The Autobiography of William Jerdan
Ch. 1: Critical Glances
‣ Ch. 1: Critical Glances
AN AUTOBIOGRAPHY.
CHAPTER I.
CRITICAL GLANCES—ALARIC A. WATTS—BYRON’S PLAGIARISMS—TOM
CAMPBELL—QUAINT ANECDOTES.
An ape and a lion, a fox and an ass,
Will show how the lives of most men do pass;
They are all of them apes to the age of eighteen,
Then bold as lions till forty they’ve seen,
Then cunning as foxes till three score and ten,
And then they are asses, and no more men.
|
A dove and a sparrow, a parrot and crow,
Will show you the lives of most women also;
They are all of them doves to the age of fifteen,
Then lively as sparrows till forty they’ve seen,
Then chatter like parrots, until they’re three score,
Then birds of ill omen, and women no more!
Old Song, some of the words a little softened.
|
One Mr. Ollendorff undertakes to teach
you how to read, write, and speak a language in six months, and I will undertake to teach
you how to criticise all that can he written in it in six weeks; I mean in the manner and
to the full extent of the ability so general and so arrogant in our day. My ordeal has not
been a very trying one. A few
exhibitions of spite and rancour have
demonstrated a truth of which I have long been aware, namely, that gratitude was the
shortest lived of human virtues; but the compensation on the other hand of liberal
sentiments and generous sympathies have far outweighed the inflictions of literary
coxcombic pertness, and sheer stupidity and unprovoked malevolence. Truly ashamed of my own
shortcomings, for I find it is one thing to plan and another to execute, I have still
comforted myself with the idea that if it must be a poor house that nobody would rob, so it
must be a poor book that nobody would abuse. When I had my grin at this sort of thing, and
turned over a leaf to a kind recognition and cordial eulogy from my better brethren of the
pen, I could hardly help fancying my portrait photographed after the style of those
ingenious professors of hirsute-chemistry, who exhibit the effects of their skill on
double-dyed placards of rare attraction. Here you may observe the gentleman, with a
perpendicular line of division from his middle forehead, straight down his nose, and ending
at his neck. One side is of a “sad colour:” the hair is smudged by age into a
dismal grey, and the old gent is anything but comely or prepossessing. But on the other
side we “live at the sign of the case is altered,” (as the saying is,) and
magnificent raven curls, the jet of juvenility and health, afford you assurance of youthful
vigour and “the front of Jove himself.” In like fashion a dear sweet lady is
represented; on the right coal, on the left carrots; rich in feminine beauty here, pale and
sickly there; impressing the spectator (not the able newspaper of that name) with an almost
painful idea of how much you may be deceived in a female, if you do not carefully examine
her all roundabout.
Just so have I thought of my critically-pictured self, when glancing from
the odious misfeatures of the iron-grey
and
offensive carrot to the cheering traits of the living coal and curl!
Having been led to begin this volume with an allusion to the criticisms
upon “my book,” as Abernethy used to say, and being from
my confirmed literary habits unused to put aught literary away from me, I will venture to
add a few words more touching my performance. In it I have endeavoured to relate
circumstances truly, to depict myself ingenuously, to speak of others faithfully, to state
my opinions frankly, to express my feelings sincerely, and to season the whole with such
anecdotes and pleasantries as might render it more acceptable to the general reader, or, in
common parlance, more popular. Fifty years is a long time for reminiscence, and memory and
talent must to a certain degree fail in reviving once vivid images, as want of judgment or
just appreciation may attach too much consequence to matters of small importance. But a
whole should be taken as a whole, and I have been equally puzzled and diverted by the
multitude of critical and friendly missives with which I have been favoured (and much
encouraged) during my progress. “I have laughed like to kill myself,”
says one, “at such and such a story;” “your natural touches
and descriptions,” says another, “have powerfully affected me; do,
pray, let them fulfil their humanising effects without being marred by jokes and
amusing incidents.” “We are delighted; give us more of
yourself,” comes from a third source; and “there is, perhaps, a
little too much about your personal affairs” in so and so, is the hint of No.
4. “Launch us, as you must be well able to do, more widely in the general history
of the literature of your period.” “Your early life and scenes
in Edinburgh have restored me to the days of my youth, with a freshness I should have
thought impossible,” writes
a fellow septuagenerian.
“I will now expect something far more interesting, since you have arrived at
our own day,” writes another of greener years. Without dwelling longer on the
matter, than the mere indication of these “pointers,” I may observe that, in my
belief, there is not a single feature in the three preceding volumes of this work which has
not been extravagantly praised and (“respectfully”) deemed susceptible of
considerable improvement, the same parts to be extended and condensed, and others to be
enlarged and omitted! The old man, his son, and his little jackass Trotting along the road, |
never received more various counsels than I; but, I add with pride and gratification,
never with such warmth of heart and show of reason, which afforded me much to reflect upon,
though I found it exceedingly difficult to amend my plan or improve the manner of executing
it. A mixed and desultory life offers no opportunity for the unities; but yet I can only
say in return for all the cheering voices, for which I am most thankful, and all the
excellent advices of which I am unaffectedly sensible, it will be my own fault at the end
of my journey if I am discovered to be carrying my own ass: and
after all it is better to ride an ass that carries, than a horse that throws, you.
The true glass must reflect actual images; pain and pleasure, woes and
mirth, chasing each other in our changeful course. For
The stait of man dois change and vary,
Now sound, now seit, now blyth, now sary,
Now dansaud mirry, now like to die.
|
Ne stait in Erd heir standis sicker;
As with the wynd wavis the wickir,
So wavis this warldis vanité.
|
(But I, William Jerdan cannot, with
William Dunbar, add for myself)
Timor Mortis conturbat me.
|
But I must on to my progress, and throw the material of the past into my
mind-mill, in the hope that it may work them off by something like that strange process by
which we often unconsciously unwind the ravelled skein of memory, or develop thoughts from
a germ we hardly knew was planted.
Among my earliest coadjutors and friends in the “Literary Gazette” was Mr.
Alaric A. Watts, from whom I received many valuable contributions in prose
and verse; and among them a series of articles pointing out the plagiarisms of Lord Byron, which created a considerable sensation and led to
much controversy at the time. The talents of this gentleman had, whilst yet young for
literature, recommended him to the editorship of the “New Monthly Magazine,” and during thirty years which have
elapsed since that period, he has not only filled an eminently useful place in the
periodical press, but taken a distinguished rank among the sweetest poets of the time, as
well in separate publications as in the brilliant annuals which he so ably edited.
The coincidences, to say the least of them, which Mr. Watts pointed out between characters in Byron’s works and characters drawn by preceding writers,
and also between circumstances and language employed upon them in common, were angrily
resented by the great admirers of his lordship; but still as passion is not logic nor abuse
argument, there the statements and evidence remain to be sustained or refuted, as the case
may be, by future commentators. The “Giaour,” for instance, is traced to Mrs.
Radcliffe’s Schedoni, in the
powerful romance of the
“Italian.” Manfred is asserted to be a close combination of Marlowe’s Faustus and Schiller’s Moor. Sotheby’s Oberon is clearly shown to have suggested
much of Gulnare, and her action in the “Corsair.” German authors, and
little-known modern as well as ancient Italian poets, furnish many supplies in larger or
smaller quantities; and English bards, of course, do not escape near imitation and even
literal transcription. Young is laid under
considerable contributions, and indeed the whole host from Dryden downwards. But perhaps the most humorous trait in Lord
Byron’s helping himself from others, lies in the profusion with which
he has done so from those whom he satirised and nick-named with unsparing intemperance,
such as bustling Botherby (Sotheby), sonneteering Bowles, drowthy Campbell, raving
Montgomery, stale Scott, ballad-monger Southey, turgid Coleridge, lewd Moore, simple Wordsworth. It has been contended that the adoption of a thousand
half-lines, single lines, and brief passages, do not amount to the piratical offence of
plagiarism; but Lord Byron himself did not seem to be of this opinion,
for he founded his critical charge against Lord
Strangford for stealing from Moore, upon a solitary
line. A few of the obvious resemblances after Scott may serve to
illustrate (though very faintly) the nature of Mr. Watts’ accusations:
A moment now he slacked his speed,
A moment breathed his panting steed.
|
A moment checked his wheeling steed,
A moment breathed him from his speed.— Giaour.
|
And I the cause for whom were given
Her peace on earth, her hopes in heaven.— Marmion.
|
——and she for him had given
Her all on earth, and more than all in heaven.
|
The evening fell,
The air was mild, the wind was calm,
The stream was smooth, the dew was balm.
|
Cool was the silent sky, tho’ calm,
He bathed his brow with airy balm.— Byron.
|
It were too long to revive this subject with those particular details and
quotations, without which its merits cannot be understood. The French literary journals
took it up, and a furious contest of les retorsions et les
répliques ensued. Then sprung up the Bowles and Byron
controversy relating to Pope, provoked, according to
his Lordship, by words spoken at the house of “the Nestor of our inferior race of living poets,” Samuel Rogers; and the yet more violent quarrel between
the noble Lord and Southey, founded on the application of the epithet
“Satanic school,” to him and Moore; and
a propos of the “Literary”
Gazette Exposition, I have a letter before me from Mr.
Watts, who says: “I received a very flattering letter from Southey
yesterday, who alluded, among other matters, with high praise, to our plagiarism papers
on Lord Byron . . . . .” Mr.
Watts does not mention how much Byron borrowed from
d’Herbelot, which I could demonstrate; nor
how much Ivanhoe was indebted to Boccacio.
Leaving, however, these battles of the books, and their authors, to be
dealt with by Prince Posterity, I may note, en
passant, a sample or two of Byron’s anachronisms, recalled to memory by the grand show of Sardanapalus, as an acting drama this
season. Here we find:—
My eloquent Indian! Thou speakest music, The very chorus of the tragic song I have heard thee talk of as the favourite pastime Of thy far father land. |
Now, as the learned and witty Maginn would remark,
Sardanapalus, in whose mouth this is put, died in the
year 820 before the Christian era, and his friend, Myrrha, therefore, could hardly have talked much of the chorus of the
tragic song of Greece; for this plain reason, that Thespis, the inventor of tragedy, did
not flourish until the year B.C. 537, nearly three centuries after.
Again, Sardanapalus asks the same
lady:—
Myrrha, my love, hast thou thy shell in
order? Sing me a song of Sappho, her, thou knowest Who in thy country threw— |
But, as far as chronology is concerned, he might as well have asked her to “Sing
him a Song of Sixpence,” for Sappho lived about
600 years B.C.: so that Myrrha must ‘have not
only had the gift of song, but of prophecy, if she chanted the lays of her who made her
appearance more than two centuries after the fair Ionian’s death—that death so
gloriously sung by Croly, in the “Gems from the Antique,” by my loved
old friend and colleague, Richard Dagley, to whom
and Walter Henry Watts, the arts and artists of
England owe many obligations, through the pages of the “Gazette.” The Gem represents the head and countenance of
the impassioned poetess as deeply dejected, and here is the inspired congenial strain:—
Look on this brow! the laurel wreath
Beam’d on it like a wreath of fire;
For passion gave the living breath,
|
Look on this brow! the lowest slave,
The veriest wretch of want and care,
Might shudder at the lot that gave
Her genius, glory, and despair.
|
For, from these lips were uttered sighs
That, more than fever, scorched the frame;
And tears were rained from these bright eyes,
That, from the heart, like life-blood came.
|
She loved—she felt the lightning-gleam,
That keenest strikes the loftiest mind;
Life quenched in one ecstatic dream,
The world waste before—behind.
|
And she had hope—the treacherous hope,
The last deep poison of the bowl,
That makes us drain it, drop by drop,
Nor lose one misery of soul.
|
Then all gave way—mind, passion, pride!
She cast one weeping glance above,
And buried in her bed, the tide,
The whole concenter’d strife of Love!
|
But to return to my friend Alaric
Watts, with whom, during so many years, I carried on a copious literary
intercourse and correspondence, always benefited by his assistance, and occasionally still
more obliged to him for acting as my Lord-Lieutenant when temporarily absent from
headquarters, I look back on the period with mingled emotions of pleasure and pain.
Mr. Watts, like myself, did not find literature the path to
fortune. Yet was he exceedingly well read, full of intelligence, cultivated in taste,
superior in talent, and laborious in application. In every thing I found him
straightforward, honourable, and kind-hearted; if a little warm sometimes, when we happened
to differ in opinion, I will venture to record it to the credit of both, that beyond
asserting our own convictions of what was due to truth in criticism, we never contravened
each other for an hour.
In the retrospects of life, there are too often changes to regret more
distressing to the mind than the most afflicting losses. The latter are inevitable, the
conditions of existence. The former are caused by ourselves. Between Alaric Watts and I no such event ever occurred to be
lamented now. He sought me first, as his senior with some experience, to advise him in his
literary career. His footsteps thenceforward ran parallel to mine, and we were ever ready
to join hands for mutual help in the race. When offered
engagements which he thought might be prejudicial to my interests, he, like Allan Cunningham, refused them, till exhorted by me to
accept the advantageous provision. I could not suffer a generous feeling to impede their
prospects; and I could only have wished that in both cases they had conducted to more
crowning results. I flatter myself that what he saw of my example had some influence on
Mr. Watts’s course; for only three years ago, he writes to
me:—“No man living, I except yourself, has ever done more for authors and
artists of talent than I have done.” And justly may he make this boast of
himself and his efforts to serve the interest of literature and art; and I trust that he
may farther follow my example, and give the public from the ample materials he must
possess, an autobiographical work more worthy of its attention than it is in my power to
produce—I would fain hope, without direct reference to the first verse of the heading to
this chapter. It will not, I trust, be thought either too trivial or too private a trait,
if I point and conclude this personal notice by quoting the pleasant manner in which my
friend communicated a far more important matter to me, viz., his union with one of those
women whose accomplishments and dispositions are
calculated to adorn the brightest, and cheer the darkest vicissitudes of life:—“I
shall call and see you directly. I have been busy since you have been from home; and,
with other whims, have taken it into my head to be married! If you are sceptical, come
and satisfy yourself as to the fact. This is, at all events, better than dying. Ever
faithfully yours.”
A few lines from another letter bear so much upon a good deal of the
preceding, that I cannot refrain from copying them. “My dear friend,—On looking
over the
new monthly works last evening, I could
not but observe how much your ‘Gazette’ gives the tone of criticism. Many
of these gentlemen are not quite certain which side of the question to take, whether to
praise or abuse, until the ice has been broken by their avant courier the ‘Literary Gazette.’ With respect to
Byron’s tragedy, the opinions
of the monthly harriers, nemine
contradicente, is almost entirely consonant with your own. The
‘Monthly Review’ alludes en passant to the plagiarisms, without giving its
own sentiments, and all the other journals, except the ‘New Monthly Magazine,’ agree in recognising the gross
plunders from Otway. Blackwood, in weighing Byron’s abuse of Cowper,
compares him to Voltaire, who plundered from
Shakespear and then vilified him, or to a
man that set a house on fire, and then ran away by the light of it. The other works
condemn the play for its weakness and total want of originality.”
Ranging among poets, I hope I may consider it opportune to cast a glance
over my intimacy with the author of the “Pleasures of Hope,” which also endured for
many a year, and to the day of his death. Among the attendants at his funeral in
Westminster Abbey, there were not many who mourned him more sincerely than I did, for I had
participated in his eccentricities, regretted his little weaknesses, studied his better
qualities, and admired his genius. Campbell’s
was a curiously mixed character, partaking of the sublime and the ridiculous in an
extraordinary degree. In this respect there was a certain similarity between him and
Goldsmith, as the latter is handed down to us in
his social habits and high poetic mission—the
Noll, Who wrote like an angel, and talked like poor Poll. |
Campbell’s conversation was not of this absurd description, but his head was easily affected, and then a remarkable jealousy
respecting any merely civil courtesies from the fair sex, bestowed on others, and a
puerility of manner between boyishness and coxcombry, seemed to be the attributes of the
metamorphosed bard. Generally speaking, he was rather an entertaining companion, and at
droll anecdote and story-telling few could surpass him. The fact is, that his brain was
frequently wool-gathering, of which I can afford an instance, with which his most attached
of friends and kindest of physicians (his biographer) Dr.
Beattie, was not I dare say, acquainted. Tom accepted
an invitation to dine with a friend in the country, who had just hired a villa for the
summer months, half a dozen miles from Town. The address was communicated verbally,
“near the Green Man, at Dulwich”
which Campbell declared he could not forget. Owing to some confusion,
however, he proceeded on the following Sunday and made his way to Greenwich, where he set about inquiring, in vain, for the sign of the Dull Man. It was suggested that he might mean the Green Man, at Blackheath, but here he was equally at fault, and the Black Boy somewhere near got into his head and was next tried. At
length the proper direction flashed upon the tired Poet; but it was now long past the
dinner hour, he was far from the place, and he sat down to his solitary chop at the nearest
inn.
Perhaps he was thinking of founding the London University, or of
establishing the Association for the succour of the unfortunate Poles; in both of which he
took an ardent and effective part. This ardour was constitutional, and pervaded his later
years. I remember him desperately in love with a fair, embonpoint, and handsome lady, who
published a very nice romance, and is now the wife of another, better acquainted with
banking than poetical notes;
and one day he was so
smitten by a beautiful child in St. James’s Park, that he put an advertisement in the
newspaper to discover its residence, the result of which was excessively ludicrous. For
some wags of the Hook and Co. clique, aware of the
circumstances, answered the appeal, and not knowing what address to give, took the last
name in the directory, a Z—— No. —, Sloane Street. Thither Campbell hurried the next forenoon in full dress, and was shown up to the
drawing-room, where he found a middle-aged lady waiting to learn his errand. It was not
long in being explained, and the indignant Miss Z——, on being asked to bring in her lovely
offspring to gratify the longings of the poet, rushed to the bell and rang violently for
her servant to show the insolent stranger to the door!
Tom told an amusing story of having a
“travelling merchant,” alias a bagman, foisted upon him as a bed-fellow, under
a mistaken notion, in a small country inn, when travelling in Scotland; but I must content
myself with a less racy preliminary. He had been stopped by the weather in the afternoon,
had dined, and indulged himself with a toothpick to wile away the idle after hour. Enter
chambermaid. “Sir, if ye please, are ye dune with the
toothpick?” “Why do you ask? I suppose I may pick away as long
as I like!” “Oh dear na, sir! for it belongs to the Club, and
thae hae been met amaist an hour!” The disgust with which the instrument was
thrown away may, be more readily imagined than described, though he did describe it
admirably.
Please ye, my worshipful readers, I think it was from Campbell, it might be from Sam
Anderson or McCulloch, that I gathered the annexed
characteristic Scotch facetiæ, with which I will finish this anecdotic division.
There is nothing like imitation! A baillie of Dundee,
after witnessing the Lord Justice Clerk pass sentence of death very impressively upon a
criminal, happening to have a fine of eighteenpence to impose on an offender, thus solemnly
addressed him: “You must therefore either go to gaol or pay the money, and the
Lord have mercy on your soul!”
The minister of Renfrew was desired to pray for some newly-elected
baillies, and thus he performed his apologetic duty: “I should
ha’,” said he, “to petition again for the sake of ithers; but,
L—d, it is na worth while to trouble ye for such a set o’ puir bodies!”
Rate of Interest. In a conversation which happened to turn on railway
accidents and the variety of human sufferings, a bank director observed that he always felt
great interest in the case of a broken limb. “Then, I suppose,”
said—“for a compound fracture you feel compound interest.”
But, lest no interest at all should be felt for this episodiacal gossip, I
hasten to close the page on Chapter I.
William Beattie (1793-1875)
Scottish physician and poet, friend of Thomas Campbell and Lady Byron; he published
The Life and Letters of Thomas Campbell, 3 vols (1849).
William Lisle Bowles (1762-1850)
English poet and critic; author of
Fourteen Sonnets, elegiac and
descriptive, written during a Tour (1789), editor of the
Works
of Alexander Pope, 10 vols (1806), and writer of pamphlets contributing to the
subsequent Pope controversy.
Thomas Campbell (1777-1844)
Scottish poet and man of letters; author of
The Pleasures of Hope
(1799),
Gertrude of Wyoming (1808) and lyric odes. He edited the
New Monthly Magazine (1821-30).
Samuel Taylor Coleridge (1772-1834)
English poet and philosopher who projected
Lyrical Ballads (1798)
with William Wordsworth; author of
Biographia Literaria (1817),
On the Constitution of the Church and State (1829) and other
works.
William Cowper (1731-1800)
English poet, author of
Olney Hymns (1779),
John
Gilpin (1782), and
The Task (1785); Cowper's delicate
mental health attracted as much sympathy from romantic readers as his letters, edited by
William Hayley, did admiration.
George Croly (1780-1860)
Anglo-Irish poet, novelist, and essayist for Blackwood's; his gothic novel
Salathiel (1828) was often reprinted.
Allan Cunningham [Hidallan] (1784-1842)
Scottish poet and man of letters who contributed to both
Blackwood's and the
London Magazine; he was author of
Lives of the most Eminent British Painters, Sculptors, and
Architects (1829-33).
Richard Dagley (d. 1841)
Engraver and genre-painter, educated at Christ's Hospital; his illustrations to
Death's Doings (1826) were popular. He was a friend of William
Jerdan.
John Dryden (1631-1700)
English poet laureate, dramatist, and critic; author of
Of Dramatick
Poesie (1667),
Absalom and Achitophel (1681),
Alexander's Feast; or the Power of Musique (1697),
The Works of Virgil translated into English Verse (1697), and
Fables (1700).
William Dunbar (1460 c.-1513 fl.)
Scottish poet and courtier, the author of “The Goldyn Targe” and “Lament for the
Makaris”; the date of his death is not known.
Oliver Goldsmith (1728 c.-1774)
Irish miscellaneous writer; his works include
The Vicar of
Wakefield (1766),
The Deserted Village (1770), and
She Stoops to Conquer (1773).
Theodore Edward Hook (1788-1841)
English novelist, wit, and friend of the Prince of Wales; he edited the
John Bull (1820) and appears as the Lucian Gay of Disraeli's
Conigsby and as Mr. Wagg in
Vanity Fair.
William Jerdan (1782-1869)
Scottish journalist who for decades edited the
Literary Gazette;
he was author of
Autobiography (1853) and
Men I
have Known (1866).
William Maginn (1794-1842)
Irish translator, poet, and Tory journalist who contributed to
Blackwood's and
Fraser's Magazines under a variety of
pseudonyms.
Christopher Marlowe (1564-1593)
Elizabethan poet and dramatist, author of
The Jew of Malta and
Dr. Faustus.
James Montgomery (1771-1854)
English poet and editor of the
Sheffield Iris (1795-1825); author
of
The Wanderer of Switzerland (1806) and
The
World before the Flood (1813).
Thomas Moore (1779-1852)
Irish poet and biographer, author of the
Irish Melodies (1807-34),
The Fudge Family in Paris (1818), and
Lalla
Rookh (1817); he was Byron's close friend and designated biographer.
Thomas Otway (1652-1685)
English tragic poet; author of
The Orphan (1680) and
Venice Preserved (1682).
Alexander Pope (1688-1744)
English poet and satirist; author of
The Rape of the Lock (1714)
and
The Dunciad (1728).
Samuel Rogers (1763-1855)
English poet, banker, and aesthete, author of the ever-popular
Pleasures of Memory (1792),
Columbus (1810),
Jaqueline (1814), and
Italy (1822-28).
Sappho (612 BC c.-570 BC c.)
Greek lyric poet, born on the Isle of Lesbos.
William Sotheby (1757-1833)
English man of letters; after Harrow he joined the dragoons, married well, and published
Poems (1790) and became a prolific poet and translator,
prominent in literary society.
Robert Southey (1774-1843)
Poet laureate and man of letters whose contemporary reputation depended upon his prose
works, among them the
Life of Nelson, 2 vols (1813),
History of the Peninsular War, 3 vols (1823-32) and
The Doctor, 7 vols (1834-47).
Voltaire (1694-1778)
French historian and man of letters; author of, among many other works,
The Age of Louis XIV (1751) and
Candide (1759).
Alaric Alexander Watts (1797-1864)
English poet and journalist who as editor of the
Literary Souvenir
(1824-35) was the prime mover behind the literary annual.
Walter Henry Watts (1776-1842)
Miniature painter and journalist who wrote for the
Morning Post,
Morning Chronicle, and
Literary
Gazette.
Zillah Watts [née Wiffen] (1799-1873)
The daughter of John Wiffen (1761-1802) and sister of the poet Jeremiah Holmes Wiffen. In
1821 she married the poet Alaric Alexander Watts; she edited the
New
Year's Gift (1829-36).
William Wordsworth (1770-1850)
With Coleridge, author of
Lyrical Ballads (1798), Wordsworth
survived his early unpopularity to succeed Robert Southey as poet laureate in 1843.
Edward Young (1683-1765)
English poet, author of
The Complaint; or Night Thoughts on Life, Death
and Immortality (1742-44), a poem that fostered a taste for gothic
literature.
Blackwood's Edinburgh Magazine. (1817-1980). Begun as the
Edinburgh Monthly Magazine,
Blackwood's assumed the name of its proprietor, William Blackwood after the sixth
number. Blackwood was the nominal editor until 1834.
The Monthly Review. (1749-1844). The original editor was Ralph Griffiths; he was succeeded by his son George Edward who
edited the journal from 1803 to 1825, who was succeeded by Michael Joseph Quin
(1825–32).
New Monthly Magazine. (1814-1884). Founded in reaction to the radically-inclined
Monthly Magazine,
the
New Monthly was managed under the proprietorship of Henry
Colburn from 1814 to 1845. It was edited by Thomas Campbell and Cyrus Redding from
1821-1830.