to William Blackwood. He immediately set about putting in action
the plans which had been smouldering so long.
In April 1817 appeared the first number of _Blackwood’s Edinburgh
Magazine_. There seems to be a general understanding among
bibliographers that the first numbers were known as the “Edinburgh
Monthly Magazine”. According to the old volumes themselves, however,
only the second number, the issue for May 1817, went by this title,
the initial number and all the rest bearing the heading, _Blackwood’s
Edinburgh Magazine_.[21] Messrs. Pringle and Cleghorn were the first
joint editors, it was probably through James Hogg, known to us as the
Ettrick Shepherd, that Blackwood first met these two men. If either
of them could boast any literary pretensions, it was the younger,
Thomas Pringle. He was from Hogg’s country, and Blackwood thought he
divined in him the making of just such another “rustic genius” as Hogg.
Cleghorn, former editor of the _Farmers’ Magazine_, was evidently a
stick! It is difficult to conceive how William Blackwood, with his
gift of insight, could give over the conduct of his pet plans into the
hands of such a pair. But if he made a mistake, he soon made amends.
Of the business arrangements between Blackwood and the two editors
little of definite nature is known, except that the three were to
be co-partners. Blackwood sustained the expense of publishing and
printing; Pringle and Cleghorn supplied the material;--and the profits
were to be divided! The editors expected £50 apiece per month, which
seems unusual, considering that the circulation never exceeded 2500.
It looks suspiciously probable that the early numbers were maintained
at real financial loss to the publisher. There is no mention of paying
contributors till later years. Very likely at that time writers were
still _above_ remuneration! The _Edinburgh Review_ had done much to
remedy this attitude, but a complete cure was not effected for some
years to come.
[21] See _Blackwood’s Edinburgh Magazine_, V. i
The Prospectus of the infant journal is interesting. It was to be
“A Repository of whatever may be supposed to be most interesting
to general readers”.[22] One strong point was to be an antiquarian
repository; too, it was to criticise articles in other periodicals; it
was to contain a “Register” of domestic and foreign events. Among other
aims, one was entertainment. It was to be a miscellany of the original
works of authors and poets; and what endears it to modern hearts
above all things else, it was to be an open door for struggling young
writers. By virtue of the anonymous nature of its contributions, this
was made possible with no lessening of authority. The signatures in
the early numbers were intended to be perplexing, and perplexing they
remain to this day. But probably struggling young writers met with less
encouragement at the hands of Pringle and Cleghorn than was William
Blackwood’s original intention. Those two never went out of the way to
drum up new material, while William Blackwood was a man alert and ever
on the watch for another Walter Scott.
[22] _Blackwood’s Edinburgh Magazine_, V. i, p. 2
Several numbers passed along peacefully enough. As Mr. Lang puts it,
“Nothing could be more blameless”. That was the trouble--it was _too_
blameless! Blackwood might have forgiven a flagrant crime, but this
negative and inoffensive monthly fell with a dull thud in comparison
with his mounting expectations! He knew, none better, that a periodical
of any appreciable merit must necessarily bring upon itself as much
genuine censure as applause. _Blackwood’s Edinburgh Magazine_ for April
1817 brought neither. The great day came for the first issue, evening
followed, and Edinburgh went to bed unmoved. With his overwhelming
desire and ambition to rival the _Edinburgh Review_ and electrify
Edinburgh city with a stimulating diet, it is not likely that he would
observe with much composure the advent of this cherished scheme of his
into the world, containing for its first long article[23] six pages of
“Memoirs of the Late Francis Horner, Esq., M. P.”, one of Jeffrey’s
own right hand men!--or in finding in the department of “Periodical
Works”,[24] a statistical and more or less pleasant rehashment of
the contents of the last _Reviews_. Francis Horner had ever been one
of the mainstays of the _Edinburgh_; and though it was altogether
fitting and proper that the death of an illustrious statesman should
be commemorated, it is not likely that William Blackwood welcomed as
the first article in the first number of his new magazine, a wholly
unmitigated extolling of one whose past influence he hoped to erase.
Though the publisher’s generous mind would be the last to begrudge him
the due honor of such phrases as “highly gifted individual”, “eminent
statesman”, and the like, it cannot be imagined that he rejoiced over
the words “original and enlightened views”, “correct and elegant
taste”, when it was his ardent purpose to prove the _Edinburgh_ and
its builders the opposite of enlightened, and the embodiment of poor
taste and incompetent judgment!
[23] Ibid., V. i, p. 3
[24] Ibid., V. i, p. 81
This same first number contains seven pages of discourse on “The
Sculpture of the Greeks”[25], and the relation of Greek art to the
environment in which it grew up,--all very learned and interesting, to
be sure. There is a brief article on the “Present State of the City of
Venice”[26], condensed and unromantic enough to grace a Travellers’
Guide. If Messrs. Pringle and Cleghorn had been anyone else but Messrs.
Pringle and Cleghorn, they might have indulged the public with a
thrill or two on such a subject as the city of Venice; but never a
thrill do we get from cover to cover! The article which follows is
“on the Constitution and Moral Effects of Banks for the Savings of
Industry”[27]; and there are others of similar tone: “Observations
on the Culture of the Sugar Cane in the United States”[28], “The
Craniological Controversy”[29], “The Proposed Establishment of a
Foundling Hospital in Edinburgh”[30], and the like. One short article,
“An Account of the American Steam Frigate”[31], is still of genuine
interest, attributing the conception of the invention to a “most
ingenious and enterprising citizen”, Robert Fulton, Esq. It describes
with naive emphasis the successful trip “to the ocean, eastward
of Sandy Hook, and back again, a distance of fifty-three miles, in
eight hours and twenty minutes. A part of this time she had the tide
against her, and had no assistance whatever from the sails.”[32] It
is known that the signature Zeta was used in the early numbers, by
more than one person; but “Remarks on Greek Tragedy”[33], a criticism
of Aeschylus’ _Prometheus_, signed Zeta, Mr. Lang attributes without
hesitation to Lockhart. “Tales and Anecdotes of Pastoral Life”[34]
and “Notices Concerning the Scottish Gypsies”[35] were also among the
“Original Communications”, as the first division of the magazine was
called. The former is perhaps the one attempt in the whole number at
that sprightly nimble manner which was Blackwood’s aim. The second is a
long article of some sixteen pages, delving back into the early history
of the Egyptian pilgrims, quoting copiously from “Guy Mannering”, and
referring familiarly to Walter Scott, and Mr. Fairburn and James Hogg.
Both of these articles were continued in several subsequent numbers.
[25] Ibid., V. i, p. 9
[26] Ibid., V. i, p. 16
[27] Ibid., V. i, p. 17
[28] Ibid., V. i, p. 25
[29] Ibid., V. i, p. 35
[30] Ibid., V. i, p. 38
[31] Ibid., V. i, p. 30
[32] Ibid., V. i, p. 32
[33] Ibid., V. i, p. 39
[34] Ibid., V. i, p. 22
[35] Ibid., V. i, p. 43
In another department of the contents, entitled “Select Extracts”,
there are two articles: an “Account of Colonel Beaufoy’s Journey to
the Summit of Mount Blanc”[36] and the “Account of the Remarkable
Case of Margaret Lyall, Who continued in a State of Sleep nearly Six
Weeks”[37], both very readable, which is a good deal when all is
said. The Antiquarian Reportory contained six articles as antiquated
as one could wish, all the way from a “Grant of the Lands of Kyrkenes
by Macbeth, son of Finlach”[38] to a “Mock Poem upon the Expedition
of the Highland Host”[39]. The Original Poetry department contained
three poems, none of them startling. The third one, the shortest, is
by far the best, bearing the title “Verses”[40]. They were written
in honor of the entry of the Allies into Paris, 1814; and bear the
unmistakable brand and seal of James Hogg, with his ardent song for
“Auld Scotland!--land o’ hearts the wale!” ...
“Land hae I bragged o’ thine an’ thee,
Even when thy back was at the wa’;
An’ thou my proudest sang sall be,
As lang as I hae breath to draw.”
[36] Ibid., V. i, p. 59
[37] Ibid., V. i, p. 61
[38] Ibid., V. i, p. 65
[39] Ibid., V. i, p. 69
[40] Ibid., V. i, p. 72
Next comes the “Review of New Publications”, devoting three pages to
Dr. Thomas Chalmers’ “Discourses on the Christian Revelation”[41],
concluding with the words: “If a few great and original minds,
like that of Dr. Chalmers, should arise to advocate the cause of
Christianity, it would no longer be the fashion to exalt the triumphs
of reason and of science.”[42] The other reviews were of “Harold, the
Dauntless; a Poem. By the Author of ‘The Bridal of Triermain’”[43], of
“Armota, a Fragment”[44], and “Stories for Children, selected from the
History of England”[45]. Of what came under the heading, Periodical
Works, we have already spoken. Then followed “Literary and Scientific
Intelligence”[46], notices of works preparing for publication in
Edinburgh and London, and the monthly list of new publications in the
same two cities. There is a page of French books, published since
January 1817. After that the Monthly Register of foreign intelligence,
proceedings of Parliament, the British Chronicle, commercial and
agricultural reports for the month, a meteorological table, and two
pages of births, marriages and deaths, complete the number for April
1817.
[41] Ibid., V. i, p. 73
[42] Ibid., V. i, p. 75
[43] Ibid., V. i, p. 76
[44] Ibid., V. i, p. 78
[45] Ibid., V. i, p. 79
[46] Ibid., V. i, P. 85
Mr. Lang was right when he called it “blameless”; and it is not
surprising that Blackwood made some suggestions in regard to the second
number. We know that his suggestions were not cordially received by
Messrs. Pringle and Cleghorn, and it appears equally probable that they
were not acted upon. The second issue, May 1817, is no more resilient
and has gained no more momentum than its predecessor. The contents
are cast in the same mould: an “Account of Mr. Ruthven’s Printing
Press”[47], another on the “Method of Engraving on Stone”[48], and
“Anecdotes of Antiquaries”[49], and the like.
[47] Ibid., V. i, p. 125
[48] Ibid., V. i, p. 128
[49] Ibid., V. i, p. 136
If Blackwood was disappointed over the first number, he was irritated
at the second; but when a third of no more vital aspect appeared, his
patience gave way, and Pringle and Cleghorn had to go! It is easy to
imagine that the man who did not hesitate to criticise the “Black
Dwarf” would not be overawed by the two mild gentlemen in charge of
his pet scheme. William Blackwood’s ideal had indeed been to startle
the world with a periodical which in modern terms we would call a
“live wire”. And now with the magazine actually under way, it is not
likely that a man of his stamp would sit by unperturbed, and watch one
insignificant number after another greet an unresponsive public. After
the appearance of the third number, he gave three months’ notice to
Messrs. Pringle and Cleghorn, which somewhat excited those gentlemen,
but was none the less final. They had done all they could to evade
Blackwood’s “interest in the literary part of his business”, and
intended to keep the publisher “in his place”. William Blackwood was
not made that way, however.
He himself illuminates the situation in a letter to his London agents,
Baldwin, Craddock and Company, dated July 23, 1817[50].
[50] Mrs. Oliphant: _Annals of a Publishing House_, V. i, p. 104
“I am sorry to inform you that I have been obliged to resolve upon
stopping the Magazine with No. 6. I have been much disappointed in
my editors, who have done little in the way of writing or procuring
contributions. Ever since the work began I have had myself almost the
whole burden of procuring contributions, which by great exertions
I got from my own friends, while at the same time I had it not in
my power to pay for them, as by our agreement the editors were
to furnish me with the whole of the material, for which and their
editorial labors they were to receive half of the profits of the work.
I found this would never do, and that the work would soon sink, as I
could not permit my friends (who have in fact made the work what it
is) to go on in this way for any length of time.... I gave a notice,
according to our agreement, that the work would close at the period
specified in it--three months. Instead, however, of Pringle acting in
the friendly way he professed, he joined Cleghorn, and without giving
any explanation, they concluded a bargain with Constable and Company,
by which I understand they take charge of their (Constable’s) ‘Scot’s
Magazine’ as soon as mine stops.”
“It is not of the least consequence to me losing them, as they were
quite unfit for what they undertook.... I have, however, made an
arrangement with a gentleman of first-rate talents by which I will
begin a new work of very superior kind. I mention this to you, however,
in the strictest confidence, as I am not at liberty yet to say anything
more particularly about it.... My editors have very dishonestly made it
known to a number of people that we stop at the sixth number. This will
interfere a little with our sale here, but I hope not with you.”
The editors wrangled at great length, but Blackwood’s mind was made up,
and as we see by the foregoing letter, already launching new plans
and busy with them. A letter to Pringle and Cleghorn, gives us the
first hint of John Wilson’s connection with the magazine (other than
mere contributor), and shows the tone of finality with which Blackwood
could treat what was to him a settled subject:
“As you have now an interest directly opposite to mine, I hope you
will not think it unreasonable that I should be made acquainted with
the materials which you intend for this number. It occurs to me it
would save all unpleasant discussion if you were inclined to send the
different articles to Mr. John Wilson, who has all along taken so deep
an interest in the magazine. I do not wish to offer my opinion with
regard to the fitness or unfitness of any article, but I should expect
that you would be inclined to listen to anything which Mr. Wilson
might suggest. He had promised me the following articles: Account of
Marlowe’s Edward II, Argument in the Case of the Dumb Woman lately
before the Court, Vindication of Wordsworth, Reviews of Lament of
Tasso, Poetical Epistles and Spencer’s Tour. His furnishing these or
even other articles will, however, depend upon the articles you have
got and intend to insert.”
“I beg to assure you that it is my most anxious wish to have the whole
business settled speedily and as amicably as possible.”[51]
[51] Ibid., V. i, p. 106
Here exit the prologue; and the real show begins with _Blackwood’s
Edinburgh Magazine_ for October 1817. To attract attention was
Blackwood’s first aim; interest once aroused, he did not worry over
maintaining it. Of that he felt assured. Respectability, mediocrity
were taboo! By respectability is inferred that prudent, cautious,
dead-alive respectability whose backbone (such as it has) is fear of
public censure!
III
_Dramatis Personae_
One of Blackwood’s aims in life was to make 17 Princes Street a
literary rendez-vous; and indeed the background and atmosphere of
“Maga”, and the men who gathered round it, are perhaps as fascinating
and absorbing as the magazine itself!
Blackwood’s shop is described by Lockhart as “the only great lounging
shop in the new Town of Edinburgh”[52]. A glimpse of the soil and
lights and shades which nourished “Maga” cannot help but bring a
warmer, more familiar comprehension of its character and the words
it spake. Just as Park Street and the Shaw Memorial and the grave
portraits of its departed builders color our own _Atlantic Monthly_,
just so did 17 Princes Street tinge and permeate the magazine which
grew up in its precincts. “The length of vista presented to one on
entering the shop”, says Lockhart, “has a very imposing effect; for it
is carried back, room after room, through various gradations of light
and shadow, till the eye cannot trace distinctly the outline of any
object in the furthest distance. First, there is as usual, a spacious
place set apart for retail-business, and a numerous detachment of young
clerks and apprentices, to whose management that important department
of the concern is intrusted. Then you have an elegant oval saloon,
lighted from the roof, where various groupes of loungers and literary
dilettanti are engaged in looking at, or criticising among themselves,
the publications just arrived by that day’s coach from town. In such
critical colloquies the voice of the bookseller himself may ever and
anon be heard mingling the broad and unadulterated notes of its Auld
Reekie music; for unless occupied in the recesses of the premises with
some other business, it is here that he has his station.”[53]
[52] J. G. Lockhart: _Peter’s Letters_, V. ii, p. 186
[53] Ibid., V. ii, p. 187
From this it is evident Blackwood’s ideal shop was realized, and
that there did gather in his presence both those who wielded the
pen and those who wished to, those who were critics and those who
aspired to be. At these assemblies might often be found two young
men, who, says Mrs. Oliphant, “would have been remarkable anywhere
if only for their appearance and talk, had nothing more remarkable
ever been developed in them”.[54] These two, of course, were John
Wilson and John Gibson Lockhart. She continues: “Both of them were
only too keen to see the ludicrous aspect of everything, and the
age gave them an extraordinary licence in exposing it.”[55] This is
an important note, the “extraordinary licence” of the age,--a straw
eagerly grasped at!--corroborated, too, by Lord Cockburn[56] who
testifies: “There was a natural demand for libel at this period.” It
explains much that we would fain explain in the subsequent literary
pranks of these same two youths. They were ready for anything; and
more,--enthusiastically ready for anything. John Wilson was a giant,
intellectually and physically, “a genial giant but not a mild one”[57].
Lockhart had already made some small reputation for himself as a
caricaturist. Perhaps it was insight into their capacities which
strengthened Blackwood’s disgust with the two mild gents in charge of
his to-be-epoch-making organ! At any rate, it was to these two, Wilson
especially, that he turned for the resuscitation of his dream.
[54] Mrs. Oliphant: _Annals of a Publishing House_, V. i, p. 101
[55] Ibid., V. i, p. 103
[56] Henry Thomas Cockburn, a Scottish judge
[57] Mrs. Oliphant: _Annals of a Publishing House_, V. i, p. 101
John Wilson is the one name most commonly associated with
_Blackwood’s_, and with the exception of William Blackwood himself,
perhaps the most important figure in its reconstruction. The
name Christopher North was used in the earlier years by various
contributors, but was soon appropriated by Wilson and is now almost
exclusively associated with him. In the latter part of 1817 he became
Blackwood’s right hand man. He has often been considered editor of
“Maga”, but strictly speaking, no one but Blackwood ever was. After the
experience with Pringle and Cleghorn, William Blackwood would naturally
be wary of ever again entrusting full authority to anyone. He himself
was always the guiding and ruling spirit, though never admittedly, or
technically, editor.