The Montgomery advertiser. [volume] (Montgomery, Ala.) 1885-1982, 1902-07-31
GROWTH OF THE EDITOR.
Francis Jeffrey Said to be Father Of
the Craft.

Iu0 OId1bs
London Globe.
The editor as he is now best known
the responsible conductor of a newspaper
or psriodicai-is a Comparatively recent
product of civilization. He is. indeed,
but little more than a century old. Inc
word is much older, for 1t has been in
use for nearly 800 years, but 1t originally
meant, like the French "editeur"-pub-
Usher. And an editor of that kind was
sometimes even called an "editioner
particularly ugly word. This use OF the
term, however soon became obsolete, ana
from the beginning of the eighteenth
century the world of readers has been IA
miliAr with the editor of the second kind
that lie, one who prepares or ,revises ana
annotates and arranges the work or an
other, or of others, for publication.
This species of editor has undergone
sub-process of evolution on his own &C
count. Between the conceptions OF edi-
torial duty as understood by, say, Pope
and johnson in their work on Snake
speare, for example, and those of pres
ent-day scholar who, under the auspices
of such a body as the Clarendon Press
or one of the book publishing societies
or clubs, prepares new edition OF
classic, or reprints manuscript material
with a wealth of critical apparatus in
the shape OF lntEOuuClhOH anu IiVSS0 6AA
appendices-between these notions of ed
itorial duty there is a great gulf fixed.
A learned editor of the modern variety
has lately laid it down that "a good writ
or will be a bad editor, and good edi-
tor a bad stylish and his own use OF
the odious word "stylist'' may be held to
20 some way to prove the truth of his
diction. But the statement is too sweep
ing to be accepted as 1t stands. 1t con-
tains,~of course. measure of truth for
the qualities required for effective tex
tual criticism, for the patient collation.
of texts and authorities, and for the va
rious other kinds of detail work regard
ed by modern scholarship as editorially
important, are very different from these
needed for original composition. Such
considerations as these. however, never
occurred to the writers and publishers OF
the eighteenth century. A man made mis-
name known by his writing, and then
put money in his pouch by his editing
his name being a marketable commod-
ity-although the actual editorial work
might be but slight and perfunctory, as
was the case with Johnson's work on
Shakespeare.
Then there is the third kind of editor
the responsible conductor of journal or
periodical-who is hardly traceable much
beyond the beginning OF the nineteenth
century. 1t is curious to recall now the
primitive nature of the editorial arrange
ments which were made when The Edin-
burgh Review was started. The small
band of Northern scholars who cultivated
literature on a little oatmeal seem to
have thought that a review could be sat
isfactorily conducted by a committee Of
nearly a dozen. But this was soon found
to be an impracticable arrangement, and
al. arfhOrtfxy rva IOHopd In
The Reviews first real editor, Francis
Jeffrey. Somewhat similar attempts have
been made occasionally in later days to
place the editorial authority more or less
in commission, so to speak, though not
with such a naive ignoring Of possibili-
ties as characterized the start of the Ed
inburgh, but such experiments have not
usually been very successful.
Francis Jeffrey, in charge Of The Ed
inburgh Review, was the real father of
all who have since occupied the editorial
chair of paper or periodical. 1t may be
objected that magazine editors existed be-
fore Jeffrey's day; but 1t would be hard
to show that any so-called editor exer-
cised functions really corresponding to
those of his present-day successor. For
ster, in his Life of Goldsmith" speaks
| of Smollett as the editor of the once ia
nous Critical Review, but this Is not
| strictly correct Smollett was the main
stay. from the literary point of view, of
| that magazine. but the responsible charge
| rested with its founder and proprietor,
Archibald Hamilton, the bookseller. This
was the usual arrangement. The conduc-
tor was the publisher
Goldsmith was for a while the chief
writer In the rival review, The Monthly.
He did hack work of every klnd-worlI
which in later and more prosperous days