No More Learning

Scott worked assiduously
to make the first number a success, writing himself four articles,
making nearly a third of the whole, and recruiting to the
standard of The Quarterly, Southey, Kirkpatrick Sharpe, Rogers,
Moore and others whose reputations Jeffrey had murdered, and
who are rising to cry woe upon him, like the ghosts in King
Richard? ' Southey, the poet laureate, was a most voluminous
contributor, and Gifford suffered much from him for having
to compress his essays within the necessary limits, giving, thereby,
no little offence to one whom, nevertheless, he regarded as the
sheet anchor of the Review. '
There could be no question from the first as to the ability of
the new journal. Yet, its first number (February 1809) met no
such reception as had greeted the birth of The Edinburgh. Its
tone was literary rather than political. It contained much that
was well worth reading, little to dazzle or startle the world. The
1 2 November 1808.
? Walter Scott to Kirkpatrick Sharpe. See Memoir of John Murray, vol. I, p. 104.
6


## p. 151 (#175) ############################################

VI]
Gifford and Scott
151
publisher was not without anxiety for the future; and his editor
Gifford, great as was his literary ability, was certainly one of the
least businesslike and most unpunctual of men. The second number
was not ready till the end of May, the third till the end of August,
when it was found by Ellis (a very candid friend and supporter)
to be, though profound, notoriously and unequivocally dull. '
Murray asserted that The Quarterly was not yet paying its
expenses; and it was not till the fourth number (which was some
six weeks behind time) that an article appeared which excited
general admiration, and which, in the publisher's opinion, largely in-
creased the demand for the Review. This, strangely enough, was an
article, and by no means a condemnatory one, on the character
of Charles James Fox. Henceforward, the circulation grew
steadily, and, in the years 1818 and 1819, when it appears that
each of the great reviews reached its maximum circulation, The
Edinburgh and The Quarterly sold almost the same number of
copies, namely, 14,000.
The editorship of Gifford lasted till 1824. During those fifteen
years, he wrote few articles himself, but he dealt strenuously with
the papers sent him by contributors, in the way of compression,
addition and amendment, to the no small dissatisfaction of the
writers. It is interesting to know that Jane Austen derived her
first real encouragement as a writer of fiction from an article on
Emma in The Quarterly by Walter Scott, who remarked with
approval on the introduction of a new class of novel, drawing the
characters and incidents from the current of ordinary life, as
contrasted with the adventures and improbabilities of the old
school of romance. Still more interesting is it to be told that
Walter Scott himself reviewed Tales of my Landlord in The
Quarterly Review for January 1817, venturing to attribute them
to the author of Waverley and Guy Mannering and The Anti-
quary !
Whilst wishing their author every success, he was
solemnly warned that he must correct certain very evident defects
in his romances if he expected his fame as a writer of fiction to
endure.
A leading fault in these novels is the total want of interest felt by the
reader in the character of the hero. Waverley, Bertram, etc. , are all brethren
of a family-very amiable and very insipid sort of young men.
Few critics are, in truth, so competent to discuss the merits
and defects of books as the authors who produce them. Many an
author has felt, when reading a criticism of his work, whether


## p. 152 (#176) ############################################

152
[ch.
Reviews and Magazines
1
favourable or the reverse, how much more tellingly he could
himself have administered the praise or the blame. The centenary
number of The Quarterly Review—April 1909-attributes, no
doubt correctly, the concluding laudatory paragraphs of this
article, not to Scott himself, but to the editorial activities of
Gifford
The two great literary and critical journals had now become
the recognised standard-bearers of their respective political parties.
Neither entirely excluded from its pages occasional contributions
from the opposite camp; but, as a general rule, writers on any
subject who were in sympathy with the political objects of liberal-
ism or conservatism rallied respectively to The Edinburgh or The
Quarterly Review. As might have been expected, the recognised
position that each now held and its close connection with states-
men—the responsible leaders of parties served to strengthen
strict party-ties whilst, perhaps, lessening political independence.
As the years went on, the change that had come over the character
of The Edinburgh_was strongly marked. “It is odd to hear,'
wrote Walter Bagehot in 1855, ‘that the Edinburgh Review was
once thought an incendiary publication. ' After half-a-century of
existence, the belief had become general, he says jokingly, that it
was written by privy councillors only? . It had long been engaged
not only in fighting political conservatism, but in a scarcely less
fierce struggle against the extreme men, as it considered those
who formed the left wing of the liberal party. In its first half
century, Jeffrey and Macaulay were the two men whose character
was most deeply impressed both upon the political and literary
habits of thought of The Edinburgh Review. It now stood for
moderate reform : Macaulay being equally happy in pouring
broadsides (1829) into the radical philosophers headed by Bentham
and James Mill and their organ The Westminster Review, and in
turning his fire, ten years later, against the obscurantist views of
the ultra-tory party represented by Gladstone's book on church
and state.
Contributions, of course, were always anonymous; but there
was not, nor could there be, any concealment of the authorship of
such papers as Macaulay, for a series of years, sent to the Review
essays which have taken their permanent place in English
literature. In many other cases, the veil of anonymity was a
,
thin one.
In 1846, just before Lord John Russell formed his
1 Literary Studies, Walter Bagehot, The First Edinburgh Reviewers. '


## p. 153 (#177) ############################################

vi] Editors of the Reviews 153
first administration, the whig orthodoxy of the Review was
unimpeachable, as may be seen from the list of subjects and
authors in the April number. It was as follows:
1. Parliament and the Courts, by Lord Denman.
2. Shakespeare in Paris, by Mrs Austin.
3. Legislation for the Working Class, by Sir George C. Lewis.
4. The Religious Movement in Germany, by Henry Rogers.
5. Lyall's Travels in North America, by Herman Merivale.
6. European and American State Confederacies, by Nassau Senior.
7. Scottish Criminal Jurisprudence, by Lord Cockburn.
8. The Political State of Prussia, by R. M. Milnes (afterwards Lord
Houghton).
9. Earls Grey and Spencer, by Lord John Russell.
As regards matters of political, ecclesiastical and religious
interest, the tendency of The Edinburgh was consistently in favour
of broad and liberal views. Jeffrey and Macaulay, Thomas Arnold,
Henry Rogers, Sir James Stephen and, later in the century,
Arthur Stanley and Henry Reeve, were among those who, over
a long course of years, represented the thoughts and sentiments
of the Review.
Neither The Edinburgh nor The Quarterly was at any time
carried on by what could be called a regular staff. Each was under
the control of its editor, who selected his contributors, and made
up each number as he thought best. Jeffrey and his successor
Macvey Napier held the editorship of The Edinburgh till close
upon the middle of the century; while, during the first fifty years
of The Quarterly, Gifford and Lockhart ruled, save for the couple
of years (1824-6) during which Sir J. T. Coleridge, nephew of
the poet, and friend of Keble, occupied the editorial chair. It
was not till October 1853 that Lockhart resigned in favour of an
old contributor, Whitwell Elwin, the scholarly rector of a parish
in Norfolk where he continued to reside. The hot youth of The
Quarterly was now a thing of the past. The Edinburgh had
ceased to be a firebrand; Maga had long added respectability to
its other strong claims upon the public; and, under the new
editorship, 'moderation' became the distinguishing mark of The
Quarterly. Elwin was a high church rector, but a moderate one ;
a tory but with whiggish leanings. 'He had not a drop of party
feeling in him,' he said of himself in 1854, nor any political
antipathies. Literature had been through life ‘his first and only
love’; and many admirable essays he himself contributed to the
Review. His taste, however, had been formed and stereotyped in
his youth ; and he had little appreciation for rising genius, or any
>
a


## p. 154 (#178) ############################################

154
[CH.
Reviews and Magazines
6
inclination to welcome, or even to try to understand, modern
thought
'He could not read, so The Quarterly centenary article tells us, ‘Brown-
ing or George Eliot, and he thought little of Tennyson. Matthew
Arnold, Swinburne, and Rossetti were mere names to him. He knew little
and read less of modern French and German authors, and he disliked the
Preraphaelite school of painting. He considered Darwinism a wild and
discredited hypothesis; he believed in Paley, condemned Ecce Homo, and
dismissed the “Higher Criticism” with scorn l';
but this lack of appreciation for the sentiments of his own age did
not prevent his enjoying the friendship and intimacy of the
principal literary and scientific men of his day.
Gifford and Lockhart had both been fighting men, who were
not open to the reproach (as they would have thought it) of a
deficiency of party zeal, or of lukewarmness in their political
antipathies. Still, Lockhart, the editor of The Quarterly, was a
different man from the Lockhart of the early days of Blackwood.
The passing years and the intimate life of Abbotsford had done
much to soften and widen the character of the brilliant and
mischief-loving freelance of Maga. Andrew Lang has done good
service in greatly modifying the severe estimate formed by many
of his contemporaries of the character of 'The Scorpion’; and has
shown that he possessed a far more generous and more genial
temperament than posterity had given him credit for. In the
editorial chair, he ruled as a constitutional monarch, advised by
his chief ministers Croker and Southey and Barrow? ; while
Murray himself—the publisher and owner of The Quarterly—took
no small part in the direction of its energies. Lockhart's own
political instincts were far less inclined to the older toryism than
were those of Southey and Croker, to whose vehemence should be
mainly ascribed the violent opposition of the Review to catholic
emancipation and reform. Doubtless, it was Lockhart's own wiser
temperament that led The Quarterly to support the liberal con-
servatism of the Tamworth manifesto, and to uphold Peel till the
general bouleversement of tory politics which followed his repeal of
the corn laws.
From its very birth, John Wilson Croker, then a young member
of parliament, and already a friend of Sir Arthur Wellesley, gave
strenuous support to The Quarterly, and, by constant contributions,
down to the time of the Crimean war, did much to impress upon it
1 Centenary article, The Quarterly Review, July 1909.
* Sir John Barrow, for forty years second secretary to the admiralty. He con-
tributed nearly 200 articles to The Quarterly, between 1809 and his death in 1848.


## p. 155 (#179) ############################################

vi]
Blackwood's Magazine 155
his own strong spirit of toryism. It may well be that he does not
deserve that reputation for the worst political self-seeking which
was the result of Lord Macaulay's vigorous denunciation, and of
the fact that it was from Croker that Disraeli, in Coningsby, drew
the portrait of Rigby. The Quarterly itself has recently defended
him, and not unsuccessfully, against such an extreme charge. That
he was a prejudiced, a bitter and a violent, political partisan is
beyond dispute.
The later political developments of the two great Reviews,
however interesting, when W. E. Gladstone was an occasional
contributor to The Edinburgh and The Quarterly (his topics
being by no means exclusively political), and when Lord Salisbury
was lending his brilliant and polemical pen to the conservative
cause in The Quarterly, do not concern us here, though they seem
to deserve passing mention.
The birth and early growth of The Quarterly Review were, as
we have seen, the direct result of the political animosities called
forth by the reforming, and, as was then considered, the dangerous,
doctrines, which, for the previous half dozen years, The Edinburgh
had been spreading through the land. The rise of Blackwood's
Magazine was mainly due to a quite different cause, though a
conservative or tory spirit (to use the then current expression)
animated its principal supporters as strongly as it did those whom
Scott and Canning had summoned to the launch of The Quarterly
on its distinguished career. Constable was the publisher, not the
real founder, of The Edinburgh; Murray stood in the same rela-
tion to The Quarterly. But the new magazine which appeared in
1817 was brought into life by the energy, ability and acumen of
the spirited publisher whose name it bore. In 1802, The Edin-
burgh-a new departure in this class of literature resulted from
the association, at that time, in Edinburgh, for the purpose of
literary and political criticism, of a group of gifted and ardent and
independent young men, none of whom was then known to fame.
In 1809, its great rival, The Quarterly, had, in a less adventurous
fashion, taken the field. It had behind it, from the beginning, the
patronage and support of the leading statesmen of the prevailing
political party in the state, and it was assisted by some of the most
distinguished literary men of the day. Both these reviews had
prospered. Their circulation was believed to be, and was, very
large. The great position and prosperity of Constable, especially,
known in Edinburgh as 'the Crafty,' largely due to the wonderful
success of The Edinburgh, naturally attracted the attention of


## p. 156 (#180) ############################################

156
[CH.
Reviews and Magazines
aspiring rivals in the trade. At this time, moreover, Blackwood
was feeling keenly the defeat of a well-grounded hope that he
had established a lasting connection with Scott by the publica-
tion of The Black Dwarf, which, however, after the fourth
edition, had been, somewhat roughly, transferred to Constable.
His feelings, as a high tory in politics, and as a rival in trade,
concurred in stirring him to make a great effort to lower whig
ascendency, tackle The Edinburgh Review and establish and
promote the publishing fame of the house of Blackwood.
In Blackwood's opinion, The Quarterly, however sound its
principles, was too ponderous and dignified and middle-aged to
counteract the mischief done by the brilliant and dashing organ
of Jeffrey. He was in search of something lighter-an Edinburgh
magazine ‘more nimble, more frequent, more familiar. His first
start was disappointing, and, by the time that the third number of
his monthly had been published, its insipidity, want of spirit and
lack of party zeal had determined him to place its management in
new hands. He saw the necessity of making a sensation. To
begin with, at all events, it would be better to startle, and even to
shock, the public than merely to win its respectful applause. And
the three, in their different ways very gifted men, to whom he now
turned were admirably suited for his purpose-Lockhart, in later
days to become famous as editor of The Quarterly Review, and
the biographer of Scott; Wilson, afterwards professor of moral
philosophy and destined to live in English literature as 'Christo-
pher North’; and Hogg, the Ettrick shepherd. The result of their
joint lucubrations was the famous ‘Chaldee MS. ,' which, in
language parodied from Scripture, overwhelmed, with scathing
satire and personal ridicule, the best known and most respected
notabilities of the Scottish metropolis. Blackwood was reckoning
upon the outrageousness of his new number to advertise it. And
he had not reckoned in vain, for its bitter personalities and strong
flavour of irreverence at once roused a storm, and offended the
literary world of Edinburgh. It is surprising that the excitement
should have spread far beyond the bounds of Edinburgh and
Scotland, where, alone, the personal and local allusions of this
famous satire could have been appreciated. Blackwood and his
friends had, in their immediate object, succeeded magnificently,
for the October number had made Maga, as its supporters loved
to call it, famous throughout the land.
Still, notoriety and fame, thus achieved, brought down upon
the heads of Blackwood and his coadjutors no little trouble.
6


## p. 157 (#181) ############################################

VI]
157
Lockhart
Libel actions and challenges to mortal combat filled the air. No
one would own to being responsible editor; and, as to the
Chaldee MS. ,' it would seem to have slipped in almost unawares,
if we can believe the account which Blackwood gave to those who
threatened him. After a large number of copies had been sold,
the magazine was suppressed, and future copies were published
without the famous paper. In the eyes of readers of a century later,
there are two articles in the same number that deserve even more
serious condemnation: namely, the violent attack on Coleridge and
his Biographia Literaria, written by Wilson, and the still more
virulent attack on Leigh Hunt and the Cockney school of poetry,
written by Lockhart. With Blackwoods Magazine, hatred of the
school,' giving it an extended signification, became an obsession.
Leigh Hunt, editor of the radical Examiner, was, doubtless, a red
rag to the young tory writers of Maga; but they must have been
blind indeed when they threatened with their wrath the 'minor
adherents' of the school—the Shelleys, the Keats's and the
Webbes. '
The only excuse Lockhart could make for himself in later years
was his extreme youth at the time when he first entered the service
of Maga. He had fallen under the influence of Wilson-a dozen
years his senior-whose enthusiastic temperament and social charm,
united with literary ability of a very high order, had, from the
beginning, greatly impressed him. Lockhart consoled himself
with the reflection that, in all probability, the reckless violence
and personalities of his friend and himself had done no harm to
anyone but themselves. The Magazine was sowing its wild oats,
and it was some time before Blackwood and his merry men
exerted themselves to acquire for it a respected and responsible
character. Lockhart's best friends, including Walter Scott, re-
gretted his close connection with what seemed to them to be a
species of literary rowdyism ; but Lockhart, though age moderated
and softened him, ever remained unshaken in his allegiance to
Maga.
In 1819, the indefatigable publisher found another recruit for
his turbulent monthly, in some ways no less remarkable than
Lockhart and Wilson-the Irishman Maginn. A more brilliant
trio of singular individualities have seldom been united in literary
enterprise. Lockhart, a son of the manse, had won distinction in
scholarship at the universities of Glasgow and Oxford. A born
linguist, he had betaken himself to the study of German and
Spanish literature. He had made the acquaintance of Goethe


## p. 158 (#182) ############################################

158
[CH.
Reviews and Magazines
not a
at Weimar, and, on his return home, he must at once have found a
position in the best literary circles of Edinburgh. Though he was
called to the bar, it was soon evident that his activities would find
their development rather in the pursuit of literature than in the
practice of the law. Lockhart was exceedingly clever with his pencil
as well as with his pen; and, in the exercise of both, he
gave
little amusement and offence to the good people of Edinburgh by
the pungency of his clever caricatures and vivid word-sketches,
which form part of Peter's Letters to his Kinsfolk, published
in 1819.
Wilson was a man of means, who, like Lockhart, had received
his education at the universities of Glasgow and Oxford, and, in
both, had won distinction as a scholar. As gentleman-commoner of
Magdalen, he had, moreover, achieved fame among undergraduates
as an athlete of great prowess, and some of his feats of strength
and agility, especially a long-jump in Christchurch meadows, were
long remembered. On leaving Oxford, he had bought the property
of Elleray on lake Windermere, where he had soon become
intimate with his poetical neighbours, Wordsworth, Coleridge and
Southey; but the sudden loss of a large portion of his fortune
compelled him to abandon the life of a country gentleman, and to
seek remunerative employment in Edinburgh. His poems, The
Isle of Palms and The City of the Plague, had already made him
known there. Jeffrey was ready to welcome him, and, in 1818,
inserted in The Edinburgh a very able article from his pen on the
fourth canto of Childe Harold. But political differences in those
days counted for much, and the energies of Wilson, withdrawn
from The Edinburgh, were quickly absorbed in fighting the battles
of toryism and Maga. The Edinburgh town council elected him
in 1819 to the chair of moral philosophy in the university, over Sir
William Hamilton-a startling and even outrageous proceeding,
only, of course, to be accounted for by the fact that the party
preferences of the town councillors dictated the selection. Never-
theless, Wilson was to prove a very good and stimulating professor.
Lockhart and Wilson were now fast friends, differing greatly in
personal characteristics, but alike in their recklessness and in the
violence of their language and in the mischievous delight with
which they assailed their foes and provoked commotion : Lockhart,
the Scorpion which delighted to sting the faces of men,' Wilson,
overflowing with boisterous animal spirits, warmhearted and
generous, but heedless as to the strength of his blows, or as
to restraining the violent outpouring of his feelings.
>


## p. 159 (#183) ############################################

vi]
Noctes Ambrosianae
159
To these two Scotsmen-'the Great Twin Brethren,' as they
are admiringly called in Annals of a Publishing House (Black-
wood)—there was added a typical Irishman, the brilliant, rol-
licking, reckless Maginn, once a schoolmaster in Cork, a man of
wit and learning, to whom Trinity college, Dublin, had given an
honorary degree. Taken into the utmost confidence by the inner
circle of Maga, Maginn, before long, was contributing a large
portion of its articles and almost all its verse; and he did it a yet
greater service, if it is true that the suggestion of the famous
Noctes Ambrosianae came from him. It was from Maginn that
Thackeray drew the portrait of captain Shandon in Pendennis.
Garnett has described him as
8 man of undoubtedly extraordinary faculties. They were those of an accom-
plished scholar grafted on a brilliant improvisatore—the compound consti-
tuting a perfectly ideal magazinist.
But, with all his endowments, his faults and failings were many.
In 1830, he did good work in founding Fraser's Magazine (on the
same lines as Blackwood), which, with the cooperation of such men
as Coleridge and Thackeray and Carlyle, was for years to stand
in the front rank of the monthlies. His connection with the news-
paper press, however, tended to become less reputable, and his
intemperate habits hastened the way downhill of a man who had
many admirers, and no enemy but himself.
The Blackwood group, however much their behaviour may have
occasionally shocked public sensibilities, contained men of very
remarkable genius. Through Wilson, De Quincey, now settled
in Edinburgh, obtained his introduction to Blackwood, and it
was as early as 7 January 1821 that he described himself, in a
letter to the startled editor, as the Atlas of the Magazine,' who
could alone 'save it from the fate which its stupidity deserved ! '
Coleridge, also an occasional contributor, was full of advice as to
its proper management. Lockhart, Hogg, Wilson, De Quincey,
Maginn would have been an awkward team for an editor or
publisher of less commanding qualities than Blackwood to control.
Noctes Ambrosianae added for many years greatly to the fame
and popularity of Maga. Striking out a new line, these papers
reported imaginary dialogues and conversations on questions and
events of the day, on remarkable books and the characters of
public men, carried on, at social gatherings and suppers at
Ambrose's, with all the freedom of familiar intercourse between
intimate friends. They were, to begin with, the composition of
several authors, of Lockhart or Hogg, of Wilson or Maginn; but,


## p. 160 (#184) ############################################

160
[CH.
Reviews and Magazines
after two or three years, they became almost wholly the work of
Wilson. Beginning in 1822, they continued till 1835, and number
71 papers. Of these, 41, Wilson's own composition, have been
included in his collected works, edited by Ferrier, of which
they form the first four volumes. The characters who occupy the
stage are Christopher North (Wilson himself), Hogg, the Ettrick
shepherd, Timothy Tickler, more or less an impersonation of a
maternal uncle of Wilson, and, in a few papers, De Quincey—the
English Opium Eater,' and O'Doherty, representing Maginn.
Sometimes, personages wholly fictitious are introduced, while,
sometimes, real persons, without any consent of their own, are
pressed into the service at the good pleasure of Maga. The
inimitable wit and humour of these discussions, the freshness of
thought and criticism, and the racy language of the talkers, have
given Noctes a place in English literature. The impersonation of
Hogg, in particular, is a realistic triumph, and in that vivid
portraiture the Ettrick shepherd will live hardly less than in the
records of his actual life and work.
Another periodical of the nimbler and more familiar' kind
came to life very soon after the start of Blackwood, and very warm
grew the rivalry between the northern and the southern monthly.
The London Magazine (1820—9) had a short but very dis-
tinguished career, during which it introduced to its readers the
works of men who were to take a very high place in British
literature. Leigh Hunt and Lamb and Hazlitt were, in a special
degree, selected for denunciation by Maga and the hostile critics
of the northern metropolis, as representative of what they,
with lofty superiority, denominated 'the Cockney school. ' In
September 1821 appeared the first instalment of De Quincey's
Confessions of an Opium Eater, which stimulated public curiosity,
and which, as time went on, attracted a vast multitude of readers.
In the September following was published that Dissertation on
Roast Pig which ever since has been one of the most widely
appreciated and frequently quoted of all the Essays of Elia.
Keats, shortly before his death, published two poems in The
London; but, neither in its poetry nor in its prose, could 'the
Mohock Magazine' (for so the cockneys had nicknamed Maga) find
anything in The London to mitigate the violence of its hostility.
Maga was but slightly the senior of the conflicting magazines,
The London's first number having appeared only a couple of years
after the Chaldee MS. ' had rendered Blackwood famous. As
regards recourse to personalities and insults, there was little to
1


## p. 161 (#185) ############################################

vi] Colburn's New Monthly Magazine 161
choose between them. Literary criticism on either side became
submerged in torrents of personal abuse; and, in accordance with
the fashion of that day, it very soon became necessary for Lock-
hart and John Scott (the first editor of The London) to seek
satisfaction by meeting each other on the sod. ' A duel between
them having, at the last moment, been averted by a clumsily
managed and misapprehended arrangement, Lockhart returned to
Scotland, only to hear from his friend and second, Christie, that
he had himself felt bound to engage Scott in deadly combat at
Chalk farm, and had left him mortally wounded on the field of battle.
These unhappy events produced a great effect upon Lockhart,
whom his wisest and truest friends, Walter Scott, Christie and
others had in vain attempted to withdraw from intimate associa-
tion with Mohock methods. Jeffrey, indeed,
Jeffrey, indeed, had felt himself
compelled unwillingly to drop all connection with Maga's con-
tributors.
Political differences may, perhaps, have counted for
something in bringing him to that determination; but that
Murray, who was in strong political sympathy, and had, with
Blackwood himself, a direct interest in the publication, should
have withdrawn all countenance from it, and that Walter Scott
should have remonstrated, indicate that, quite irrespective of
party leanings, violence and personality had exceeded even the
wide limits which the public sentiment of the day permitted.
When, in 1821, Thomas Campbell undertook the editorship of
Colburn's New Monthly Magazine, he declared in his preface that
its main object would be literary, not political. It reported the
news of the day, furnished a chronicle and register of events and
contained valuable original papers, prose and poetry, covering a
vast variety of subjects. Campbell's own Lectures on Poetry,
and several of his most admired poems, such as The Last Man,
first appeared in its pages. It was a miscellany, not a review or a
critical journal at all; and, though he obtained the services of
some distinguished men as contributors, Campbell's editorship,
which lasted nine years, was hardly successful. And now a new
era was opening for the monthlies, when the greatest masters of
English fiction were to turn to them as providing the readiest
access to the public ear, and when, for a magazine, there would be
no such 'sheet anchor' as a great novelist.
No one can take a broad survey of the work accomplished by
the English reviews and magazines that came into existence in
the earlier part of the nineteenth century, and by their successors,
without being impressed by the immense service they have
11
a
2
E. L. XII.
CH. VI.


## p. 162 (#186) ############################################

162
(CH.
Reviews and Magazines
7
rendered to English literature, both by direct contribution, and by
the support they have given (often essential support) to men in
their younger days, who were to achieve future literary eminence.
At the same time, it is difficult not to be struck by the strange
fatality under which their criticism, in very conspicuous instances,
went hopelessly astray. Especially in the hostile reception given
to new poetical works of real genius, the leaders of English
criticism appear, to the eyes of a later generation, to have been
singularly blind. We have already noticed the attitude assumed
by The Edinburgh towards Wordsworth and the ‘lakers. The
Quarterly, in 1818, showed as little discrimination, in that well-
known article by the redoubtable Croker which has been popularly,
į but erroneously, made responsible for the death of Keats. In its
centenary number, The Quarterly justly observed that a worse
choice could not have been made than that of Croker for dis-
cussing the merits or demerits of 'the poet's poet'; since, though
some poetry may have been within his range, and though he
admired Scott and Byron, Croker was a thoroughly unpoetical
person. ' This is true ; but, if an explanation, it is certainly no
excuse for the choice. Inasmuch as Lockhart saw in Keats merely
'a cuckney follower' of Leigh Hunt, and as Shelley, at this period,
seems almost to have shared Lockhart's sentiments, it seems safer
to fall back upon Andrew Lang's comment :
6
Shelley's letter to Leigh Hunt, with Lockhart's obiter dicta, prove that
poet and writer alike may fail fully to know contemporary genius when they
meet it, and may as in Shelley's preference for Leigh Hunt to Keats prefer
contemporary mediocrity,
It is not given to all men—even to all editors—to recognise
'genius when they meet it. ' On the other hand, editors and
critics have very often discovered, and enabled to win fame, quite
unknown men, possessed, as the world in later days has recognised,
of real ability, men who, but for them, might have had great diffi-
culty in emerging from obscurity at all. Moreover, the editor of
a periodical has often a difficult task in building up, out of varied
and excellent material, a complete and effective whole. It is not
surprising that the relations between Carlyle and his editors were,
notwithstanding his indisputable genius, sometimes strained. He
could not stand 'editorial hacking and hewing,' he wrote to
Macvey Napier of The Edinburgh, for, surely, he, of all men, might
be trusted to write quietly, without hysterical vehemence, as one
a
1 See Andrew Lang's Life of Lockhart, vol. I.


## p. 163 (#187) ############################################

VI]
163
Periodical Literature
Literature
who not merely supposed but knew. Lockhart, of The Quarterly,
was compelled to decline an article from Carlyle on chartism,
partly, because he stood in awe of his powerful lieutenant, Croker,
and, partly, because the article almost assumed the dimensions of a
book. In the years 1833 and 1834, Sartor Resartus was appearing
in Fraser; but the editor was hurrying it to a close, finding that
it did not meet the taste of his readers.
A century and more has passed since Walter Scott declared)
there was no literary criticism to be found outside The Edinburgh.
In quantity, at all events, the deficiency was soon supplied ; and
quarterlies and monthlies and weekly and daily newspapers
poured out a never ceasing flood of comment on almost every
publication that saw the light Reviews and magazines soon
outgrew the extravagance of their stormy youth, and the excessive
violence of language and the gross personalities once in fashion
passed away almost as completely as the habit of duelling. The
meeting between Jeffrey and Moore, and the more tragical en-
counter between Christie and Scott, brought credit to no one.
Personal animosity and private dislike continued occasionally to
colour criticism and to make it more scathing and pungent, as when
Macaulay and Croker, in their respective organs, dusted each
other's jackets’; but, differences between men of the pen were
now left to the pen to settle ; so, even the courts of law ceased
to be invoked in their quarrels. The extraordinary develop-
ment of periodical literature, as of journalism, in recent times,
has greatly changed the character of literary criticism and the
public to which it appealed—so much so that it is difficult for us,
nowadays, to understand the thrill of emotion with which the
first number of The Edinburgh was received, or the violent
excitement created throughout the country by the extravagancies
and absurdities of the Chaldee MS. '
Yet, the great services rendered, in the early years of the
nineteenth century, by the pioneers of the new advance of
periodical literature in this country, and of independent criticism
in many fields, in that of literature more especially, will, neverthe-
less, remain unforgotten.
6
6
11-2


## p. 164 (#188) ############################################

CHAPTER VII
HAZLITT
Of the group of romantic writers whose work appeared chiefly
in the magazines of the first quarter of the nineteenth century, no
one led an existence more detached than William Hazlitt. By
temperament, he loved isolation, delighting to go alone on his
walks into the country so that he might turn over in his mind
some favourite abstract proposition and try to analyse, for his own
gratification, some peculiar phase of human nature. In thinking
upon political affairs he had assumed a position at variance with
that held by most contemporary Englishmen. 'He wilfully placed
himself,' writes De Quincey, 'in collision with all the interests
that were in the sunshine of this world and with all the persons
that were then powerful in England. ' That he was not popular
did not, however, make him, like Swift, a cynic. He had no high
social ambitions which could not be realised. No man was ever
more free from the desire of political preferment. Apparently, his
highest aim was to write in a manner that would satisfy himself.
Disappointment came to him when he saw others treat lightly
convictions to which he clung with desperate earnestness. He was
embittered when he discovered a friend wavering in his loyalty to
a cherished ideal or when some one spoke with derision of his idols,
especially of Rousseau, Napoleon, or the principles of the French
revolution. With almost everybody worth knowing in London he
became acquainted, but he quarrelled with all, so that when
he died, in 1830, only Charles Lamb stood at his bedside. If we
really learn to understand this isolated temperament, we shall find
an admirable strain of courage and honesty, a conspicuous lack of
double-dealing in a time when it might have been of temporary
advantage for him to have trimmed his sails to the varying winds.
No less a man than Charles Lamb discovered the real heart; for he
wrote to Southey :
I should belie my own conscience if I said less than that I think W. H.
to be in his natural and healthy state one of the wisest and finest spirits
!


## p. 165 (#189) ############################################

CH. VII] Hazlitt's Early Years 165
breathing. So far from being ashamed of that intimacy which was betwixt
us, it is my boast that I was able for so many years to have preserved it entire,
and I think I shall go to my grave without finding, or expecting to find, such
another companion.
Some light may be thrown upon Hazlitt's temperament and
upon his antagonistic attitude toward the prevailing opinions of
his day by a recital of some of the incidents of his life. From
his forbears, he inherited traditions of dissent. His paternal
ancestors had come originally from Holland to Ireland. There,
the elder William Hazlitt was born and grew to be a man of
strong character, destined to impress those with whom he asso-
ciated. He received the master's degree from the university of
Glasgow, where he established for himself a reputation for liberal
views on religion and politics. He married the daughter of a
nonconformist ironmonger and began his career as a unitarian
minister. Wherever his profession took him, he attracted men of
such intellectual ability as Priestley and Benjamin Franklin and
achieved more than local fame on account of his powers of dis-
cussion. At Maidstone, William Hazlitt, the future essayist,
was born on 10 April 1778. From Maidstone, the family moved
to Bandon, county Cork, Ireland, where the father aroused the
suspicions of the townspeople by an apparently too great devotion
to the cause of the American soldiers in Kinsale prison. Recog-
nising his increasing unpopularity, he decided to try his fortunes
in America. Like many a radical of his day, he believed that
there his ideals of liberty would become a reality. His three
years in America present shifting scenes ending in disappoint-
ment and a determination that his family should return to
England. In the following winter (1787–8), the father was
called to the little church at Wem, near Shrewsbury. For more
than a quarter of a century, the Hazlitts lived in this remote
village. Most of the years between the age of ten and twenty-
two, young William spent at Wem. So far, there is little indi-
cation of what the future had in keeping for the son of the poor,
obscure, dissenting minister. The diary written by his sister
Margaret in America attests his delight in the long walks across
country with his father in Massachusetts. Numerous references
in his essays describe with enthusiasm the pleasure which he found
in walking with his father in the country about Wem and in talking
on metaphysical subjects.
The other influence which seems with increasing years to have
grown into a passion is the impression of nature upon him. His


## p. 166 (#190) ############################################

166
[CH.
Hazlitt
eye was ever turned out of the window. In his own garden at
Wem, he watched with a sympathy akin to Thoreau's 'the broccoli
plants and kidney beans of his own rearing. His tramps led him
into all parts of Shropshire, to Peterborough, and into Wales.
Nature was company enough' for him. Although he afterwards
wrote much and well about books, he always associated everything
with outdoor life-books which he had read, churches or pictures
which he had seen, people whom he had met. Even the battles of
Napoleon had such associations :
On the same day the news of the battle of Austerlitz came; I walked out
in the afternoon and, as I returned, saw the evening star set over a poor man's
cottage with other thoughts and feelings than I shall ever have again.
He struggled long and hard to find himself and his place in the
world. When he was fifteen, he was sent by his father to the
nonconformist theological seminary at Hackney. There, he found
a deal of metaphysics to his liking, and, also, soon discovered
that the ministry was not to be his calling. Fortunately for him,
his brother John was a portrait-painter in London working under
the direction of Sir Joshua Reynolds. To his brother's studio,
William made frequent visits and became enamoured of the pro-
fession of painting. He was more than ever in doubt what to do.
After an unsuccessful year at school, he returned to Wem. He could
not preach, he would like to paint, he wished to write but could not.
'I was at that time dumb, inarticulate, helpless like a worm by the
wayside. ' One day, in 1796, he found a copy of Burke's Letter to a
Noble Lord. For the first time, he felt what it must be to write,
'to be able to convey the slightest conception of my meaning to
others in words. ' Then, a new light shone into his soul. He met
Coleridge, heard him preach, walked and talked with him and was
invited to visit him at Nether Stowey and to meet Wordsworth.
What this meant for Hazlitt he has described, with the charm of a
poet, in My First Acquaintance with Poets, one of the finest
essays in the language. As if from a dream, the young man of
twenty arose with a resolution that the greatest discouragements
could not shake off. Not quite ready to give up painting, he
spent a little while with his brother in London. He crossed to
the Louvre, where, for several months, he made copies of the
masters for friends at home and actually went about in northern
England painting portraits of his father, Wordsworth, Coleridge,
Lamb and others. Then, his career as a painter came abruptly to
a close. Nothing remained for him but to write.
1


## p. 167 (#191) ############################################

VII]
167
His Later Life
>
Like the careers of the other romantic essayists of the period,
Hazlitt's life presents nothing of thrilling interest. We know
little about it, aside from references in his essays, in the interesting
diary of Crabb Robinson and in the letters of Charles and Mary
Lamb. He became a friend of the most notable people in
London ; above all, he was always welcome at the rooms of the
Lambs. He has left us the best description of one of their Wednes-
day evenings. Unfortunately, he came to know a certain Sarah
Stoddart, a friend of Mary Lamb. After an unromantic court-
ship, they were married in 1808, with Charles Lamb as one of the
four witnesses. Charles wrote ominously to Southey, 'I was at
Hazlitt's marriage and had like to have been turned out several
times during the ceremony. Anything awful makes me laugh. '
After the wedding, the Hazlitts moved to Sarah's cottage at
Winterslow, a little village about six miles from Salisbury. For
about three years they lived at Winterslow, and afterwards, for
brief periods, Hazlitt repaired thither to obtain some of the
seclusion which contributed largely to his best writing. To neither
of the two persons was the union agreeable, and they planned to
go together to Scotland to obtain a divorce. A second marriage,
with a Mrs Bridgewater, proved a mere episode in his life and
seemed to confirm the opinion held by his friends that at least
Hazlitt's temper was not conducive to a life of marital happiness.
Twenty-five years were allotted to Hazlitt for his life-work.
In that short span, he succeeded in making his way to fame from
absolute obscurity, without the prestige of family or wealth, with
no formal education and no friends of influence. This he achieved
at a time when there were many men of Titanic mould. He won
distinction as a lecturer ; his criticisms on books, pictures and
plays were widely read; he became known as one of the best
talkers and he was the target of the invectives of some of the
cleverest, as well as the most brutal, of the reviewers in the leading
magazines.
The writings of Hazlitt have recently been collected by A. R.
Waller and Arnold Glover and published in twelve large, closely
printed volumes, in all about six thousand pages. Not many
of us would wish to read all these pages. Some of his writing
is forced and superficial, notably his essays on philosophy; some
is unpleasant, for example, the sentimental record of his passion
for the stupid servant girl in Liber Amoris; some is bitter and
full of prejudice; but, withal, there is much, very much, that is
fine, so fine that William Ernest Henley only yesterday could


## p. 168 (#192) ############################################

168
[ch.
Hazlitt
6
6
say, 'Hazlitt is ever Hazlitt; and at his highest moments Hazlitt
is hard to beat, and has not these many years been beaten. '
In whatever he did he was an enthusiast. The same gusto
which, as a boy, he had shown in his discussions with his father, he
displayed in his reading of philosophy and in his first attempt
(Essay on the Principles of Human Action, 1805) to elucidate
the systems of Hartley and Helvetius. He liked to cherish his
experiences : books that he had read, plays which he had seen,
pictures that he had admired. He liked to discuss abstract
propositions while he walked alone in the country, trying to
'forget the town and all that is in it. He liked to tell what he
liked and, above everything, be liked to try to say things in his
own way. And he succeeded so well that Stevenson, who admired
him ungrudgingly, once said of him, “We are all mighty fine
fellows, but none of us can write like Hazlitt. Certainly, it was,
for him, better to travel than to arrive'; else, it would be difficult
to understand how a man so widely hated, so bitterly attacked,
so much alone, could say on his death-bed : 'Well, I have had a
happy life. '
The subjects of his lectures or essays on authors and their
works include almost every name worth knowing in English
literature from Chaucer to Hazlitt's own day-men of varied
literary attainment of the Elizabethan era, wits of the restoration,
comic writers, dramatists, poets, novelists of the eighteenth
century and almost all his contemporaries.
When we consider that he did not have the guides and hand-
books of today which tell us dogmatically what to like and how to
appreciate the masterpieces of English literature, we get a better
understanding of the range and variety of these criticisms. He
had had almost no formal training, he knew little of ancient
classical literature in the original languages; but, somehow, in his
goings to and fro, he had laid hold of some of the great books of
the world and he had read them well : perhaps he knew Shake-
speare best, Montaigne was his model essayist and he knew
something of Le Sage, Rabelais, Rousseau, Boccaccio, Cervantes,
Goethe and Schiller. Among English writers, his favourites were
Spenser, Milton, Congreve, Swift, Arbuthnot, Burke, Fielding,
Richardson and Scott.
If his preparation for the task of a literary critic seems not
what we should expect today, certainly we are surprised how well
he succeeded in appraising the best English literature. Perhaps
his greatest service to his time was the attention which he


## p. 169 (#193) ############################################

VII]
Hazlitt as a Critic
169
directed to Shakespeare. Chagrined by the lack of intelligent
English criticism of Shakespeare, he praised without reserve
A. W. Schlegel for his sympathetic interpretation and set to
work to discuss each play with a gusto that has never been
excelled. Heine stated that, up to his time, Hazlitt's was the
best comment on Shakespeare. Perhaps his criticism lacked the
profoundness and philosophical insight of Coleridge and the
affectionate appreciation of Lamb, but it is more inclusive than
either. For the reader of today who wishes to read the plays of
Shakespeare with unadulterated enjoyment, not deviating into
dogmatic assertion or scientific research, Hazlitt is a sure guide.
His series of comments on Shakespeare's plays and characters is a
challenge to the reader to turn again to the scenes where he will
find something new in an old familiar passage. We can be certain
that Hazlitt has not led us into a waste of philological or philo-
sophical speculation. He does not put himself between Shakespeare
and ourselves but helps us to know Shakespeare better as a poet
and as a dramatist who saw life from many angles.
Likewise, the other dramatists of Shakespeare's day and
writers of prose receive most intelligent appreciation. Perhaps
the best of his critical work is the clear and discriminating
interpretation of the spirit of the Elizabethan age. Sifting the
gold from the dross, he sets in proper place the men and forces
which made the era great. In his discussion of seventeenth
century writers, he sounds surprisingly modern. His regard for
Milton, Bunyan, Sir Thomas Browne and Jeremy Taylor does not
show the same degree of devotion as does Lamb's quaint imitation
of them, but his judgment of their work as literature is certainly
more to be trusted by the reader who desires to view English
literature in its true perspective. Like many of his successors,
Hazlitt found the eighteenth century interesting in its virility, and
his preferences are amazingly supported by the best judgment of
today. He appreciated intelligently the forceful simplicity of
eighteenth century style and inherited the best qualities of that
style. He displayed genius in his ability to discern what was
real beneath the formality and affectation of eighteenth century
manners. His criticism of Pope, whom most of his contemporaries
did not understand, shows with what intelligence he recognised
Pope as the poet of art in contrast with Shakespeare the poet
of nature. He extolled the eloquence of Burke and urged re-
peatedly that here was the finest model for the expression, in
prose, of imaginative feeling.


## p. 170 (#194) ############################################

170
[CH.
Hazlitt
Hazlitt's criticism of his contemporaries in The Spirit of the
Age is in accord with his courageous position on all questions.
That he should sit in judgment on his own friends seemed to
him as natural as that he should speak out what he thought of
writers long since dead. It was inevitable that the personal esti-
mate should play a part here; but it is remarkable how a full
century accepts his verdict. To be sure, there are bits of ill-
temper and personal prejudice, but there is so much which is
sound and genuine that it is safe to say that these essays are
almost the last of Hazlitt's writings which the student of English
literature would surrender. The particular essays show the
fighting qualities of a man who was animated with fiery courage,
whom Gifford and the whole pack of hostile reviewers found a
most worthy antagonist. What he thought most worthy we still
admire, Coleridge, Cobbett, Scott, the greatest and wisest' of the
novelists, Wordsworth, 'the most original poet now living. We
do not hate all that he hated, but what he loved we find is most
deserving of our love.
To his envious contemporaries, who taunted him with a lack of
reading which, they affirmed, was displayed by the frequent re-
currence of the same quotation in his essays, he said,
I have been found fault with for repeating myself and for a narrow range
of ideas. To a want of general reading I plead guilty and am sorry for it
but perhaps if I had read more I might have thought less.
Perhaps that was an easy way to excuse himself; but it is true
that he tried most earnestly to cultivate the habit of thinking, and
detested nothing so much as servile imitation. He wished to
think and feel for himself. If he did not drink deep, he was an
expert taster. He wrote as he would have talked, guided by
an unusually catholic sympathy. No one literary form or period,
author or group of writers blinded him to the enjoyment of the
long sweep of varied literary expression. He had not sworn
allegiance to any school. Without historical or scientific equip-
ment, he was possessed of a rare faculty for describing a literary
movement and putting his finger on the central and impelling
force. For the mere dates of an author's life or mere linguistic
details, he had little interest. His enjoyment of Hamlet, Lear,
Othello, was not affected by any questions of textual uncertainty
or priority of composition. To him, it was sufficient that here
was poetry of a high order, that here was something that made
him glad to be alive.
An important contribution of Hazlitt is his comment on the


## p. 171 (#195) ############################################

VII)
171
Hazlitt's Dramatic Criticism
stage, largely included in A Review of the English Stage; or, A
Series of Dramatic Criticisms (1818, 1821). His first continuous
employment was on The Morning Chronicle, in 1813, for which he
wrote his first dramatic criticism, and, save for a few unimportant
things by Leigh Hunt, the first of its kind in our literature.
Later, he wrote for The Examiner, The Champion, The Times
and, finally, The London Magazine. These hundred or more of
articles include much interesting discussion of the theatres, plays
and actors of his time. His visits took him to Drury lane, Covent
garden, The Haymarket, The Lyceum, The King's, Surrey, The
Adelphi, The Coburg, The Aquatic and The East London. He wrote
of all the plays of Shakespeare, of those of the restoration and the
eighteenth century which were still given and of the first perform-
ances of plays of his own time. He described winter and summer
plays, pantomimes, operas and oratorios. He has left the best
account of the actors and actresses whom he saw, the Kembles, Kean,
Macready, Booth, Bannister, Miss Stephens, Mrs Siddons, as well
as sketches of others of whom we now know only the names. As
with his appreciation of literature, Hazlitt was not a formal critic
of the drama and theatre. His taste was formed under the
direction of his feelings. He wrote of the drama with gusto, not
because it was a great literary form made illustrious by Shake-
speare, possessed of formal technique and of a brilliant history, but
because he liked to go to the play to see the happy faces in the
pit,' to watch the actors in their parts and then, enriched by the
happy experiences of the evening, to go home to think it all over.
We like the stage because we like to talk about ourselves. We
do not like any person or persons who do not like plays. ' His
criticism is the vivid record of these impressions. He watched
closely the entrances and exits of the actors, their eyes, faces,
hands, listened to the cadences of the spoken sentences, and
marked the differences in an actor on successive evenings. Rarely
did he analyse a play as a formal composition, nor was he much
interested in the technique of the verse. The fine speeches held
him and the varying gales of passion, as they sweep the characters
into this or that extremity. A drama was something to be played,
and his comments took the form of personal descriptions of
Kemble as Sir Giles Overreach, Miss O'Neill as Lady Teazle,
Mrs Siddons as Lady Macbeth, Macready as Othello, or Kean as
lago, Shylock or Richard III.
In this field, he was a pioneer and his writings mark an epoch
in the history of theatrical criticism. Before his day, honest
6
6


## p.