ORIGIN OF THE "QUARTERLY REVIEW"
The publication of a Tory Review was not the result of a sudden
inspiration. The scheme had long been pondered over. Mr. Canning had
impressed upon Mr. Pitt the importance of securing the newspaper press,
then almost entirely Whiggish or Revolutionary, on the side of his
administration. To combat, in some measure, the democratic principles
then in full swing, Mr. Canning, with others, started, in November 1797,
the _Anti-Jacobin, or Weekly Examiner_.
The _Anti-Jacobin_ ceased to be published in 1798, when Canning, having
been appointed Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, found his
time fully occupied by the business of his department, as well as by his
parliamentary duties, and could no longer take part in that clever
publication.
Four years later, in October 1802, the first number of the _Edinburgh
Review_ was published. It appeared at the right time, and, as the first
quarterly organ of the higher criticism, evidently hit the mark at which
it aimed. It was conducted by some of the cleverest literary young men
in Edinburgh--Jeffrey, Brougham, Sydney Smith, Francis Horner, Dr.
Thomas Brown, and others. Though Walter Scott was not a founder of the
_Review_, he was a frequent contributor.
In its early days the criticism was rude, and wanting in delicate
insight; for the most part too dictatorial, and often unfair. Thus
Jeffrey could never appreciate the merits of Wordsworth, Southey, and
Coleridge. "This will never do!" was the commencement of his review of
Wordsworth's noblest poem. Jeffrey boasted that he had "crushed the
'Excursion.'" "He might as well say," observed Southey, "that he could
crush Skiddaw." Ignorance also seems to have pervaded the article
written by Brougham, in the second number of the _Edinburgh_, on Dr.
Thomas Young's discovery of the true principles of interferences in the
undulatory theory of light. Sir John Herschell, a more competent
authority, said of Young's discovery, that it was sufficient of itself
to have placed its author in the highest rank of scientific immortality.
The situation seemed to Mr. Murray to warrant the following letter:
_John Murray to the Right Hon. George Canning_.
_September 25, 1807._
Sir,
I venture to address you upon a subject that is not, perhaps,
undeserving of one moment of your attention. There is a work entitled
the _Edinburgh Review_, written with such unquestionable talent that it
has already attained an extent of circulation not equalled by any
similar publication. The principles of this work are, however, so
radically bad that I have been led to consider the effect that such
sentiments, so generally diffused, are likely to produce, and to think
that some means equally popular ought to be adopted to counteract their
dangerous tendency. But the publication in question is conducted with so
much ability, and is sanctioned with such high and decisive authority by
the party of whose opinions it is the organ, that there is little hope
of producing against it any effectual opposition, unless it arise from
you, Sir, and your friends. Should you, Sir, think the idea worthy of
encouragement, I should, with equal pride and willingness, engage my
arduous exertions to promote its success; but as my object is nothing
short of producing a work of the greatest talent and importance, I shall
entertain it no longer if it be not so fortunate as to obtain the high
patronage which I have thus taken the liberty to solicit.
Permit me, Sir, to add that the person who addresses you is no
adventurer, but a man of some property, and inheriting a business that
has been established for nearly a century. I therefore trust that my
application will be attributed to its proper motives, and that your
goodness will at least pardon its obtrusion.
I have the honour to be, Sir, Your must humble and obedient Servant,
John Murray.
So far as can be ascertained, Mr. Canning did not answer this letter in
writing. But a communication was shortly after opened with him through
Mr. Stratford Canning, whose acquaintance Mr. Murray had made through
the publication of the "Miniature," referred to in a preceding chapter.
Mr. Canning was still acting as Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs,
and was necessarily cautious, but Mr. Stratford Canning, his cousin, was
not bound by any such official restraints. In January 1808 he introduced
Mr. Gifford to Mr. Murray, and the starting of the proposed new
periodical was the subject of many consultations between them.
Walter Scott still continued to write for the _Edinburgh_,
notwithstanding the differences of opinion which existed between himself
and the editor as to political questions. He was rather proud of the
_Review_, inasmuch as it was an outgrowth of Scottish literature. Scott
even endeavoured to enlist new contributors, for the purpose of
strengthening the _Review_. He wrote to Robert Southey in 1807, inviting
him to contribute to the _Edinburgh_. The honorarium was to be ten
guineas per sheet of sixteen pages. This was a very tempting invitation
to Southey, as he was by no means rich at the time, and the pay was more
than he received for his contributions to the _Annual Register_, but he
replied to Scott as follows:
_Mr. Southey to Mr. Scott_.
_December, 1807_.
"I have scarcely one opinion in common with it [the _Edinburgh Review_]
upon any subject.... Whatever of any merit I might insert there would
aid and abet opinions hostile to my own, and thus identify me with a
system which I thoroughly disapprove. This is not said hastily. The
emolument to be derived from writing at ten guineas a sheet, Scotch
measure, instead of seven pounds for the _Annual_, would be
considerable; the pecuniary advantage resulting from the different
manner in which my future works would be handled [by the _Review_]
probably still more so. But my moral feelings must not be compromised.
To Jeffrey as an individual I shall ever be ready to show every kind of
individual courtesy; but of Judge Jeffrey of the _Edinburgh Review_ I
must ever think and speak as of a bad politician, a worse moralist, and
a critic, in matters of taste, equally incompetent and unjust."
[Footnote: "The Life and Correspondence of Robert Southey," iii. pp.
124-5.] Walter Scott, before long, was led to entertain the same opinion
of the _Edinburgh Review_ as Southey. A severe and unjust review of
"Marmion," by Jeffrey, appeared in 1808, accusing Scott of a mercenary
spirit in writing for money (though Jeffrey himself was writing for
money in the same article), and further irritating Scott by asserting
that he "had neglected Scottish feelings and Scottish characters."
"Constable," writes Scott to his brother Thomas, in November 1808, "or
rather that Bear, his partner [Mr. Hunter], has behaved by me of late
not very civilly, and I owe Jeffrey a flap with a foxtail on account of
his review of 'Marmion,' and thus doth the whirligig of time bring about
my revenges."
Murray, too, was greatly annoyed by the review of "Marmion." "Scott," he
used to say, "may forgive but he can never forget this treatment"; and,
to quote the words of Mr. Lockhart: "When he read the article on
'Marmion,' and another on foreign politics, in the same number of the
_Edinburgh Review_, Murray said to himself, 'Walter Scott has feelings,
both as a gentleman and a Tory, which these people must now have
wounded; the alliance between him and the whole clique of the _Edinburgh
Review_ is now shaken'"; and, as far at least as the political part of
the affair was concerned, John Murray's sagacity was not at fault.
Mr. Murray at once took advantage of this opening to draw closer the
bonds between himself and Ballantyne, for he well knew who was the
leading spirit in the firm, and showed himself desirous of obtaining the
London agency of the publishing business, which, as he rightly
discerned, would soon be started in connection with the Canongate Press,
and in opposition to Constable. The large increase of work which Murray
was prepared to place in the hands of the printers induced Ballantyne to
invite him to come as far as Ferrybridge in Yorkshire for a personal
conference. At this interview various new projects were discussed--among
them the proposed Novelists' Library--and from the information which he
then obtained as to Scott's personal feelings and literary projects,
Murray considered himself justified in at once proceeding to Ashestiel,
in order to lay before Scott himself, in a personal interview, his great
scheme for the new Review. He arrived there about the middle of October
1808, and was hospitably welcomed and entertained. He stated his plans,
mentioned the proposed editor of the Review, the probable contributors,
and earnestly invited the assistance of Scott himself.
During Murray's visit to Ashestiel No. 26 of the _Edinburgh Review_
arrived. It contained an article entitled "Don Cevallos on the
Occupation of Spain." It was long supposed that the article was written
by Brougham, but it has since been ascertained that Jeffrey himself was
the author of it. This article gave great offence to the friends of
rational liberty and limited monarchy in this country. Scott forthwith
wrote to Constable: "The _Edinburgh Review had_ become such as to render
it impossible for me to become a contributor to it; _now_ it is such as
I can no longer continue to receive or read it."
"The list of the then subscribers," said Mr. Cadell to Mr. Lockhart,
"exhibits, in an indignant dash of Constable's pen opposite Mr. Scott's
name, the word 'STOPT!'"
Mr. Murray never forgot his visit to Ashestiel. Scott was kindness
itself; Mrs. Scott was equally cordial and hospitable. Richard Heber was
there at the time, and the three went out daily to explore the scenery
of the neighbourhood. They visited Melrose Abbey, the Tweed, and
Dryburgh Abbey, not very remote from Melrose, where Scott was himself to
lie; they ascended the Eildon Hills, Scott on his sheltie often stopping
by the way to point out to Murray and Heber, who were on foot, some
broad meadow or heather-clad ground, as a spot where some legend held
its seat, or some notable deed had been achieved during the wars of the
Borders. Scott thus converted the barren hillside into a region of
interest and delight. From the top of the Eildons he pointed out the
scene of some twenty battles.
Very soon after his return to London, Murray addressed the following
letter to Mr. Scott:
_John Murray to Mr. Scott_.
_October_ 26, 1808.
DEAR SIR,
Although the pressure of business since my return to London has
prevented me writing to you sooner, yet my thoughts have, I assure you,
been almost completely employed upon the important subjects of the
conversation with which you honoured me during the time I was
experiencing the obliging hospitality of Mrs. Scott and yourself at
Ashestiel.
Then, after a reference to the Novelists' Library mentioned in the last
chapter, the letter continues:
"I have seen Mr. William Gifford, hinting distantly at a Review; he
admitted the most imperious necessity for one, and that too in a way
that leads me to think that he has had very important communications
upon the subject.... I feel more than ever confident that the higher
powers are exceedingly desirous for the establishment of some
counteracting publication; and it will, I suspect, remain only for your
appearance in London to urge some very formidable plan into activity."
This letter was crossed in transit by the following:
_Mr. Scott to John Murray_.
ASHESTIEL, BY SELKIRK, _October_ 30, 1808.
DEAR SIR,
"Since I had the pleasure of seeing you I have the satisfaction to find
that Mr. Gifford has accepted the task of editing the intended Review.
This was communicated to me by the Lord Advocate, who at the same time
requested me to write Mr. Gifford on the subject. I have done so at
great length, pointing out whatever occurred to me on the facilities or
difficulties of the work in general, as well as on the editorial
department, offering at the same time all the assistance in my power to
set matters upon a good footing and to keep them so. I presume he will
have my letter by the time this reaches you, and that he will
communicate with you fully upon the details. I am as certain as of my
existence that the plan will answer, provided sufficient attention is
used in procuring and selecting articles of merit."
What Scott thought of Murray's visit to Ashestiel may be inferred from
his letter to his political confidant, George Ellis, of which, as it has
already appeared in Scott's Life, it is only necessary to give extracts
here:
_Mr. Scott to Mr. George Ellis_.
_November_ 2, 1808.
DEAR ELLIS,
"We had, equally to our joy and surprise, a flying visit from Heber
about three weeks ago. He staid but three days, but, between old stories
and new, we made them very merry in their passage. During his stay, John
Murray, the bookseller in Fleet Street, who has more real knowledge of
what concerns his business than any of his brethren--at least, than any
of them that I know--came to canvass a most important plan, of which I
am now, in "dern privacie," to give you the outline. I had most strongly
recommended to our Lord Advocate (the Right Hon. J.C. Colquhoun) to
think of some counter measures against the _Edinburgh Review_. which,
politically speaking, is doing incalculable damage. I do not mean this
in a party way; the present ministry are not all I could wish them, for
(Canning excepted) I doubt there is among them too much
_self-seeking...._ But their political principles are sound English
principles, and, compared to the greedy and inefficient horde which
preceded them, they are angels of light and purity. It is obvious,
however, that they want defenders, both in and out of doors. Pitt's
"Love and fear glued many friends to him;
And now he's fallen, those tough co-mixtures melt."
Then, after a reference to the large circulation (9,000) and mischievous
politics of the _Edinburgh Review_, he proceeds:
"Now, I think there is balm in Gilead for all this, and that the cure
lies in instituting such a Review in London as should be conducted
totally independent of bookselling influence, on a plan as liberal as
that of the _Edinburgh_, its literature as well supported, and its
principles English and constitutional. Accordingly, I have been given to
understand that Mr. William Gifford is willing to become the conductor
of such a work, and I have written to him, at the Lord Advocate's
desire, a very voluminous letter on the subject. Now, should this plan
succeed, you must hang your birding-piece on its hook, take down your
old Anti-Jacobin armour, and "remember your swashing blow." It is not
that I think this projected Review ought to be exclusively or
principally political; this would, in my opinion, absolutely counteract
its purpose, which I think should be to offer to those who love their
country, and to those whom we would wish to love it, a periodical work
of criticism conducted with equal talent, but upon sounder principles.
Is not this very possible? In point of learning, you Englishmen have ten
times our scholarship; and, as for talent and genius, "Are not Abana and
Pharpar, rivers of Damascus, better than any of the rivers in Israel?"
Have we not yourself and your cousin, the Roses, Malthus, Matthias,
Gifford, Heber, and his brother? Can I not procure you a score of
blue-caps who would rather write for us than for the _Edinburgh Review_
if they got as much pay by it? "A good plot, good friends, and full of
expectation--an excellent plot, very good friends!"
Heber's fear was lest we should fail in procuring regular steady
contributors; but I know so much of the interior discipline of reviewing
as to have no apprehension of that. Provided we are once set a-going by
a few dashing numbers, there would be no fear of enlisting regular
contributors; but the amateurs must bestir themselves in the first
instance. From the Government we should be entitled to expect
confidential communications as to points of fact (so far as fit to be
made public) in our political disquisitions. With this advantage, our
good cause and St. George to boot, we may at least divide the field with
our formidable competitors, who, after all, are much better at cutting
than parrying, and whose uninterrupted triumph has as much unfitted them
for resisting a serious attack as it has done Buonaparte for the Spanish
war. Jeffrey is, to be sure, a man of the most uncommon versatility of
talent, but what then?
"General Howe is a gallant commander,
There are others as gallant as he."
Think of all this, and let me hear from you very soon on the subject.
Canning is, I have good reason to know, very anxious about the plan. I
mentioned it to Robert Dundas, who was here with his lady for a few days
on a pilgrimage to Melrose, and he highly approved of it. Though no
literary man, he is judicious, _clair-voyant_, and uncommonly
sound-headed, like his father, Lord Melville. With the exceptions I have
mentioned, the thing continues a secret....
Ever yours,
Walter Scott."
_Mr. Scott to John Murray_.
_November_ 2, 1808.
I transmitted my letter to Mr. Gifford through the Lord Advocate, and
left it open that Mr. Canning might read it if he thought it worth
while. I have a letter from the Advocate highly approving my views, so I
suppose you will very soon hear from Mr. Gifford specifically on the
subject. It is a matter of immense consequence that something shall be
set about, and that without delay....
The points on which I chiefly insisted with Mr. Gifford were that the
Review should be independent both as to bookselling and ministerial
influences--meaning that we were not to be advocates of party through
thick and thin, but to maintain constitutional principles. Moreover, I
stated as essential that the literary part of the work should be as
sedulously attended to as the political, because it is by means of that
alone that the work can acquire any firm and extended reputation.
Moreover yet, I submitted that each contributor should draw money for
his article, be his rank what it may. This general rule has been of
great use to the _Edinburgh Review_. Of terms I said nothing, except
that your views on the subject seemed to me highly liberal. I do not add
further particulars because I dare say Mr. Gifford will show you the
letter, which is a very long one. Believe me, my dear Sir, with sincere
regard,
Your faithful, humble Servant,
Walter Scott.
In a subsequent letter to Mr. Ellis, Scott again indicates what he
considers should be the proper management of the proposed Review.
"Let me touch," he says, "a string of much delicacy--the political
character of the Review. It appears to me that this should be of a
liberal and enlarged nature, resting upon principles--indulgent and
conciliatory as far as possible upon mere party questions, but stern in
detecting and exposing all attempts to sap our constitutional fabric.
Religion is another slippery station; here also I would endeavour to be
as impartial as the subject will admit of.... The truth is, there is
policy, as well as morality, in keeping our swords clear as well as
sharp, and not forgetting the Gentleman in the Critic. The public
appetite is soon gorged with any particular style. The common Reviews,
before the appearance of the _Edinburgh_, had become extremely mawkish;
and, unless when prompted by the malice of the bookseller or reviewer,
gave a dawdling, maudlin sort of applause to everything that reached
even mediocrity. The _Edinburgh_ folks squeezed into their sauce plenty
of acid, and were popular from novelty as well as from merit. The minor
Reviews, and other periodical publications, have _outréd_ the matter
still further, and given us all abuse and no talent.... This, therefore,
we have to trust to, that decent, lively, and reflecting criticism,
teaching men not to abuse books, but to read and to judge them, will
have the effect of novelty upon a public wearied with universal efforts
at blackguard and indiscriminating satire. I have a long and very
sensible letter [Footnote: Given below, under date November 15, 1808.]
from John Murray, the bookseller, in which he touches upon this point
very neatly."
Scott was most assiduous in his preparations for the first number. He
wrote to his brother, Thomas Scott, asking him to contribute an article;
to Charles Kirkpatrick Sharpe, of Christ Church, Oxford; to Mr. Morritt,
of Rokeby Park, Yorkshire; and to Robert Southey, of Keswick, asking
them for contributions. To Mr. Sharpe he says:
"The Hebers are engaged, item Rogers, Southey, Moore (Anacreon), and
others whose reputations Jeffrey has murdered, and who are rising to cry
woe upon him, like the ghosts in 'King Richard.'"
Scott's letter to Gilford, the intended editor, was full of excellent
advice. It was dated "Edinburgh, October 25, 1808." We quote from it
several important passages:
"John Murray, of Fleet Street," says Scott, "a young bookseller of
capital and enterprise, and with more good sense and propriety of
sentiment than fall to the share of most of the trade, made me a visit
at Ashestiel a few weeks ago; and as I found he had had some
communication with you upon the subject, I did not hesitate to
communicate my sentiments to him on this and some other points of the
plan, and I thought his ideas were most liberal and satisfactory.
"The office of Editor is of such importance, that had you not been
pleased to undertake it, I fear the plan would have fallen wholly to the
ground. The full power of control must, of course, be vested in the
editor for selecting, curtailing, and correcting the contributions to
the Review. But this is not all; for, as he is the person immediately
responsible to the bookseller that the work (amounting to a certain
number of pages, more or less) shall be before the public at a certain
time, it will be the editor's duty to consider in due turn the articles
of which each number ought to consist, and to take measures for
procuring them from the persons best qualified to write upon such and
such subjects. But this is sometimes so troublesome, that I foresee with
pleasure you will soon be obliged to abandon your resolution of writing
nothing yourself. At the same time, if you will accept of my services as
a sort of jackal or lion's provider, I will do all in my power to assist
in this troublesome department of editorial duty.
"But there is still something behind, and that of the last consequence.
One great resource to which the _Edinburgh_ editor turns himself, and by
which he gives popularity even to the duller articles of his _Review_,
is accepting contributions from persons of inferior powers of writing,
provided they understand the books to which their criticisms relate; and
as such are often of stupefying mediocrity, he renders them palatable by
throwing in a handful of spice, namely, any lively paragraph or
entertaining illustration that occurs to him in reading them over. By
this sort of veneering he converts, without loss of time or hindrance to
business, articles, which in their original state might hang in the
market, into such goods as are not likely to disgrace those among which
they are placed. This seems to be a point in which an editor's
assistance is of the last consequence, for those who possess the
knowledge necessary to review books of research or abstruse
disquisitions, are very often unable to put the criticisms into a
readable, much more a pleasant and captivating form; and as their
science cannot be attained 'for the nonce,' the only remedy is to supply
their deficiencies, and give their lucubrations a more popular turn.
"There is one opportunity possessed by you in a particular degree--that
of access to the best sources of political information. It would not,
certainly, be advisable that the work should assume, especially at the
outset, a professed political character. On the contrary, the articles
on science and miscellaneous literature ought to be of such a quality as
might fairly challenge competition with the best of our contemporaries.
But as the real reason of instituting the publication is the disgusting
and deleterious doctrine with which the most popular of our Reviews
disgraces its pages, it is essential to consider how this warfare should
be managed. On this ground, I hope it is not too much to expect from
those who have the power of assisting us, that they should on topics of
great national interest furnish the reviewers, through the medium of
their editor, with accurate views of points of fact, so far as they are
fit to be made public. This is the most delicate and yet most essential
part of our scheme.
"On the one hand, it is certainly not to be understood that we are to be
held down to advocate upon all occasions the cause of administration.
Such a dereliction of independence would render us entirely useless for
the purpose we mean to serve. On the other hand, nothing will render the
work more interesting than the public learning, not from any vaunt of
ours, but from their own observation, that we have access to early and
accurate information on points of fact. The _Edinburgh Review_ has
profited much by the pains which the Opposition party have taken to
possess the writers of all the information they could give them on
public matters. Let me repeat that you, my dear sir, from enjoying the
confidence of Mr. Canning, and other persons in power, may easily obtain
the confidential information necessary to give credit to the work, and
communicate it to such as you may think proper to employ in laying it
before the public."
Mr. Scott further proceeded, in his letter to Mr. Gifford, to discuss
the mode and time of publication, the choice of subjects, the persons to
be employed as contributors, and the name of the proposed Review, thus
thoroughly identifying himself with it.
"Let our forces," he said, "for a number or two, consist of volunteers
or amateurs, and when we have acquired some reputation, we shall soon
levy and discipline our forces of the line. After all, the matter is
become very serious--eight or nine thousand copies of the _Edinburgh
Review_ are regularly distributed, merely because there is no other
respectable and independent publication of the kind. In this city
(Edinburgh), where there is not one Whig out of twenty men who read the
work, many hundreds are sold; and how long the generality of readers
will continue to dislike politics, so artfully mingled with information
and amusement, is worthy of deep consideration. But it is not yet too
late to stand in the breach; the first number ought, if possible, to be
out in January, and if it can burst among them like a bomb, without
previous notice, the effect will be more striking.
"Of those who might be intrusted in the first instance you are a much
better judge than I am. I think I can command the assistance of a friend
or two here, particularly William Erskine, the Lord Advocate's
brother-in-law and my most intimate friend. In London, you have Malthus,
George Ellis, the Roses, _cum pluribus aliis_. Richard Heber was with me
when Murray came to my farm, and, knowing his zeal for the good cause, I
let him into our counsels. In Mr. Frere we have the hopes of a potent
ally. The Rev. Reginald Heber would be an excellent coadjutor, and when
I come to town I will sound Matthias. As strict secrecy would of course
be observed, the diffidence of many might be overcome. For scholars you
can be at no loss while Oxford stands where it did; and I think there
will be no deficiency in the scientific articles."
Thus instructed, Gifford proceeded to rally his forces. There was no
want of contributors. Some came invited, some came unsought; but, as the
matter was still a secret, the editor endeavoured to secure
contributions through his personal friends. For instance, he called upon
Mr. Rogers to request him to secure the help of Moore.
"I must confess," said Rogers to Moore, "I heard of the new quarterly
with pleasure, as I thought it might correct an evil we had long
lamented together. Gifford wishes much for contributors, and is
exceedingly anxious that you should assist him as often as you can
afford time.... All this in _confidence_ of course, as the secret is not
my own."
Gifford also endeavoured to secure the assistance of Southey, through
his friend, Mr. Grosvenor Bedford. Southey was requested to write for
the first number an article on the Affairs of Spain. This, however, he
declined to do; but promised to send an article on the subject of
Missionaries.
"Let not Gifford," he wrote to Bedford, in reply to his letter, "suppose
me a troublesome man to deal with, pertinacious about trifles, or
standing upon punctilios of authorship. No, Grosvenor, I am a quiet,
patient, easy-going hack of the mule breed; regular as clockwork in my
pace, sure-footed, bearing the burden which is laid on me, and only
obstinate in choosing my own path. If Gifford could see me by this
fireside, where, like Nicodemus, one candle suffices me in a large room,
he would see a man in a coat 'still more threadbare than his own' when
he wrote his 'Imitation,' working hard and getting little--a bare
maintenance, and hardly that; writing poems and history for posterity
with his whole heart and soul; one daily progressive in learning, not so
learned as he is poor, not so poor as proud, not so proud as happy."
_Mr. James Ballantyne to John Murray_.
_October_ 28, 1808.
"Well, you have of course heard from Mr. Scott of the progress of the
'Great Plan.' Canning bites at the hook eagerly. A review termed by Mr.
Jeffrey _a tickler_, is to appear of Dryden in this No. of the
_Edinburgh_. By the Lord! they will rue it. You know Scott's present
feelings, excited by the review of 'Marmion.' What will they be when
that of Dryden appears?"
It was some time, however, before arrangements could be finally made for
bringing out the first number of the _Quarterly_. Scott could not as yet
pay his intended visit to London, and after waiting for about a month,
Murray sent him the following letter, giving his further opinion as to
the scope and object of the proposed Review:
_John Murray to Mr. Scott_.
_November_ 15, 1808.
DEAR SIR,
I have been desirous of writing to you for nearly a week past, as I
never felt more the want of a personal conversation. I will endeavour,
however, to explain myself to you, and will rely on your confidence and
indulgence for secrecy and attention in what I have to communicate. I
have before told you that the idea of a new Review has been revolving in
my mind for nearly two years, and that more than twelve months ago I
addressed Mr. Canning on the subject. The propriety, if not the
necessity, of establishing a journal upon principles opposite to those
of the _Edinburgh Review_ has occurred to many men more enlightened than
myself; and I believe the same reason has prevented others, as it has
done myself, from attempting it, namely, the immense difficulty of
obtaining talent of sufficient magnitude to render success even
_doubtful_.
By degrees my plan has gradually floated up to this height. But there
exists at least an equal difficulty yet--that peculiar talent in an
editor of rendering our other great resources advantageous to the best
possible degree. This, I think, may be accomplished, but it must be
effected by your arduous assistance, at least for a little time. Our
friend Mr. Gifford, whose writings show him to be both a man of learning
and wit, has lived too little in the world lately to have obtained that
delicacy and tact whereby he can feel at one instant, and habitually,
whatever may gratify public desire and excite public attention and
curiosity. But this you know to be a leading feature in the talents of
Mr. Jeffrey and his friends; and that, without the most happy choice of
subjects, as well as the ability to treat them well--catching the
"manners living as they rise"--the _Edinburgh Review_ could not have
attained the success it has done; and no other Review, however
preponderating in solid merit, will obtain sufficient attention without
them. Entering the field too, as we shall do, against an army commanded
by the most skilful generals, it will not do for us to leave any of our
best officers behind as a reserve, for they would be of no use if we
were defeated at first. We must enter with our most able commanders at
once, and we shall then acquire confidence, if not reputation, and
increase in numbers as we proceed.
Our first number must contain the most valuable and striking information
in politics, and the most interesting articles of general literature and
science, written by our most able friends. If our plan appears to be so
advantageous to the ministers whose measures, to a certain extent, we
intend to justify, to support, to recommend and assist, that they have
promised their support; when might that support be so advantageously
given, either for their own interests or ours, as at the commencement,
when we are most weak, and have the most arduous onset to make, and when
we do and must stand most in need of help? If our first number be not
written with the greatest ability, upon the most interesting topics, it
will not excite public attention. No man, even the friend of the
principles we adopt, will leave the sprightly pages of the _Edinburgh
Review_ to read a dull detail of staid morality, or dissertations on
subjects whose interest has long fled.
I do not say this from any, even the smallest doubt, of our having all
that we desire in these respects in our power; but because I am
apprehensive that without your assistance it will not be drawn into
action, and my reason for this fear I will thus submit to you. You
mentioned in your letter to Mr. Gifford, that our Review should open
with a grand article on Spain--meaning a display of the political
feeling of the people, and the probable results of this important
contest. I suggested to Mr. Gifford that Mr. Frere should be written to,
which he said was easy, and that he thought he would do it; for Frere
could not only give the facts upon the subject, but could write them
better than any other person. But having, in my project, given the name
of Southey as a person who might assist occasionally in a number or two
hence, I found at our next interview that Mr. Gifford, who does not know
Mr. Southey, had spoken to a friend to ask Mr. S. to write the article
upon Spain. It is true that Mr. Southey knows a great deal about Spain,
and on another occasion would have given a good article upon the
subject; but at present _his_ is not the kind of knowledge which we
want, and it is, moreover, trusting our secret to a stranger, who has,
by the way, a directly opposite bias in politics.
Mr. Gifford also told me, with very great stress, that among the
articles he had submitted to you was [one on] Hodgson's Translation of
Juvenal, which at no time could be a very interesting article for us,
and having been published more than six months ago, would probably be a
very stupid one. Then, you must observe, that it would necessarily
involve a comparison with Mr. Gifford's own translation, which must of
course be praised, and thus show an _individual_ feeling--the least
spark of which, in our early numbers, would both betray and ruin us. He
talks of reviewing _himself_ a late translation of "Persius," for
(_entre nous_) a similar reason. He has himself nearly completed a
translation, which will be published in a few months.
In what I have said upon this most exceedingly delicate point, and which
I again submit to your most honourable confidence, I have no other
object but just to show you without reserve how we stand, and to
exemplify what I set out with--that without skilful and judicious
management we shall totally mistake the road to the accomplishment of
the arduous task which we have undertaken, and involve the cause and
every individual in not merely defeat, but disgrace. I must at the same
time observe that Mr. Gifford is the most obliging and well-meaning man
alive, and that he is perfectly ready to be instructed in those points
of which his seclusion renders him ignorant; and all that I wish and
mean is, that we should strive to open clearly the view which is so
obvious to us--that our first number must be a most brilliant one in
every respect; and to effect this, we must avail ourselves of any
valuable political information we can command. Those persons who have
the most interest in supporting the Review must be called upon
immediately for their strenuous personal help. The fact must be obvious
to you,--that if Mr. Canning, Mr. Frere, Mr. Scott, Mr. Ellis, and Mr.
Gifford, with their immediate and true friends, will exert themselves
heartily in every respect, so as to produce with secrecy only _one_
remarkably attractive number, their further labour would be
comparatively light. With such a number in our hands, we might select
and obtain every other help that we required; and then the persons named
would only be called upon for their information, facts, hints, advice,
and occasional articles. But without this--without producing a number
that shall at least equal, if not excel, the best of the _Edinburgh
Review_, it were better not to be attempted. We should do more harm to
our cause by an unsuccessful attempt; and the reputation of the
_Edinburgh Review_ would be increased inversely to our fruitless
opposition.... With respect to bookselling interference with the Review,
I am equally convinced with yourself of its total incompatibility with a
really respectable and valuable critical journal. I assure you that
nothing can be more distant from my views, which are confined to the
ardour which I feel for the cause and principles which it will be our
object to support, and the honour of professional reputation which would
obviously result to the publisher of so important a work. It were silly
to suppress that I shall not be sorry to derive from it as much profit
as I can satisfactorily enjoy, consistent with the liberal scale upon
which it is my first desire to act towards every writer and friend
concerned in the work. Respecting the terms upon which the editor shall
be placed at first, I have proposed, and it appears to be satisfactory
to Mr. Gifford, that he shall receive, either previous to, or
immediately after, the publication of each number, the sum of 160
guineas, which he is to distribute as he thinks proper, without any
question or interference on my part; and that in addition to this, he
shall receive from me the sum of £200 annually, merely as the editor.
This, Sir, is much more than I can flatter myself with the return of,
for the first year at least; but it is my intention that his salary
shall ever increase proportionately to the success of the work under his
management. The editor has a most arduous office to perform, and the
success of the publication must depend in a great measure upon his
activity.
I am, dear Sir, Your obliged and faithful Servant,
John Murray.
It will be observed from this letter, that Mr. Murray was aware that,
besides skilful editing, sound and practical business management was
necessary to render the new Review a success. The way in which he
informs Mr. Scott about Gifford's proposed review of "Juvenal" and
"Persius," shows that he fully comprehended the situation, and the
dangers which would beset an editor like Gifford, who lived for the most
part amongst his books, and was, to a large extent, secluded from the
active world.
On the same day Scott was writing to Murray:
_Mr. Scott to John Murray_. Edinburgh, _November_ 15, 1808.
Dear Sir,
I received two days ago a letter from Mr. Gifford highly approving of
the particulars of the plan which I had sketched for the _Review_. But
there are two points to be considered. In the first place, I cannot be
in town as I proposed, for the Commissioners under the Judicial Bill, to
whom I am to act as clerk, have resolved that their final sittings shall
be held _here_, so that I have now no chance of being in London before
spring. This is very unlucky, as Mr. Gifford proposes to wait for my
arrival in town to set the great machine a-going. I shall write to him
that this is impossible, and that I wish he would, with your assistance
and that of his other friends, make up a list of the works which the
first number is to contain, and consider what is the extent of the aid
he will require from the North. The other circumstance is, that Mr.
Gifford pleads the state of his health and his retired habits as
sequestrating him from the world, and rendering him less capable of
active exertion, and in the kindest and most polite manner he expresses
his hope that he should receive very extensive assistance and support
from me, without which he is pleased to say he would utterly despair of
success. Now between ourselves (for this is strictly confidential) I am
rather alarmed at this prospect. I am willing, and anxiously so, to do
all in my power to serve the work; but, my dear sir, you know how many
of our very ablest hands are engaged in the _Edinburgh Review_, and what
a dismal work it will be to wring assistance from the few whose
indolence has left them neutral. I can, to be sure, work like a horse
myself, but then I have two heavy works on my hands already, namely,
"Somers" and "Swift." Constable had lately very nearly relinquished the
latter work, and I now heartily wish it had never commenced; but two
volumes are nearly printed, so I conclude it will now go on. If this
work had not stood in the way, I should have liked Beaumont and Fletcher
much better. It would not have required half the research, and occupied
much less time. I plainly see that, according to Mr. Gifford's view, I
should have almost all the trouble of a co-editor, both in collecting
and revising the articles which are to come from Scotland, as well as in
supplying all deficiencies from my own stores.
These considerations cannot, however, operate upon the first number, so
pray send me a list of books, and perhaps you may send some on a
venture. You know the department I had in the _Edinburgh Review_. I will
sound Southey, agreeable to Mr. Gifford's wishes, on the Spanish
affairs. The last number of the _Edinburgh Review_ has given disgust
beyond measure, owing to the tone of the article on Cevallos' _exposé_.
Subscribers are falling off like withered leaves.
I retired my name among others, after explaining the reasons both to Mr.
Jeffrey and Mr. Constable, so that there never was such an opening for a
new _Review_. I shall be glad to hear what you think on the subject of
terms, for my Northern troops will not move without pay; but there is no
hurry about fixing this point, as most of the writers in the first
number will be more or less indifferent on the subject. For my own
share, I care not what the conditions are, unless the labour expected
from me is to occupy a considerable portion of time, in which case they
might become an object. While we are on this subject, I may as well
mention that as you incur so large an outlay in the case of the Novels,
I would not only be happy that my remuneration should depend on the
profits of the work, but I also think I could command a few hundreds to
assist in carrying it on.
By the way, I see "Notes on Don Quixote" advertised. This was a plan I
had for enriching our collection, having many references by me for the
purpose. I shall be sorry if I am powerfully anticipated. Perhaps the
book would make a good article in the _Review_. Can you get me
"Gaytoun's Festivous Notes on Don Quixote"?
I think our friend Ballantyne is grown an inch taller on the subjects of
the "Romances."
Believe me, dear Sir, Yours very truly, Walter Scott.
Gifford is much pleased with you personally.
_John Murray to Mr. Scott_.
_November_ 19, 1808.
"Mr. Gifford has communicated to me an important piece of news. He met
his friend, Lord Teignmouth, and learned from him that he and the
Wilberforce party had some idea of starting a journal to oppose the
_Edinburgh Review_, that Henry Thornton and Mr. [Zachary] Macaulay were
to be the conductors, that they had met, and that some able men were
mentioned. Upon sounding Lord T. as to their giving us their assistance,
he thought this might be adopted in preference to their own plans.... It
will happen fortunately that we intend opening with an article on the
missionaries, which, as it will be written in opposition to the
sentiments in the _Edinburgh Review_, is very likely to gain that large
body of which Wilberforce is the head. I have collected from every
Missionary Society in London, of which there are no less than five, all
their curious reports, proceedings and history, which, I know, Sydney
Smith never saw; and which I could only procure by personal application.
Southey will give a complete view of the subject, and if he will enter
heartily into it, and do it well, it will be as much as he can do for
the first number. These transactions contain, amidst a great deal of
fanaticism, the most curious information you can imagine upon the
history, literature, topography and manners of nations and countries of
which we are otherwise totally ignorant.... If you have occasion to
write to Southey, pray urge the vast importance of this subject, and
entreat him to give it all his ability. I find that a new volume of
Burns' ('The Reliques') will be published by the end of this month,
which will form the subject of another capital article under your hands.
I presume 'Sir John Carr (Tour in Scotland)' will be another article,
which even you, I fancy, will like; 'Mrs. Grant of Laggan,' too, and
perhaps your friend Mr. Cumberland's 'John de Lancaster' .... Are you
not sufficiently well acquainted with Miss (Joanna) Baillie, both to
confide in her, and command her talents? If so, you will probably think
of what may suit her, and what may apply to her. Mr. Heber, too, would
apply to his brother at your request, and his friend Coplestone, who
will also be written to by a friend of Gifford's...."
Scott was very desirous of enlisting George Canning among the
contributors to the Quarterly. He wrote to his friend Ellis:
_Mr. Scott to Mr. G. Ellis_.
"As our start is of such immense consequence, don't you think Mr.
Canning, though unquestionably our Atlas, might for a day find a
Hercules on whom to devolve the burden of the globe, while he writes for
us a review? I know what an audacious request this is, but suppose he
should, as great statesmen sometimes do, take a political fit of the
gout, and absent himself from a large ministerial dinner which might
give it him in good earnest--dine at three on a chicken and pint of
wine, and lay the foundation of at least one good article? Let us but
once get afloat, and our labour is not worth talking about; but, till
then, all hands must work hard."
This suggestion was communicated by George Ellis to Gifford, the chosen
editor, and on December 1, Murray informed Scott that the article on
Spain was proceeding under Mr. Canning's immediate superintendence.
Canning and Gifford went down to Mr. Ellis's house at Sunninghill, where
the three remained together for four days, during which time the article
was hatched and completed.
On receiving the celebrated "Declaration of Westminster" on the Spanish
War, Scott wrote to Ellis:
"Tell Mr. Canning that the old women of Scotland will defend the country
with their distaffs, rather than that troops enough be not sent to make
good so noble a pledge. Were the thousands that have mouldered away in
petty conquests or Lilliputian expeditions united to those we have now
in that country, what a band would Sir John Moore have under him!...
Jeffrey has offered terms of pacification, engaging that no party
politics should again appear in his _Review_. I told him I thought it
was now too late, and reminded him that I had often pointed out to him
the consequences of letting his work become a party tool. He said 'he
did not fear for the consequences--there were but four men he feared as
opponents.' 'Who are these?' 'Yourself for one.' 'Certainly you pay me a
great compliment; depend upon it I will endeavour to deserve it.' 'Why,
you would not join against me?' 'Yes, I would, if I saw a proper
opportunity: not against you personally, but against your politics.'
'You are privileged to be violent.' 'I don't ask any privilege for undue
violence. But who are your other foemen?' 'George Ellis and Southey.'
The other he did not name. All this was in great good humour; and next
day I had a very affecting note from him, in answer to an invitation to
dinner. He has no suspicion of the _Review_ whatever."
In the meantime, Mr. Murray continued to look out for further
contributors. Mr. James Mill, of the India House, in reply to a request
for assistance, wrote:
"You do me a great deal of honour in the solicitude you express to have
me engaged in laying the foundation stone of your new edifice, which I
hope will be both splendid and durable; and it is no want of zeal or
gratitude that delays me. But this ponderous Geography, a porter's, or
rather a horse's load, bears me down to a degree you can hardly
conceive. What I am now meditating from under it is to spare time to do
well and leisurely the Indian article (my favourite subject) for your
next number. Besides, I shall not reckon myself less a founder from its
having been only the fault of my previous engagements that my first
article for you appears only in the second number, and not in the first
part of your work."
Another contributor whom Mr. Murray was desirous to secure was Mrs.
Inchbald, authoress of the "Simple Story." The application was made to
her through one of Murray's intimate friends, Mr. Hoppner, the artist.
Her answer was as follows:
_Mrs. Inchbald to Mr. Hoppner_. _December_ 31, 1808.
My dear Sir, As I wholly rely upon your judgment for the excellency of
the design in question, I wish you to be better acquainted with my
abilities as a reviewer before I suffer my curiosity to be further
gratified in respect to the plan of the work you have undertaken, or the
names of those persons who, with yourself, have done me the very great
honour to require my assistance. Before I see you, then, and possess
myself of your further confidence, it is proper that I should acquaint
you that there is only one department of a Review for which I am in the
least qualified, and that one combines plays and novels. Yet the very
few novels I have read, of later publications, incapacitates me again
for detecting plagiary, or for making such comparisons as proper
criticism may demand. You will, perhaps, be surprised when I tell you
that I am not only wholly unacquainted with the book you have mentioned
to me, but that I never heard of it before. If it be in French, there
will be another insurmountable difficulty; for, though I read French,
and have translated some French comedies, yet I am not so perfectly
acquainted with the language as to dare to write remarks upon a French
author. If Madame Cottin's "Malvina" be in English, you wish it speedily
reviewed, and can possibly have any doubt of the truth of my present
report, please to send it me; and whatever may be the contents, I will
immediately essay my abilities on the work, or immediately return it as
a hopeless case.
Yours very faithfully,
E. Inchbald.
On further consideration, however, Mrs. Inchbald modestly declined to
become a contributor. Notwithstanding her great merits as an author, she
had the extremest diffidence in her own abilities.
_Mrs. Inchbald to John Murray_.
"The more I reflect on the importance of the contributions intended for
this work, the more I am convinced of my own inability to become a
contributor. The productions in question must, I am convinced, be of a
certain quality that will demand far more acquaintance with books, and
much more general knowledge, than it has ever been my good fortune to
attain. Under these circumstances, finding myself, upon mature
consideration, wholly inadequate to the task proposed, I beg you will
accept of this apology as a truth, and present it to Mr. Hoppner on the
first opportunity; and assure him that it has been solely my reluctance
to yield up the honour he intended me which has tempted me, for an
instant, to be undecided in my reply to his overture.--I am, Sir, with
sincere acknowledgments for the politeness of your letter to me,
"E. Inchbald."
And here the correspondence dropped.
It is now difficult to understand the profound secrecy with which the
projection of the new Review was carried on until within a fortnight of
the day of its publication. In these modern times widespread
advertisements announce the advent of a new periodical, whereas then
both publisher and editor enjoined the utmost secrecy upon all with whom
they were in correspondence. Still, the day of publication was very
near, when the _Quarterly_ was, according to Scott, to "burst like a
bomb" among the Whigs of Edinburgh. The only explanation of the secrecy
of the preliminary arrangements is that probably down to the last it was
difficult to ascertain whether enough materials could be accumulated to
form a sufficiently good number before the first _Quarterly Review_ was
launched into the world.