CHAP. Jeffrey. Horner. dazzled with its brilliancy those who were not convinced by his arguments. Jeffrey had neither the exuberance of wit nor the lightness of expression which characterised Sydney Smith. But he was on the whole a greater writer, just as he was undoubtedly a greater critic and a better editor. His criticisms are strict; they are occasionally unfair, but are always able; and, though many of his conclusions have been reversed by the judgment of posterity, his opinions are still uniformly quoted with deference, and usually accepted as authoritative. Before the age of Jeffrey the art of the critic was almost unknown. Criticisms on books were jejune in the extreme, consisting chiefly of a few smart witticisms and meagre connecting remarks, stringing together ample quotations from the work under review. The" Edinburgh Review" appeared: "its first number revived the discussion of great political principles." The public perused it with avidity; it excited" a new sensation in all classes of readers ;" and the art of criticism at once attained the position in the literary world which it has ever since occupied.'1 The position which the Edinburgh Review' succeeded in at once attaining could not have been won by Jeffrey alone with the solitary assistance of Sydney Smith. But Jeffrey had the good fortune to number among his friends and associates two other men, whose services proved essentially useful to him, Horner and Brougham. Born in 1778, the son of a tradesman, with no advantages other than his own ability to aid him, enjoying no office, leaning on no patron, Francis Horner, in his short life, won for himself the esteem of all classes of society. An admiring Senate suspended its sittings on the tidings of his death in a foreign land, and voted to his memory with general approval a statue in Westminster Abbey. Horner 1 Stanton's Reforms and Reformers; vide Alibone, ad verb. Jeffrey. IV. was an advanced Liberal, but he was chiefly remark- CHAP. able for the strenuous opposition which he raised to the forced circulation of a paper currency. His exertions as a member of the Bullion Committee are said to have injured his health and to have hastened his death. His enthusiasm in the same cause inspired his first contribution to the Edinburgh Review.' His influence with Jeffrey was the more remarkable because he was destitute of the qualifications which Jeffrey usually regarded as essential in his contributors- wit and fun were the first desiderata;' and Horner, who was above all things an economist, had no humour. He puts me in mind,' said Scott on one occasion, of Obadiah's bull,' and the keen point of the illustration will come home to everyone who recollects Sterne's account of that famous quadruped.1 it Brougham was born in the same year as Horner; but Brougham. may be doubted whether, if he had died at the same time, his death would have inspired so much regret, or his name have been remembered so faithfully as his friend's. Yet Brougham's ability was greater than Horner's, and perhaps exceeded that of any of his contemporaries. There were few subjects with which he was unacquainted, or which he was unequal to discuss with the best-informed persons. He was at home in science, in law, in politics, in history, and in literature. His indefatigable and rapid pen illustrated the most varied topics in the pages of the Review; and on all of them he wrote with a force and authority which were peculiarly his own. Brougham was a far more constant contributor than Horner. It is said that on one occasion he wrote an entire number of the Review; and he was unquestionably the most fertile and capable of all Jeffrey's assistants. Jeffrey, however, did not rely on these men alone. Lockhart's Scott, p. 156. СНАР. · He was ready to accept the services of any capable writer. Scott himself was a constant contributor, writing five articles in two years. With such assistants Jeffrey rapidly made his mark. The new Review obtained a wide circulation; and its blue and buff cover was to be found on every gentleman's table. The success of the Review would, under any circumstances, have probably provoked a rival; but rivalry was stimulated by the political bias which the new periodical soon displayed. Jeffrey himself was above all things a critic. I was much struck,' wrote one of Scott's friends, by the extent, correctness, discrimination, and accuracy of Jeffrey's information; equally so with his taste, acuteness, and wit in dissecting every book, author, and story that came in "his" way. Jeffrey, for the most part, entertained us, when books were under discussion, with the detection of faults, blunders, absurdities, or plagiarisms.' 2 Had Jeffrey stood alone, he would probably have made the Review an organ in which all opinions and all parties could be freely criticised. His chief associates, however, were all strong partisans; and, with the single exception of Scott, they were all strong Liberals. Horner, enthusiastically devoted to the currency question, complained that the Review was too independent, and not sufficiently Whiggish. Brougham, a Liberal to the backbone, insisted on the publication of political articles. Scott. remonstrated against the deepening Whiggery. Jeffrey retorted that he could not resist the wit. Scott, urging the propriety of neutrality in politics, offered himself to supply a political article. Jeffrey declined, on the ground that it was more necessary to be consistent than neutral.1 Such a refusal could hardly have done otherwise than offend Scott. The offence was deepened in the autumn of 1808 by the publication of Brougham's article Don 1 Lockhart's Scott, p. 105. 3 Alison, vol. i. p. 334. IV. Cevallos; or, the Usurpation of Spain.' The " Edinburgh CHAP, Review," wrote Scott to Constable, had become such as to render it impossible for me to continue a contributor to it. Now it is such as I can no longer continue to receive or read it.' In accordance with this opinion he stopped his subscription, and made no secret of his hostility. Scott's opposition speedily became known. Canning, a member of the Tory Government, with literary abilities of the very highest order, was naturally anxious to see a Tory periodical which would be to his own friends what the Edinburgh Review' had proved to his opponents. John Murray, of Fleet Street, a young bookseller of capital and enterprise,' 2 was ready to undertake the publication of a serial which he had the prudence to see would bring credit to his firm. George Ellis, the warm friend of Canning, heartily supported the project; and Robert Dundas, the eldest son of Lord Melville, and a member of the Government, was also made acquainted with it. But Scott himself was the life and soul of the enterprise. The first number of the new Review was The published in February 1809, and three articles in it Quarterly were from Scott's pen. The great author continued throughout his career to be an active contributor to the new periodical. Review.' It was no easy task to select an editor for the new Gifford. Review who would be a fair match for so powerful an adversary as Jeffrey. But Murray seems at once to have suggested, and Scott to have approved, the selection of William Gifford for the post. Gifford was a little man, dumpled up together, and so ill-made as to seem almost deformed, but with a singular expression of talent in his countenance.' Constant ill-health had soured his temper; and an acid temper made him an extremely severe critic. 'He flagellated with so little pity that people lost their sense of the criminal's guilt in dislike of the savage plea1 Lockhart's Life of Scott, p. 168, note. 2 Ibid., p. 169.} СПАР. 'Black wood's and Wil son. sure which the executioner seemed to take in inflicting the punishment.'1 Gifford was born at Ashburton, in 1757. His father, who had wasted the little means he had ever enjoyed, died when his boy was young. His mother did not survive her husband for many months; and the future editor of the Quarterly Review' was sent to school, and apprenticed to a shoemaker. The lad hated the drudgery of his work; and he fortunately attracted the attention of a neighbouring medical man, Dr. Cookesley, who collected some money for freeing him from his indentures and for continuing his education. The boy rapidly proved himself worthy of his judicious patron's kindness. He published the Baviad' in 1794; the Mæviad' in 1795; in conjunction with Bankes he became the editor of the Anti-Jacobin' in 1800; and he published his translation of Juvenal in 1802. The Baviad' and the Mæviad' were styled by Byron the first satires of the age. Gifford's name was coupled with Pope's in the English Bards and Scotch Reviewers'; and Dr. Cookesley, proud of the success which Gifford had achieved, and probably anxious to perpetuate his own share in it, gave the satirist's name to a son, whom many Eton men still remember with affection-William Gifford Cookesley. 6 Such was the man who appeared to Scott and Murray the best possible editor of the new Review, which was to rival the Edinburgh.' Such was the man under whose supervision the Quarterly' at once attained the position which it has ever since enjoyed. The success which both the Edinburgh' and the Magazine Quarterly Review' achieved induced other enterprising publishers to imitate the example which had thus been set them. In 1816 Blackwood, a publisher in Edinburgh, commenced the magazine which still bears his name. He was fortunate enough to secure the services Lockhart's Scott, vol. i. p. 651. |