Early Reviews of English Poets | Page 8

of the Anti-Jacobin newspaper, was willing to take

charge of the new review, which Scott desired to be not exclusively nor
principally political, but a "periodical work of criticism conducted with
equal talent, but upon sounder principle than that which had gained so
high a station in the world of letters."
In February, 1809, appeared the first number of the Quarterly Review.
Three of its articles were by Scott, who continued to contribute for
some time and whose advice was frequently sought by both editor and
publisher. Canning, Ellis, and others who had written for the then
defunct Anti-Jacobin became interested in the Quarterly; but the
principal contributors for many years were Robert Southey, John
Wilson Croker and Sir John Barrow. This trio contributed an aggregate
of almost five hundred articles to the Quarterly. In spite of its high
standard, the new venture was a financial failure for at least the first
two years; later, especially in the days of Tory triumph after the
overthrow of Napoleon, the Quarterly flourished beyond all
expectation. Gifford's salary as editor was raised from the original £200
to £900; for many years Southey was paid £100 for each article.
Gifford was distinctly an editor of the old school, with well-defined
ideas of his official privilege of altering contributed articles to suit
himself--a weakness that likewise afflicted Francis Jeffrey. While it
appears that Gifford wrote practically nothing for the review and that
the savage Endymion article so persistently attributed to him was really
the work of Croker, he was an excellent manager and conducted the
literary affairs of the Quarterly with considerable skill. His lack of
system and of business qualifications, however, resulted in the
frequently irregular appearance of the early numbers.
On account of his failing health, Gifford resigned the editorship of the
Quarterly in 1824, and was succeeded by John Taylor Coleridge,
whose brief and unimportant administration served merely to fill the
gap until an efficient successor for Gifford could be found. The choice
fell upon Scott's son-in-law, John Gibson Lockhart, who, from 1825 to
1853, proved to be a most capable editor. The subsequent history of the
review under Whitwell Elwin (1853-1860), William Macpherson
(1860-1867), Sir William Smith (1867-1893), Mr. Rowland Prothero
(1894-1899) and the latter's brother, Mr. George Prothero, the present

editor, naturally lies beyond the purposes of this introduction.
The period of Lockhart's editorship of the Quarterly was likewise the
golden epoch of the Edinburgh. Sydney Smith's contributions ceased
about 1828. In the following year Jeffrey was elected Dean of the
Faculty of Advocates. He felt that the tenure of his new dignity
demanded the relinquishment of the editorship of an independent
literary and political review; accordingly, after editing the ninety-eighth
number of the Edinburgh, he retired in favor of Macvey Napier, who
had been a contributor since 1805. Napier conducted the review with
great success from 1829 until his death in 1847. His policy was to
prefer shorter articles than those printed when he assumed control. At
first, each number contained from fifteen to twenty-five articles; but the
growing length and importance of the political contributions had
reduced the average to ten. The return to the original policy naturally
resulted in a greater variety of purely literary articles.
Macaulay had begun his association with the Edinburgh by his
remarkable essay on Milton in 1825--a bold, striking piece of criticism,
full of the fire of youth, which established his literary reputation and
gave a renewed impetus to the already prosperous review. During
Napier's editorship he contributed his essays on Croker's Boswell,
Hampden, Burleigh, Horace Walpole, Lord Chatham, Bacon, Clive,
Hastings and many others. Napier experienced some difficulty in
steering a middle course for the review between Lord Brougham, who
sought to use its pages to further his own political ambitions, and
Macaulay, who vigorously denounced the procedure. The Edinburgh
was no longer conspicuous among its numerous contemporaries; but
the literary quality was much higher than at first. Among the other
famous contributors of this period were Carlyle, John Stuart Mill,
Thackeray, Bulwer, Hallam, Sir William Hamilton and many others.
This was undoubtedly the greatest period in the history of the review.
Its power in Whig politics is shown by the fact that Lord Melbourne
and Lord John Russell sought to make it the organ of the government.
Napier's successor in 1847 was William Empson, who had contributed
to the Edinburgh since 1823 and who held the editorship until his

demise in 1852. Next followed Sir George Cornewall Lewis, who,
however, resigned in 1855 to become Chancellor of the Exchequer in
Lord Palmerston's cabinet. During his régime he wrote less than a score
of articles for the review. His immediate successor was the late Henry
Reeve, whose forty years of faithful service until his death in 1895
brings the review practically to our own