Part 1

FAMOUS REVIEWS

_FROM THE SAME PUBLISHERS_

FAMOUS SPEECHES. First Series. From Cromwell to Gladstone. Selected and Edited with Introductory Notes by HERBERT PAUL. In demy 8vo, cloth, 470 pp. 7s. 6d. net.

FAMOUS SPEECHES. Second Series. From Lord Macaulay to Lord Rosebery. Selected and Edited with Introductory Notes by HERBERT PAUL. In demy 8vo, cloth, 398 pp. 7s. 6d. net.

FAMOUS SERMONS BY ENGLISH PREACHERS. From the VENERABLE BEDE to H.P. LIDDON. Edited with Historical and Biographical Notes by Canon DOUGLAS MACLEANE, M.A. In demy 8vo, cloth gilt. 6s. net.

FAMOUS REVIEWS

SELECTED AND EDITED

WITH INTRODUCTORY NOTES

BY

R. BRIMLEY JOHNSON

Authors are partial to their wit, 'tis true, But are not critics to their judgment too? _Pope_.

LONDON

1914

CONTENTS

PREFACE

OF CRITICISM AND THE CRITIC

THE EDINBURGH REVIEW: EDITOR'S NOTE

From _The Edinburgh Review_ (founded 1802)

LORD JEFFREY ON-- [SOUTHEY'S "THALABA" [SOUTHEY'S LAUREATE LAYS [THOMAS MOORE [WORDSWORTH'S "EXCURSION" ["ENDYMION"

LORD BROUGHAM ON BYRON

SYDNEY SMITH ON HANNAH MORE

MACAULAY ON-- [SOUTHEY'S COLLOQUIES [CROKER'S "BOSWELL" [W. E. GLADSTONE [MADAME D'ARBLAY

ANONYMOUS ON-- [WORDSWORTH [MATURIN'S "MELMOTH"

THE QUARTERLY REVIEW: EDITOR'S NOTE

From _The Quarterly Review_ (founded 1809)

GIFFORD ON-- [WEBER'S "FORD" [KEATS

CROKER ON-- [SYDNEY SMITH [MACAULAY

LOCKHART ON-- [THE AUTHOR OF "VATHEK" [S. T. COLERIDGE

SIR WALTER SCOTT ON JANE AUSTEN

ARCHBISHOP WHATELY ON JANE AUSTEN

W. E. GLADSTONE ON TENNYSON'S POEMS

CANON WILBERFORCE ON--[DARWIN [CARDINAL NEWMAN

ANONYMOUS ON SCOTT'S--["WAVERLEY" ["TALES OF MY LANDLORD"

ANONYMOUS ON-- [LEIGH HUNT'S "RIMINI" ["SHAKESPEARE HIMSELF AGAIN" [MOXON'S SONNETS ["VANITY FAIR" AND "JANE EYRE" [GEORGE ELIOT

BLACKWOOD'S MAGAZINE: EDITOR'S NOTE

From _Blackwood's Magazine_ (founded 1817)

PROFESSOR WILSON ON--[POPE AND WORDSWORTH (_Christopher North_) [LORD BYRON [DR. JOHNSON [CRUMBS FROM THE "NOCTES"

ANONYMOUS ON-- [S. T. COLERIDGE [THE COCKNEY SCHOOL I [" " " III [" " " IV [SHELLEY'S "PROMETHEUS"

THE WESTMINSTER REVIEW: EDITOR'S NOTE

From _The Westminster Review_ (founded 1824)

J. S. MILL ON-- [TENNYSON'S POEMS [MACAULAY'S "LAYS"

JOHN STERLING ON CARLYLE

FRASER'S MAGAZINE: EDITOR'S NOTE

From _Fraser's Magazine_

THACKERAY ON DICKENS'S CHRISTMAS STORIES

CHARLES KINGSLEY ON THE LAKE POETS

ANONYMOUS ON CHRISTMAS BOOKS, 1837

W. F. FOX: EDITOR'S NOTE

From _The Monthly Repository_ W. F. FOX ON BROWNING'S "PAULINE"

DE QUINCEY: EDITOR'S NOTE

From Tail's _Edinburgh Magazine_

DE QUINCEY ON POPE

PREFACE

Although regular literary organs, and the critical columns of the press, are both of comparatively recent origin, we find that almost from the beginning our journalists aspired to be critics as well as newsmongers. Under Charles II, Sir Roger L'Estrange issued his _Observator_ (1681), which was a weekly review, not a chronicle; and John Dunton's _The Athenian Mercury_ (1690), is best described as a sort of early "Notes and Queries." Here, as elsewhere, Defoe developed this branch of journalism, particularly in his _Review_ (1704), and in _Mist's Journal_ (1714). And, again, as in all other departments, his methods were not materially improved upon until Leigh Hunt, and his brother John, started _The Examiner_ in 1808, soon after the rise of the Reviews. Addison and Steele, of course, had treated literary topics in _The Spectator_ or _The Tatler_; but the serious discussion of contemporary writers began with the Whig _Edinburgh_ of 1802 and the Tory _Quarterly_ of 1809.

By the end of George III's reign every daily paper had its column of book-notices; while 1817 marks an epoch in the weekly press; when William Jerdan started _The Observator_ (parent of our _Athenaeum_) in order to furnish (for one shilling weekly) "a clear and instructive picture of the moral and literary improvement of the time, and a complete and authentic chronological literary record for reference."

Though probably there is no form of literature more widely practised, and less organised, than the review, it would be safe to say that every example stands somewhere between a critical essay and a publisher's advertisement. We need not, however, consider here the many influences which may corrupt newspaper criticism to-day, nor concern ourselves with those legitimate "notices of books" which only aim at "telling the story" or otherwise offering guidance for an "order from the library."

The question remains, on which we do not propose to dogmatise, whether the ideal of a reviewer should be critical or explanatory: whether, in other words, he should attempt final judgment or offer comment and analysis from which we may each form our own opinion. Probably no hard and fast line can be drawn between the review and the essay; yet a good volume of criticism can seldom be gleaned from periodicals. For one thing all journalism, whether consciously or unconsciously, must contain an appeal to the moment. The reviewer is introducing new work to his reader, the essayist, or critic proper, may nearly always assume some familiarity with his subject. The one hazards prophecy; the other discusses, and illumines, a judgment already formed, if not established. It is obvious that such reviews as Macaulay's in the _Edinburgh_ were often permanent contributions to critical history; while, on the other hand, many ponderous effusions of the _Quarterly_ are only interesting as a sign of the times.

The fame of a review, however, does not always depend on merit. The scandalous attacks on the Cockney school, for example, were neither good literature nor honest criticism. We still pause in wonder before the streams of virulent personal abuse and unbridled licence in temper which disgrace the early pages of volumes we now associate with sound and dignified, if somewhat conventional, utterances on the art of Literature as viewed from the table-land of authority. And, as inevitably the most famous reviews are those which attend the birth of genius, we must include more respectable errors of judgment, if we find also several remarkable appreciations which prove singular insight.

Following the "early" reviews, whether distinguished for culpable blindness, private hostility, or rare sympathy, we must depend for our second main source of material upon that fortunate combination of circumstances when one of the mighty has been invited to pass judgment upon his peers. When Scott notices Jane Austen, Macaulay James Boswell, Gladstone and John Stuart Mill Lord Tennyson, the article acquires a double value from author and subject. Curiously enough, as it would seem to us in these days of advertisement, many such treasures of criticism were published anonymously; and accident has often aided research in the discovery of their authorship. It is only too probable that more were written than we have yet on record.

In reviewing, as elsewhere, the growth of professionalism has tended to level the quality of work. The mass of thoroughly competent criticism issued to-day has raised enormously the general tone of the press; but genuine men of letters are seldom employed to welcome, or stifle, a newcomer; though Meredith, and more frequently Swinburne, have on occasion elected to pronounce judgment upon the passing generation; as Mrs. Meynell or Mr. G.K. Chesterton have sometimes said the right thing about their contemporaries. The days when postcard notices from Gladstone secured a record in sales are over; and, from whatever combination of causes, we hear no more of famous reviews.

R. BRIMLEY JOHNSON.

It is with regret that I have found it impossible to print more than a few of the following reviews complete. The writing of those days was, in almost every case, extremely prolix, and often irrelevant. It nearly always makes heavy reading in the originals. The _principle_ of selection adopted is to retain the most pithy, and attractive, portion of each article: omitting quotations and the discussion of particular passages. It therefore becomes necessary to remark--in justice to the writers--that most of the criticisms here quoted were accompanied by references to what was regarded by the reviewer as evidence supporting them. Most of the authors, or books, noticed however, are sufficiently well known for the reader to have no difficulty in judging for himself.

R. B. J.

OF CRITICISM AND CRITIC

DR. JOHNSON

There is a certain race of men, that either imagine it their duty, or make it their amusement, to hinder the reception of every work of learning or genius, who stand as sentinels in the avenues of fame, and value themselves upon giving ignorance and envy the first notice of a prey.

To these men, who distinguish themselves by the appellation of Critics, it is necessary for a new author to find some means of recommendation. It is probable, that the most malignant of these persecutors might be somewhat softened, and prevailed on, for a short time, to remit their fury. Having for this purpose considered many expedients, I find in the records of ancient times, that Argus was lulled by music, and Cerberus quieted with a sop; and am, therefore, inclined to believe that modern critics, who, if they have not the eyes, have the watchfulness of Argus, and can bark as loud as Cerberus, though, perhaps, they cannot bite with equal force, might be subdued by methods of the same kind. I have heard that some have been pacified with claret and a supper, and others laid asleep with the soft notes of flattery.--_The Rambler_.

CHRISTOPHER NORTH

I care not one single curse for all the criticism that ever was canted or decanted, or recanted. Neither does the world. The world takes a poet as it finds him, and seats him above or below the salt. The world is as obstinate as a million mules, and will not turn its head on one side or another for all the shouting of the critical population that ever was shouted. It is very possible that the world is a bad judge. Well, then-- appeal to posterity, and be hanged to you--and posterity will affirm the judgment, with costs.--_Noctes Ambrosianae, Sept_., 1825.

Our current literature teems with thought and feeling,--with passion and imagination. There was Gifford, and there are Jeffrey, and Southey ... and twenty--forty--fifty--other crack contributors to the Reviews, Magazines and Gazettes, who have said more tender, and true, and fine, and deep things in the way of criticism, than ever was said before since the reign of Cadmus, ten thousand times over,--not in long, dull, heavy, formal, prosy theories--but flung off-hand, out of the glowing mint--a coinage of the purest ore--and stamped with the ineffaceable impress of genius.--_Noctes Ambrosianae_, April, 1829.

The cause of a wrong taste is a defect of judgment. EDMUND BURKE.

We must not underrate him who uses wit for subsistence, and flies from the ingratitude of the age even to a bookseller for redress. OLIVER GOLDSMITH.

The critical faculty is a _rara avis_; almost as rare, indeed, as the phoenix, which appears only once in five hundred years. ARTHUR SCHOPENHAUER.

The Supreme Critic ... is ... that Unity, that Oversoul, within which every man's particular being is contained and made one with all other. R. W. EMERSON.

Criticism's best spiritual work which is to keep man from a self-satisfaction which is retarding and vulgarising, to lead him towards perfection, by making his mind dwell upon what is excellent in itself, and the absolute beauty and fitness of things. MATTHEW ARNOLD.

The whole history of criticism has been a triumph of authors over critics. R. G. MOULTON.

Our criticism is disabled by the unwillingness of the critic to learn from an author, and his readiness to mistrust him. D. H. HOWELLS.

We have too many small schoolmasters; yet not only do I not question in literature the high utility of criticism, but I should be tempted to say that the part it plays may be the supremely beneficent one when it proceeds from deep sources, from the efficient combination of experience and perception. In this light one sees the critic as the real helper of mankind, a torch-bearing outrider, the interpreter _par excellence_. HENRY JAMES.

FAMOUS REVIEWS

* * * * *

THE EDINBURGH REVIEW

"A confederacy (the word _conspiracy_ may be libellous) to defend the worst atrocities of the French, and to cry down every author to whom England was dear and venerable. A better spirit now prevails in the _Edinburgh Review_ from the generosity and genius of Macaulay. But in the days when Brougham and his confederates were writers in it, more falsehood and more malignity marked its pages than any other journal in the language."

W.S. LANDOR.

Landor is speaking, of course, with his usual impetuosity, particularly moved by antipathy to Lord Brougham. A fairer estimate of the "bluff and blue" exponent of Whig principles may be obtained from our brief estimate of Jeffrey below. His was the informing spirit, at least in its earliest days, and that spirit would brook no divided sway.

FRANCIS LORD JEFFREY (1773-1850)

Jeffrey was editor of the _Edinburgh Review_ from its foundation in October 10th, 1802, till June, 1829; and continued to write for it until June, 1848. He was more patronising in his abuse than either _Blackwood_ or the _Quarterly_, and on the whole fairer and more dignified; though he was considerably influenced by political bias. In fact, his judgments--though versatile--were narrow, his most marked limitations arising from blindness to the imaginative.

The short, vivacious figure (so low that he might pass under your chin without ever catching the eye even for a moment, says Lockhart), was far more impressive when familiar than at first sight. Lord Cockburn praises his legal abilities (whether as judge or advocate) almost without qualification; but Wilson derides his appearance in the House:--"A cold thin voice, doling out little, quaint, metaphysical sentences with the air of a provincial lecturer on logic and _belles-lettres_. A few good Whigs of the old school adjourned upstairs, the Tories began to converse _de omnibus rebus et quibusdam aliis_, the Radicals were either snoring or grinning, and the great gun of the north ceased firing amidst such a hubbub of inattention, that even I was not aware of the fact for several minutes."

He has been called "almost a lecturer in society," and it is clear that his difficulty always was to cease talking. Men as different as Macaulay and Charles Dickens have spoken with deep personal affection of his memory.

In one of Carlyle's inimitable "pen-portraits" he is described as "a delicate, attractive, dainty little figure, as he merely walked about, much more if he were speaking: uncommonly bright, black eyes, instinct with vivacity, intelligence and kindly fire; roundish brow, delicate oval face, full, rapid expression; figure light, nimble, pretty, though so small, perhaps hardly five feet four in height.... His voice clear, harmonious, and sonorous, had something of metallic in it, something almost plangent ... a strange, swift, sharp-sounding, fitful modulation, part of it pungent, _quasi latrant_, other parts of it cooing, bantery, lovingly quizzical, which no charm of his fine ringing voice (_metallic_ tenor, of sweet tone), and of his vivacious rapid looks and pretty little attitudes and gestures, could altogether reconcile you to, but in which he persisted through good report and bad."

* * * * *

Perhaps Jeffrey's most famous criticism was the "This will never do" on Wordsworth; of which Southey wrote to Scott, "Jeffrey, I hear, has written what his friends call a _crushing_ review of the Excursion. He might as well seat himself on Skiddaw, and fancy that he crushed the mountain."

It is obvious, indeed, that the Lake poets had little respect for their "superior" reviewers; whose opinions, on the other hand, were not subject to influences from high places. It will be noticed that Jefferey is even more severe on Southey's Laureate "Lays" than on his "Thalaba."

The review on Moore, quoted below, was followed by formal arrangements for a duel at Chalk Farm on 11th August, 1806; but the police had orders to interrupt, and pistols were loaded with paper. Even the semblance of animosity was not maintained, as we find Moore contributing to the _Edinburgh_ before the end of the same year.

We fear that the appreciation of Keats was partly influenced by political considerations; since Leigh Hunt had so emphatically welcomed him into the camp. It remains, however, a pleasing contrast to the ferocious onslaught on _Endymion_ of Gifford printed below.

HENRY LORD BROUGHAM (1779-1868)

Brougham was intimately associated with Jeffrey in the foundation of the _Edinburgh Review_: he is said to have written eighty articles in the first twenty numbers, though like all his work, the criticism was spoilt by egotism and vanity. The fact is that an over-brilliant versatility injured his work. Combining "in his own person the characters of Solon, Lycurgus, Demosthenes, Archimedes, Sir Isaac Newton, Lord Chesterfield, and a great many more," his restless genius accomplished nothing substantial or sound. His writing was far less careful than his oratory. A man from whom almost everything was expected, and who was always before the eye of the public; he has been described as "the God of Whiggish idolatry," and as "impossible" in society. Harriet Martineau is unsparing in her criticism of his manners and language; and evidently he was an inveterate swearer. His enthusiasm for noble causes was infectious; only, as Coleridge happily expressed it, "because his heart was placed in what should have been his head, you were never sure of him--you always doubted his sincerity."

In the Opposition and at the Bar this eloquent energy had full scope, "but as Lord Chancellor his selfish disloyalty offended his colleagues while," as O'Connell remarked, "If Brougham knew a little of Law, he would know a little of everything." Unquestionably his obvious failings obscured his real eminence, and even hinder us, to-day, from doing full justice to his memory.

* * * * *

It was the following, somewhat heavy-handed, review which inspired the _English Bards and Scotch Reviewers_, with all its "extraordinary powers of malicious statement"--truly a Roland for his Oliver.

SYDNEY SMITH (1771-1845)

The third founder of the _Edinburgh_ and one of its most aggressive reviewers, until March, 1827, Sydney Smith has been described as "most provokingly and audaciously personal in his strictures.... He was too complacent, too aboundingly self-satisfied, too buoyantly full of spirits, to hate anybody; but he burlesques them, derides them, and abuses them with the most exasperating effrontery--in a way that is great fun to the reader, but exquisite torture to the victim." At the same time, his wit was always governed by commonsense (its most prevailing distinction); and, though almost unique among humorists for his personal gaiety, "his best work was done in promoting practical ends, and his wit in its airiest gambols never escaped his control." There was, in fact, considerable independence--and even courage--in his seriously inspired attacks on various abuses, and on every form of affectation and cant. Though his manners and conversation were not precisely those we generally associate with the Cloth, Sydney Smith published several volumes of sermons, and always accepted the responsibilities of his position as a clergyman with becoming industry. Croker's veiled sarcasm in the _Quarterly_ (printed below) was no more bitter, or truthful, than similar utterances on any Whig.

* * * * *

We know little to-day of--

The sacred dramas of Miss Hannah More Where Moses and the little muses snore,

but, in her own day, she was flattered in society and a real influence among the serious-minded. She understood the poor and gave them practical advice. Sydney Smith, of course, would be in sympathy with her "good works," but could not resist his joke.

THOMAS BABINGTON LORD MACAULAY (1800-1859)

To quote one of his own favourite expressions, "every schoolboy knows" the outlines of Macaulay's life and work. We have recited the Lays, probably read some of the History, possibly even heard of his eloquent and unmeasured attacks on those whose literary work incurred his displeasure. We know that his memory was phenomenal, if his statements were not always accurate. The biographers tell us further that no one could be more simple in private life, or more devoted to his own family: his nephews and nieces having no idea that their favourite "Uncle Tom" was a great man. Criticism, of course, is by no means so unanimous. Mr. Augustine Birrell has wittily remarked that his "style is ineffectual for the purpose of telling the truth about anything"; and James Thomson epitomised his political bias in a biting paragraph:--"Macaulay, historiographer in chief to the Whigs, and the great prophet of Whiggery which never had or will have a prophet, vehemently judged that a man who could pass over from the celestial Whigs to the infernal Tories must be a traitor false as Judas, an apostate black as the Devil." Always a boy at heart, and singularly careless of his appearance, Macaulay was so phenomenally successful in every direction that envy may account for most personal criticism not inspired by recognised opponents. Those who called him a bore were most probably over-sensitive about their own inability to hold up against arguments, or opinions, they longed to combat.

He was a student at Lincoln's Inn when the brilliant article on the translation of a newly-found treatise by Milton on _Christian Doctrine_ appeared in the _Edinburgh_ (1825), and inaugurated a new power in English prose. Macaulay himself declared that it was "overloaded with gaudy and ungraceful argument"; but it secured his literary reputation and determined much of his career. He became an influence on the _Edinburgh_, probably somewhat modifying its whole tone, and generally identified with its reputation. "The son of a Saint," says Christopher North, "who seems himself to be something of a reviewer, is insidious as the serpent, but fangless, as the glow worm"; and the Tory press were, naturally, up in arms against the champion critic of their pet prodigies.

* * * * *

_Southey_ received, as we must now admit, more than his fair share of abuse from the Liberal press, for the comfortable conservatism of his maturity; and Macaulay did not love the Laureate. We note that _Blackwood's_ defended him with spirit, and Wilson's protracted, and furious, attack on Macaulay for this particular review may be found in the _Nodes Ambrosianae_, April, 1830.

_Croker_, in all probability, deserved much of the scorn here poured upon his editorial labour (though it _had_ merits which his critic deliberately ignores); Wilson, again _(Noctes Ambrosianae,_ November, 1831), examines, and professes to confute, almost every criticism in the review. Croker himself found a convenient occasion for revenge in his review of Macaulay's History printed below.