Early Reviews of English Poets | Page 5

circumstances. By the time the second volume was
complete, the editors took pleasure in announcing that in spite of "open
assault and private assassination," "published reproach and printed
letters of abuse, distributed like poisoned arrows in the dark," yea, in
spite of the "breath of secret calumny" and the "loud blasts of obloquy,"
the Critical Review was more strongly entrenched than before.
There was more than mere rhodomontade in these words. Not only did
open rivalry exist between the two reviews, but they were both made
the subject of violent attacks by authors whose productions had been
condemned on their pages. John Brine (1755), John Shebbeare (1757),
Horace Walpole (1759), William Kenrick (1759), James Grainger
(1759) and Joseph Reed (1759) are the earliest of the many writers who
issued pamphlets in reply to articles in the reviews. In 1759 Smollett
was tried at the King's Bench for aspersions upon the character of
Admiral Sir Charles Knowles published in the Critical Review. He was
declared guilty, fined £100, and sentenced to three months'
imprisonment. Yet in spite of such difficulties, the Critical Review
continued to find favor among its readers. The articles written by its
"Society of Gentlemen" were on the whole far more interesting in

subject and treatment than the work of Griffiths' unfortunate hacks; but
the Monthly was also prospering, as in 1761 a fourth share in that
review was sold for more than £755.
In 1760 appeared a curious anonymous satire entitled The Battle of the
Reviews, which presented, upon the model of Swift's spirited account of
the contest between ancient and modern learning, a fantastic
description of the open warfare between the two reviews. After a
formal declaration of hostilities both sides marshal their forces for the
struggle. The "noble patron" of the Monthly is but slightly disguised as
the Right Honourable Rehoboam Gruffy, Esq. His associates Sir Imp
Brazen, Mynheer Tanaquil Limmonad, Martin Problem, and others
were probably recognized by contemporary readers. To oppose this
array the Critical summons a force that contains only two names of
distinction, Sampson MacJackson and Sawney MacSmallhead (i.e.,
Smollett). The ensuing battle, which is described at great length, results
in a victory for the Critical Review, and the banishment of Squire
Gruffy to the land of the Hottentots.
Dr. Johnson's well-known characterization of the two reviews was quite
just. On the occasion of his memorable interview (1767) with George
III, Johnson gave the King information concerning the Journal des
Savans and said of the two English reviews that "the Monthly Review
was done with most care; the Critical upon the best principles; adding
that the authors of the Monthly Review were enemies to the Church."
Some years later Johnson said of the reviews:
"I think them very impartial: I do not know an instance of partiality....
The Monthly Reviewers are not Deists; but they are Christians with as
little Christianity as may be; and are for pulling down all
establishments. The Critical Reviewers are for supporting the
constitution both in church and state. The Critical Reviewers, I believe,
often review without reading the books through; but lay hold of a
topick and write chiefly from their own minds. The Monthly Reviewers
are duller men and are glad to read the books through."
Goldsmith's successor on the Monthly staff was the notorious libeller
and "superlative scoundrel," Dr. William Kenrick, who signalized his

advent (November, 1759) by writing an outrageous attack upon
Goldsmith's Enquiry into the Present State of Polite Learning in
Europe. His utterances were so thoroughly unjustified that Griffiths,
who had scant reason for praising poor Oliver, made an indirect
apology for his unworthy minion by a favorable though brief review
(June, 1762) of The Citizen of the World. During 1759 the Critical
Review published a number of Goldsmith's articles which probably
enabled the impecunious author to effect his removal from the garret in
Salisbury Square to the famous lodgings in Green Arbour Court. After
March, 1760, we find no record of his association with either review,
although he afterwards wrote for the British Magazine and others.
During the latter half of the century several reviews appeared and
flourished for a time without serious damage to their well-established
rivals. The Literary Magazine; or Universal Review (1756-58) is
memorable for Johnson's coöperation and a half-dozen articles by
Goldsmith. Boswell tells us that Johnson wrote for the magazine until
the fifteenth number and "that he never gave better proofs of the force,
acuteness and vivacity of his mind, than in this miscellany, whether we
consider his original essays, or his reviews of the works of others." The
London Review of English and Foreign Literature (1775-80) was
conducted by the infamous Kenrick and others who faithfully
maintained the editor's well-recognized policy of vicious onslaught and
personal abuse. Paul Henry Maty, an assistant-librarian of the British