Chapter 1

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 (_Athenaeum_) 151 Poems, 1833 (_Quarterly Review_) 152 The Princess (_Literary Gazette_) 176 BROWNING Paracelsus (_Athenaeum_) 187 Sordello (_Monthly Review_) 188 Men and Women (_Saturday Review_) 189

Notes 197 Index 223

INTRODUCTION

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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