Project Gutenberg's Early Reviews of English Poets, by John Louis Haney

This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere at no cost and with
almost no restrictions whatsoever.  You may copy it, give it away or
re-use it under the terms of the Project Gutenberg License included
with this eBook or online at www.gutenberg.org


Title: Early Reviews of English Poets

Author: John Louis Haney

Release Date: July 6, 2006 [EBook #18766]

Language: English

Character set encoding: ISO-8859-1

*** START OF THIS PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK EARLY REVIEWS OF ENGLISH POETS ***




Produced by David Starner, Taavi Kalju and the Online
Distributed Proofreading Team at http://www.pgdp.net










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 (_Athenĉum_)                             151
           Poems, 1833 (_Quarterly Review_)                   152
           The Princess (_Literary Gazette_)                  176
BROWNING   Paracelsus (_Athenĉum_)                            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 Sçavans_ 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
République 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 Sçavans_. 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 Bibliothèque;
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
_Bibliothèque Angloise_ (1717-27), continued by his _Memoires
Littéraires 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 _Bibliothèque Choisée_
(1703-14) and his _Bibliothèque 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 £100, 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 £755.

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 coöperation 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 rôle 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 preëminently 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 £300. 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 coöperation 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
coöperation 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 £200 to £900;
for many years Southey was paid £100 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 régime 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 coöperation 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 _Athenĉum_. 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
_Athenĉum_ 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 _Athenĉum_ 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
_Athenĉum_ 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 _Athenĉum'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
_Athenĉum_ 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 _Athenĉum_, 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 _Athenĉum_ 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 _Athenĉum_ took
place.

     "Some old writers were parted with, and a great many fresh
     contributors were found. While special departments, such as
     science, art, music and the drama, were of necessity entrusted to
     regular hands, indeed, the reviewing of books, now more than ever
     the principal business of 'The Athenĉum,' was distributed over a
     very large staff, the plan being to assign each work to a writer
     familiar with its subject and competent to deal with it
     intelligently, but rigidly to exclude personal favouritism or
     prejudice, and to secure as much impartiality as possible. The rule
     of anonymity has been more carefully observed in 'The Athenĉum'
     than in most other papers. Its authority as a literary censor is
     not lessened, however, and is in some respects increased, by the
     fact that the paper itself, and not any particular critic of great
     or small account, is responsible for the verdicts passed in its
     columns." (Fox Bourne.)

Half a year after the inception of the _Athenĉum_, the first number of
the _Spectator_ was issued (July 6, 1828) by Robert Stephen Rintoul, an
experienced journalist who had launched the ill-fated semi-political
_Atlas_ two years before and therefore decided to confine his new
venture to literary and social topics. The political excitement of the
time soon aroused Rintoul's interest, and he undertook the advocacy of
the Reform Bill with all possible ardor. From him emanated the famous
battle-cry: "The Bill, the whole Bill, and nothing but the Bill." He
conducted the _Spectator_ with great skill until 1858, when he sold it
two months before his death. Although he wrote little for its pages,
Rintoul made the _Spectator_ a power in furthering all reforms. The
literary standard, while somewhat obscured for a time by its politics,
was high. In 1861 the _Spectator_ passed into the hands of Mr. Meredith
Townsend who sold a half share to the late Richard Holt Hutton with the
understanding that they should act as political and literary editors
respectively. During the four years of the American Civil War, the
_Spectator_ espoused the cause of the North and was consequently
unpopular; but the outcome turned the sentiment in England and likewise
the fortunes of the _Spectator_. Hutton's contributions included his
most memorable utterances upon theological and literary subjects. In the
midst of religious controversy he was able to discuss delicate questions
without giving offense, to enlist all parties by refraining from
expressed allegiance to one. The _Spectator_ of Hutton's day was, in
Mrs. Oliphant's opinion, "specially distinguished by the thoughtful tone
of its writing, the almost Quixotic fairness of its judgments, and the
profoundly religious spirit which pervades its more serious articles."
Hutton retired shortly before his death in 1897. The present editor is
Mr. J. St. Loe Strachey.

The _Saturday Review_ was established in November, 1855, by A.J.
Beresford Hope. Its first editor was John Douglass Cook, who had indexed
the early volumes of the _Quarterly_ for Murray and had gained his
journalistic experience with the _Times_ and the _Morning Chronicle_.
Though possessed of no great personal ability, Cook had the useful
editorial faculty of recognizing talent, and consequently gathered about
himself the most promising writers of the younger generation, including,
among others, Robert Talbot Cecil, the late Lord Salisbury. The
_Saturday Review_ at once became the most influential and most energetic
of the weekly papers. Its politics, independent at first, later assumed
a pronounced Conservative complexion. Cook remained editor until his
death (1868) when he was succeeded by his assistant, Philip Harwood.
Since the latter's retirement in 1883 the more recent editors include
Mr. Walter H. Pollock, Mr. Frank Harris and the present incumbent, Mr.
Harold Hodge. Professor Saintsbury wrote of the _Saturday Review_:

     "Its staff was, as a rule, recruited from the two Universities
     (though there was no kind of exclusion for the unmatriculated; as a
     matter of fact, neither of its first two editors was a son either
     of Oxford or Cambridge), and it always insisted on the necessity of
     classical culture.... It observed, for perhaps a longer time than
     any other paper, the salutary principles of anonymity (real as well
     as ostensible) in regard to the authorship of particular articles;
     and those who knew were constantly amused at the public mistakes on
     this subject."

Such "salutary principles of anonymity" were not observed by the
_Academy, a Monthly Record of Literature, Learning, Science and Art_,
which began to appear in October, 1869, and was published for a short
time by John Murray. Its founder, Dr. Charles E. Appleton, edited the
_Academy_ until his death in 1879. All the leading articles bore the
authors' signatures, and, following the example of the more ambitious
monthlies, Dr. Appleton secured the best known writers as contributors.
The first number opened with an interesting unpublished letter of Lord
Byron's; its literary articles were by Matthew Arnold, Gustave Masson
and Mr. Sidney Colvin, theology was represented by the Rev. T.K. Cheyne
and J.B. Lightfoot (later Bishop of Durham), science by Thomas Huxley
and Sir John Lubbock (now Lord Avebury), and classical learning by Mark
Pattison and John Conington. This remarkable array of names did not
diminish in subsequent numbers. Besides those mentioned Mr. W.M.
Rossetti, Max Müller, G. Maspero, J.A. Symonds, F.T. Palgrave and others
contributed to the first volume. Later such names as William Morris,
John Tyndall, Dante Gabriel Rossetti, Walter Pater and Robert Louis
Stevenson appeared in its pages.

In spite of its brilliant program, the size of the _Academy_, even at
its price of sixpence, was too slight to rank as a monthly. After four
years' experience, first as a monthly, then as a fortnightly, it became
and has remained a weekly. The editorial succession since the death of
Dr. Appleton has been C.E. Doble (1879-81); Mr. James Sutherland Cotton
(1881-96); Mr. C. Lewis Hind (1896-1903); and Mr. W. Teignmouth Shore.
The issue of November 7, 1896, announced Mr. Cotton's retirement and the
inauguration of a new policy, which, in addition to technical
improvements, promised the issue of occasional supplements of a purely
academic and educational character, and the beginning of the series of
_Academy Portraits_ of men of letters. At the same time the publication
of signed articles was abolished and the _Academy_ remained anonymous
until the recent editorial change. A new departure in October, 1898,
made the _Academy_ an illustrated paper--the most attractive though not
the most authoritative of the weeklies. It has departed widely from the
set traditions of Dr. Appleton, but most readers will agree that the
departure has been justified by the needs of the hour. There is small
satisfaction in reading a one-page review from the pen of an Arnold or a
Pater; we feel that such authorities should express themselves at length
in the pages of the literary monthlies; that the reader of the weekly
should be content with the anonymous (and less expensive) review written
by the staff-critic. Whatever the personal bias, it is at least certain
that under present conditions the _Academy_ appeals more generally to
the popular taste. Its recent absorption of a younger periodical is
indicated in the compounding of its title into the _Academy and
Literature_--a change that does not commend itself on abstract grounds
of literary fitness and tradition.

A consideration of periodicals of the _Tatler_, _Spectator_ and
_Rambler_ class evidently lies beyond our present purpose; though
Addison's papers on _Paradise Lost_ and similar articles show an
occasional critical intent. The magazines, however, have in various
instances shown such an extensive interest in matters literary that a
brief account of their development will not be amiss. The primary
distinction between the review and the magazine is well understood; the
former criticizes, the latter entertains. Hence fiction, poetry and
essays are better adapted than book-reviews to the needs of the literary
magazine. As already stated, Peter Motteux's _Gentleman's Journal_
(1692-94) probably deserves recognition as the first English magazine,
though its brief career is forgotten in the honor accorded to the
_Gentleman's Magazine_, established in 1731 by Edward Cave and which,
still under the editorship of "Sylvanus Urban, Gentleman," is now
approaching its three hundredth volume. In the early days its lists of
births, deaths, marriages, bankrupts, events, etc., must have made it a
useful summary for the public. In literature it printed merely a
"Register of New Books" without comment of any sort. It is exasperating
to find such books as _Pamela_ or _Tom Jones_ listed among "New
Publications" without a word of criticism or commendation. We could
spare whole reams of pages devoted to "Army Promotions" and "Monthly
Chronicle" for a few lines of literary review.

Although the booksellers refused to aid Cave in establishing his
magazine, the demonstration of its success brought forth numerous
rivals. As they all followed Cave's precedent in ignoring literary
criticism, it will suffice to mention merely the names of the _London
Magazine_ (1732-79); the _Scots Magazine_ (1739-1817), continued as the
_Edinburgh Magazine_ until 1826; the _Universal Magazine_ (1743-1815);
the _British Magazine_ (1746-50); the _Royal Magazine_ (1759-71); and
finally the _British Magazine, or Monthly Repository for Gentlemen and
Ladies_ (1760-67) edited by Tobias Smollett, who published his _Sir
Launcelot Greaves_ in its pages--perhaps the first instance of the
serial publication of fiction. Goldsmith wrote some of his most
interesting essays for Smollett's magazine.

An important addition to the ranks was the _Monthly Magazine_ begun in
1796 by Sir Richard Phillips under the editorship of John Aikin. The
principal contributor was William Taylor of Norwich who, during a period
of thirty years, supplied to the _Monthly Magazine_ and other
periodicals a series of 1,750 articles of remarkable quality. His
contributions gave the Magazine standing as a literary review. Hazlitt
accorded to Taylor the honor of writing the first reviews in the style
afterwards adopted by the Edinburgh Reviewers, which established their
reputations as original and impartial critics. He is remembered to-day
as the author of an unread _Historic Survey of German Poetry_ which was
vigorously assailed by Carlyle in the _Edinburgh Review_. The _New
Monthly Magazine_ was started in 1814 by Henry Colburn and Frederick
Shoberl in opposition to Phillips' magazine. Its first editors were Dr.
Watkins and Alaric A. Watts. At a later time Campbell, Bulwer, Theodore
Hook and Harrison Ainsworth successively assumed charge. Under such
capable direction the magazine naturally won a prominent place among the
periodicals of the day. During its later years the _New Monthly_ was
obscured by more ambitious ventures and came to an inglorious end in
1875--thirty-two years after the suspension of Phillips' _Monthly
Magazine_.

A most significant event in the history of the magazine was the founding
of the _Edinburgh Monthly Magazine_ in April, 1817, by William
Blackwood. The new magazine was projected to counteract the influence
of the _Edinburgh Review_, but under its first editors, James Cleghorn
and Thomas Pringle, it failed to win favor. After six numbers were
issued, a final disagreement between Blackwood and the editors resulted
in the withdrawal of the latter. The name of the monthly was changed to
_Blackwood's Edinburgh Magazine_--popularly _Blackwood's_ or "Maga"--and
henceforth until his death Blackwood was his own editor. John Wilson
(Christopher North) and John Gibson Lockhart, the most important of the
early contributors to _Blackwood's_, published in that famous seventh
number the clever _Chaldee Manuscript_--an audacious satire upon the
original editors, the rival publisher Constable, the _Edinburgh Review_
and various literary personages under a thinly veiled allegory in
apocalyptic style. It at once attracted wide attention (including a
costly action for libel within a fortnight) and was suppressed in the
second impression of the number. The same number of _Blackwood's_ set
the precedent for the subsequent critical vituperation that made the
magazine notorious. It contained an abusive article on Coleridge's
_Biographia Literaria_ and the first of a series of virulent attacks on
"The Cockney School of Poetry." Much of the literary criticism in the
first few volumes is inexcusably brutal; fortunately, _Blackwood's_ soon
became less rampant in its critical outbursts. The coöperation of James
Hogg and the ill-fated Maginn introduced new articles of varied
interest, particularly the witty letters and the parodies of "Ensign
O'Doherty." Wilson's _Noctes Ambrosianĉ_ became a characteristic feature
of _Blackwood's_; John Galt and Susan Ferrier won popularity among the
novel readers of the day; and in the trenchant literary criticism of
Lockhart, Wilson, Hogg and their confrères an equally high standard was
maintained.

After the death of the elder Blackwood in 1834, the management of the
magazine passed to his sons successively. John Blackwood, the sixth son,
enjoyed the distinction of "discovering" George Eliot and beginning, by
the publication of her _Scenes of Clerical Life_ in 1857, a relationship
that was both pleasant and profitable to the firm. A few years earlier
appeared the first contributions of another remarkable literary
woman--Mrs. Margaret Oliphant, whose association with _Blackwood's_
lasted over forty years. Her history of the house of Blackwood was
published in the year of her death (1897).

_Blackwood's_ is still a strong conservative organ. The already quoted
Index of the _Review of Reviews_ says of it: "With a rare consistency it
has contrived to appear for over three score years and ten as a spirited
and defiant advocate of all those who are at least five years behind
their time. Sometimes _Blackwood_ is fifty years in the rear, but that
is a detail of circumstance. Five or fifty, it does not matter, so long
as it is well in the rear." Such gentle sarcasm merely emphasizes the
fact that _Blackwood's_ has always aimed to be more than a magazine of
_belles-lettres_. The publishers celebrated the appearance of the one
thousandth number in February, 1899, by almost doubling its size to a
volume of three hundred pages, including a latter-day addition to the
_Noctes Ambrosianĉ_ and other features.

An important though short-lived venture was the _London Magazine_, begun
in January, 1820, under the editorship of John Scott. By its editorial
assaults upon the _Blackwood_ criticisms of the "Cockney School," it
became the recognized champion of that loosely defined coterie. The
initial attack in the May number was further emphasized by more vigorous
articles in November and December of 1820, and January, 1821. Lockhart,
who was the recipient of the worst abuse, demanded of Scott an apology
or a hostile meeting. The outcome of the controversy was a duel on
February 16th between Scott and Lockhart's intimate friend, Jonathan
Henry Christie. Scott was mortally wounded, and died within a fortnight;
the verdict of wilful murder brought against Christie and his second at
the inquest resulted in their trial and acquittal at the old Bailey two
months later. It would have been well for the _London Magazine_ and for
literature in general if that unfortunate duel could have been prevented
or at least diverted into such a ludicrous affair as the meeting between
Jeffrey and Tom Moore in 1806.

The most famous contributions to the _London Magazine_ during Scott's
régime were Lamb's _Essays of Elia_. Those charming productions, now
ranked among our dearly treasured classics, were not received at first
with universal approbation. The long and justly forgotten Alaric A.
Watts said of them: "Charles Lamb delivers himself with infinite pain
and labour of a silly piece of trifling, every month, in this Magazine,
under the signature of Elia. It is the curse of the Cockney School that,
with all their desire to appear exceedingly off-hand and ready with all
they have to say, they are constrained to elaborate every sentence, as
though the web were woven from their own bowels. Charles Lamb says he
can make no way in an article under at least a week." In July, 1821, the
_London Magazine_ was purchased by Taylor and Hessey. Although Thomas
Hood was made working-editor, the _Blackwood_ idea of retaining
editorial supervision in the firm was followed. Within a few months De
Quincey contributed his _Confessions of an English Opium-Eater_--the
most famous of all the articles that appeared in the magazine. Lamb[D]
and De Quincey continued to write for the magazine for several years.
Other contributors, especially of literary criticism, were Barry
Cornwall, Carlyle, Hazlitt, Henry Cary and, toward the end, Walter
Savage Landor. The magazine became less conspicuous after 1824 and
dragged out an obscure existence until 1829; but it is probable that no
other periodical achieved the standard of purely literary excellence
represented by the _London Magazine_ during the first five years of its
existence.

In February, 1830, James Fraser published the first number of _Fraser's
Magazine for Town and Country_. The magazine was not named after the
publisher but after its sponsor, Hugh Fraser, a "briefless barrister"
and man about town. The latter enlisted the aid of Maginn who had
severed his connection with _Blackwood's_ in 1828. In general,
_Fraser's_ was modelled upon _Blackwood's_; but a unique and popular
feature was the publication of the "Gallery of Illustrious Literary
Characters" between 1830-38. This famous series of eighty-one caricature
portraits chiefly by Daniel Maclise, with letter-press by Maginn, has
been made accessible to present-day readers in William Bates' _Maclise
Portrait Gallery_ (1883) where much illustrative material has been added
to the original articles. It is evident that the literary standard of
_Fraser's_ soon equalled and possibly surpassed that of _Blackwood's_.
Among its writers were Carlyle (who contributed a critique to the first
number, published _Sartor Resartus_ in its pages, 1833-35, and, as late
as 1875, his _Early Kings of Norway_), Thackeray, Father Prout and
Thomas Love Peacock. Maclise's plate of "The Fraserians" also includes
Allan Cunningham, Theodore Hook, William Jerdan, Lockhart, Hogg,
Coleridge, Southey and several others. It is unlikely that all of them
wrote much for _Fraser's_; but the staff was undoubtedly a brilliant
assemblage. James Anthony Froude became editor in 1860 and was assisted
for a time by Charles Kingsley and Sir Theodore Martin. He was succeeded
by his sub-editor, William Allingham, during whose administration
(1874-79) the fortunes of _Fraser's_ suffered a decline. The gradual
failure was due to the competition of the new shilling magazines rather
than to incompetence on the part of the editor. The end came in October,
1882, when _Fraser's_ was succeeded by _Longman's Magazine_ which is
still in progress.

The magazines established soon after _Fraser's_ followed for the most
part a policy that demands for them mere passing mention in the present
connection. Literary criticism and reviews were largely abandoned in
favor of lighter and more entertaining material. The _Dublin University
Magazine_ (1833-80) and _Tait's Edinburgh Magazine_ (1832-61) best
represent the transitional stage. During its early history, the latter
employed prominent contributors, who gave it an important position. Such
magazines as the _Metropolitan_ (1831-50) and _Bentley's Miscellany_
(1837-68) set the standards for similar periodicals since that time.
Charles Dickens' experience with _Bentley's_ led to the publication of
his weeklies, _Household Words_ (1850 to date) and _All the Year Round_
(1859), which was incorporated in 1895 with the former. _Macmillan's
Magazine_, first of the popular shilling monthlies, began in 1859 and
was soon followed by Thackeray's _Cornhill Magazine_ (1860) and _Temple
Bar_ (1860). All of these magazines are still in progress. The
occasional publication of an article by a literary critic hardly
justifies their inclusion within the category of critical reviews, as
their essential purpose is to instruct and entertain, rather than to sit
in judgment upon contemporary letters.

There are in course of publication to-day numerous literary periodicals
of varying scope and importance that have not even been mentioned by
title in our hasty survey. Enough has been said, however, to give some
idea of the magnitude of the field, and to show that most of the great
names of modern English literature have been more or less closely
associated with the history of the literary reviews. Those reviews have
usually sought to foster all that is highest and best in our
intellectual development; and although English literary criticism has
been, on the whole, less convincing, less brilliant and less
authoritative than that of France, it has during the past century set a
fairly high standard of excellence. It seems difficult to understand why
the literary conditions in England, instead of developing critics like
Sainte-Beuve, Gaston Paris, Brunetière and others whose utterances
redound to the lasting glory of French criticism, should be steadily
tending toward a lower and less influential level. Mr. Churton Collins
in his pessimistic discussion of "The Present Functions of Criticism"
deplores the spirit of tolerance and charity manifested toward the
mediocre productions of contemporary writers; he attributes the
degradation of criticism to the lack of critical standards and
principles, and indirectly to the neglect of the study of literature at
the English Universities. The plea for an English Academy has been made
at different times and with different ends in view, but under modern
conditions such an institution would hardly solve the problem. Mr.
Collins shows how the intellectual aristocracy of the past has been
superseded by the present omnivorous reading-public afflicted with a
perpetual craving for literary novelty. The inevitable rapidity of
production results in a deluge of poor books which are foisted upon
readers by a "detestable system of mutual puffery." This condition of
affairs naturally offers few opportunities for the development of
critical ideals; but it hardly applies to the incorruptible reviews of
recognized standing. The reasons for the lack of authority in modern
English criticism are more deeply grounded in an inherent objection to
the restraint imposed upon an artist by artificial canons of taste, and
in a well-founded impression that many of the greatest literary
achievements evince a violation of such canons.

It is not to be inferred that criticism is thereby disdained and
disregarded. The critical dicta of a Dryden or a Johnson, a Coleridge or
a Hazlitt, and, more recently, an Arnold or a Pater, are valued and
studied because they emphasize the vital elements essential to the
proper appreciation of a literary product; and, moreover, because such
critics, in transcending the limitations of their kind, establish higher
and juster standards for the criticism of the future. On the other hand,
the great majority of critical utterances must necessarily be ephemeral;
they may exert considerable contemporary influence, but are usually
forgotten long before the works that called them forth. Unless this
criticism is more than a perfunctory examination of the merits and
defects of the work under consideration, it cannot endure beyond its own
brief day.

Several fruitless attempts have been made to reduce criticism to an
exact science, which, quite disregarding the factor of personal taste,
could refer all literature to a more or less fixed and arbitrary set of
critical principles. The champions of this objective criticism point to
the occasionally ludicrous divergence of the views expressed in
criticism of certain poets or novelists, and insist that there is no
occasion for such a bewildering difference of opinion. They seem to
forget that the criticism which we esteem most highly at all times is
the subjective criticism in which the personality of a competent and
sincere critic is manifest. Literature, like music, painting and the
other arts, has its own laws of technique--fundamental canons that must
be observed in the successful pursuit of the art; but at a certain point
difference of opinion is not only possible but profitable. The critics
who would unite in condemning a thirteen-line sonnet or a ten-act
tragedy could not be expected to agree on the relative merits of
Milton's and Wordsworth's sonnets. Unanimity of opinion is as impossible
and undesirable concerning the poetic achievement of Browning and
Whitman as it is concerning the music of Brahms and Wagner, or the
painting of Turner and Whistler. Great artists who have taken liberties
with traditions and precedents have done much to prevent the critics
from falling into a state of self-complacency over their scientific
methods and formulas.

The most helpful form of criticism is the interpretative variety, not
necessarily the laudatory "appreciation" that is so popular in our day,
but an honest effort to understand and elucidate the intention of the
writer. The proper exercise of this art occasionally demands rare
qualifications on the part of the critic; at the same time it adds
dignity to his calling and value to his utterance. It serves to dispel
the popular conception of a critic as a disappointed _litterateur_ who
begrudges his more brilliant fellow craftsmen their success and who dogs
their triumphs with his ill-tempered snarling. Interpretative criticism
needs few rules and no system; yet it serves a noble purpose as a guide
and monitor for subsequent literary effort.

The question of anonymous criticism has occasioned much thoughtful
discussion. In former times anonymity was often a shield for the
slanderer who saw fit to abuse and assail his victim with the rancorous
outburst of his malice; but it is also clear that the earlier reviewers
were mere literary hacks whose names would have given no weight to the
critique and hence could be omitted without much loss. The authorship of
important _Edinburgh_ and _Quarterly_[E] articles in the days of their
greatness was usually an open secret. Later periodicals, like the
_Fortnightly_ and the _Academy_ found it a profitable advertisement to
publish the signatures of their eminent critics. The tendency of the
present day is largely in favor of anonymity; no longer as a cover for
the dispensation of malicious vituperation, but as a necessary
safe-guard for the unbiased and untrammeled exercise of the critical
function. Certain abuses of the privilege are inevitable. Mr. Sidney
Colvin in looking over the criticisms of Mr. Stephen Phillips' poetry
recently discovered in three periodicals convincing parallels that led
Mr. Arthur Symons to confess to the authorship of all three critiques.
The average reader would in most cases be strongly influenced by the
united verdict of the critics of the _Saturday Review_, the _Athenĉum_
and the _Quarterly Review_; in this instance his convictions would
undoubtedly be rudely shattered when he learned the truth. Under such
conditions anonymous criticism is a menace, not an aid to the reader's
judgment.

In conclusion, it must be borne in mind that criticism is not an end but
a means to an end. All the literary criticism ever uttered would be
useless as such if it did not evince a desire to further the development
of literary art. The _Iliad_ and the _Oedipus_ were written long
before Aristotle's _Poetics_, and it is not likely that either Homer or
Sophocles would have been a greater poet if he could have read the
Stagirite's treatise. Yet the _Poetics_, as a summary of the essential
features of that art, served an important purpose in later ages and
exerted far-reaching influences. Criticism in all ages has necessarily
been of less importance than art itself--it guides and suggests, but
cannot create. Literary history shows that true criticism must be in
conformity with the spirit of the age; it cannot oppose the trend of
intelligent opinion. It may praise, censure, advise, interpret--but it
will always remain subservient to the art that called it forth. There is
no reason to believe that criticism can ever be established in the
English-speaking world upon a basis that will subject to an arbitrary
and irrevocable ruling the form and spirit of the artist's message to
mankind.

[Footnote A: Reprinted in Professor Arber's _The Term Catalogues_
(1668-1709). London, privately printed, 1903.]

[Footnote B: See the centenary number of the _Edinburgh Review_
(October, 1902). During the editor's recent tenure of government office,
the review was temporarily edited by Mr. E.S. Roscoe.]

[Footnote C: See his letter in _Athenĉum_, January 19, 1878. See also
"Our Seventieth Birthday," _Athenĉum_, January 1, 1898.]

[Footnote D: Mr. Bertram Dobell in his _Side-Lights on Charles Lamb_
(1903) directs attention to some hitherto unknown articles of Lamb's in
the _London Magazine_.]

[Footnote E: In July, 1902, the _Quarterly Review_ published its first
signed article--the widely-discussed paper on Charles Dickens by Mr.
Algernon Charles Swinburne. Since then several other noteworthy articles
have appeared over the authors' signatures.]




BIBLIOGRAPHY


British Museum. Catalogue of Printed Books. Periodicals. (Revised ed.,
1900.)

Dictionary of National Biography.

Encyclopedia Britannica. Article on Periodicals, by H.R. Tedder.

Barrow, Sir John. Autobiography. London, 1847.

Bourne, H.R. Fox. English Newspapers. Chapters in the History of
Journalism. 2 vols. 8vo. London, 1887.

Cockburn, Lord. Life of Lord Jeffrey. With a Selection from his
Correspondence. 2 vols. 8vo. London, 1852.

Copinger, W.A. On the Authorship of the first Hundred Numbers of the
"Edinburgh Review." (Privately Printed.) Manchester, 1895.

Cross, Maurice. Selections from the Edinburgh Review, etc. With a
Preliminary Dissertation. 4 vols. 8vo. London, 1833.

Gates, Lewis E. Francis Jeffrey. In _Three Studies in Literature_. 12mo.
New York, 1899.

Horner, Leonard. Memoirs and Correspondence of Francis Horner, M.P.
Edited by his brother. 2 vols. 8vo. Boston, 1853.

Jennings, Louis J. The Correspondence and Diaries of John Wilson Croker.
2 vols. 8vo. New York, 1884.

Jerdan, William. Autobiography. With his Literary, Political, and Social
Reminiscences and Correspondence, etc. 4 vols. 12mo. London, 1852-53.

Laughton, John Knox. Memoirs of the Life and Correspondence of Henry
Reeve, C.B., D.C.L. 2 vols. 8vo. London, 1898.

Napier, Macvey. Selections from the Correspondence of the late Macvey
Napier, Esq. Edited by his son. 8vo. London, 1879.

Oliphant, Mrs. M.O.W., and Porter, Mrs. Gerald. William Blackwood and
his Sons, etc. 3 vols. 8vo. New York, 1897-98.

Paston, George. The "Monthly Review." In _Side-Lights on the Georgian
Period_. 8vo. London, 1903.

Smiles, Samuel. A Publisher and his Friends. Memoir and Correspondence
of the late John Murray, etc. 2 vols. 8vo. London and New York, 1891.


Last Century Magazines. (By T.H.) _Fraser's Magazine_, XCIV (325-333).

Layton, W.E. Early Periodicals. In _The Bibliographer_, III (36-39).

Lee, William. Periodical Publications during the Twenty Years 1712 to
1732. _Notes and Queries_ (Third Series), IX (53-54, 72-75, 92-95). Cf.
_ibid._, pp. 164, 268, and X, p. 134.

Niven, G.W. On some Eighteenth Century Periodicals. In _The
Bibliographer_, II (38-40).

Parkes, Samuel. An Account of the Periodical Literary Journals which
were Published in Great Britain and Ireland, from the Year 1681 to the
Commencement of the Monthly Review in the year 1749. In _The Quarterly
Journal of Science, Literature and the Arts_ (1822), XIII (36-58,
289-312).

Stephen, (Sir) Leslie. The First Edinburgh Reviewers. In _Cornhill
Magazine_, XXXVIII (218-234). Also in _Living Age_, CXXXVIII (643-653).

Waugh, Arthur. The English Reviewers. A Sketch of their History and
Principles. In _The Critic_, XL (26-37).


Allingham, William. Varieties in Prose. 3 vols. 12mo. London, 1893. Vol.
III contains _Some Curiosities of Criticism_, reprinted from _Fraser's
Magazine_, LXXXVII (43-51).

Arnold, Matthew. Essays in Criticism. First Series. 12mo. London, 1865.
Contains _The Function of Criticism at the Present Time._

Birrell, Augustine. Men, Women, and Books. 16mo. London, 1894. Contains
_Authors and Critics_.

Collins, J. Churton. Ephemera Critica, or Plain Truths about Current
Literature. 12mo. Westminster and New York, 1901.

[Copleston, Edward.] Advice to a Young Reviewer, with a Specimen of the
Art. 8vo. Oxford and London, 1807. Reprinted in _An English Garner,
Critical Essays and Literary Fragments_, ed. J.C. Collins. New York,
1903.

Disraeli, I. Calamities and Quarrels of Authors. A New Edition, etc.
12mo. London, n.d. Contains _Undue Severity of Criticism_.

Gayley, C.M., and Scott, F.N. An Introduction to the Methods and
Materials of Literary Criticism, etc. 12mo. Boston, 1899.

Jennings, Henry J. Curiosities of Criticism. 12mo. London, 1881. See
_Eclectic Magazine_, XCVII (420-423).

Johnson, Charles F. Elements of Literary Criticism. 12mo. New York,
1898.

Mabie, Hamilton W. Essays in Literary Interpretation. 12mo. New York,
1896. Contains _The Significance of Modern Criticism_.

Matthews, William. The Great Conversers, and other Essays. 12mo.
Chicago, 1874. Contains _Curiosities of Criticism_.

Repplier, Agnes. Books and Men. 16mo. Boston, 1888. Contains
_Curiosities of Criticism_.

Robertson, John M. Essays toward a Critical Method. Sm. 8vo. London,
1889. Contains _Science in Criticism_.

Robertson, John M. New Essays toward a Critical Method. Sm. 8vo. London,
1897.

Sears, Lorenzo. Principles and Methods of Literary Criticism. 12mo. New
York and London, 1898.

Stevenson, E. Early Reviews of Great Writers (1786-1832): Selected and
Edited with an Introduction. 12mo. London, n.d.

Trent, W.P. The Authority of Criticism and other Essays. 12mo. New York,
1899.

Winchester, C.T. Some Principles of Literary Criticism. 12mo. New York,
1899.

Worsfold, W. Basil. The Principles of Criticism. An Introduction to the
Study of Literature. New Edition. 8vo. New York, 1902.

Wylie, Laura Johnson. Studies in the Evolution of English Criticism.
16mo. Boston, 1894.


Allen, Grant. The Decay of Criticism. In _Fortnightly Review_, XXXVII
(339-351).

Clarke, Helen A. The Value of Contemporary Judgment. In _Poet-Lore_, V
(201-209).

Critical Errors. In _Chamber's Journal_, XLII (164-166).

Criticism Extraordinary. In _All the Year Round_, XXXIII (558-563).

G.L.A. Some Curiosities of Criticism. In _Temple Bar_, LXXX (241-247).

Howe, Herbert Crombie. The Contradictions of Literary Criticism. In
_North American Review_, CLXXV (399-408).

Hunt, T.W. Critics and Criticism. In _Modern Language Notes_, IV, p.
161.




EARLY REVIEWS OF ENGLISH POETS




THOMAS GRAY


ODES. _By Mr._ Gray. 4to. 1s. Dodsley.

As this publication seems designed for those who have formed their taste
by the models of antiquity, the generality of Readers cannot be supposed
adequate Judges of its merit; nor will the Poet, it is presumed, be
greatly disappointed if he finds them backward in commending a
performance not entirely suited to their apprehensions. We cannot,
however, without some regret behold those talents so capable of giving
pleasure to all, exerted in efforts that, at best, can amuse only the
few; we cannot behold this rising Poet seeking fame among the learned,
without hinting to him the same advice that Isocrates used to give his
Scholars, _Study the People_. This study it is that has conducted the
great Masters of antiquity up to immortality. Pindar himself, of whom
our modern Lyrist is an imitator, appears entirely guided by it. He
adapted his works exactly to the dispositions of his countrymen.
Irregular[,] enthusiastic, and quick in transition,--he wrote for a
people inconstant, of warm imaginations and exquisite sensibility. He
chose the most popular subjects, and all his allusions are to customs
well known, in his day, to the meanest person.[F]

His English Imitator wants those advantages. He speaks to a people not
easily impressed with new ideas; extremely tenacious of the old; with
difficulty warmed; and as slowly cooling again.--How unsuited then to
our national character is that species of poetry which rises upon us
with unexpected flights! Where we must hastily catch the thought, or it
flies from us; and, in short, where the Reader must largely partake of
the Poet's enthusiasm, in order to taste his beauties. To carry the
parallel a little farther; the Greek Poet wrote in a language the most
proper that can be imagined for this species of composition; lofty,
harmonious, and never needing rhyme to heighten the numbers. But, for
us, several unsuccessful experiments seem to prove that the English
cannot have Odes in blank Verse; while, on the other hand, a natural
imperfection attends those which are composed in irregular rhymes:--the
similar sound often recurring where it is not expected, and not being
found where it is, creates no small confusion to the Reader,--who, as we
have not seldom observed, beginning in all the solemnity of poetic
elocution, is by frequent disappointments of the rhyme, at last obliged
to drawl out the uncomplying numbers into disagreeable prose.

It is, by no means, our design to detract from the merit of our Author's
present attempt: we would only intimate, that an English Poet,--one whom
the Muse has _mark'd for her own_, could produce a more luxuriant bloom
of flowers, by cultivating such as are natives of the soil, than by
endeavouring to force the exotics of another climate: or, to speak
without a metaphor, such a genius as Mr. Gray might give greater
pleasure, and acquire a larger portion of fame, if, instead of being an
imitator, he did justice to his talents, and ventured to be more an
original. These two Odes, it must be confessed, breath[e] much of the
spirit of Pindar, but then they have caught the seeming obscurity, the
sudden transition, and hazardous epithet, of his mighty master; all
which, though evidently intended for beauties, will, probably, be
regarded as blemishes, by the generality of his Readers. In short, they
are in some measure, a representation of what Pindar now appears to be,
though perhaps, not what he appeared to the States of Greece, when they
rivalled each other in his applause, and when Pan himself was seen
dancing to his melody.

In conformity to the antients, these Odes consist of the _Strophe_,
_Antistrophe_, and _Epode_, which, in each Ode, are thrice repeated. The
Strophes have a correspondent resemblance in their str[u]cture and
numbers: and the Antistrophe and Epode also bear the same similitude.
The Poet seems, in the first Ode particularly, to design the Epode as a
complete air to the Strophe and Antistrophe, which have more the
appearance of Recitative. There was a necessity for these divisions
among the antients, for they served as directions to the dancer and
musician; but we see no reason why they should be continued among the
moderns; for, instead of assisting, they will but perplex the Musician,
as our music requires a more frequent transition from the Air to the
Recitative than could agree with the simplicity of the antients.

The first of these Poems celebrates the Lyric Muse. It seems the most
laboured performance of the two, but yet we think its merit is not equal
to that of the second. It seems to want that regularity of plan upon
which the second is founded; and though it abounds with images that
strike, yet, unlike the second, it contains none that are affecting.

In the second Antistrophe the Bard thus marks the progress of Poetry.

    II. [2.]

    In climes beyond the solar road,
    Where shaggy forms o'er ice-built mountains roam,
    The Muse has broke the twilight-gloom
    To cheer the shivering natives dull abode
    And oft beneath the od'rous shade
    Of Chili's boundless forests laid,
    She deigns to hear the savage youth repeat,
    In loose numbers wildly sweet
    Their feather-cinctured Chiefs, and dusky loves.
    Her track, where'er the Goddess roves,
    Glory pursue, and generous shame,
    Th' unconquerable Mind, and Freedom's holy flame.

There is great spirit in the irregularity of the numbers towards the
conclusion of the foregoing stanza.

[II, 3, and III, 2, of _The Progress of Poesy_ are quoted without
comment.]

The second 'Ode is founded on a tradition current in Wales, that Edward
the first, when he compleated the conquest of that country, ordered all
the Bards that fell into his hands to be put to death.' The Author seems
to have taken the hint of this subject from the fifteenth Ode of the
first book of Horace. Our Poet introduces the only surviving Bard of
that country in concert with the spirits of his murdered brethren, as
prophetically denouncing woes upon the Conqueror and his posterity. The
circumstances of grief and horror in which the Bard is represented,
those of terror in the preparation of the votive web, and the mystic
obscurity with which the prophecies are delivered, will give as much
pleasure to those who relish this species of composition, as anything
that has hitherto appeared in our language, the Odes of Dryden himself
not excepted.

[I, 2, I, 3, part of II, 1, and the conclusion of _The Bard_ are
quoted]--_The Monthly Review_.

[Footnote F: The best Odes of Pindar are said to be those which have
been destroyed by time; and even they were seldom recited among the
Greeks, without the adventitious ornaments of music and dancing. Our
Lyric Odes are seldom set off with these advantages, which, trifling as
they seem, have alone given immortality to the works of Quinault.]




OLIVER GOLDSMITH


_The Traveller, or a Prospect of Society. A Poem_. _Inscribed to the
Rev. Mr._ Henry Goldsmith. _By_ OLIVER GOLDSMITH, _M.B. 4to. Pr. 1s.
6d_. Newbery.

The author has, in an elegant dedication to his brother, a country
clergyman, given the design of his poem:--'Without espousing the cause
of any party, I have attempted to moderate the rage of all. I have
endeavoured to shew, that there may be equal happiness in other states,
though differently governed from our own; that each state has a peculiar
principle of happiness; and that this principle in each state,
particularly in our own, may be carried to a mischievous excess.'

That he may illustrate and enforce this important position, the author
places himself on a summit of the Alps, and, turning his eyes around, in
all directions, upon the different regions that lie before him,
compares, not merely their situation or policy, but those social and
domestic manners which, after a very few deductions, make the sum total
of human life.

    'Remote, unfriended, melancholy, slow,
    Or by the lazy Scheld, or wandering Po;
    Or onward, where the rude Carinthian boor
    Against the houseless stranger shuts the door;
    Or where Campania's plain forsaken lies,
    A weary waste expanded to the skies.
    Where'er I roam, whatever realms to see,
    My heart untravell'd fond turns to thee;
    Still to my brother turns with ceaseless pain,
    And drags at each remove a lengthening chain.--
      Even now, where Alpine solitudes ascend,
    I sit me down a pensive hour to spend;
    And, plac'd on high above the storm's career,
    Look downward where an hundred realms appear;
    Lakes, forests, cities, plains extended wide,
    The pomp of kings, the shepherd's humbler pride.
      When thus creation's charms around combine,
    Amidst the store 'twere thankless to repine.
    'Twere affectation all, and school-taught pride,
    To spurn the splendid things by heaven supply'd.
    Let school-taught pride dissemble all it can,
    These little things are great to little man;
    And wiser he, whose sympathetic mind
    Exults in all the good of all mankind.'

The author already appears, by his numbers, to be a versifier; and by
his scenery, to be a poet; it therefore only remains that his sentiments
discover him to be a just estimator of comparative happiness.

The goods of life are either given by nature, or procured by ourselves.
Nature has distributed her gifts in very different proportions, yet all
her children are content; but the acquisitions of art are such as
terminate in good or evil, as they are differently regulated or
combined.

    'Yet, where to find that happiest spot below,
    Who can direct, when all pretend to know?
    The shudd'ring tenant of the frigid zone
    Boldly asserts that country for his own,
    Extols the treasures of his stormy seas,
    And live-long nights of revelry and ease;
    The naked Negro, panting at the line,
    Boasts of his golden sands and palmy wine,
    Basks in the glare, or stems the tepid wave,
    And thanks his Gods for all the good they gave.--
      Nature, a mother kind alike, to all,
    Still grants her bliss at Labour's earnest call;
    And though rough rocks or gloomy summits frown,
    These rocks, by custom, turn to beds of down.
      From Art more various are the blessings sent;
    Wealth, splendours, honor, liberty, content:
    Yet these each other's power so strong contest,
    That either seems destructive of the rest.
    Hence every state, to one lov'd blessing prone,
    Conforms and models life to that alone.
    Each to the favourite happiness attends,
    And spurns the plan that aims at other ends;
    Till, carried to excess in each domain,
    This favourite good begets peculiar pain.'

This is the position which he conducts through Italy, Swisserland,
France, Holland, and England; and which he endeavours to confirm by
remarking the manners of every country.

Having censured the degeneracy of the modern Italians, he proceeds thus:

    'My soul turn from them, turn we to survey
    Where rougher climes a nobler race display,
    Where the bleak Swiss their stormy mansions tread,
    And force a churlish soil for scanty bread;
    No product here the barren hills afford,
    But man and steel, the soldier and his sword.
    No vernal blooms their torpid rocks array,
    But winter lingering chills the lap of May;
    No Zephyr fondly soothes the mountain's breast,
    But meteors glare, and stormy glooms invest.
    Yet still, even here, content can spread a charm,
    Redress the clime, and all its rage disarm.
    Though poor the peasant's hut, his feasts though small,
    He sees his little lot, the lot of all;
    See no contiguous palace rear its head
    To shame the meanness of his humble shed;
    No costly lord the sumptuous banquet deal
    To make him loath his vegetable meal;
    But calm, and bred in ignorance and toil,
    Each wish contracting, fits him to the soil.'

But having found that the rural life of a Swiss has its evils as well as
comforts, he turns to France.

    'To kinder skies, where gentler manners reign,
    We turn; and France displays her bright domain.
    Gay sprightly land of mirth and social ease,
    Pleas'd with thyself, whom all the world can please.--
    Theirs are those arts that mind to mind endear,
    For honour forms the social temper here.--
    From courts to camps, to cottages it strays,
    And all are taught an avarice of praise;
    They please, are pleas'd, they give to get esteem,
    Till, seeming blest, they grow to what they seem.'

Yet France has its evils:

    'For praise too dearly lov'd, or warmly sought,
    Enfeebles all internal strength of thought,
    And the weak soul, within itself unblest,
    Leans all for pleasure on another's breast.--
    The mind still turns where shifting fashion draws,
    Nor weighs the solid worth of self-applause.'

Having then passed through Holland, he arrives in England, where,

    'Stern o'er each bosom reason holds her state,
    With daring aims, irregularly great,
    I see the lords of human kind pass by,
    Pride in their port, defiance in their eye,
    Intent on high designs, a thoughtful band,
    By forms unfashion'd, fresh from Nature's hand.'

With the inconveniences that harrass [_sic_] the sons of freedom, this
extract shall be concluded.

    'That independence Britons prize too high,
    Keeps man from man, and breaks the social tie;
    See, though by circling deeps together held,
    Minds combat minds, repelling and repell'd;
    Ferments arise, imprison'd factions roar,
    Represt ambition struggles round her shore,
    Whilst, over-wrought, the general system feels
    Its motions stopt, or phrenzy fires the wheels.
      Nor this the worst. As social bonds decay,
    As duty, love, and honour fail to sway,
    Fictitious bonds, the bonds of wealth and law,
    Still gather strength, and force unwilling awe.
    Hence all obedience bows to these alone,
    And talent sinks, and merit weeps unknown;
    Till time may come, when, stript of all her charms,
    That land of scholars, and that nurse of arms;
    Where noble stems transmit the patriot flame,
    And monarchs toil, and poets pant for fame;
    One sink of level avarice shall lie,
    And scholars, soldiers, kings unhonor'd die.'

Such is the poem, on which we now congratulate the public, as on a
production to which, since the death of Pope, it will not be easy to
find any thing equal.--_The Critical Review_.




WILLIAM COWPER


_Poems by William Cowper, of the Inner Temple, Esq._ _8vo. 5s._ Johnson.

These Poems are written, as we learn from the title-page, by Mr. Cowper
of the Inner Temple, who seems to be a man of a sober and religious turn
of mind, with a benevolent heart, and a serious wish to inculcate the
precepts of morality; he is not, however, possessed of any superior
abilities, or powers of genius, requisite to so arduous an undertaking;
his verses are, in general, weak and languid, and have neither novelty,
spirit, or animation, to recommend them; that mediocrity so severely
condemned by Horace,

    Non Dii non homines, &c.

pervades the whole; and, whilst the author avoids every thing that is
ridiculous or contemptible, he, at the same time, never rises to any
thing that we can commend or admire. He says what is incontrovertible,
and what has already been said over and over, with much gravity, but
says nothing new, sprightly, or entertaining; travelling on in a plain,
level, flat road, with great composure, almost through the whole long,
and rather tedious volume, which is little better than a dull sermon, in
very indifferent verse, on Truth, the Progress of Error, Charity, and
some other grave subjects. If this author had followed the advice given
by Caraccioli,[G] and which he has chosen for one of the mottos
prefixed to these Poems, he would have clothed his indisputable truths
in some becoming _disguise_, and rendered his work much more agreeable.
In its present state, we cannot compliment him on its shape or beauty;
for, as this bard himself _sweetly_ sings,

    'The clear harangue, and cold as it is clear,
    Falls soporific on the listless ear.'

In his learned dissertation on _Hope_, we meet with the following lines

    [Quotes some fifty lines from _Hope_ beginning,
      Build by whatever plan caprice decrees,
      With what materials, on what ground you please, etc.]

All this is very true; but there needs no ghost, nor author, nor poet,
to tell us what we knew before, unless he could tell it to us in a new
and better manner. Add to this, that many of our author's expressions
are coarse, vulgar, and unpoetical; such as _parrying_, _pushing by_,
_spitting abhorrence_, &c. The greatest part of Mr. Cowper's didactics
is in the same strain. He attempts indeed sometimes to be lively,
facetious, and satirical; but is seldom more successful in this, than in
the serious and pathetic. In his poem on Conversation there are two or
three faint attempts at humour; in one of them he tells us that

    'A story in which native humour reigns
    Is often useful, always entertains,
    A graver fact enlisted on your side,
    May furnish illustration, well applied;
    But sedentary weavers of long tales,
    Give me the fidgets and my patience fails.
    'Tis the most asinine employ on earth,
    To hear them tell of parentage and birth,
    And echo conversations dull and dry,
    Embellished with, _he said_, and _so said I_.
    At ev'ry interview their route the same,
    The repetition makes attention lame,
    We bustle up with unsuccessful speed,
    And in the saddest part cry--droll indeed!
    The path of narrative with care pursue,
    Still making probability your clue,
    On all the vestiges of truth attend,
    And let them guide you to a decent end.
    Of all ambitions man may entertain,
    The worst that can invade a sickly brain,
    Is that which angles hourly for surprize,
    And baits its hook with prodigies and lies.
    Credulous infancy or age as weak
    Are fittest auditors for such to seek,
    Who to please others will themselves disgrace,
    Yet please not, but affront you to your face.'

In the passage above quoted, our readers will perceive that the wit is
rather aukward, [_sic_] and the verses, especially the last, very
prosaic.

Toward the end of this volume are some little pieces of a lighter kind,
which, after dragging through Mr. Cowper's long moral lectures, afforded
us some relief. The fables of the Lily and the Rose, the Nightingale and
Glow-worm, the Pine-apple and the Bee, with two or three others, are
written with ease and spirit. It is a pity that our author had not
confined himself altogether to this species of poetry, without entering
into a system of ethics, for which his genius seems but ill
adapted.--_The Critical Review_.

[Footnote G: Nous sommes nés pour la vérité, et nous ne pouvons souffrir
son abord. Les figures, les paraboles, les emblémes, sont toujours des
ornements nécessaires pour qu'elle puisse s'annoncer: on veut, en la
recevant, qu'elle soit _déguisée_.]




ROBERT BURNS


_Poems, chiefly in the Scottish Dialect_. _By_ ROBERT BURNS,
_Kilmarnock_.

When an author we know nothing of solicits our attention, we are but too
apt to treat him with the same reluctant civility we show to a person
who has come unbidden into company. Yet talents and address will
gradually diminish the distance of our behaviour, and when the first
unfavourable impression has worn off, the author may become a favourite,
and the stranger a friend. The poems we have just announced may probably
have to struggle with the pride of learning and the partiality of
refinement; yet they are intitled to particular indulgence.

Who are you, Mr. Burns? will some surly critic say. At what university
have you been educated? what languages do you understand? what authors
have you particularly studied? whether has Aristotle or Horace directed
your taste? who has praised your poems, and under whose patronage are
they published? In short, what qualifications intitle you to instruct or
entertain us? To the questions of such a catechism, perhaps honest
Robert Burns would make no satisfactory answers. 'My good Sir, he might
say, I am a poor country man; I was bred up at the school of Kilmarnock;
I understand no languages but my own; I have studied Allan Ramsay and
Ferguson. My poems have been praised at many a fireside; and I ask no
patronage for them, if they deserve none. I have not looked on mankind
_through the spectacle of books_. An ounce of mother-wit, you know, is
worth a pound of clergy; and Homer and Ossian, for any thing that I have
heard, could neither write nor read.' The author is indeed a striking
example of native genius bursting through the obscurity of poverty and
the obstructions of laborious life. He is said to be a common ploughman;
and when we consider him in this light, we cannot help regretting that
wayward fate had not placed him in a more favoured situation. Those who
view him with the severity of lettered criticism, and judge him by the
fastidious rules of art, will discover that he has not the doric
simplicity of Ramsay, nor the brilliant imagination of Ferguson; but to
those who admire the exertions of untutored fancy, and are blind to many
faults for the sake of numberless beauties, his poems will afford
singular gratification. His observations on human characters are acute
and sagacious, and his descriptions are lively and just. Of rustic
pleasantry he has a rich fund; and some of his softer scenes are touched
with inimitable delicacy. He seems to be a boon companion, and often
startles us with a dash of libertinism, which will keep some readers at
a distance. Some of his subjects are serious, but those of the humorous
kind are the best. It is not meant, however, to enter into a minute
investigation of his merits, as the copious extracts we have subjoined
will enable our readers to judge for themselves. The Character Horace
gives to Osellus is particularly applicable to him.

    _Rusticus abnormis sapiens, crassaque Minerva._

[Quotes _Address to the Deil_, from the _Epistle to a Brother Bard_,
from _Description of a Sermon in the Fields_, and from
_Hallowe'en_.]--_The Edinburgh Magazine_.


_Poems, chiefly in the Scottish Dialect_. _By Robert Burns._ Printed at
Kilmarnock.

We have had occasion to examine a number of poetical productions,
written by persons in the lower rank of life, and who had hardly
received any education; but we do not recollect to have ever met with a
more signal instance of true and uncultivated genius, than in the author
of these Poems. His occupation is that of a common ploughman; and his
life has hitherto been spent in struggling with poverty. But all the
rigours of fortune have not been able to repress the frequent efforts of
his lively and vigorous imagination. Some of these poems are of a
serious cast; but the strain which seems most natural to the author, is
the sportive and humorous. It is to be regretted, that the Scottish
dialect, in which these poems are written, must obscure the native
beauties with which they appear to abound, and renders the sense often
unintelligible to an English reader. Should it, however, prove true,
that the author has been taken under the patronage of a great lady in
Scotland, and that a celebrated professor has interested himself in the
cultivation of his talents, there is reason to hope, that his
distinguished genius may yet be exerted in such a manner as to afford
more general delight. In the meantime, we must admire the generous
enthusiasm of his untutored muse; and bestow the tribute of just
applause on one whose name will be transmitted to posterity with
honour.--_The Critical Review_.




WILLIAM WORDSWORTH


_Descriptive Sketches_, in Verse. Taken during a Pedestrian Tour in the
Italian, Grison, Swiss and Savoyard Alps. By W. WORDSWORTH, B.A. of St.
John's, Cambridge. 4to. pp. 55. 3s. Johnson. 1793.

More descriptive poetry! (See page 166, &c.) Have we not yet enough?
Must eternal changes be rung on uplands and lowlands, and nodding
forests, and brooding clouds, and cells, and dells, and dingles? Yes;
more, and yet more: so it is decreed.

Mr. Wordsworth begins his descriptive sketches with the following
exordium:

    'Were there, below, a spot of holy ground,
    By Pain and her sad family _un_found,
    Sure, Nature's God that spot to man had giv'n,
    Where murmuring _rivers join_ the song of _ev'n_!
    Where _falls_ the purple morning far and wide
    _In flakes_ of light upon the mountain side;
    Where summer suns in ocean sink to rest,
    Or moonlight upland lifts her hoary breast;
    Where Silence, on her night of wing, o'er-broods
    Unfathom'd dells and undiscover'd woods;
    Where rocks and groves the _power_ of waters _shakes_
    In cataracts, or sleeps in quiet lakes.'

May we ask, how it is that rivers join the song of ev'n? or, in plain
prose, the evening! but, if they do, is it not true that they equally
join the song of morning, noon, and night? The _purple morning falling
in flakes_ of light is a bold figure: but we are told, it falls far and
wide--Where?--On the mountain's _side_. We are sorry to see the purple
morning confined so like a maniac in a straight waistcoat. What the
night of wing of silence is, we are unable to comprehend: but the
climax of the passage is, that, were there such a spot of holy ground as
is here so sublimely described, _unfound_ by Pain and her sad family,
Nature's God had surely given that spot to man, though its _woods_ were
_undiscovered_.

Let us proceed,

    'But doubly pitying Nature loves to show'r
    Soft on his _wounded heart_ her healing pow'r,
    Who _plods_ o'er hills and vales his road _forlorn_,
    Wooing her varying charms from eve to morn.
    _No sad vacuities_ his heart _annoy_,
    _Blows_ not a Zephyr but it _whispers joy_;
    For him _lost_ flowers their _idle_ sweets _exhale_;
    He _tastes_ the meanest _note_ that swells the gale;
    For him sod-seats the cottage-door adorn,
    And _peeps_ the far-off _spire_, his evening bourn!
    Dear is the forest _frowning_ o'er his head,
    And dear the green-sward to his _velvet tread_;
    Moves there a _cloud_ o'er mid-day's flaming eye?
    Upwards he looks--and calls it luxury;
    Kind Nature's _charities_ his steps attend,
    In every babbling brook he finds a friend.'

Here we find that _doubly_ pitying Nature is very kind to the traveller,
but that this traveller has a _wounded heart_ and _plods_ his road
_forlorn_. In the next line but one we discover that--

    'No _sad vacuities_ his heart _annoy_;
    Blows not a Zephyr but it whispers _joy_.'

The flowers, though they have lost themselves, or are lost, exhale their
idle sweets for him; the _spire peeps_ for him; sod-seats, forests,
clouds, nature's charities, and babbling brooks, all are to him luxury
and friendship. He is the happiest of mortals, and plods, is forlorn,
and has a wounded heart. How often shall we in vain advise those, who
are so delighted with their own thoughts that they cannot forbear from
putting them into rhyme, to examine those thoughts till they themselves
understand them? No man will ever be a poet, till his mind be
sufficiently powerful to sustain this labour.--_The Monthly Review_.


_An Evening Walk_. An Epistle; in Verse. Addressed to a Young Lady, from
the Lakes of the North of England. By W. Wordsworth, B.A. of St. John's,
Cambridge. 4to. pp. 27. 2s. Johnson. 1793.

In this Epistle, the subject and the manner of treating it vary but
little from the former poem. We will quote four lines from a passage
which the author very sorrowfully apologizes for having omitted:

    'Return delights! with whom my road beg_un_,
    When _Life-rear'd_ laughing _up her_ morning _sun_;
    When Transport kiss'd away my April tear,
    "Rocking as in a dream the tedious year."

Life _rearing_ up the sun! Transport kissing away an _April_ tear and
_rocking_ the year as in a dream! Would the cradle had been specified!
Seriously, these are figures which no poetical license can justify. If
they can possibly give pleasure, it must be to readers whose habits of
thinking are totally different from ours. Mr. Wordsworth is a scholar,
and, no doubt, when reading the works of others, a critic. There are
passages in his poems which display imagination, and which afford hope
for the future: but, if he can divest himself of all partiality, and
will critically question every line that he has written, he will find
many which, he must allow, call loudly for amendment.--_The Monthly
Review_.


_Lyrical Ballads, with a few other Poems_. _Small 8vo. 5s. Boards._
Arch. 1798.

The majority of these poems, we are informed in the advertisement, are
to be considered as experiments.

'They were written chiefly with a view to ascertain how far the language
of conversation in the middle and lower classes of society is adapted to
the purposes of poetic pleasure.' P. i.

Of these experimental poems, the most important is the Idiot Boy, the
story of which is simply this. Betty Foy's neighbour Susan Gale is
indisposed; and no one can conveniently be sent for the doctor but
Betty's idiot boy. She therefore puts him upon her poney, at eight
o'clock in the evening, gives him proper directions, and returns to take
care of her sick neighbour. Johnny is expected with the doctor by
eleven; but the clock strikes eleven, and twelve, and one, without the
appearance either of Johnny or the doctor. Betty's restless fears become
insupportable; and she now leaves her friend to look for her idiot son.
She goes to the doctor's house, but hears nothing of Johnny. About five
o'clock, however, she finds him sitting quietly upon his feeding poney.
As they go home they meet old Susan, whose apprehensions have cured her,
and brought her out to seek them; and they all return merrily together.

Upon this subject the author has written nearly five hundred lines. With
what spirit the story is told, our extract will evince.

[Quotes lines (322-401) of _The Idiot Boy_.]

No tale less deserved the labour that appears to have been bestowed upon
this. It resembles a Flemish picture in the worthlessness of its design
and the excellence of its execution. From Flemish artists we are
satisfied with such pieces: who would not have lamented, if Corregio or
Rafaelle had wasted their talents in painting Dutch boors or the humours
of a Flemish wake?

The other ballads of this kind are as bald in story, and are not so
highly embellished in narration. With that which is entitled the Thorn,
we were altogether displeased. The advertisement says, it is not told in
the person of the author, but in that of some loquacious narrator. The
author should have recollected that he who personates tiresome
loquacity, becomes tiresome himself. The story of a man who suffers the
perpetual pain of cold, because an old woman prayed that he might never
be warm, is perhaps a good story for a ballad, because it is a
well-known tale: but is the author certain that it is '_well
authenticated?_' and does not such an assertion promote the popular
superstition of witchcraft?

In a very different style of poetry, is the Rime of the Ancyent
Marinere; a ballad (says the advertisement) 'professedly written in
imitation of the _style_, as well as of the spirit of the elder poets.'
We are tolerably conversant with the early English poets; and can
discover no resemblance whatever, except in antiquated spelling and a
few obsolete words. This piece appears to us perfectly original in style
as well as in story. Many of the stanzas are laboriously beautiful; but
in connection they are absurd or unintelligible. Our readers may
exercise their ingenuity in attempting to unriddle what follows.

    'The roaring wind! it roar'd far off,
      It did not come anear;
    But with its sound it shook the sails
      That were so thin and sere.

    The upper air bursts into life,
      And a hundred fire-flags sheen
    To and fro they are hurried about;
    And to and fro, and in and out
      The stars dance on between.

    The coming wind doth roar more loud;
      The sails do sigh, like sedge:
    The rain pours down from one black cloud,
      And the moon is at its edge.

    Hark! hark! the thick black cloud is cleft,
      And the moon is at its side:
    Like waters shot from some high crag,
    The lightning falls with never a jag
      A river steep and wide.

    The strong wind reach'd the ship: it roar'd
      And dropp'd down, like a stone!
    Beneath the lightning and the moon
      The dead men gave a groan.' P. 27.

We do not sufficiently understand the story to analyse it. It is a Dutch
attempt at German sublimity. Genius has here been employed in producing
a poem of little merit.

With pleasure we turn to the serious pieces, the better part of the
volume. The Foster-Mother's Tale is in the best style of dramatic
narrative. The Dungeon, and the Lines upon the Yew-tree Seat, are
beautiful. The Tale of the Female Vagrant is written in the stanza, not
the style, of Spenser. We extract a part of this poem.

[Quotes lines (91-180) of _The Female Vagrant_.]

Admirable as this poem is, the author seems to discover still superior
powers in the Lines written near Tintern Abbey. On reading this
production, it is impossible not to lament that he should ever have
condescended to write such pieces as the Last of the Flock, the Convict,
and most of the ballads. In the whole range of English poetry, we
scarcely recollect anything superior to