New-York tribune., 1902-11-06

the same time the rapid growth of ne1vspspers
was compelling the magazines TO change their
character. They were driven to the set philo-
sophie essay because they found themselves an
uclpated in the treatment OF the more urgently
actual topics OF the day. That the situa-
tioh When three YOUNG men met IN the then
elevated residence Of Mr.. Jeffrey" and the pro
PosaI or sidney smith that we should set up a
review was 'acceded TO with acclamation.'
Some recent critics-Sir Leslie stephen among
then-after re-examining the early numbers Of
The Review and re-readnC the accounts Of
the reception accorded 10 il. have almost con-
cluded that II was Of much ado q bout
nothing" There can. at all events be no doubt
that there was much ado" There was no prec-
edent for the sudden and immense success OF
The Review" and there was no parallel to it
until Thackeray took the town by storm, some
sixty years afterward, with The Cornhm" at
is impossible says Cockburu. in his life OF
Jenrey' Tor those who did not live at the time
ana IN the neat or the scene To feel. or almost TO
understand, the impression made by the new
luminary or the anXieties with which its motions
were observed ana TINS wide interest in the
fortunes of The Review was quickly reflected
in the circulation The publishers began mod
estly with edition Of 100 COPIES Fresh edf-
tOns We're Immediately called for and in eleven
years the circulation had risen TO - 900 copies
When we consider the high price of The Re
view and the small proportion Of the popula-
tion that was in those days either We'll educated
or well TO do We see that the figures stand for
much more conspicuous success than they would
represent to-day. AS for the grounds of the sue
cess il is true that. II is 10 apply the higher
standards Of criticism that have since been
evolved. they may easily be declared inadequate
Much that was printed in the early numbers
now seems TO the merest hack work II
could hardly be otherwise when Brougham was
there, prepared TO write, without preparation on
any ina gtnable subject, and frequently writing
several articles for a single issue. in the midst
of other serious occupations. The theory that
the critic should be a specialist on the one sub
Ject criticised as well expert In the art OF
criticism, almost unknown then and is not
always accepted now. II still unrecognized
when Bishop Wberforce was allowed to review
Darwin's Descent of Man" for The Quar-
terly." Nor can IL justly be said that the early
Reviewers showed perspicuity in their criti-
cisms Of contemporary literature-the one sub
Ject on which they might reasonably have been
expected to be experts. In politics they were re-
formers. but in criticism they were Tories much
less concerned to discover new men than to vim
dictate old principles,
The illustrations usually quoted are the
famous attacks upon Wordsworth and Byron
The attack upon Southey. though more excus-
able, is more pertinent because in II the re-
viewer shows his hand and lays down his prin-
ciples or criticism. Poetry, read, in the re-
view Of "Thalaba," has this much, at least in
common with religion. that it's standards were
fixed long ago by certain inspired writer's, whose
authority II is no longer lawful to call in ques-
ton; and the reviewer proceeds to denounce the
Lake School as 'dssenters from the established
systems in poetry as guilty of the most for
midable conspiracy that has lately been formed
against sound judgment in matters poeticaI"
and men whose art consists IN the positive
and bona fide rejection of art altogether. and in
the bold of those rude and negligent expres-
sions which would be banished by a little dis
elimination" If the virtue of critic lies in
successfully anticipating the criticism of pos
terity. in distinguishing the permanent from the
when it appears in an unaccustomed dress, then
assuredly the early Edinburgh Reviewers were
very bad critics, indeed.
To say this Of them, however, is to judge their
work by standards which not fairly appli-
cable to it. After all. none of their Judgments
are more hopelessly wrong than DR. Johnson's
judgment Milton; and. the whole their
qualities far outweigh their defects Above all
things they possessed enthusiasm. In politics
they fought with uncOmprOmising energy for
many most desirable reforms-the abolition of
slavery Roman Catholic emancipation. the edu-
cation of the laboring classes, the liberty of the
press, and so forth. In literature they regarded
criticism end In itself and. if they were
preiudced they at least emancipated them
selves from other undue Influences Previous
reviews had been. with rare exceptions either
bald summaries publishers puffs Their re-
views were at least the deliberate judgments of
men Of culture, Independently formed and cour-
ageously-p perhaps too ACKNOWLEDGEMENT