Early Reviews of English Poets | Page 7

and was pessimistic enough to
anticipate an early failure for the new venture. However, at the time he
assumed control (July, 1803) the circulation was 2500, and within five
years it reached 8,000 or 9,000 copies. Jeffrey's articles were
recognized and much admired; but the success of the Edinburgh was
due to its independent tone and general excellence rather than to the

individual contributions of its editor. Its prosperity enabled the
publishers to offer the contributors attractive remuneration for their
articles, thus assuring the coöperation of specialists and of the most
capable men of letters of the day. At the outset, ten guineas per sheet
were paid; later sixteen became the minimum, and the average ranged
from twenty to twenty-five guineas. When we recall that the Critical
Review paid two, and the Monthly Review sometimes four guineas per
sheet, we can readily understand the distinctly higher standard of the
Edinburgh Review.
Horner left Scotland for London in 1803 to embark upon a political
career. During the next six years occasional articles from his pen--less
than a score in all--appeared in the review. Smith and Brougham
likewise left Edinburgh in 1803 and 1805 respectively; but they ably
supported Jeffrey by sending numerous contributions for many years.
During the first quarter-century of the review's existence, this trio, with
the coöperation of Sir James Mackintosh and a few others, constituted
the mainstay of its success. Jeffrey's remarkable critical faculty was
displayed to best advantage in the wide range of articles (two hundred
in number) which he wrote during his editorship. It is true that his
otherwise sound judgment was unable to grasp the significance of the
new poetic movement of his day, and that his best remembered efforts
are the diatribes against the Lake Poets. Hence, in the eyes of the
modern literary dilettante, he figures as a misguided, domineering
Zoilus whose mission in life was to heap ridicule upon the poetical
efforts of Wordsworth, Coleridge and the lesser disciples of
romanticism.
There are in the early volumes of the Edinburgh no more conspicuous
qualities than that air of vivacity and graceful wit, so thoroughly
characteristic of Sydney Smith. The reader who turns to those early
numbers may be disappointed in the literary quality of the average
article, for he will instinctively and unfairly make comparison with
more recent standards, instead of considering the immeasurably inferior
conditions that had previously prevailed; but we may safely assert that
the majority of Smith's articles can be read with interest to-day. He was
sufficiently sedate and serious when occasion demanded; yet at all

times he delighted in the display of his native and sparkling humor.
Although most of his important articles have been collected, far too
much of his work lies buried in that securest of literary sepulchres--the
back numbers of a critical review.
Henry Brougham at first wrote the scientific articles for the Edinburgh.
Soon his ability to deal with a wide range of subjects was recognized
and he proved the most versatile of the early reviewers. In the first
twenty numbers are eighty articles from his pen. A story that does not
admit of verification attributes to Brougham a whole number of the
Edinburgh, including an article on lithotomy and another on Chinese
music. Later he became especially distinguished for his political
articles, and remained a contributor long after Jeffrey and Smith had
withdrawn. A comparatively small portion of his Edinburgh articles
was reprinted (1856) in three volumes.
Although the young men who guided the early fortunes of the review
were Whigs, the Edinburgh was not (as is generally believed) founded
as a Whig organ. In fact, the political complexion of their articles was
so subdued that even stalwart Tories like Walter Scott did not refrain
from contributing to its pages. Scott's Marmion was somewhat sharply
reviewed by Jeffrey in April, 1808, and in the following October
appeared the article by Jeffrey and Brougham upon Don Pedro
Cevallos' French Usurpation of Spain. The pronounced Whiggism of
that critique led to an open rupture with the Tory contributors. Scott,
who was no longer on the best terms with Constable, the publisher of
the Edinburgh, declared that henceforth he could neither receive nor
read the review. He proposed to John Murray--then of Fleet Street--the
founding of a Tory quarterly in London as a rival to the northern review
that had thus far enjoyed undisputed possession of the field, because it
afforded "the only valuable literary criticism which can be met with."
Murray, who had already entertained the idea of establishing such a
review, naturally welcomed the prospect of so powerful an ally. Like a
good Tory, Scott felt that the "flashy and bold character of the
Edinburgh's politics was likely to produce an indelible impression upon
the youth of the country." He ascertained that William Gifford,
formerly editor