This resource provides a detailed chronology of Mary Shelley's life and work, as well as several contemporary reviews of her novels and of a play inspired by Frankenstein.
VOLUME 6 , NUMBER 11 (August 1811)
- This Number was published 21
Oct. 1811. [Murray MS., Cash
Day Book 1810-1812 p.2; NLS MS. 3881 (f.77), WG to Walter
Scott, 6 Oct. 1811; Murray MS., Robert Southey to JM, 14 Oct.
1811, states that he sees the QR advertised for
Saturday [i.e., 18 Oct.]; Devon MS. 1149M (f.100) WG to
Edward Copleston, 27 Oct. 1811]
- In early printings of the first edition, the title page
date for Volume 6 is August & December 1811, the headline
date on page 1 for issue Number 11 is October 1811, and the
running titles' dates are Oct. 1811
- Murray printed 5000 copies.
By November 1811, he still had on hand 850 copies
- Booksellers listed on the title
page: Hatchard, Piccadilly; Richardson, Cornhill; Parker,
Oxford; Deighton, Cambridge; William Blackwood, Edinburgh; J.
- Printed by C. Rowarth, Bell-yard,
- The Number cost Murray
£960, including £150 for printing,
£2 for wrappers, £28 for corrections, £11
for reprinting, £3 for matter corrected in proof for
'Faber 11', Calvinism 2', 'B & Lancast 1' (see articles
#167, 164, and 168 below), £1 for clean proofs,
£1 for Sunday and night work, £72 for stitching,
£10 for books, postage, carriage, and incidentals,
£19 for advertising, £100 for the editor and
copyright [note the increase in remuneration, up from
£50], £210 for articles. [Murray MS, accounts
- Announcement in the Courier, 25 Sept. 1811, 'This
day published, handsomely printed in 5 Vols. 8vo. price
£5 2s 6d in boards, a New Edition of the Quarterly
Review, from its commencement in 1809, to June 1811.'
- In the same Courier advertisement the following
notice appears, evidently in response to booksellers' and
subscribers' frustration with the inability of the
Quarterly's publisher and editor to turn out a Number
No. 11 will be published on the First of October; and the future Numbers regularly every three months.
The advertisement was repeated every day to Monday, 30 Sept. 1811 and one more time, on 2 Oct. 1811. Compare Iowa MS, f.147, JM to John Wilson Croker, Wednesday : 'We must publish our Number on the first of October.'
- The following Notice appears on page 304 of this
The Address of H. P. is mislaid. [Henry Phillpotts? see #190]
- John Murray III in his so-called Register notes:
'Copleston wrote in this No / see W G Aug 4/11 [;] also D
D'Oyly / see No 141-42'. For Copleston see #158. For D'Oyly
- Canning interpolated a passage into one of the articles
in this Number [on pg. 233 of JM's marked copy]
- 'Barrett is not very correct but I certainly wished that
you should look at his m.s. to see if it be safe. The poor
fellow is extremely anxious to have it in the Quarterly, and
no less so that you should see it. You have a devoted admirer
in him .... I will do all you suggest.' [Harewood MS., WG to
George Canning, Ryde, Isle of Wight, 26 July 1811. See
- Number of definite attributions for
this issue: 12
- Number of probable or possible attributions for this issue: 3
Running Title: Stewart's Philosophical Essays.
Notes: In attributing the article to Napier, Shine cites JM III's Register; Napier 3-5, 5n; Smiles I 194; the DNB article on Stewart; and Robberds II 383-84. In suggesting William Rowe Lyall as an alternative attribution, Shine cites JM III's Register and the DNB article on Lyall. In suggesting John Bowdler the Younger as a third, queried alternative attribution, Shine cites Gentleman's Magazine XXI 138 that queries Bowdler.
The following evidence is published here for the first time. Copleston offered to review this work, but he thought 'a Scotch gentleman' recommended by Henry Home Drummond would be preferable. WG and Copleston understood this gentleman to be 'Brown,' (probably Thomas Brown, 1778-1820; follow link to offsite encyclopedia) a man they trusted. In May 1811, the article still had not arrived and WG and Copleston were mortified to learn that the writer was not Brown but Macvey Napier, of whom WG knew nothing. (Napier, editor of the supplement to Encyclopaedia Britannica, later became editor of the Edinburgh Review.) With Richard Heber acting as sub-editor, WG excised an unflattering reference to Copleston on the question of Oxford University instruction. In the late 1830s or early 1840s, John Murray II recorded the mistaken suggestion that 'Archdeacon Lyall' had written the article.
Devon MS. 1149M (f.82), WG to Edward Copleston, 17 Feb. 1811, says he learned through Richard Heber that Copleston had offered to review Stewart, though he had also suggested 'a Scotch gentleman' who would be preferable. Henry Home Drummond had forwarded an offer from 'this person.' Devon MS. 1149M (f.83), WG to Copleston, 26 Feb. 1811, thanks Copleston for surrendering the topic. Devon MS. 1149M (f.91), WG to Copleston, 31 May 1811, says the Stewart article has still not arrived and '... what is more to be lamented, I fear, is, that we are all wrong with respect to the writer. This morning's post, I had a note from Home Drummond communicating under secrecy, his name, which, notwithstanding the injunction, I think it necessary to mention to you. It is not Brown but Napier—a person of whom I know nothing. Is he known to you?' Devon MS. 1149M (f.93), WG to Copleston, 4 Aug. 1811, says Richard Heber told him that Copleston had seen 'our Northern friend's contribution,' a cause for regret because WG had not yet edited the ms. and there was a passage in it he thought personally offensive to Copleston. BL MS. 34611 (ff.15-16), WG to Macvey Napier, 25 Aug. 1811, says he omitted the references to Copleston as inconsistent with the journal's line on the Oxford University controversy. Devon MS. 1149M (f.94), WG to Copleston, 26 Aug. 1811: 'I thank you for your hints on Stewart's article—all of which I have attended to. ... Your allusion to Macvey's omissions to the second & certainly the most interesting & amusing part, only serve to increase my regret—I hate to think of it, though I sinned innocently.' Devon MS. 1149M (f.100), WG to Copleston, 27 Oct. 1811: 'I hope you will find nothing to give you offence in the 1st Article—I did my best with it; but unfortunately, I am but a tyro on the subject, and had no one to advise with—Your letters, however (for I saw Heber's) were of signal service to me.' John Murray, with Cadell and Davies, was the London publisher of the volume under review. (Constable was its Edinburgh publisher.)
The subject of this article was reviewed in ER #541, Nov. 1810, by Francis Jeffrey.
[Bookseller's note: 'Stewart was an immensely erudite, eclectic philosopher who learned from modern English and French philosophy as well as from domestic Scots traditions, especially from Adam Smith. It was common sense philosophy, however, that provided Stewart with the philosophical basis for all his endeavours.']
JM II's marked QR: 'Archdeacon Lyall'.
JM III's Register: attribution to Lyall and with the following note: 'Mr Napier in his life of his father–Macvey Napier attributes this article to him'.
Running Title: Sarrazin—Confession du Général Buonaparté.
Notes: In attributing the article to Ellis, Shine cites JM III's Register. Shine also quotes from the following letters. Murray MS., WG to JM, [28 May 1811]: 'I saw Mr G Ellis yesterday—he has nearly finished Sarazin.' Murray MS., WG to JM, 4 Aug. 1811: 'Mr Ellis will, or probably has already made a few alterations in Sarrazin: but before it is worked off, I shall shew it to Mr C[anning] ....' Murray MS., WG to JM, [Sept. 1811]: 'Mr — has seen Sarazin ....[he] recommends a transposition in p.39. I think it will improve it & ... it should be made—as well as one small omission on p. 25 another on p.38.... ' Brewer MS., JM to [Croker], n.d.: '... we have put in the article on Sarazin this time modified ....'
The following evidence is published here for the first time. Harewood MS., WG to George Canning, 26 July 1811, says that Ellis's article on this subject is too favourable to the French and asks Canning to take a look at it. WG thinks its middle should be abridged and its tail lengthened.
JM III's Register: attribution to Ellis and with the following note: 'See W G's letter May 28, 1811. Also Aug 4 "before it is worked off I will show it to Mr C."'
156 Article 3. Milner, A Treatise on the Ecclesiastical Architecture of England During the Middle Ages, with ten illustrative Plates, 62-74. Author: Thomas Dunham Whitaker.
Running Title: Milner's Ecclesiastical Architecture.
Notes: In attributing the article to Whitaker, Shine cites JM III's Register and Nichols xxix. Shine also quotes from Murray MS., WG to JM, 4 Aug. 1811: 'Milner must by all means, be sent immediately to Dr Whitaker. It requires, I see, some revision; Townson [#159], if printed, should go at the same time ....'
The following evidence and information is published here for the first time. The article is largely a discussion of the contest between Milner and Whittington (p.67ff.). Murray MS., Book Loans Register: the book reviewed was sent to 'Revd. Dr. Whitaker' on 28 Sept. 1809. John Milner (1752-1856; follow link offsite to biographical article) was a prominent English Roman Catholic priest.
JM II's marked QR: 'Rev. Dr. Whittaker'.
JM III's Register: attribution to Whitaker, but without evidence.
Running Title: Cuthbert's New Theory of the Tides.
Notes: In attributing the article to Young, Shine cites JM III's Register; Brande XXVIII 157; Gentleman's Magazine XXI 138; Young 157, 435; and Pettigrew IV 21.
The following information is published here for the first time. The article is in Young's definitive MS. list of his QR articles. Ross Cuthbert (1776-1861; Dictionary of Canadian Biography; follow link to offsite biographical article) was a Protestant Quebec politician.
JM III's Register: attribution to Young, but without evidence.
158 Article 5. Chalmers, A History of the Colleges, Halls, and Public Buildings attached to the University of Oxford, including the Lives of the Founders, 87-98. Author: Allen OR Allan, possibly with Edward Copleston.
Running Title: Chalmers' History of the University of Oxford.
Notes: In querying its attribution to Copleston, Shine cites JM III's Register. Shine also quotes from the following two letters. Murray MS., WG to JM, 4 Aug. 1811: 'I will write to Mr Davidson [#163], & Mr Copleston by this post.' Murray MS., WG to JM, [Sept. 1811]: '... nothing is arrived from Oxford.'
The following evidence was first published in VPR 27. The author of this article is a Mister Allen (variously spelled 'Allan') of Oxford, a friend of Richard Heber. Possibly John Henry Allen (1780-1848), a graduate and fellow of Merton College, Oxford (B.A. 1801), whose grandson may have been named for Reginald Heber.
Devon MS. 1149M (f.100), WG to Edward Copleston, 27 Oct. 1811: 'The little Article on Oxford was furnished by Mr. Allan, Heber's friend.' Devon MS. 1149M (f.101), WG to Copleston, 29 Oct. 1811, asks for the address of 'Mr Allen, (Heber's friend)[.] I have lost the card, & do not know what college he resides in.' Cp. Murray MS., Joseph Parker to JM [6 June 1815], where Parker speaks of a 'Mr Allen' as author of this article and of #58.
[Bookseller's note: 'Alexander Chalmers (1759-1834) was an MA from Aberdeen and a miscellaneous writer who produced, besides this history of Oxford, editions of Fielding, Shakespeare, Johnson, and the “General Biographical Dictionary” (1812-1817).']
JM III's Register: '?Copleston' (in pencil) and with the following note: 'Copleston wrote in this No. See W G Aug 4/11.'
159 Article 6. Churton, Works of the Reverend Thomas Townson, D.D. late Archdeacon of Richmond, one of the Rectors of Malpas, Cheshire, &c. In two Volumes. To which is prefixed, an Account of the Author, &c. &c, 98-103. Author: Thomas Dunham Whitaker.
Running Title: Churton's Works of the Rev. Dr. T. Townson.
Notes: In attributing the article to Whitaker, Shine cites JM III's Register (that queries its attribution to Whitaker) and Nichols xxix. Shine also quotes from Murray MS., WG to JM, 4 Aug. 1811: 'Milner [#156] must by all means, be sent immediately to Dr Whitaker. It requires, I see, some revision; Townson, if printed, should go at the same time ....'
The following evidence and comment is published here for the first time. Murray MS., Book Loans Register: the book reviewed was sent to 'Dr. Whitaker' on 19 Dec. 1810. Note the reviewer's attack on German Higher Criticism of the Bible (p.103). The article ends abruptly with a comment on an engraving.
JM III's Register: '?Dr Whitaker' and with the following note: 'See W G's letter Aug. 4, 1811.'
160 Article 7. Wilks, Historical Sketches of the South of India; in an Attempt to trace the History of Mysoor, from the Origin of the Hindoo Government of that State, to the Extinction of the Mahommedan Dynasty in 1799, &c. Vol. I, 103-24. Author: John Barrow.
Running Title: Wilks's Sketches of the South of India.
Notes: In attributing the article to Barrow, Shine cites JM III's Register. Shine also quotes from the following two letters. Murray MS., WG to JM, [9 Oct. 1811]: 'I wrote Barrow about the Teapot .... I do not like the word.' [Quarterly Review Archive editor's note: The reference to Teapot does not appear in the article.] Murray MS., WG to JM, : 'Mr B likes his Article ... [but] thinks I have omitted too much of his quotation .... [T]he Dr [John Ireland] who has seen one part of it, is much pleased.' Shine notes that these references may be to #165.
The following evidence and information is published here for the first time. The author promises to review the later volumes when they are published. This article is referred to in #442, Barrow's review of Wilks's third and fourth volumes. The article is also referred to in #688, an article by Barrow. In his QR articles, it was Barrow's signature practice to refer to his own works. Mark Wilks (DNB; 1759-1831), private secretary to Lord Clive, became a colonel in the East India Company service and was governor of St. Helena during Napoleon's exile. Wilks' book was seminal to British colonial historiographical interpretations of Tipu Sultan and Mysore.
The subject of this article was reviewed in ER #569, Aug. 1811, probably by Alexander Hamilton.
JM II's marked QR: 'Barrow'
JM III's Register: attribution to Barrow, but without evidence.
161 Article 8. Hardy, Memoirs of the Political and Private Life of James Caufield, Earl of Charlemont &c., 124-47. Author: John William Ward, Lord Dudley.
Running Title: Hardy's Life of the Earl of Charlemont.
Notes: In attributing the article to Dudley, Shine cites JM III's Register; Kern and Schneider in PMLA LX 176; Gentleman's Magazine XXI 138; and QR LVII 323.
The following evidence is published here for the first time. Edward Copleston, Dudley's friend, recommended Dudley to WG, who, careful of Copleston's dignity, acceded to his every request regarding this and other articles by Dudley.
The article is claimed by John Wilson Croker in two of his Clements Library Lists, but both entries are cancelled and the article does not appear in the Cambridge Library bound volumes of Croker's articles. Devon MS. 1149 (f.84), WG to Edward Copleston, 9 Mar. 1811: 'I have to thank you for the mention of Lord Charlemont for my unknown correspondent [i.e., Lord Dudley].' Devon MS. 1149M (f.95), WG to Copleston, 3 Sept. 1811, says 'in every instance' he shall follow Copleston's advice concerning 'Charlemont.' Devon MS. 1149M (f.98), WG to Copleston, 19 Sept. 1811: 'I wish you could see your friend's article in print. ... It makes just 23 pages.'
The subject of this article was reviewed in ER #580, Nov. 1811, by Francis Jeffrey.
JM II's marked QR: 'Hon Ward / Ld Dudley'.
JM III's Register: attribution to Dudley, but without evidence.
162 Article 9. Mathison, Notices respecting Jamaica, in 1808, 1809, 1810, 147-66. Author: Eaton Stannard Barrett, possibly, and possibly with George Ellis and George Canning.
Running Title: Mathison's Notices respecting Jamaica.
Notes: In attributing the article to Ellis, Shine cites JM III's Register. Shine also quotes from the following two letters. Murray MS., WG to JM, [Sept. 1811]: 'I send back also Mr E which should please <follow> Charlemont [#161] ....' Murray MS., WG to JM, [Oct. 1811]: 'I send the remainder of Hardy [#161] & the beginning of Jamaica.'
The following evidence is published here for the first time. The evidence for an attribution to Barrett, though persuasive, is not definitive. The attribution to George Ellis in JM III's Register apparently derives solely from JM II's marked QR. It is possible that Barrett wrote the article and that WG and Canning devolved sub-editorial responsibility for it onto Ellis. Harewood MS., WG to George Canning, 26 July 1811: 'Barrett is not very correct—but I certainly wished that you should look at his m.s. to see if it be safe. The poor fellow is extremely anxious to have it in the Quarterly, and no less so that you should see it. You have a devoted admirer in him .... I will do all you suggest.' The reference is probably to Eaton Stannard Barrett (1786-1820).
[Bookseller's note, modified: 'Mathison ... states that "the motive which suggested the publication, is a desire to rouse the attention of planters to a recollection of their own true interests; to explain to those, who may not have had the same opportunities of observing, in what manner the circumstances of their plantations may be affected, either beneficially or otherwise, by the abolition of the slave-trade." While the Notices Respecting Jamaica certainly focuses on the treatment of slaves, Mathison is a careful observer of his surroundings. He comments on the climate, medical conditions, the kinds of work done on the plantations.']
JM II's marked QR: 'G. Ellis'.
JM III's Register: attribution to Ellis, but without evidence.
Running Title: Edgeworth's Essays on Professional Education.
Notes: In attributing the article to Davison, Shine cites JM III's Register and the DNB article on Davison. Shine also quotes from the following two letters. Murray MS., WG to JM, 4 Aug. 1811: 'I will write to Dr Davidson [sic] & Mr Copleston by this post.' Murray MS., WG to JM, [Oct. 1811]: 'The next proof to this containing Jamaica [#162] & the beginning of Davidson [sic] is also ready ....'
The following evidence is published here for the first time. Murray MS., Book Loans Register: earlier volumes of Edgeworth were sent to 'Mr. Richardson' on 8 July 1809 and to 'Geo. Ellis' on 5 Dec. 1809. Murray MS., George Ellis to JM, 3 Dec. 1809, says a review should be done of Edgeworth on education. Devon MS. 1149M (f.75), WG to Edward Copleston, 3 Jan. 1810, agrees to review Edgeworth. Murray MS., Ellis to JM, [n.d.], says he will not write on Edgeworth and education because it is in abler hands. Murray MS., WG to JM, [n.d.], says the article on Edgeworth is 'heavy, because our friend has taken the wrong course' and suggests it be revised. Devon MS. 1149M (f.81), WG to Copleston, 11 Feb. 1811: 'I flattered myself that Mr Davison was at work for us. Heber told me that he felt inclined to say something on Edgeworth. I have an article on him but I fear somewhat too feeble & I postponed it in the hope that the subject would be taken up by our friend [i.e., Davison]. Will you have the goodness to make my respects to him & say that nothing can give me more pleasure than to find <him> [paper tear] disposed to assist us—But what <subject> [paper tear] will he prefer? What book shall I send?' Devon MS. 1149M (f.82), WG to Copleston, 17 Feb. 1811: 'I shall be extremely glad of Mr Davison's Edgeworth. I have a neat but feeble review of it, which, at any rate, I shall not use, after what has appeared in the Edin. Rev. ....' Devon MS. 1149M (f.92), WG to Copleston, 24 June 1811: 'Mr Davison I look upon as sure for the next No.' Murray MS., WG to JM, [Sept. 1811]: 'Do not form your opinion of D'Oyly [#164] till he is set up & seen together .... Davidson [sic], however, must come first.' Devon MS. 1149M (f.100), WG to Copleston, 27 Oct. 1811: 'If you do not admire our friend Davison, I shall admire at you. Is it not truly excellent?'
The first edition of the subject of this article was reviewed in ER #484, Oct. 1809, by Sydney Smith.
JM II's marked QR: 'Revd Davidson'.
JM III's Register: attribution to 'Davidson', but without evidence.
164 Article 11. Tomline, A Refutation of Calvinism, in which the Doctrines of Original Sin, Grace, Redemption, Justification, and Universal Redemption, are explained; and the peculiar Tenets maintained by Calvin on those points are proved to be contrary to Scripture, to the Writings of the Antient Fathers of the Christian Church, and to the public formularies of the Church of England, 191-210. Authors: George D'Oyly and William Gifford.
Running Title: Bishop of Lincoln's Refutation of Calvinism.
Notes: In co-attributing the article to D'Oyly and Gifford, Shine cites JM III's Register. Shine says to see also Smiles I 203. Shine also quotes from the following letters. Murray MS., WG to JM, [Sept. 1811]: 'I send ... the Review of India. D'Oyly article, I think came next ....' Murray MS., WG to JM, [Sept. 1811]: 'Do not form your opinion of D'Oyly till he is set up & seen together ... I have taken great pains & shall yet do more .... Davidson [sic], however, must come first. After this Dr D, I suppose, Infanticide [#165].' Murray MS., WG to JM, n.d.: 'If you mean—by being no Calvinist that D'Oyly is not to come in, I do not see how this can be.' Murray MS., WG to JM, [9 Oct. 1811]: 'There are two passages in D'Oyly ... which I wish much to omit.' Murray MS., WG to JM, [Oct. 1811]: 'I send D'Oyly which I have improved—'
The following information and evidence is published here for the first time. Devon MS. 1149M (f.101), WG to Edward Copleston, 29 Oct. 1811: 'The Article on the Bishop of Lincoln [Tomline] is by D'Oyly ... with a little assistance.' Smiles at I 203 supplies a more complete transcription of Murray MS., WG to JM, n.d.: 'If you mean—by being no Calvinist that D'Oyly [Smiles transcribes this as 'Daly'] is not to come in, I do not see how this can be—as we shall have an article from Mr. C. in the No. following. Nor can I frame excuses for your omissions. This business begins to get too heavy for me, and I must soon have done, I fear.' Smiles interprets the undated letter as applying to #194, which is also by D'Oyly, but Shine may be correct in applying it instead to #164, as the reference in it to 'an article from Mr. C. in the No. following' may be to Edward Copleston's review of Ensor in #173. Copleston evidently took an interest in #164 and WG may have worried that to dispense with it may have upset Copleston. The word ancient is spelled in the article's head note as above.
JM III's Register: queries its attribution to D'Oyly (in pencil) and with the following note: 'Dr D'Oyly wrote in this No. See No 141-42.'
165 Article 12. Moor, Hindu Infanticide. An Account of the Measures adopted for suppressing the Practice of the Systematic Murder by their Parents of Female Infants; edited, with Notes and Illustrations, 210-21. Author: John Barrow, probably.
Running Title: Moor's Hindu Infanticide.
Notes: In attributing the article to Barrow, Shine cites JM III's Register and refers to the letters quoted at #160.
The following information and evidence is published here for the first time. Note the emphasis on China, a preoccupation of Barrow's. The writer's agnosticism about cannibalism is a position Barrow was well-known for (see, for example, #170). The criticism of Brahmin excesses on p.216 of this article resembles similar passages in other articles by Barrow: on p.109 of article #160 and on p.418 of #529. Article #496, p.76, also probably by Barrow, discusses Hindu infanticide. Still, in the absence of direct primary evidence or allusions to other articles by Barrow (Barrow's signature practice in his QR articles is to refer to his own works) the evidence is not definitive.
Moor's Hindu Pantheon was reviewed in ER #545, Feb. 1811, by Alexander Hamilton.
[Bookseller's note: 'Moor joined the East India Company in 1783 at the age of 12, as a cadet in Madras, though spending much of his later military career in Bombay. Ill health necessitated his return to England in 1806. This is one of the earliest works on the widespread practice of female infanticide and was based on Moor's own observations and on access to unpublished government sources. Despite the efforts of Company officials, such as Jonathan Duncan in Bombay (to whom Moor dedicated his Hindu Pantheon), Alexander Walker in Gujerat, Montstuart Elphinstone, and John Campbell, progress in stopping the practice was slow and it persisted in some of the princely states into the 1860s.']
JM II's marked QR: 'Barrow'.
JM III's Register: attribution to Barrow, but without evidence.
Running Title: Scott's Vision of Don Roderick.
Notes: In querying its attribution to William Erskine, Shine cites JM III's Register and Graham 41. Shine also quotes from the following letters. Murray MS., WG to JM, 4 Aug. 1811: 'Mr Heber has declined Scott, and Mr G Ellis rather wishes to do the same ... I think some one may be found ....' Murray MS., WG to JM, [Oct. 1811]: ' ... say not one word to any soul about the writer of Scott's review.' Murray MS., WG to JM, [Oct. 1811, 'No. 153']: 'I want the proof of Scott's poem, the moment it can be got ready–I am now writing to Scott & to Mr Erskine.' Murray MS., WG to JM, [9 Oct. 1811]: 'I think it hardly necessary to send the proof to Scott.'
Some of the following evidence was first published in VPR 24; information about Gilchrist's possible authorship is published here for the first time. NLS MS. 3880 (ff.151-54), WG to Walter Scott, 6 July 1811, referring to Scott's poem asks, 'But what shall I say of Mr Erskine? Long before the poem appeared I had spoken to a gentleman to review it. What progress he has made, I know not; but, perhaps it will be better not to do any thing, till it be ascertained. The person, who is a very able writer, is not now in town. I am, however, greatly pleased to find that Mr Erskine has not forgotten us.' BL MS. 34567, Bliss correspondence, (f.248), Octavius Gilchrist to Philip Bliss, 23 Sept. 1811: 'I am making an article for the Quarterly.' [The reference may be to #177, Gilchrist's next known contribution; if so it was not published until Feb. 1812.] NLS MS. 3881 (ff.75-77), WG to Scott, 6 Oct. 1811: 'It went against my heart to object to any thing from our very ingenious friend Mr Erskine; and yet I could not accept his critique.'
The subject of this article was reviewed in ER #570, Aug. 1811, by Francis Jeffrey.
For a useful note on Scott's The Vision of Don Roderick, including its critical reception in the Quarterly Review and other contemporary journals, see the Walter Scott Digital Archive, an excellent online resource from the Division of Special Collections, Edinburgh University Library.
JM III's Register: queries its attribution to 'Mr Erskine', and with this note: 'See W G's letters 152 & 153.'
Running Title: Faber's Internal State of France.
Notes: In attributing the article to Croker, Shine cites JM III's Register; Jennings I 314-15, 315n; and Brightfield 453. Shine also quotes from the following letters. Murray MS., WG to JM, [28 May 1811]: 'I shall see Mr Croker tomorrow. It is he that is to take Faber?' Iowa MS., JM to [Croker], n.d.: 'I have just seen Mr Gifford who has given me the new portion of Faber which I have sent to the printer ... we have put in the article on Sarazin this time modified—so that the more excursive Faber is made the more it [will] be improved.' Iowa MS., JM to [Croker], 3 June : 'We are grateful for your obliging attention to Faber which will be set up immediately.' Murray MS., WG to JM, n.d.: 'Mr Croker asks about the notice of the translation of Faber—which I will reduce & make very readable. I fear Mr Croker may be hurt and we must keep him in good humour ...'
The following evidence is published here for the first time. Iowa MS, f. 147, JM to Croker, Wednesday : 'We are very anxious about Faber, for I risk upon it, all my hopes of the attraction of our number—I trust that you will continue to throw your mind upon it and then it will be a truly original article. The book itself has been reviewed in every Review & Magazine, so that we shall surprise the more by the novelty and ingenuity of our mode of noticing it.' Murray MS., Croker to JM, 8 Sept. 1811 and 9 Sept. 1811 mention this article. Claimed by Croker in four of his Clements Library lists and included in the Cambridge Library bound volumes of Croker's articles. John Murray was the London publisher (with Hatchard) of the English edition of the volume listed in the head note.
JM II's marked QR: 'Croker'.
JM III's Register: attribution to Croker, but without evidence.
168 Article 15. Fox, A Comparative View of the Plans of Education as detailed in the Publications of Dr. Bell and Mr. Lancaster, and Remarks on Dr. Bell's Madras School, and Hints to the Managers and Committees of Charity and Sunday Schools, on the Practicability of extending such Institutions upon Mr. Lancaster's Plan. Third Edition; Marsh, A Sermon, preached in the Cathedral Church of St. Paul, London, on Thursday, June 13, 1811. To which is added, a Collection of Notes and Illustrations; Bowyer, A Comparative View of the two New Systems of Education of the Infant Poor, in a Charge delivered to the Clergy of the Officialty of the Dean and Chapter of Durham, at Berwick-upon-Tweed, on Tuesday, May 12, 1811, 264-304. Author: Robert Southey, with excisions by William Gifford.
Running Title: Bell and Lancaster's Systems of Education.
Notes: In co-attributing the article to Southey and Gifford, Shine cites JM III's Register; Robberds II 348: 'All the stings ... drawn'; Southey 577 and 278: 'all the shot of my heavy artillery ... drawn before the guns were fired'; Cottle 242-43; Warter 248, 250, 298; CHEL XIV 449; and CBEL III 107. Shine says to see also Southey 278 and Warter II 236. Shine quotes from the following letters. Murray MS., WG to JM, [9 Oct. 1811]: 'I send you the remainder of Southey ... great care must be taken to see that the last page be properly filled up from my corrected proof.' Murray MS., WG to JM, [18 Oct. 1811']: '... I have taken fright upon reading over the last sheet. I am quite afraid at Southey's violence and must leave out the passages which attack the ER so personally. I am sure Mr Ellis would be displeased. ... We must not ... enter into our friend Southey's quarrel.' Murray MS., WG to JM, [18 Oct. 1811; notation on letter in JM II's hand: 'Bell & Lancaster]: '... I am alarmed at the danger we ran—I am quite sure we should have terrified our best friends .... Pray do not let a line of the last sheet go out. I have desired Rowarth's boy to call at half past 8 by which time all the omissions will be made.' Murray MS., WG to JM, [18 Oct. 1811]: '... I hope that I have made Southey now safe & am confident that I have taken no part of his spirit or meaning from him. I was doubtful of the king & princess [?Prince] for the king unluckily supported Lancaster, & of the prince, I knew nothing—Nor do I quite believe what he said of the ministers—for Perceval, I rather think is not so warm as he fancies. He is now safe.' BL MS. 30928, Robert Southey to Charles Danvers, 24 Oct. 1811: 'Dr Bell is also at Keswick. I have been fighting his battles in the Quarterly, & had not my work been mutilated even more unmercifully than usual, this essay would have been the severest blow that the Edinburgh Review ever received ....'
The following information and evidence is published here for the first time. WG excised attacks in the article on Francis Jeffrey and Sydney Smith, the editor and a leading writer of the QR's rival, the Edinburgh Review. WG seems also to have suppressed Southey's assumptions about the opinions of other prominent persons, including members of the Royal family. Southey, angered by the cuts, extracted from JM the promise that he could reprint the article with the suppressed portions restored. This was against JM's policy; during WG's tenure, Southey and Barrow alone were allowed to republish their QR articles. The article, in an expanded form, appeared under Southey's name as a pamphlet, The Origin, Nature, and Object of the New System of Education.
Claimed by Southey in his definitive MS. list of his QR articles. Devon MS. 1149M (f.101), WG to Edward Copleston, 29 Oct. 1811: 'You are right as to Southey—He is, indeed, a most excellent creature. I found it necessary to omit a few personal attacks on Jeffrey & Sydney Smith, & he (Southey) tells me he proposes with Murray's leave, (which he will procure) to reprint the Article some little time hence with additions & sharp animadversions, in his own name. He is a most valuable friend.'
Systems of education formed the subject of ER #577, Nov. 1811, by Henry Brougham.
JM II's marked QR: 'Southey'.
JM III's Register: attribution to Southey, but without evidence.