Chapter I: Part 1

EARLY REVIEWS

OF

ENGLISH POETS

EDITED WITH AN INTRODUCTION

BY

JOHN LOUIS HANEY, PH.D.

_Assistant Professor of English and History, Central High School, Philadelphia; Research Fellow in English, University of Pennsylvania_

PHILADELPHIA THE EGERTON PRESS 1904

COPYRIGHT, 1904 BY JOHN LOUIS HANEY

PRESS OF THE NEW ERA PRINTING COMPANY, LANCASTER, PA.

TO

MY FRIEND AND TEACHER

PROFESSOR FELIX E. SCHELLING

OF THE UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA

PREFACE

"Among the amusing and instructive books that remain to be written, one of the most piquant would be a history of the criticism with which the most celebrated literary productions have been greeted on their first appearance before the world." It is quite possible that when Dr. William Matthews began his essay on _Curiosities of Criticism_ with these words, he failed to grasp the full significance of that future undertaking. Mr. Churton Collins recently declared that "a very amusing and edifying record might be compiled partly out of a selection of the various verdicts passed contemporaneously by reviews on particular works, and partly out of comparisons of the subsequent fortunes of works with their fortunes while submitted to this censorship." Both critics recognize the fact that such a volume would be entertaining and instructive; but, from another point of view, it would also be a somewhat doleful book. Even a reader of meagre imagination and rude sensibilities could not peruse such a volume without picturing in his mind the anguish and the heart-ache which those bitter and often vicious attacks inflicted upon the unfortunate victims whose works were being assailed.

Authors (particularly sensitive poets) have been at all times the sport and plaything of the critics. Mrs. Oliphant, in her _Literary History of England_, said with much truth: "There are few things so amusing as to read a really 'slashing article'--except perhaps to write it. It is infinitely easier and gayer work than a well-weighed and serious criticism, and will always be more popular. The lively and brilliant examples of the art which dwell in the mind of the reader are invariably of this class." Thus it happens that we remember the witty onslaughts of the reviewers, and often ignore the fact that certain witticisms drove Byron, for example, into a frenzy of anger that called forth the most vigorous satire of the century; and others so completely unnerved Shelley that he felt tempted to write no more; and still others were so unanimously hostile in tone that Coleridge thought the whole detested tribe of critics was in league against his literary success. There were, of course, such admirable personalities as Wordsworth's--for the most part indifferent to the strongest torrent of abuse; and clever craftsmen like Tennyson, who, although hurt, read the criticisms and profited by them; but, on the other hand, there are still well-informed readers who believe that the _Quarterly Review_ at least hastened the death of poor Keats.

It has been suggested that such a volume of the "choice crudities of criticism" as is here proposed would likewise fulfill the desirable purpose of avenging the author upon his ancient enemy, the critic, by showing how absurd the latter's utterances often are, and what a veritable farrago of folly those collected utterances can make. We may rest assured that however much hostile criticism may have pained an author, it has never inflicted a permanent injury upon a good book. If there appear to be works that have been thus more or less obscured, the fault will probably be found not in the critic but in the works themselves. According to this agreeable theory, which we would all fain believe, the triumph of the ignorant or malevolent critic cannot endure; sooner or later the author's merit will be recognized and he will come into his own.

The present volume does not attempt to fulfill the conditions suggested by Dr. Matthews and Mr. Collins. A history of contemporary criticism of famous authors would be a more ambitious undertaking, necessitating an extensive apparatus of notes and references. It seeks merely to gather a number of interesting anomalies of criticism--reviews of famous poems and famous poets differing more or less from the modern consensus of opinion concerning those poems and their authors. Although most of the chosen reviews are unfavorable, several others have been selected to afford evidence of an early appreciation of certain poets. A few unexpectedly favorable notices, such as the _Monthly Review's_ critique of Browning's _Sordello_, are printed because they appear to be unique. The chief criterion in selecting these reviews (apart from the effort to represent most of the periodicals and the principal poets between Gray and Browning) has been that of interest to the modern reader. In most cases, criticisms of a writer's earlier works were preferred as more likely to be spontaneous and uninfluenced by his growing literary reputation. Thus the volume does not attempt to trace the development of English critical methods, nor to supply a hand-book of representative English criticism; it offers merely a selection of bygone but readable reviews--what the critics thought, or, in some cases, pretended to think, of works of poets whom we have since held in honorable esteem. The short notices and the well-known longer reviews are printed entire; but considerations of space and interest necessitated excisions in a few cases, all of which are, of course, properly indicated. The spelling and punctuation of the original texts have been carefully followed.

The history of English critical journals has not yet been adequately written. The following introduction offers a rapid survey of the subject, compiled principally from the sources indicated in the bibliographical list. I am indebted to Professor Felix E. Schelling of the University of Pennsylvania, and to Dr. Robert Ellis Thompson and Professor Albert H. Smyth of the Philadelphia Central High School for many suggestions that have been of value in writing the introduction. Dr. Edward Z. Davis examined at my request certain pamphlets in the British Museum that threw additional light upon the history of the early reviews. Dr. A.S.W. Rosenbach and Professor J.H. Moffatt read the proofs of the introduction and notes respectively, and suggested several noteworthy improvements.

J.L.H.

CENTRAL HIGH SCHOOL, PHILADELPHIA.

CONTENTS

Preface vii Introduction xiii Bibliography lvi

REVIEWS

GRAY Odes (_Monthly Review_) 1 GOLDSMITH The Traveller (_Critical Review_) 5 COWPER Poems, 1782 (_Critical Review_) 10 BURNS Poems, 1786 (_Edinburgh Magazine_) 13 Poems, 1786 (_Critical Review_) 15 WORDSWORTH Descriptive Sketches (_Monthly Review_) 16 An Evening Walk (_Monthly Review_) 19 Lyrical Ballads (_Critical Review_) 20 Poems, 1807 (_Edinburgh Review_) 24 COLERIDGE Christabel (_Edinburgh Review_) 47 SOUTHEY Madoc (_Monthly Review_) 60 LAMB Blank Verse (_Monthly Review_) 65 Album Verses (_Literary Gazette_) 66 LANDOR Gebir (_British Critic_) 68 Gebir (_Monthly Review_) 69 SCOTT Marmion (_Edinburgh Review_) 70 BYRON Hours of Idleness (_Edinburgh Review_) 94 Childe Harold (_Christian Observer_) 101 SHELLEY Alastor (_Monthly Review_) 115 The Cenci (_London Magazine_) 116 Adonais (_Literary Gazette_) 129 KEATS Endymion (_Quarterly Review_) 135 Endymion (_Blackwood's Magazine_) 141 TENNYSON Timbuctoo (_Athenaeum_) 151 Poems, 1833 (_Quarterly Review_) 152 The Princess (_Literary Gazette_) 176 BROWNING Paracelsus (_Athenaeum_) 187 Sordello (_Monthly Review_) 188 Men and Women (_Saturday Review_) 189

Notes 197 Index 223

INTRODUCTION

To the modern reader, with an abundance of periodicals of all sorts and upon all subjects at hand, it seems hardly possible that this wealth of ephemeral literature was virtually developed within the past two centuries. It offers such a rational means for the dissemination of the latest scientific and literary news that the mind undeceived by facts would naturally place the origin of the periodical near the invention of printing itself. Apart from certain sporadic manifestations of what is termed, by courtesy, periodical literature, the real beginning of that important department of letters was in the innumerable _Mercurii_ that flourished in London after the outbreak of the Civil War. Although the _British Museum Catalogue_ presents a long list of these curious messengers and news-carriers, the only one that could be of interest in the present connection is the _Mercurius Librarius; or a Catalogue of Books Printed and Published at London_[A] (1668-70), the contents of which simply fulfilled the promise of its title.

Literary journals in England were, however, not a native development, but were copied, like the fashions and artistic norms of that period, from the French. The famous and long-lived _Journal des Scavans_ was begun at Paris in 1665 by M. Denis de Sallo, who has been called, since the time of Voltaire, the "inventor" of literary journals. In 1684 Pierre Bayle began at Amsterdam the publication of _Nouvelles de la Republique des Lettres_, which continued under various hands until 1718. These French periodicals were the acknowledged inspiration for similar ventures in England, beginning in 1682 with the _Weekly Memorial for the Ingenious: or an Account of Books lately set forth in Several Languages, with some other Curious Novelties relating to Arts and Sciences_. The preface stated the intention of the publishers to notice foreign as well as domestic works, and to transcribe the "curious novelties" from the _Journal des Scavans_. Fifty weekly numbers appeared (1682-83), consisting principally of translations of the best articles in the French journal.

A few years later (1686), the Genevan theologian, Jean Le Clerc, then a resident of London, established the _Universal Historical Bibliotheque; or, an Account of most of the Considerable Books printed in All Languages_, which was continued by various hands until 1693 in a series of twenty-five quarto volumes. Contemporary with this review was a number of similar publications which had for the most part a brief existence. Among them was the _Athenian Mercury_, published on Tuesdays and Saturdays (1691-1696), the _History of Learning_, which appeared for a short time in 1691 and again in 1694; _Works of the Learned_ (1691-92); the _Young Student's Library_ (1692) and its continuation, the _Compleat Library_ (1692-94); _Memoirs for the Ingenious_ (1693); the _Universal Mercury_ (1694) and _Miscellaneous Letters, etc._ (1694-96). Samuel Parkes includes among the reviews of this period Sir Thomas Pope Blount's remarkable _Censura Celebrium Authorum_ (1690). That popular bibliographical dictionary of criticism (reprinted 1694, 1710 and 1718) is only remembered now for its omission of Shakespeare, Spenser, Jonson and Milton from its list of "celebrated authors." Neither that volume nor the same author's _De Re Poetica_ (1694) finds a proper place in a list of periodicals. They should be grouped with such works as Phillips' _Theatrum Poetarum_ (1675) and Langbaine's _Account of the English Dramatic Poets_ (1691) among the more deliberate attempts at literary criticism.

Between 1692-94 appeared the _Gentleman's Journal; or, the Monthly Miscellany. Consisting of News, History, Philosophy, Poetry, Music, Translations, etc._ This noteworthy paper, edited by Peter Anthony Motteux while he was translating Rabelais, included among its contributors Aphra Behn, Oldmixon, Dennis, D'Urfey and others. In many ways it anticipated the plan of the _Gentleman's Magazine_ (1731), which has usually been accorded the honor of priority among English literary magazines. The _History of the Works of the Learned; or, an Impartial Account of Books lately printed in all Parts of Europe_ was begun in 1699 and succumbed after the publication of its thirteenth volume (1711). Among its editors was George Ridpath, who was afterwards immortalized in Pope's _Dunciad_. The careers of the _Monthly Miscellany_ (1707-09) and _Censura Temporum_ (1709-10) were brief. About the same time an extensive series of periodicals was begun by a Huguenot refugee, Michael De la Roche, who fled to England after the revocation of the Edict of Nantes and became an Episcopalian. After several years of hack-work for the booksellers, he published (1710) the first numbers of his _Memoirs of Literature, containing a Weekly Account of the State of Learning at Home and Abroad_, which he continued until 1714 and for a few months in 1717. In the latter year he began at Amsterdam his _Bibliotheque Angloise_ (1717-27), continued by his _Memoires Litteraires de la Grande Bretagne_ (1720-1724) after the editorship of the former had been placed in other hands on account of his pronounced anti-Calvinistic views. At Amsterdam, Daniel Le Clerc, a brother of the Jean Le Clerc already mentioned, published his _Bibliotheque Choisee_ (1703-14) and his _Bibliotheque Ancienne et Moderne_ (1714-28). Both of these periodicals suggested numerous ideas to De la Roche, who returned to London and conducted the _New Memoirs of Literature_ (1725-27). His last venture was a _Literary Journal, or a Continuation of the Memoirs of Literature_, which lasted about a year.

Contemporary with De la Roche, Samuel Jebb conducted _Bibliotheca Literaria_ (1722-24), dealing with "inscriptions, medals, dissertations, etc." In 1728 Andrew Reid began the _Present State of the Republick of Letters_, which reached its eighteenth volume in 1736. It was then incorporated with the _Literary Magazine; or the History of the Works of the Learned_ (1735-36) and the joint periodical was henceforth published as a _History of the Works of the Learned_ until 1743. Other less extensive literary journals of the same period were Archibald Bower's _Historia Literaria_ (1730-34); the _Bee; or, Universal Weekly Pamphlet_ (1733-35), edited by Addison's cousin, Eustace Budgell; the _British Librarian, exhibiting a Compendious Review or Abstract of our most Scarce, Useful and Valuable Books, etc._, published anonymously by the antiquarian William Oldys, from January to June, 1737, and much esteemed by modern bibliophiles as a pioneer and a curiosity of its kind; a _Literary Journal_ (1744-49) published at Dublin; and, finally, the _Museum; or the Literary and Historical Register_. This interesting periodical printed essays, poems and reviews by such contributors as Spence, Horace Walpole, the brothers Warton, Akenside, Lowth and others. It was published fortnightly from March, 1746 to September, 1747, making three octavo volumes.

The periodicals enumerated thus far can hardly be regarded as literary in the modern acceptation of the term; they were, for the most part, ponderous, learned and scientific in character, and, with the exception of the _Gentleman's Journal_ and Dodsley's _Museum_, rarely ventured into the domain of _belles-lettres_. An occasional erudite dissertation on classical poetry or on the French canons of taste suggested a literary intent, but the bulk of the journals was supplied by articles on natural history, curious experiments, physiological treatises and historical essays. During the latter half of the eighteenth century theological and political writings, and accounts of travels in distant lands became the staple offering of the reviews.

A new era in the history of English periodicals was marked by the publication, on May 1, 1749, of the first number of the _Monthly Review_, destined to continue through ninety-six years of varying fortune and to reach its 249th volume. It bore the subtitle: _A Periodical Work giving an Account, with Proper Abstracts of, and Extracts from, the New Books, Pamphlets, etc., as they come out. By Several Hands._ The publisher was Ralph Griffiths, who continued to manage the review until his death in 1803. It seems remarkable that this periodical which set the norm for half a century should have appeared not only without preface or advertisement, but likewise without patronage or support of any kind. From the first it reviewed poetry, fiction and drama as well as the customary classes of applied literature, and thus appealed primarily to the public rather than, like most of its predecessors, to the learned. Its politics were Whig and its theology Non-conformist. Griffiths was not successful at first, but determined to achieve popularity by enlisting Ruffhead, Kippis, Langhorne and several other minor writers on his critical staff. In 1757 Oliver Goldsmith became one of those unfortunate hacks as a result of his well-known agreement with Griffiths to serve as an assistant-editor in exchange for his board, lodging and "an adequate salary." About a score of miscellaneous reviews from Goldsmith's pen--including critiques of Home's _Douglas_, Burke's _On the Sublime and the Beautiful_, Smollett's _History of England_ and Gray's _Odes_--appeared in the _Monthly Review_ during 1757-58. The contract with Griffiths was soon broken, probably on account of incompatibility of temper. Goldsmith declared that he had been over-worked and badly treated; but it is quite likely that his idleness and irregular habits contributed largely to the misunderstanding.

Meanwhile, a Tory rival and a champion of the Established Church had appeared on the field. A printer named Archibald Hamilton projected the _Critical Review: or, Annals of Literature. By a Society of Gentlemen_, which began to appear in February, 1756, under the editorship of Tobias Smollett and extended to a total of 144 volumes when it ceased publication in 1817. Its articles were of a high order for the time and the new review soon became popular. The open rivalry between the reviews was fostered by an exchange of editorial compliments. Griffiths published a statement that the _Monthly_ was not written by "physicians without practice, authors without learning, men without decency, gentlemen without manners, and critics without judgment." Smollett retorted that "the _Critical Review_ is not written by a parcel of obscure hirelings, under the restraint of a bookseller and his wife, who presume to revise, alter and amend the articles occasionally. The principal writers in the _Critical Review_ are unconnected with booksellers, unawed by old women, and independent of each other." Such literary encounters did not fail to stimulate public interest in both reviews and to add materially to their circulation.

When the first volume of the _Critical Review_ was complete, the "Society of Gentlemen" enriched it with an ornate, self-congratulatory Preface in which they said of themselves:

"However they may have erred in judgment, they have declared their
thoughts without prejudice, fear, or affectation; and strove to
forget the author's person, while his works fell under their
consideration. They have treated simple dulness as the object of
mirth or compassion, according to the nature of its appearance.
Petulance and self-conceit they have corrected with more severe
strictures; and though they have given no quarter to insolence,
scurrility and sedition, they will venture to affirm, that no
production of merit has been defrauded of its due share of
applause. On the contrary, they have cherished with commendation,
the very faintest bloom of genius, even when vapid and unformed, in
hopes of its being warmed into flavour, and afterwards producing
agreeable fruit by dint of proper care and culture; and never,
without reluctance disapproved, even of a bad writer, who had the
least title to indulgence. The judicious reader will perceive that
their aim has been to exhibit a succinct plan of every performance;
to point out the most striking beauties and glaring defects; to
illustrate their remarks with proper quotations; and to convey
these remarks in such a manner, as might best conduce to the
entertainment of the public."

Moreover, these high ideals were entertained under the most unfavorable circumstances. By the time the second volume was complete, the editors took pleasure in announcing that in spite of "open assault and private assassination," "published reproach and printed letters of abuse, distributed like poisoned arrows in the dark," yea, in spite of the "breath of secret calumny" and the "loud blasts of obloquy," the _Critical Review_ was more strongly entrenched than before.

There was more than mere rhodomontade in these words. Not only did open rivalry exist between the two reviews, but they were both made the subject of violent attacks by authors whose productions had been condemned on their pages. John Brine (1755), John Shebbeare (1757), Horace Walpole (1759), William Kenrick (1759), James Grainger (1759) and Joseph Reed (1759) are the earliest of the many writers who issued pamphlets in reply to articles in the reviews. In 1759 Smollett was tried at the King's Bench for aspersions upon the character of Admiral Sir Charles Knowles published in the _Critical Review_. He was declared guilty, fined L100, and sentenced to three months' imprisonment. Yet in spite of such difficulties, the _Critical Review_ continued to find favor among its readers. The articles written by its "Society of Gentlemen" were on the whole far more interesting in subject and treatment than the work of Griffiths' unfortunate hacks; but the _Monthly_ was also prospering, as in 1761 a fourth share in that review was sold for more than L755.

In 1760 appeared a curious anonymous satire entitled _The Battle of the Reviews_, which presented, upon the model of Swift's spirited account of the contest between ancient and modern learning, a fantastic description of the open warfare between the two reviews. After a formal declaration of hostilities both sides marshal their forces for the struggle. The "noble patron" of the _Monthly_ is but slightly disguised as the Right Honourable Rehoboam Gruffy, Esq. His associates Sir Imp Brazen, Mynheer Tanaquil Limmonad, Martin Problem, and others were probably recognized by contemporary readers. To oppose this array the _Critical_ summons a force that contains only two names of distinction, Sampson MacJackson and Sawney MacSmallhead (_i.e._, Smollett). The ensuing battle, which is described at great length, results in a victory for the _Critical Review_, and the banishment of Squire Gruffy to the land of the Hottentots.

Dr. Johnson's well-known characterization of the two reviews was quite just. On the occasion of his memorable interview (1767) with George III, Johnson gave the King information concerning the _Journal des Savans_ and said of the two English reviews that "the _Monthly Review_ was done with most care; the _Critical_ upon the best principles; adding that the authors of the _Monthly Review_ were enemies to the Church." Some years later Johnson said of the reviews:

"I think them very impartial: I do not know an instance of
partiality.... The Monthly Reviewers are not Deists; but they are
Christians with as little Christianity as may be; and are for
pulling down all establishments. The Critical Reviewers are for
supporting the constitution both in church and state. The Critical
Reviewers, I believe, often review without reading the books
through; but lay hold of a topick and write chiefly from their own
minds. The Monthly Reviewers are duller men and are glad to read
the books through."

Goldsmith's successor on the _Monthly_ staff was the notorious libeller and "superlative scoundrel," Dr. William Kenrick, who signalized his advent (November, 1759) by writing an outrageous attack upon Goldsmith's _Enquiry into the Present State of Polite Learning in Europe_. His utterances were so thoroughly unjustified that Griffiths, who had scant reason for praising poor Oliver, made an indirect apology for his unworthy minion by a favorable though brief review (June, 1762) of _The Citizen of the World_. During 1759 the _Critical Review_ published a number of Goldsmith's articles which probably enabled the impecunious author to effect his removal from the garret in Salisbury Square to the famous lodgings in Green Arbour Court. After March, 1760, we find no record of his association with either review, although he afterwards wrote for the _British Magazine_ and others.

During the latter half of the century several reviews appeared and flourished for a time without serious damage to their well-established rivals. The _Literary Magazine; or Universal Review_ (1756-58) is memorable for Johnson's cooeperation and a half-dozen articles by Goldsmith. Boswell tells us that Johnson wrote for the magazine until the fifteenth number and "that he never gave better proofs of the force, acuteness and vivacity of his mind, than in this miscellany, whether we consider his original essays, or his reviews of the works of others." The _London Review of English and Foreign Literature_ (1775-80) was conducted by the infamous Kenrick and others who faithfully maintained the editor's well-recognized policy of vicious onslaught and personal abuse. Paul Henry Maty, an assistant-librarian of the British Museum, conducted for five years a _New Review_ (1782-86), often called _Maty's Review_, and dealing principally with learned works. It apparently enjoyed some authority, but both Walpole and Gibbon spoke unfavorably of Maty's critical pretensions. _The English Review; or, an Abstract of English and Foreign Literature_ (1783-96), extended to twenty-eight volumes modelled upon the plan of the older periodicals. In 1796 it was incorporated with the _Analytical Review_ (1788) and survived under the latter title until 1799. The _Analytical Review_ deprecated the self-sufficient attitude of contemporary criticism and advocated extensive quotations from the works under consideration so that readers might be able to judge for themselves. It likewise hinted at the tacit understanding then existing between certain authors, publishers and reviews for their mutual advantage, but which was arousing a growing feeling of distrust on the part of the public. The _British Critic_ (1793-1843) was edited by William Beloe and Robert Nares as the organ of the High Church Party. This "dull mass of orthodoxy" concerned itself extensively with literary reviews; but its articles were best known for their lack of interest and authority. The foibles of the _British Critic_ were satirized in Bishop Copleston's _Advice to a Young Reviewer_ (1807) with an appended mock critique of Milton's _L'Allegro_. In 1826 it was united with the _Quarterly Theological Review_ and continued until 1843.

_The Anti-Jacobin Review and Magazine; or, Monthly Political and Literary Censor_ (1799-1821) played a strenuous role in the troublous times of the Napoleonic wars. It continued the policy of the _Anti-Jacobin, or Weekly Examiner_ (1797-98) conducted with such marked vigor by William Gifford, but it numbered among its contributors none of the brilliant men whose witty verses for the weekly paper are still read in the popular _Poetry of the Anti-Jacobin_. The _Review_ was conducted by John Richards Green, better known as John Gifford. Its articles were at times sensational in character, viciously abusing writers of known or suspected republican sentiments. From its pages could be culled a new series of "Beauties of the Anti-Jacobin" which for sheer vituperation and relentless abuse would be without a rival among such anthologies.

At the beginning of the nineteenth century, the principal reviews in course of publication were the _Monthly_, the _Critical_, the _British Critic_, and the _Anti-Jacobin_. The latter was preeminently vulgar in its appeal, the _Critical_ had lost its former prestige, and the other two had never risen above a level of mediocrity. There was more than a lurking suspicion that these periodicals were, to a certain extent, booksellers' organs, quite unreliable on account of the partial and biassed criticisms which they offered the dissatisfied public. The time was evidently ripe for a new departure in literary reviews--for the establishment of a trustworthy critical journal, conducted by capable editors and printing readable notices of important books. People were quite willing to have an unfortunate author assailed and flayed for their entertainment; but they did not care to be deceived by laudatory criticisms that were inspired by the publisher's name instead of the intrinsic merits of the work itself.

Such was the state of affairs when Francis Jeffrey, Henry Brougham and Sydney Smith launched the _Edinburgh Review_ in 1802, choosing a name that had been borne in 1755-56 by a short-lived semi-annual review. There were several significant facts associated with the new enterprise. It was the first important literary periodical to be published beyond the metropolis. It was the first review to appear quarterly--an interval that most contemporary journalists would have condemned as too long for a successful review. Moreover, it was conducted upon an entirely different principle than any previous review; by restricting its attention to the most important works of each quarter, it gave extensive critiques of only a few books in each number and thus avoided the multitude of perfunctory notices that had made previous reviews so dreary and unreadable.

The idea of founding the _Edinburgh Review_ was apparently suggested by Sydney Smith in March, 1802. Jeffrey and Francis Horner were his immediate associates; but during the period of preparation Henry Brougham, Dr. Thomas Brown, Dr. John Thomson and others became interested. After some delay, the first number appeared on October 10, 1802, containing among its twenty-nine articles three by Brougham, five by Horner, six by Jeffrey and nine by Smith. Although there was a slight feeling of disappointment over the mild political tone of the new review, its success was immediate. The edition of 750 copies was speedily disposed of, and within a month a second edition of equal size was printed. There was no regular editor at first, although the publication of the first three numbers was practically superintended by Smith. Afterwards Jeffrey became editor at a salary of L300. He had previously written some articles (including a critique of Southey's _Thalaba_) for the _Monthly Review_ and was pessimistic enough to anticipate an early failure for the new venture. However, at the time he assumed control (July, 1803) the circulation was 2500, and within five years it reached 8,000 or 9,000 copies. Jeffrey's articles were recognized and much admired; but the success of the _Edinburgh_ was due to its independent tone and general excellence rather than to the individual contributions of its editor. Its prosperity enabled the publishers to offer the contributors attractive remuneration for their articles, thus assuring the cooeperation of specialists and of the most capable men of letters of the day. At the outset, ten guineas per sheet were paid; later sixteen became the minimum, and the average ranged from twenty to twenty-five guineas. When we recall that the _Critical Review_ paid two, and the _Monthly Review_ sometimes four guineas per sheet, we can readily understand the distinctly higher standard of the _Edinburgh Review_.

Horner left Scotland for London in 1803 to embark upon a political career. During the next six years occasional articles from his pen--less than a score in all--appeared in the review. Smith and Brougham likewise left Edinburgh in 1803 and 1805 respectively; but they ably supported Jeffrey by sending numerous contributions for many years. During the first quarter-century of the review's existence, this trio, with the cooeperation of Sir James Mackintosh and a few others, constituted the mainstay of its success. Jeffrey's remarkable critical faculty was displayed to best advantage in the wide range of articles (two hundred in number) which he wrote during his editorship. It is true that his otherwise sound judgment was unable to grasp the significance of the new poetic movement of his day, and that his best remembered efforts are the diatribes against the Lake Poets. Hence, in the eyes of the modern literary dilettante, he figures as a misguided, domineering Zoilus whose mission in life was to heap ridicule upon the poetical efforts of Wordsworth, Coleridge and the lesser disciples of romanticism.

There are in the early volumes of the _Edinburgh_ no more conspicuous qualities than that air of vivacity and graceful wit, so thoroughly characteristic of Sydney Smith. The reader who turns to those early numbers may be disappointed in the literary quality of the average article, for he will instinctively and unfairly make comparison with more recent standards, instead of considering the immeasurably inferior conditions that had previously prevailed; but we may safely assert that the majority of Smith's articles can be read with interest to-day. He was sufficiently sedate and serious when occasion demanded; yet at all times he delighted in the display of his native and sparkling humor. Although most of his important articles have been collected, far too much of his work lies buried in that securest of literary sepulchres--the back numbers of a critical review.

Henry Brougham at first wrote the scientific articles for the _Edinburgh_. Soon his ability to deal with a wide range of subjects was recognized and he proved the most versatile of the early reviewers. In the first twenty numbers are eighty articles from his pen. A story that does not admit of verification attributes to Brougham a whole number of the _Edinburgh_, including an article on lithotomy and another on Chinese music. Later he became especially distinguished for his political articles, and remained a contributor long after Jeffrey and Smith had withdrawn. A comparatively small portion of his _Edinburgh_ articles was reprinted (1856) in three volumes.

Although the young men who guided the early fortunes of the review were Whigs, the _Edinburgh_ was not (as is generally believed) founded as a Whig organ. In fact, the political complexion of their articles was so subdued that even stalwart Tories like Walter Scott did not refrain from contributing to its pages. Scott's _Marmion_ was somewhat sharply reviewed by Jeffrey in April, 1808, and in the following October appeared the article by Jeffrey and Brougham upon Don Pedro Cevallos' _French Usurpation of Spain_. The pronounced Whiggism of that critique led to an open rupture with the Tory contributors. Scott, who was no longer on the best terms with Constable, the publisher of the _Edinburgh_, declared that henceforth he could neither receive nor read the review. He proposed to John Murray--then of Fleet Street--the founding of a Tory quarterly in London as a rival to the northern review that had thus far enjoyed undisputed possession of the field, because it afforded "the only valuable literary criticism which can be met with." Murray, who had already entertained the idea of establishing such a review, naturally welcomed the prospect of so powerful an ally. Like a good Tory, Scott felt that the "flashy and bold character of the _Edinburgh's_ politics was likely to produce an indelible impression upon the youth of the country." He ascertained that William Gifford, formerly editor of the _Anti-Jacobin_ newspaper, was willing to take charge of the new review, which Scott desired to be not exclusively nor principally political, but a "periodical work of criticism conducted with equal talent, but upon sounder principle than that which had gained so high a station in the world of letters."

In February, 1809, appeared the first number of the _Quarterly Review_. Three of its articles were by Scott, who continued to contribute for some time and whose advice was frequently sought by both editor and publisher. Canning, Ellis, and others who had written for the then defunct _Anti-Jacobin_ became interested in the _Quarterly_; but the principal contributors for many years were Robert Southey, John Wilson Croker and Sir John Barrow. This trio contributed an aggregate of almost five hundred articles to the _Quarterly_. In spite of its high standard, the new venture was a financial failure for at least the first two years; later, especially in the days of Tory triumph after the overthrow of Napoleon, the _Quarterly_ flourished beyond all expectation. Gifford's salary as editor was raised from the original L200 to L900; for many years Southey was paid L100 for each article. Gifford was distinctly an editor of the old school, with well-defined ideas of his official privilege of altering contributed articles to suit himself--a weakness that likewise afflicted Francis Jeffrey. While it appears that Gifford wrote practically nothing for the review and that the savage _Endymion_ article so persistently attributed to him was really the work of Croker, he was an excellent manager and conducted the literary affairs of the _Quarterly_ with considerable skill. His lack of system and of business qualifications, however, resulted in the frequently irregular appearance of the early numbers.

On account of his failing health, Gifford resigned the editorship of the _Quarterly_ in 1824, and was succeeded by John Taylor Coleridge, whose brief and unimportant administration served merely to fill the gap until an efficient successor for Gifford could be found. The choice fell upon Scott's son-in-law, John Gibson Lockhart, who, from 1825 to 1853, proved to be a most capable editor. The subsequent history of the review under Whitwell Elwin (1853-1860), William Macpherson (1860-1867), Sir William Smith (1867-1893), Mr. Rowland Prothero (1894-1899) and the latter's brother, Mr. George Prothero, the present editor, naturally lies beyond the purposes of this introduction.

The period of Lockhart's editorship of the _Quarterly_ was likewise the golden epoch of the _Edinburgh_. Sydney Smith's contributions ceased about 1828. In the following year Jeffrey was elected Dean of the Faculty of Advocates. He felt that the tenure of his new dignity demanded the relinquishment of the editorship of an independent literary and political review; accordingly, after editing the ninety-eighth number of the _Edinburgh_, he retired in favor of Macvey Napier, who had been a contributor since 1805. Napier conducted the review with great success from 1829 until his death in 1847. His policy was to prefer shorter articles than those printed when he assumed control. At first, each number contained from fifteen to twenty-five articles; but the growing length and importance of the political contributions had reduced the average to ten. The return to the original policy naturally resulted in a greater variety of purely literary articles.

Macaulay had begun his association with the _Edinburgh_ by his remarkable essay on _Milton_ in 1825--a bold, striking piece of criticism, full of the fire of youth, which established his literary reputation and gave a renewed impetus to the already prosperous review. During Napier's editorship he contributed his essays on _Croker's Boswell_, _Hampden_, _Burleigh_, _Horace Walpole_, _Lord Chatham_, _Bacon_, _Clive_, _Hastings_ and many others. Napier experienced some difficulty in steering a middle course for the review between Lord Brougham, who sought to use its pages to further his own political ambitions, and Macaulay, who vigorously denounced the procedure. The _Edinburgh_ was no longer conspicuous among its numerous contemporaries; but the literary quality was much higher than at first. Among the other famous contributors of this period were Carlyle, John Stuart Mill, Thackeray, Bulwer, Hallam, Sir William Hamilton and many others. This was undoubtedly the greatest period in the history of the review. Its power in Whig politics is shown by the fact that Lord Melbourne and Lord John Russell sought to make it the organ of the government.

Napier's successor in 1847 was William Empson, who had contributed to the _Edinburgh_ since 1823 and who held the editorship until his demise in 1852. Next followed Sir George Cornewall Lewis, who, however, resigned in 1855 to become Chancellor of the Exchequer in Lord Palmerston's cabinet. During his regime he wrote less than a score of articles for the review. His immediate successor was the late Henry Reeve, whose forty years of faithful service until his death in 1895 brings the review practically to our own day. When Reeve began his duties by editing No. 206 (April, 1855) Lord Brougham was the only survivor of the contributors to the original number. In 1857, when a discussion arose between editor and publisher concerning the denunciatory attitude assumed by the review toward Lord Palmerston's ministry, Reeve drew up a list of his contributors at that time, including Bishop (afterwards Archbishop) Tait, George Grote, John Forster, M. Guizot, the Duke of Argyll, Rev. Canon Moseley, George S. Venables, Richard Monckton Milnes and a score of others--most of them "names of the highest honour and the most consistent adherence to Liberal principles." Within the four decades that followed, the personnel of the review has made another almost complete change. A new group of contributors, under the editorship of Hon. Arthur R.D. Elliot, is now striving to maintain the standards of old "blue and yellow." A caustic note in the (1890) Annual Index of _Review of Reviews_ said of the _Edinburgh_:

"It has long since subsided into a respectable exponent of high and
dry Whiggery, which in these later days has undergone a further
degeneration or evolution into Unionism.... Audacity, wit,
unconventionality, enthusiasm--all these qualities have long since
evaporated, and with them has disappeared the political influence
of the _Edinburgh_."

The two great rivals which are now reaching their centenary[B] are still the most prominent, in fact the only well-known literary quarterlies of England. During their life-time many quarterlies have risen, flourished for a time and perished. The _Westminster Review_, founded 1824, by Jeremy Bentham, appeared under the editorship of Sir John Bowring and Henry Southern. As the avowed organ of the Radicals it lost no time in assailing (principally through the vigorous pens of James Mill and John Stuart Mill) both the _Edinburgh_ and the _Quarterly_. In 1836 Sir William Molesworth's recently established _London Review_ was united with the _Westminster_, and, after several changes of joint title, continued since 1851 as the _Westminster Review_. Since 1887 it has been published as a monthly of Liberal policy and "high-class philosophy." The _Dublin Review_ (London, 1836) still continues quarterly as a Roman Catholic organ; similarly the _London Quarterly Review_, a Wesleyan organ, has been published since 1853. Of the quarterlies now defunct, it will suffice to mention the dissenting _Eclectic Review_ (1805-68) owned and edited for a time by Josiah Conder; the _British Review_ (1811-25); the _Christian Remembrancer_ (1819-68), which was a monthly during its early history; the _Retrospective Review_ (1820-26, 1853-54) conducted by Henry Southern and afterwards Sir Nicholas Harris Nicolas as a critical review for old and curious books; the _English Review_ (1844-53); and the _North British Review_ (1844-71), published at Edinburgh. The impulse toward the study of continental literature during the third decade of the century gave rise to the _Foreign Quarterly Review_ (1827-46); the _Foreign Review and Continental Miscellany_ (1828-30) and the _British and Foreign Review_ (1835-44), continued as the _British Quarterly Review_ (1845-86).

A most determined effort to rival the older quarterlies resulted in the _National Review_, founded in 1855 by Walter Bagehot and Richard Holt Hutton. Its articles were exhaustive, well-written and thoroughly characteristic of their class. In addition to the excellent work of both editors, there were contributions by James Martineau, Matthew Arnold, and Hutton's brother-in-law, William Caldwell Roscoe. Yet, in spite of the high standards maintained until the end, the _National_ ceased publication in 1864. The many failures in this class of periodicals seem to indicate quite clearly that the spirit of the age no longer favors a quarterly. For our energetic and progressive era such an interval is too long. The confirmed admirer of the elaborate essays of the _Edinburgh_ and the _Quarterly_ will continue to welcome their bulky numbers; but the average reader is strongly prejudiced in favor of the more frequent, more attractive and more thoroughly entertaining monthlies.

It is one of the curiosities in the history of periodical literature that no popular monthly developed during the first half of the nineteenth century: the great quarterlies apparently usurped the entire field. We have already seen that the _Critical Review_ came to an end in 1817 whilst the _Monthly_ continued until 1843. In both cases, however, the publication amounted to little more than a sheer struggle for existence. The _Monthly's_ attempt to imitate in a smaller way the plan of the quarterlies proved an unqualified failure. Neither of the two periodicals established at the beginning of the century ever achieved a position of critical authority. The _Christian Observer_, started (1802) by Josiah Pratt and conducted by Zachary Macaulay until 1816, was devoted mainly to the abolition of the slave-trade. Its subsequent history until its demise in 1877 is confined almost wholly to the theological pale. The second periodical was the _Monthly Repository of Theology and General Literature_ (1806-37), which achieved some literary prominence for a time under the editorship of W.J. Fox. During the last two years of its existence, Richard Hengist Horne and Leigh Hunt became its successive editors, but failed to avert the final collapse.

It would be useless to enumerate the many short-lived attempts, such as the _Monthly Censor_ (1822) and Longman's _Monthly Chronicle_ (1838-41) that were made to provide a successful monthly review. The first of the modern literary monthlies was the _Fortnightly Review_, established in 1865, evidently upon the model of _Revue des Deux Mondes_, which had been published at Paris since 1831. Like the great French periodical, it was issued fortnightly (at first) and printed signed articles. It was Liberal in politics, agnostic in religion and abreast of the times in science. The publishers, Messrs. Chapman and Hall, secured an experienced editor in George Henry Lewes, who had contributed extensively to most of the reviews then in progress. The success of the new review was assured by the presence of such names as Walter Bagehot, George Eliot, Sir John Herschel, Mr. Frederic Harrison and Herbert Spencer on its list of contributors. It provided articles of timely interest in politics, literature, art and science; in its early volumes appeared serially Anthony Trollope's _Belton Estate_ and Mr. George Meredith's _Vittoria_.

Lewes edited the first six volumes, covering the years 1865-66. The review was then made a monthly without, however, changing its now inappropriate name, and the editorship was accepted by Mr. John Morley, who conducted the _Fortnightly_ with great success for sixteen years. Most of the earlier contributors were retained; others like Mr. Swinburne, J.A. Symonds, Professor Edward Dowden and (Sir) Leslie Stephen established a standard of literary criticism that was practically unrivalled. The authority of its scientific and political writers was equally high; as for serial fiction, Mr. Morley published Mr. Meredith's _Beauchamp's Career_ and _The Tragic Comedians_, besides less important novels by Trollope and others. More recently the publication of fiction has been exceptional. The (1890) _Review of Reviews_ Index said of the _Fortnightly_:

"While disclaiming 'party' or 'editorial consistency,' and
proclaiming that its pages were open to all views, the
_Fortnightly_ seldom included the orthodox among its contributors.
The articles which startled people and made small earthquakes
beneath the crust of conventional orthodoxy, political and
religious, usually appeared in the _Fortnightly_. It was here that
Professor Huxley seemed to foreshadow the expulsion of the
spiritual from the world, by his paper on 'The Physical Basis of
Life,' and that Professor Tyndall propounded his famous suggestion
for the establishment of a prayerless union or hospital as a
scientific method for testing the therapeutic value of prayer. Mr.
Frederic Harrison chanted in its pages the praises of the Commune,
and prepared the old ladies of both sexes for the imminent advent
of an English Terror by his plea for Trade Unionism. It was in the
_Fortnightly_ also that Mr. Chamberlain was introduced to the
world, when he was permitted to explain his proposals for Free
Labour, Free Land, Free Education, and Free Church. Mr. Morley's
papers on the heroes and saints (Heaven save the mark!) of the
French Revolution appeared here, and every month in an editorial
survey he summed up the leading features of the progress of the
world."

Since Mr. Morley's retirement in 1883, the editors of the _Fortnightly_ have been Mr. T.H.S. Escott (1883-86), Mr. Frank Harris (1886-94) and the present incumbent, Mr. W.L. Courtney.

The _Fortnightly_ was not long permitted to enjoy undisputed possession of the field. In 1866, while it was still published semi-monthly, the _Contemporary Review_ was launched. Alexander Strahan, the publisher, selected Dean Alford as its editor in order to assure a more reserved tone than that of its popular predecessor. Although Liberal in politics, like the _Fortnightly_, it assumed a very different and apparently corrective attitude in religious matters. Most of its articles for many years were upon theological subjects and were written by scholars comparatively unknown to the public. The gradual change in policy furthered by its later editors, especially Mr. James Knowles and Mr. Percy Bunting has brought the _Contemporary_ nearer to the general type of popular monthlies. Its principles seem to tend toward "broad evangelical, semi-socialistic Liberalism."

In 1877 Mr. Knowles found it impossible to conduct the _Contemporary_ any longer in the independent manner that seemed essential to him; accordingly, he withdrew and established the _Nineteenth Century_, which in deference to the new era and a desire to be abreast of the times, recently adopted the somewhat awkward title of the _Nineteenth Century and After_. Like the _Fortnightly_, it presented a brilliant array of names from the first. The initial number contained a Prefatory Sonnet by Tennyson, and articles by Gladstone, Matthew Arnold, Cardinal Manning, and the Dean of Gloucester and Bristol. It is sufficient to state that this standard has since been maintained by Mr. Knowles and has made his _Nineteenth Century and After_ the most popular of the monthlies.

The _National Review_ (not to be confounded with Bagehot and Hutton's quarterly of that name), is the youngest and least important of the monthly reviews. It was established in 1883 as a Conservative organ under the editorship of Mr. Alfred Austin and Professor W.J. Courthope. Well-known writers have contributed to its pages, yet it has never assumed a place of first importance in the periodical world. Its present editor is Mr. Louis J. Maxse.

It is well to bear in mind that these reviews all seek to discuss the most important subjects of contemporary interest, and to secure the services of writers best qualified to treat those subjects. In the narrow sense of the term, they are not literary reviews; the function of periodicals that discuss present day politics, sociology, theology, history, science, art and numerous other generic subjects is more inclusive and appeals to a much larger audience than the periodical of literary criticism. In the quarterlies and monthlies we look for the most authoritative reviews of the important books of the day; but for general literary review and gossip, a new class of monthlies, best represented by Dr. Robertson Nicoll's _Bookman_ (1891) and the American _Bookman_ (1895) and _The Critic_ (1881) has appeared. These fill a gap between the more substantial monthlies and the very popular weekly papers.

The last-mentioned class was practically developed during the nineteenth century. The frequency of publication forbade a strict devotion to the cause of _belles-lettres_; hence, in most cases, politics or music and art were included in the scheme. At first literature was granted meagre space in newspapers of the _Weekly Register_ and _Examiner_ type. William Cobbett, profiting by his previous experience with _Porcupine's Gazette_ and the _Porcupine_, began his _Weekly Political Register_ in 1802 and continued its publication until his death in 1835. It was so thoroughly political in character that it hardly merits recognition as a literary periodical. The _Examiner_, begun in 1808 by John Hunt, enjoyed during the thirteen years of his brother Leigh's cooeperation a wide reputation for the excellence of its political and literary criticism. Under Albany Fonblanque, John Forster and William Minto it continued with varying success until 1880.

The first truly literary weekly review was the _Literary Gazette_, established in 1817 by Henry Colburn, of the _New Monthly Magazine_, under the joint editorship of Mr. H.E. Lloyd and Miss Ross. After the first half-year of its existence, Colburn sold a third share to the Messrs. Longman and another third to William Jerdan, who became sole editor and eventually (1842) sole proprietor. The original price of a shilling was soon reduced to eight pence. Jerdan set the prototype for later literary weeklies in his plan, which embraced "foreign and domestic correspondence, critical analyses of new publications, varieties connected with polite literature, philosophical researches, scientific inventions, sketches of society, biographical memoirs, essays on fine arts, and miscellaneous articles on drama, music and literary intelligence." Thus Jerdan followed his friend Canning's advice by avoiding "politics and polemics" and by aiming to present "a clear and instructive picture of the moral and literary improvement of the times, and a complete and authentic chronological literary record for general reference." He secured the services of Crabbe, Barry Cornwall, Maginn, Campbell, Mrs. Hemans and others: with such an array of contributors he was able to crush the several rival weeklies that soon entered the field.

Toward the end of its prosperous first decade, however, the misfortunes of the _Literary Gazette_ began. Colburn's publications had been roughly handled in its pages and he accordingly aided James Silk Buckingham in founding the _Athenaeum_. The first number appeared on January 2, 1828, as an evident rival of the older weekly. For a time the new venture was on the verge of failure and the proprietors actually offered to sell it to Jerdan. Within half a year Buckingham was succeeded by John Sterling as editor. Frederic Denison Maurice's friends purchased the _Literary Chronicle and Weekly Review_ (begun 1819) and merged it with the _Athenaeum_ in July, 1828. For a year Sterling and Maurice contributed some of the most brilliant critical articles that have appeared in its pages. The working editor at that time was Henry Stebbing who had been associated with the _Athenaeum_ since its inception and who was the only survivor[C] of the original staff when the semi-centennial number was published on January 5, 1878.

Even the high standards set by Maurice and Sterling failed to win public favor. The crisis came about the middle of 1830 when Charles Wentworth Dilke became "supreme editor," enlisted Lamb, George Darley, Barry Cornwall and others on his staff, and reduced the price of the _Athenaeum_ from eightpence to fourpence. The apparent folly of reducing the price and increasing the expenses did not lead to the generally prophesied collapse; this first experiment in modern methods resulted in the rapid growth of the _Athenaeum's_ circulation, to the serious detriment of the _Literary Gazette_. Jerdan tried to stem the tide by publishing lampoons on the dullness of Dilke's paper; but when the _Athenaeum_ was enlarged in 1835 from sixteen to twenty-four pages Dilke's triumph was evident. The _Literary Gazette_ was compelled to reduce its price to fourpence in its effort to regain the lost subscriptions. Dilke labored earnestly to improve his paper and when, in 1846, he felt that it was established on a firm basis, he made Thomas Kibble Hervey editor and devoted his own time to furthering his journalistic enterprises. However, he continued to contribute to the weekly; his valuable articles on Junius and Pope together with several others were afterwards reprinted as _Papers of a Critic_.

Jerdan withdrew from the _Literary Gazette_ in 1850. The hopeless struggle with the _Athenaeum_, involving a third reduction in price to threepence, lasted until 1862, when the _Gazette_ was incorporated with the _Parthenon_ and came to an end during the following year. Hervey edited the _Athenaeum_ until 1853 when ill-health necessitated his resignation. The later editors include William Hepworth Dixon, Norman MacColl and at present Mr. Vernon Rendall. After the withdrawal of Dixon in 1869 a reformation in the staff and management of the _Athenaeum_ took place.