Page:The Newspaper and the Historian.djvu/369



. 307

Some of the pitfalls in the path of the reviewer have long been recognized and efforts have been made to avoid them. In the

early days of the Athenaeum, the editor, James Silk Buckingham , had issued a warning against the prevailing custom of seeking

favorable reviews,70 but the editorship quickly passed into the hands of Frederick Denison Maurice who apparently had little sympathy with either reviews or reviewers.71 It remained for

Charles Wentworth Dilke, to whom again in quick succession the editorship passed, to set himself so resolutely against the

practice 72 as to win the support of the press, although he did so The recent significant development of news about books and of book reviews in the daily press of both England and America has recently been noted. - Publishers' Weekly, February 4, 1922 ; New York Evening Post, May 1, 1922.

70 “ To Authors and Publishers. — It having been discovered that applica tions are sometimes made by individuals to Authors and Publishers for Books to be Reviewed in the Athenaeum, and this practice not being author

ized or sanctioned by the Editor, it is particularly requested that all Works intended for Review in these pages be sent directly to the Editor himself at

the Office of Publication ." - J. C . Francis, John Francis, Publisher of the Athenaeum, I, 30.

The minute book of the Athenaeum a few months before the paper was acquired by J. S. Buckingham gave this curious instruction in regard to the

reviewing of books: “ In reviewing, only a brief analysis, with extracts, should be given, withoutmuch praise or censure , to avoid giving offence to other publishers.” — J. C. Francis, Notes by the Way, p. 180.

Walt Whitman wrote: “ A new book was sent us the other day with a highly eulogistic written notice, to be inserted as editorial. We can 't do such things.” _ " Criticism

New Books,” editorial, Brooklyn Daily Eagle ,

November 9, 1846, cited by C. Rodgers and J. Black, The Gathering of the Forces, II , 278 - 280. 71 “ It is very gratifying to think that the influence of reviewers upon society is every day becoming more and more limited. In nine cases out of ten it is a question of no material consequence to the public, or to any individ ual member of it, whether the verdicts which they give are carelessly uttered ,

or are the result of mature and conscientious deliberation.

The most

perseveringly impartial and earnest critic will find that he has some power of strengthening the foundations of his readers' opinions, but very little in forming those opinions, or changing them, while the most indefatigable of the scribes of darkness can scarcely flatter himself that he has done any single act of successful mischief, and must console himself with the reflection that, in the silent work of lowering the tone of public feeling and morality , his labours have not been wholly in vain .” - Frederick Maurice, The Life of Frederick Denison Maurice, I, 83 - 84.

A later critic differs from this arraignment: “ That it (the periodical] has multiplied criticism itself is a truism ; that it has necessarily multiplied bad

criticism is maintainable ; the question is whether it has actually multiplied good. I think it has.” — G. E. B. Saintsbury, History of Criticism, III , 420. 72 “ He determined to break down once and for ever the system of pub

lishing puffs, whether the publishers sent or did not send their books or