Printer-friendly versionSend by email
Quarterly Review Archive

Quarterly Review
VOLUME 4, NUMBER 7 (August 1810)


NOTES

  • This Number was published on 27 Oct. 1810 [NLS MS. 3879 (ff.227-28), WG to Walter Scott, 27 Oct. 1810: 'We are out at last'; Courier advertisement, 29 Oct. 1810; cf. Courier advertisement, 8 Oct. 1810]

  • Murray printed 5000 of this Number. By November 1811, Murray still had on hand 800 copies

  • The Number cost Murray £871, including £135 for printing, £2 for wrappers, £17 for cancelled matter in 'Leslie' (#103) and in the quarterly list of publications, £319 for paper, £72 for stitching, £10 for books, postage, incidentals, £19 for advertising, £52 for editor and copyright, £189 for articles, £42.10 extra for article 13 (#114). [Murray MS, accounts book]

  • 'We are very late this time, which is more vexatious as we ventured to promise an early appearance [see head note on this site to issue Number 5.] The delay has arisen from an unknown friend, who sent me a considerable part of an Article more than six weeks since, with an assurance that the rest should immediately follow it—That <vol> I only recd a week ago. We are now in the press, & I trust shall come forth on Saturday [20 Oct.]. This, however, is the last No. in which I shall venture to trespass on the indulgence of our readers; as I am making every exertion to regain lost time. This is the Original sin of our undertaking—we began without materials, and when I printed the first Article, I did not know what the fourth would be.' [Devon MS. 1149M (f.79), WG to Edward Copleston, 18 Oct. 1810.

  • The issue's lateness resulted from delays in the production of article 14 (#114), an article that turned out to be central to the journal's history

  • The production of article #113 marked a turning point in JM's relationship with his WG, his editor. Fearing that the article would divide his readers, JM attempted to keep the article out. WG angrily accused him of intimidation. After an exchange of heated letters, the two men reconciled and from then on WG was given much greater independence in his conduct of the QR

  • Printer: C. Rowarth, Bell-yard, Temple-bar, London

  • Booksellers (listed on the title page): Hatchard, Piccadilly; Richardson, Cornhill; Parker, Oxford; Deighton, Cambridge; Wm Blackwood and Co. Edinburgh; M. N. Mahon, Dublin

  • Murray MS., George Ellis to JM, 1 Oct. 1810, says that a friend (Huskisson) has sent him a pamphlet to be printed by Murray and that he (Ellis) will review it in the next Quarterly. 'The general subject, I am aware, is the rightful property of our unknown contributor who reviewed Ricardo ....' See also evidence at #124 which identifies the 'unknown contributor' as 'Heber's friend' and #60 and #114, which identify the 'friend' as Robert Grant. Cf. #124.

  • JM III's Register: [notation on Number 7] 'Mr Copleston wrote an art in this No. see W G. Aug 28 [12?]. See also JMs letter to WG. & G Ellis Sept 1810.'

  • Important or otherwise interesting articles in this Number include: #113, and #114 (arguably the single most important article in the early history of the QR)

  • Number of definite attributions for this issue: 12

CONTENTS, IDENTIFICATION OF CONTRIBUTORS, AND HISTORICAL NOTES


102 Article 1. Observador Portuguez, Historico e Politico, de Lisboa, desde o dia 27 Novembro do Anno de 1807, em que embarcou para o Brazil o Principe Regente Nosso Senhor e toda a Real Familia, por Motivo da Invasam dos Francezes neste Reino, &c. Contém todos os Editaes, Ordens publicas e particulares, Decretos, Successos fataes e desconhecidos nas Historias do Mundo; todas as Batathas, Roubos e Usurpaçoens, até o dia 15 de Septembro de 1808, em que foram expulsos, depois de batidos, os Francezes, 1-24. Author: Robert Southey.

Running Title: The Portugueze Observer.

Notes: In attributing the article to Southey, Shine cites JM III's Register and notes that the Register cites JM II's marked QR. Shine also cites Cottle 232-43 and Southey 577 and quotes from Murray MS., WG to JM, [18 Aug. 1810 postmark]: 'I see no objection to beginning with Southey ....'

The following evidence is published here for the first time. The article appears in Southey's definitive MS. list of his QR articles. BL MS. 28099 (ff.75-76), WG to George Ellis, 12 July 1810: for Number 7 'I reckon on Pitt [#114], Crabbe [#115], (Scott), ^I will write to[,] something from Southey [#102], Dr. Whitaker [#108, or #106?], Reginald Heber [#107], and a review of the Oxford Question [#113]. A little greek I can cook up [#105], & there are two or three pretty articles, which will fill a place .... I had nearly forgot Leslie [#103].

JM II's marked QR: 'Southey'.

JM III's Register: attribution to Southey, citing JM II's marked QR.


103 Article 2. Leslie, Elements of Geometry, Geometrical Analysis, and plane Trigonometry. With an Appendix, Notes, and Illustrations, 25-42. Author: Olinthus Gregory, with Thomas Young.

Running Title: Leslie's Elements of Geometry, &c

Notes: In querying its attribution to Thomas Young, Shine cites JM III's Register, and suggests that 'Possibly Young edited rather than wrote this article'. Shine also quotes from the following letters. Murray MS., WG to JM, 21 May 1810: 'Leslie I will have ready ....'; Murray MS., WG to JM, [29 July 1810 postmark], 'I set by this day's post, Leslie to Dr. Y. I hope he will not be fastidious and condemn it.' Murray MS., WG to JM, [18 Aug. 1810 postmark]: 'Leslie I have recd: Dr Young can find no fault except that it is captious, & that the introduction is severe, and not called for.— Of the Scientific part which I was anxious about, he speaks not ill.'

The following evidence was first published in VPR 27. WG had recently recruited Olinthus Gregory as his mathematical contributor (see #73; cf. #186). He used Young as sub-editor of Gregory's contributions (see #73 and #186) and had Gregory perform the same function for Young (see #99). Young was not pleased with Gregory's criticisms of Dr. Playfair. The article is not in Young's definitive MS. list of his QR articles. Murray MS., Book Loans Register: the book reviewed was sent to 'Mr Gifford' on 22 Dec. 1809 and to 'Dr Young' on 11 Aug. 1810. NLS MS 3879 (f.50), WG to Walter Scott, 28 Mar. 1810: 'The only article, except yours, unfortunately, which I have for the next No. [Number 7] is a review of Leslie's Geometry, which is not favourable to the Professor.' NLS MS. 3879 (f.60), WG to Scott, 30 Apr. 1810: '... you are not, I hope, afflicted with any feelings of exquisite tenderness for Professor Leslie:—as I have a "wise word" or two to say to him, in the present No. which might chance to discompose you for a minute or two.' BL MS. 28099 (ff.73-74), WG to George Ellis, 21 May 1810: 'I have a sound Greek Article and a mathematical one, which I will show to Dr. Young.' BL MS. 28099 (f.78), WG to Ellis, 31 Aug. 1810: 'From Scott I have nothing, nor from Dr. Young, who has, by the way, been very kind ....' See also evidence at #102 and at #186.

The subject of this article was reviewed in ER #603, July 1812, by John Playfair.

JM III's Register: attribution to Young, and with the following note: 'See W G's letter, July 29, 1810'.


104 Article 3. Péron, Voyage de Découvertes aux Terres Australes, exécuté par ordre de sa Majesté L'Empereur et Roi, sur les Corvettes La Géographe, Le Naturaliste, et la Goëlette Le Casuarina, pendant les Années 1800, 1801, 1802, 1803, et 1804, publié par Décret Impérial, et Rédigé, 42-60. Author: John Barrow, with William Gifford.

Running Title: Péron—Voyage de Découvertes aux Terres Australes.

Notes: In attributing the article to Barrow, Shine cites JM III's Register and notes that the Register cites JM II's marked QR. Shine also quotes from Murray MS., WG to JM, 8 Aug. 1810: 'I recd. Barrow ... I have made him read more smoothly.' Murray MS., WG to JM, [18 Aug. 1810 postmark]: 'I see no objection to beginning with Southey ... Leslie & Barrow may then follow ....'

The following evidence and information is published here for the first time. Murray MS., John Barrow to WG, 6 Apr. 1810, says he will review this work. NLS MS. 3879 (ff.171-72), JM to Walter Scott, 28 Aug. 1810, identifies the article as Barrow's. This article is referred to in #428, which is also by Barrow. In his QR articles, it was Barrow's signature practice to refer to his own works. A Note appears on page 267-69 of Number 23 concerning this article. (Cf. #311.)

[Bookseller's note: 'Baudin's was the only French expedition to make a major contribution to the discovery of Australia, being the first to chart significant parts of the south coast. Baudin was to die before the end of the expedition, and the publication of the account was left in the hands of Peron, and, after his death, Freycinet. The first volume, appearing under the authorship of Peron, was the only volume to be translated into English.']

JM II's marked QR: 'Barrow'.

JM III's Register: attribution to Barrow, citing JM II's marked QR.


105 Article 4. Palmer, The Daughters of Isenberg: a Bavarian Romance, 61-67. Author: William Gifford.

Running Title: The Daughters of Isenberg.

Note: In attributing the article to Gifford, Shine cites JM III's Register and notes that the Register cites JM II's marked QR. Shine also cites Smiles I 180 and Clark 184, 187, 189-90, 273n98 and quotes from the following two letters. Murray MS., WG to JM, [Ryde, 30 July 1810 postmark]: '... I forgot to bring with me the Novel of Isenberg—& I cannot finish my little critique without it .... if you could get the work ... & send it to me, I will complete it directly.' Murray MS., WG to JM, [18 Aug. 1810 postmark]: 'Isenberg is so intolerably stupid, that I fear, I have made nothing of it:— however it is gone, & may fill two or three pages.'

The following evidence is published here for the first time. WG's only reason for reviewing the work was his having received from its author a bribe in the form of three one pound notes. He thought the circumstance outrageous and gave the work a harsh review. NLS MS. 3878 (f.24), WG to Walter Scott, 17 Feb. 1810: 'On Monday I received from Bath a letter announcing a new publication called "the daughters of Isenberg" as about to be sent, and enclosing three one pound notes!!! I had not laughed before since poor Hoppner's death; but this was irresistible ....' BL MS. 28099 (f.77), WG to George Ellis, 31 Aug. 1810: 'I have made what I could of the Daughters of Isenberg.' NLS MS. 3879 (f.197), WG to Scott, 22 Sept. 1810: 'I could not make much of my bribing Lady, her novel was so very silly; but Geo. [Ellis] likes what is done.'

JM II's marked QR: 'Gifford'.

JM III's Register: attribution to Gifford, citing JM II's marked QR.


106 Article 5. Wordsworth, Reasons for declining to become a Subscriber to the British and Foreign Bible Society, &c.; Lord Teignmouth, A Letter to the Rev. Christopher Wordsworth, D.D. in Reply to his Strictures &c.; Wordsworth, A Letter to the Right Hon. Lord Teignmouth, &c. in Vindication of 'Reasons' &c.; Dealtry, A Letter to the Rev. Dr. Wordsworth, &c.; Spry, An Inquiry into the Claims of the British and Foreign Bible Society, &c., 68-80. Author: John Ireland.

Running Title: Dr. Wordsworth & Ld. Teignmouth on the Bible Society.

Note: In querying its attribution to George D'Oyly, Shine cites JM III's Register. In suggesting Ireland as a queried alternative attribution, Shine cites the additional note in JM III's Register entry for #106. Shine also quotes from the following letters. Murray MS., WG to JM, 17 July 1810: 'Dr Ireland wants Dealtrie. If it was sent to my house, it was left behind, & you may contrive to borrow another copy.' Murray MS., WG to JM, [18 Aug. 1810 postmark]: 'The Doctor has an article, which I have told him to send to Fleet St. [Murray's office]' Murray MS., WG to JM, [28 Aug. 1810 postmark]: 'I could not get to the Dr this morning, so that I shall not have the pleasure of seeing you till Thursday ....' Shine says to see also Heber, I 345.

The following evidence was first published in VPR 27. Wellcome MS., 68126 demonstrates definitely that the article is not by D'Oyly. The article is important because it opened a rift between the QR and a significant portion of its readership, the evangelical party in the Church of England and its political equivalent, the Clapham Sect or 'Saints,' the group of parliamentary evangelical philanthropists who were key supporters of the British and Foreign Bible Society. WG was deluged by letters complaining that this article was an attack on the Saints. WG had received early support for the QR from the Saints through his friend Lord Teignmouth. Robert Grant, one of the QR's most important contributors, was a second-generation Saint. Murray MS., WG to JM, [1811]: 'Dr I[reland] <sent> last night for the last leaf of Dealtry & De Motu ... I told you that Dr I[reland] would positively reach me on Wednesday.' Wellcome MS., 68126, WG to George D'Oyly, 9 Nov. 1810, in defending the article to D'Oyly, WG says it was drawn up by a 'confidential & respectable friend'. Cf. Devon MS. 1149M (ff.110-11), WG to Copleston, 5 Oct. 1812, where WG speaks of Canning and Ireland as his 'two most confidential friends'. BL MS. 28099 (f.65), WG to George Ellis, [26 Nov. 1810]: 'The saints are scandalized at our treatment of him [Dealtry] in the last No. and I have had so many letters, and such tedious catalogues of his talents & virtues, that I should not like to venture another attack on him.' Murray MS., Book Loans Register: one of the pamphlets reviewed was sent to 'R. Heber Esq' on 4 Sept. 1809.

JM II's marked QR: [in pencil] 'D'Oyley'.

JM III's Register: 'Dr D'Oyly', citing JM II's marked QR and with the following note: 'See W G's letter July 17, 1810.'


107 Article 6. Travels of Mirza, Abu Taleb Khan, (commonly called the Persian Prince,) in Asia, Africa, and Europe during the Years 1799,1800, 1801, and 1802. Written by himself in the Persian Language, and translated by Charles Stewart, Esq. With a Portrait of the Author, 80-93. Author: Reginald Heber.

Running Title: Abu Taleb's Travels in Asia, Africa, and Europe.

Notes: In attributing the article to Heber, Shine cites JM III's Register and notes that the Register cites JM II's marked QR. Shine also quotes from the following two letters. Murray MS., WG to JM, 25 Sept. 1810 [draft]: 'Respecting the <Abu> article for instance—Mr Turner told me his book was written by [a] friend of his a Mr Green—I ... sent it with <?> Travels as you told me to Mr Turner. He ... reviewed it ... I was disappointed when I saw it in print.' Murray MS., WG to JM, [Sept. 1810]: ' ... with two or three better things in your hand, you [inserted] the <Abu> art. which we had agreed should not be printed in this No.' . Shine states that 'Some words in each letter are indistinct.' [Quarterly Review Archive editor's note: As Shine misreads 'Abu' for 'Eton,' neither of these letters supports the attribution to Heber. Effectively, then, the attribution to Heber in Shine relies upon JM III's Register alone.]

The following evidence is published here for the first time. Murray MS., Book Loans Register: the book reviewed was sent to 'Mr. R. Heber' on 10 July 1810. Murray MS., Book Loans Register: on 11 Sept. 1810, Murray paid for a 'Carriage to Hodnet Hall Shrewsbury,' Heber's residence. BL MS. 28099 (ff.75-76), WG to George Ellis, 12 July 1810: for Number 7 'I reckon on Pitt [#114], Crabbe [#115], (Scott), ^I will write to[,] something from Southey [#102], Dr. Whitaker [#108, or #106?], Reginald Heber [#107], and a review of the Oxford Question [#113]. A little greek I can cook up [#105], & there are two or three pretty articles, which will fill a place .... I had nearly forgot Leslie [#103]. Heber I 366: Reginald Heber to John Thornton, 8 Oct. 1810, speaks of his long article in QR on the present state of Turkey.

[Bookseller's note: 'It is the first account of Europe, and in considerable detail, as seen by a Muslim from the East. There are discussions of the old chestnuts (Muslim and English attitudes to their wives), as well as his astonishment at his unwashed hosts' unseemliness and much socially perceptive comment. It has been said that Abu Talib was an important influence persuading London society to wash regularly. There is an adventurous voyage westbound, with fires, slavery and plunder, and an equally detailed and adventurous overland journey back to India. A marvelous source book and a unique account by a witty and provocative Muslim.']

JM II's marked QR: 'Regd Heber'.

JM III's Register: attribution to Heber, citing JM II's marked QR.


108 Article 7. Wordsworth, Ecclesiastical Biography, or Lives of eminent Men connected with the History of Religion in England, from the Commencement of the Reformation to the Revolution, 93-103. Author: Thomas Dunham Whitaker.

Running Title: Dr. Wordsworth's Ecclesiastical Biography.

Notes: In attributing the article to Whitaker, Shine cites JM III's Register and Nichols xxix.

The following evidence is published here for the first time. Murray MS., Book Loans Register: the volumes reviewed were sent to 'Dr. Whitaker' on 29 Mar. 1810. BL MS. 28099 (ff.75-76), WG to George Ellis, 12 July 1810: for Number 7 'I reckon on Pitt [#114], Crabbe [#115], (Scott), ^I will write to[,] something from Southey [#102], Dr. Whitaker [#108, or #106?], Reginald Heber [#107], and a review of the Oxford Question [#113]. A little greek I can cook up [#105], & there are two or three pretty articles, which will fill a place .... I had nearly forgot Leslie [#103].

JM II's marked QR: 'Rev. Dr Whittaker'.

JM III's Register: attribution to Whitaker citing Cooke's memorandum book [probably the Book Loans Register].


109 Article 8. Huet, Memoirs of the Life of Peter Daniel Huet, Bishop of Avranches, written by himself; and translated from the original Latin, with copious Notes, Biographical and Critical. By John Aikin, 103-11. Author not identified, possibly with Francis Douce.

Running Title: Memoirs of the Life of Peter Daniel Huet.

Notes: In the absence of guidance from JM III's Register, Shine does not suggest an author for this article. Shine suggests as a possibility John Ireland and cites the following letters quoted at #106. Murray MS., WG to JM, [18 Aug. 1810 postmark]: 'The Doctor has an article, which I have told him to send to Fleet St.' Murray MS., WG to JM, [28 Aug. 1810 postmark]: 'I could not get to the Dr this morning, so that I shall not have the pleasure of seeing you till Thursday ....'

The following evidence is published here for the first time. Bodleian Library, MS. Douce d. 22, f.18, WG to Francis Douce, 11 July 1810, presumes he had permission to publish 'the information which you so kindly supplied me' but sends the proofs for Douce's judgment. States that whatever Douce suggests will be carefully introduced. 'I can find nothing either to change or amend.' But see #112.


110 Article 9. Clarke, Travels in various Countries of Europe, Asia, and Africa. Part the First, Russia, Tartary, and Turkey, 111-53. Author: George Ellis.

Running Title: Dr. Clarke's Travels in Russia, &c.

Notes: In attributing the article to Ellis, Shine cites JM III's Register and notes that the Register cites JM II's marked QR. Shine also cites Smiles I 184; Pfeiffer in PQ XI 106; and Grierson II 381-82, 382n. Shine quotes from the following letters. Murray MS., WG to JM, 17 July 1810: 'I have left Clarke for Mr G Ellis.' Murray MS., WG to JM, 29 July 1810: 'Before Mr E has done with Clarke, I have a little anecdote for him—a correction of an error into which the traveller has fallen.' Murray MS., WG to JM, [Sept. 1810]: 'Sending payment for Ellis.' In suggesting Robert Southey as an alternative attribution, Shine cites Gentleman's Magazine XXI 138.

The following evidence and information is published here for the first time. Heber's ms. journal is introduced throughout Clarke's volume in the form of notes. Murray MS., George Ellis to JM, n.d. [ca. June 1810; 1808 watermark], says that 'De Flagis' (see #72) was so long he had not the space to review Clarke's travels in Russia and suggests that Reginald Heber undertake it (cf. #242 and #426). Murray MS., Ellis to JM, 4 Feb. 1810, says that Heber may review Clarke's Russia. BL MS. 28099 (ff.75-76), WG to Ellis, 12 July 1810: 'Murray has got Clarke for you ....' Murray MS., Ellis to JM, 22 July [1810], says that Clarke's travels have not arrived, which he (Ellis) would like to do as a light article. Murray MS., Ellis to JM, n.d. [Aug. 1810], says he has found Clarke's 'great book' more difficult to review than expected and asks to be given the last position in the review (to give him ample time). Murray MS., Ellis to JM, [Sept. 1810] Sunday, states that he has erased allusions to the Edinburgh Review, but left one prominent quotation from them, relating to 'abstraction' to 'evince [their] extreme bad taste.' BL MS. 28099 (f.79), WG to Ellis, 9 Sept. 1810: '... I am mightily pleased with what you have done of Clarke ....' Murray MS, Book Loans Register: On 10 Sept. 1810, JM paid £5 for postage to transport 'Review of Clarkes Travels from Sunning Hill,' Ellis's residence and on 19 Sept. £2 for 'Postage Clarkes Travels Sunning Hill'; a note on the line below that entry reads 'd[itt]o first part before [£] 2'. NLS MS. 3879 (f.197), WG to Walter Scott, 22 Sept. 1810, says that in the upcoming Number there 'is a very excellent article by George [Ellis] on Clarke's Russia, which, he says, will please no one—It is written with great knowledge of the subject whereas in the last Edin. Rev. it was merely written to justify the [Ministry of All] Talents for their infamous abandonment of the Russians, who are shamefully abused.' NLS MS., 853, (ff. 11-12), Scott to J. B. S. Morritt, 3 Oct. 1810 (copy), says that Ellis wrote the first review of Clarke's travels. NLS MS. 3879 (ff.227-28), WG to Scott, 27 Oct. 1810: 'There is more than one thing which he [Francis Jeffrey, editor of the Edinburgh Review] will not like in this No. George's sly sneer at the "perfumes of Astrachan" is excellent. [See page 151 of the article, and 151n.] Those who know it say that it [Astrakhan, on the Volga] stinks like an old devil of rotten Sturgeon, the only article of traffic!' Murray MS., Ellis to JM, 25 Nov. 1810, he returns 'Dr. Clarke's volume'. Heber I 363: Reginald Heber to John Thornton, 1810, says his (Heber's) Russian notes are made more conspicuous in the review of Clarke's travels. (Cf. bottom of p. 113 of the article.) Later volumes of Clarke's travels were reviewed by Reginald Heber, volume II at #242, volumes III and IV at #426.

The subject of this article was reviewed in ER #524, Aug. 1810, by Henry Brougham.

[Booksellers' notes: 'Clarke was professor of mineralogy at Cambridge. He travelled widely during the late 18th and early 19th centuries, publishing several accounts of his journeys. This volume includes observations made during visits to Petersburgh, Moscow, Novgorod, Woronetz, Circassia, and through Turkey to Constantinople. Appendices include a list of plants collected in the Crimea, and an accounting of English commerce in the Black Sea. COX I, p.85.]

JM II's marked QR: 'Geo Ellis'.

JM III's Register: attribution to Ellis, citing JM II's marked QR.


111 Article 10. Extracts from the Diary of a Lover of Literature, 153-65. Author: John Bird Sumner.

Running Title: Diary of a Lover of Literature.

Notes: In attributing the article to James Pillans, Shine cites JM III's Register and notes that the Register cites JM II's marked QR.

The following evidence was first published in VPR 27. Murray MS., John Bird Sumner to JM, 4 June 1810, [note in JM II's hand: '1810 June 4 Eton J B Sumner to write for QR'] Sumner thanks Murray for suggesting the 'Diary' and promises a review of it in Number 7. Murray MS., George Ellis to JM, Sunday [Sept. 1810], thinks the 'Diary' well done but is generally against religious controversy in the QR; allows that many others may think differently. Murray MS., JM to WG, 25 Sept. 1810 [draft]: 'As soon as I had read your obliging note this morning I sent over the Cambridge verses & Fields article which can both follow the Diary ....'

[Bookseller's note: 'Thomas Green was a retired barrister and litterateur living in Ipswich. He was an omnivorous reader of mainly-contemporary novels, travel, criticism, even theology; and the extracts from his diary comment at length on his daily reading during the years 1796 to 1800. Intermixed is an occasional record of his own excursions in search of the picturesque .... Green himself never published any more of his Diary, but his friend John Mitford of Benhall (the collector and editor) printed further extracts in the Gentleman's Magazine.]

JM II's marked QR: 'Pillans'.

JM III's Register to Pillans, citing JM II's marked QR.


112 Article 11. [John Nott,] Select Poems from the Hesperides, or Works both Human and Divine, of Robert Herrick, Esq. with occasional Remarks; A Selection from the Poetical Works of Thomas Carew; Select Beauties of Ancient English Poetry, with Remarks by the late Henry Headley, A. B. A New Edition; to which are added his Original Poems, &c. and a Biographical Sketch of his Life. By Henry Kett, 165-76. Author: Barron Field, possibly with William Gifford and Francis Douce.

Running Title: Select Poems from Herrick, Carew, &c.

Notes: In co-attributing the article to Field and Gifford, Shine cites JM III's Register; Graham 41; and 'Field, Barron' DNB. Shine also quotes from the following two letters. Murray MS., WG to JM, [Sept.] 1810: ' ... Field's article ... is lively and amusing ....' Murray MS., WG to JM, [Sept.?] 1810, sends a draught for Field. In suggesting Barron Field alone as an alternative attribution, Shine cites Graham 41 and the DNB.

The following evidence and discussion is published here for the first time. Field's authorship is well established. WG's role is asserted in JM II's marked QR, but no primary evidence has been discovered to substantiate JM II's claim. Evidence for Douce, introduced below, is that Douce may have been brought in as sub-editor and Douce may have shared materials with Field. Murray MS., WG to JM, [24] Sept. 1810: 'It was certainly not by my advice that Huet [#109] was made to follow Wordsworth [#108], when either the Cam verses or Field's article [#112] ... should have come before it.' Murray MS., JM to WG, 25 Sept. 1810 [draft]: 'I withheld Herrick until we should be in active need of something to make up because I had taken it into my head that the writer does not posses talent sufficient ... to write in such a Review. ... I thought too, if it were desirable to notice Herrick that no one could have done it so well as Mr Ellis.' See also evidence at #111. Note comment on p.171 of the article: 'Being in Devonshire during the last summer, we took an opportunity of visiting Dean Prior, for the purpose of making some inquiries concerning Herrick ....' Bodleian Library, MS. Douce d. 22, (f.18), WG to Francis Douce, 11 July 1810, presumes he had permission to publish 'the information which you so kindly supplied me' but sends the proofs for Douce's judgment. States that whatever Douce suggests will be carefully introduced. 'I can find nothing either to change or amend.' Douce was an expert on the poetry of the sixteenth century as, for instance, Bodleian Library, MS. Douce e.5.: 'Materials for a biography of English poets to the end of the sixteenth century, collected by J. R[itson] and F. D[ouce].' But see #109. Mr. Ronald Solomon, LL.B., of Sydney, points out (in private correspondence with the present writer) that 'Scriblerus referred to at p. 169 is also referred to in article #177 (p. 483).' Solomon also points out that in Notes and Queries Field claims the article (Notes and Queries Vol.10 8 July 1854 p.27).

[Bookseller's note: 'Edited with a brief preface and notes to the poems by Dr. John Nott, a Bristol physician with a taste for literature and literary scholarship; as Nott points out, this was the first publication of Herrick's poems since the original appearance of Hesperides in 1648. Charles Lamb once characterized Nott, in a different context, as a "damned fool." In fact he seems rather a charming man, with less-than-obvious tastes; he was the first Englishman to produce a full translation of Catullus, and the results were rather good.']

JM II's marked QR: 'B. Field & Gifford'.

JM III's Register: attribution to to Field and Gifford, citing JM II's marked QR.


113 Article 12. [Copleston,] A Reply to Calumnies of the Edinburgh Review against Oxford. Containing an Account of Studies pursued in that University. Second Edition; [Copleston,] Second Reply to the Edinburgh Review. By the Author of a Reply to the Calumnies of that Review against Oxford, 177-206. Authors: John Davison, Henry Home Drummond, and Edward Copleston.

Running Title: Replies to Calumnies against Oxford.

Notes: In attributing the article to Davison alone, Shine cites JM III's Register; Smiles I 181-83; Gentleman's Magazine XXI 138; DNB; and Clarke 175. Shine also quotes from the following letters. Murray MS., WG to JM, [18 Aug. 1810 postmark]: 'It [a parcel] contains a letter from Mr Home Drummond of Scotland saying that he has altered his review of the Oxford business and sent it up.' Murray MS., WG to JM, [28 Aug. 1810 postmark]: 'I have recd ... a considerable part of the Review of Mr Copleston, with a promise of the remr. in the course of ten days.' Murray MS., WG to JM, [Sept. 1810, numbered 94]: [Shine's paraphrase] Gifford does not wish to affront Mr Davison by omitting his article now.

The substance of the following evidence was first published in VPR 28. An article by Drummond on this topic was rejected in favour of Davison's, but WG included as much of Drummond as he could fit in. Copleston was responsible for a passage on Strabo at pp.189-200. Drummond (1783-1867), a Scot, educated at Oxford, who became a liberal Tory MP, separately published a reply to the Edinburgh Review's Oxford calumnies, apparently the article WG had rejected in favour of Davison's. The production of this article marked a turning point in JM's relationship with his editor. Fearing that the article would divide his readers, JM attempted to keep the article out. WG angrily accused him of intimidation. After an exchange of heated letters, the two men reconciled and from then on WG was given much greater independence in his conduct of the QR.

Devon MS. 1149M (f.114), WG to Edward Copleston, [9 Feb. 1810 postmark]: 'I have given you much trouble, but I was desirous of obliging the writer of the Oxford article, if it could be safely done. I do not know him personally—he signs himself Home Drummond, & this is his second attempt. His first, I was obliged to lay aside, though not void of ingenuity. I give up every part of it to your judgment, from which there shall be no appeal, & shall consider it as a singular kindness, if you will correct the part specified, & 'damn with a blot' whatever you disapprove.' NLS MS 3879 (f.50), WG to Walter Scott, 28 Mar. 1810: 'I am under some difficulty with a young gentleman whom you know, I fancy. Mr Home Drummond. Last year (indeed almost at our outset[ )], he sent me a critique on a Latin Dict. It was, by no means ill done; but Murray, who was then lord paramount, thought it not sufficiently novel and so it was laid aside. With great good nature, Mr. H[ome] D[rummond] sent me for the present No. some remarks on the Oxford Statutes. This was high matter, as the dispute now runs high between our rivals [the Edinburgh Review], & the University: and as I had lost all sight of Oxford near five and twenty years I did not dare to venture it upon my knowledge. I therefore sent it to a good & true man [i.e., Richard Heber]. He pointedly objected to some of it—the panegyrical part chiefly, as far as it related to Dr Tatham, and observed, as indeed, I thought before, that a statute was scarcely a legitimate object of criticism—This has laid me under a second difficulty. And yet there is so much good aye, very good in the Article, that I am yet very anxious to print some part of it; but then it must be as an appendage to another article, and of this, perhaps, the writer will not hear.' NLS MS. 3879 (f.74), WG to Scott, 9 May 1810: 'I have heard from Mr. H. Drummond, & with much kindness.' BL MS. 28099 (ff.75-76), WG to George Ellis, 12 July 1810: for Number 7 'I reckon on Pitt [#114], Crabbe [#115], (Scott), ^I will write to[,] something from Southey [#102], Dr. Whitaker [#108, or #106?], Reginald Heber [#107], and a review of the Oxford Question [#113]. A little greek I can cook up [#105], & there are two or three pretty articles, which will fill a place .... I had nearly forgot Leslie [#103]. BL MS. 28099 (f.81), WG to George Ellis, 7 Sept. 1810: 'The residue of Copleston has not yet reached me ....' NLS MS. 3879 (f.197), WG to Scott, 22 Sept. 1810: 'My article on Oxford is sober & judicious.' In the light of the evidence for #139 cited below, it is probable that Copleston contributed, or at least heavily corrected, the passage on Strabo at pp.189-200. Murray MS., WG to JM, Monday night, [24 Sept. 1810]: 'I will send to Mr C[opleston]. if you agree to abide by his answer: on no other condition will I consent to violate my feelings by affronting a gentleman of character & reputation for such Mr Davison is. He probably came to town on purpose to see his Art. He has seen it & has revised it, & is returned in the full expectation of its appearance. After all, I do not quite enter into your opinion of it. It is clear, sensible & intelligent. I wish indeed, it had more spirit & interest[,] so I do many other articles which yet pass muster very well. Nor do I find any great fault with its sober tone: there is enough in this No. to provoke the <scurrilous> language of our opponents without calling down more of it on Mr Copleston .... I must have the revise to send to Oxford. I ought to have had it last night.' Murray MS., JM to WG, 25 Sept. 1810: 'Respecting the Oxford Article, I assure you mistake me ... if you think with me that upon the whole we would be better without this article—then I shall feel obliged if you put the matter delicately to Mr C[opleston]—but if your decision is that although we & Mr C[opleston] would not be served by it ... can not just omit it & that the <proposing> it may be inconvenient & hazardous let it go in at once—I have hurried the corrections of it & you will have a revise of the first pages at any rate ....' Murray MS., Ellis to JM, Sunday [Sept. 1810], says he finds the article on Copleston 'tedious & feeble' and thinks it should be admitted only if Copleston himself wants it or if it is needed to fill up the Number.

The subject of this article was reviewed in ER #517, Apr. 1810, by R. Payne Knight, John Playfair, and Sydney Smith.

JM III's Register: attribution to Davison, and with the following note: '(Home Drummond see W G's letter) See W G's letter No 94 Sept / 10.' The Register has another note at the head of Number 7 that is relevant here: 'Mr Copleston wrote an art in this No. see W G. Aug 28 [12?]. See also JMs letter to WG. & G Ellis Sept 1810.'


114 Article 13. John Gifford, A History of the Political Life of the Right Honourable William Pitt; including some Account of the Times in which he lived, 207-71. Author: Robert Grant, with George Canning.

Running Title: Gifford's Life of the Rt. Hon. W. Pitt.

Notes: In attributing the article to Grant, Shine cites JM III's Register; Frere I 177-78; Gentleman's Magazine XXVIII 34; and says to see also Heber I 345. Shine quotes from the following letters. Murray MS., WG to JM, [18 Aug. 1810 postmark]: '—and not a line from our unknown friend—I must apply to Heber.' Murray MS., WG to JM, Aug. 18, 1810 and ['Recd Oct 6 1810']: '...Pitt is not yet come to hand ... Mr C[anning] ... delighted with Pitt, indeed.' In suggesting George Canning as an alternative attribution, Shine cites BL MS. 28603 [no folio number given], Robert Southey to William Peachey, 27 Nov. 1810: 'There are some bold strokes against the Scotchmen in the last number,—in the article upon Leslie & in that upon Mr Pitt, the main part of which comes (I have no doubt) from Canning.' Shine also cites Romilly II 359, 359n. In suggesting John Davison as a third alternative attribution, Shine cites Water II 349: 'Southey believes Davison the author'. In suggesting John Hookham Frere as a fourth alternative attribution, Shine cites Gentleman's Magazine XXI 138.

The following evidence and discussion is published here for the first time. Article #114 is the single most important article in the publishing history of the early QR. WG called it 'our manifesto.' So perfectly did it articulate the Canningite liberal conservative position that many readers believed it to have been from the pen of Canning himself, and the article does contain information about Pitt provided by Canning. It established the journal's reputation for literary brilliance and as a repository of inside knowledge. Also crucial to the history of the journal, it led to a marked increase in subscriptions and thus rescued the QR from impending ruin. WG delayed the publication of this Number by many weeks as he waited upon Grant, who was a desultory worker at best. During the period of the article's composition, Grant also happened to fall ill. Two holograph drafts of this article, one entire and one partial, in Robert Grant's hand, possibly with notations by Canning, are preserved at the India Office Library, London (MSS Eur E308 / 26). Important correspondence between WG and Canning concerning this article is preserved among the Earl of Harewood's collection, deposited at the Leeds Archives, Sheepscar Branch, Leeds.

Harewood MS., WG to George Canning, 30 Dec. 1809: 'And now my dear Canning, I have a very great and serious favour to ask of you. I cannot of course think of your Reviewing the Life of Pitt, at this busy period; but as the publick look up to us, as it must be a masterly article, as it will be considered as a sort of Manifesto of the Pitt-principle, and as an accredited, not to say, an official testimony to his habits and virtues, I earnestly hope that you will assist us. The Reviewer of Parr, whom I only know through Heber, and who is a most prodigious acquisition to us, will undertake [it] on condition that some friend of Mr Pitt run over the Life, and together with occasional hints, furnish him with such corrections of the facts, as may occur to him on the perusal. He says, and very justly, that Jeffrey's best articles are so far subscription articles, that they are the result of the studies and thoughts of several friends. ... [WG then quotes from Grant's note to Heber:] "The Cannings and Freres are the natural proprietors of Pitt's fame, and I think ought to make a great effort on the occasion. In fact whatever accredits Pitt's fame now, tends to strengthen their hands in parliament and in the country."... [WG then promises to send Canning the book and tells him that Francis Jeffrey, editor of the Edinburgh Review, is going to review it.] 'At all events we must beat them on this Article.' Murray MS., WG to JM, 1 Jan. 1810: 'Mr C. wishes to have Pitt's Life, sent to him immediately. As it is of importance that he shall get it as soon as possible, I wish you would endeavour to get it sent for him. Direct it to Right Honble Geo. Canning Hinckley Leicestershire.' Murray MS., WG to JM, 9 Jan. 1810: 'I will write to him [Reginald Heber] to day, & send to _______ Pitt's vol.' Murray MS., WG to JM, 13 Jan. 1810: 'I have left with Mr. Heber a note for our unknown friend.' BL MS. 28099 (f.72), WG to George Ellis, 6 Apr. 1810: 'He [a person spoken of in the letter as Heber's nameless friend, the author of 'Ricardo' (#78)] has promised a review of Gifford's lumbering life of Wm Pitt—this will be a grand thing for us especially as Canning has promised to give me some observations to transmit to him.' NLS MS. 3879 (f.60), WG to Walter Scott, 30 Apr. 1810: 'I hope to have a review of my namesake's lumbering life of Pitt for this Number. If I have, it will be one that will do us credit.' BL MS. 28099 (f.73-74), WG to Ellis, 21 May 1810: '... I constantly expect the Life of Pitt, & this, with Canning's touches, which he will be sure to give, will be a noble article.' Murray MS., WG to JM, 3 July 1810: 'I have not yet got Pitt.' BL MS. 28099 (ff.75-76), WG to George Ellis, 12 July 1810: for Number 7 'I reckon on Pitt [#114], Crabbe [#115], (Scott), ^I will write to[,] something from Southey [#102], Dr. Whitaker [#108, or #106?], Reginald Heber [#107], and a review of the Oxford Question [#113]. A little greek I can cook up [#105], & there are two or three pretty articles, which will fill a place .... I had nearly forgot Leslie [#103].' Murray MS., WG to JM, 16 July 1810 [17 July 1810 postmark]: 'I have pressed Mr. Heber, and he, I doubt not, will do all he can.' Murray MS., WG to JM, 3 Aug. 1810: 'Any news of Pitt or Crabbe?' Murray MS., WG to JM, 8 Aug. 1810: 'I fear we are going too fast, that is, if we mean to have Pitt, for Heber seems to think that it will make 3 [1/2] sheets. If we are to have him, however, I expect that he will reach you or me in a post or two. ... I have heard nothing of Crabbe.' Murray MS., WG to JM, [7 Aug. 1810 postmark]: 'He [Heber] says illness alone has prevented the completion of the article; that when he left town his friend was down with a fever (of a very serious kind) but that the m.s. was in such a state of forwardness that a day ^ or two of health would complete it. It will be best to wait therefore this week, at least for the first half of it. Of Crabbe, he says, that he hears it is proceeding—but he has not seen any part of it. ... Pitt will make rather more than 3 sheets!' BL MS. 28099 (f.77), WG to Ellis, 31 Aug. 1810: 'I have this day received a part of ... Pitt with a promise of the remr. immediately. It is not the most important part i.e. the estimate of his character ... I have sent it to the press, and shall transmit it immediately to Claremont [to Ellis who will transmit it to Canning?]. Pray tell Canning to be as tender as justice will allow him on [John] Gifford, who is a well meaning, hot headed, honest, blundering soul .... The article is, as might be expected, very admirable. I really expect much from it.' Murray MS., WG to JM [Sept. 1810]: 'Pitt I am informed I shall have tomorrow. A sheet of Crabbe is come in, and is every thing that I expected ....' NLS MS. 3879 (f.197), WG to Walter Scott, 22 Sept. 1810, says that in the upcoming Number 'I also have a magnificent article on Gifford's Pitt.' BL MS. 28099 (f.83), WG to Ellis, 1 Oct. 1810: 'Pitt is gone to Canning ....' BL MS (India Office Library) MSS Eur E308 / 26: holograph draft and a partial draft of this article in Robert Grant's hand.

Devon MS. 1149M (ff.110-11), WG to Edward Copleston, 5 Oct. 1812: 'Mr Yorke[,] Croker and many others are fully convinced that Canning wrote the article on Pitt, which, to my most certain knowledge, he never saw till it appeared in print; and Canning himself gives it to a gentleman who never wrote a line of it.' Murray MS., WG to JM, 6 Oct. 1810, says that Canning has 'Pitt.' Harewood MS., WG to Canning, 9 Oct. 1810, thanks for his work on the Pitt article. BL MS. 28099 (f.67), WG to Ellis, 16 Oct [1810]: 'As for Pitt—he has cost me scores of letters, & hundreds of anxious hours—but let them go—they will operate as some abatement of my pains in purgatory. Canning has seen the whole—but he had added nothing, & in the course of correcting only put queries in the margin—these, to be sure, have put me upon the qui vivre, but thus the whole has centred upon me, & how I have acquitted myself—there's nobody knows. He has only the last page now in his hands, and this I expect to morrow.' Devon MS. 1149M (f.79), WG to Copleston, 18 Oct. 1810: 'We are very late this time, which is more vexatious as we ventured to promise an early appearance [see head note, issue Number 5]. The delay has arisen from an unknown friend, who sent me a considerable part of an Article more than six weeks since, with an assurance that the rest should immediately follow it—That <vol.> I only recd a week ago.' NLS MS. 3879 (ff.227-28), WG to Scott, 27 Oct. 1810: 'I hope you like Pitt—it is very masterly; and some parts of the language have never been excelled. It is our manifesto, our political creed, which we must contend for.' NLS MS. 3879 (f.289), WG to Scott, 29 Dec. 1810: 'I had an opportunity of conveying through Heber, that part of one of your last letters which related to the review of Pitt, to the invisible author. Nothing, it seems, was ever more welcome: or gave such pleasure. This is doubly gratifying to me, as I hope to continue to profit by his powers, which are very, very, extraordinary.'

JM II's marked QR: 'Robert Grant'.

JM III's Register: attribution to Grant, cites and with the following note: 'Grant appears to have been a friend of Heber. Aug 17, 1810. See also W G's Aug 6-7, 1810.'

About this Page

Published @ RC

February 2005

Continent