Aside from the Chaldee, there were two other distinct and decided Sensations in this memorable number, both too well known to demand detailed attention. They were Wilson’s attack on Coleridge, “Observations on Coleridge’s Biographia Literaria”,80 the leading article and a long one; and Lockhart’s paper “On the Cockney School of Poetry”81. The former is an inexcusable, ranting thing which concludes that Mr. Coleridge’s Literary Life strengthens every argument against the composition of such Memoirs”82, ... that it exhibits “many mournful sacrifices of personal dignity, after which it seems impossible that Mr. Coleridge can be greatly respected either by the Public or himself.”83 Such words were strong enough in their own day, but seem doubly presumptuous in the light of our present hero-worship,—especially as the article continues with verdicts like the following: “Considered merely in a literary point of view, the work is most execrable.... His admiration of Nature or of man,—we had almost said his religious feelings toward his God,—are all narrowed, weakened, and corrupted and poisoned by inveterate and diseased egotism.”...84

This was a sin for which “Maga” later atoned by repeated tributes to his genius, to his poetry and its beauty in many subsequent numbers of the periodical. Lockhart two years afterwards spoke of it as “a total departure from the principles of the Magazine”85—“a specimen of the very worst kind of spirit which the Magazine professed to be fighting in the Edinburgh Review.”86 “This is indeed the only one of the various sins of this Magazine for which I am at a loss to discover—not an apology—but a motive. If there be any man of grand and original genius alive at this moment in Europe, such a man is Mr. Coleridge.”87 And two months after this paper, in the issue for December 1817 appeared a “Letter to the Reviewer of Coleridge’s Biographia Literaria”, beginning with the words: “To be blind to our failings and alive to our prejudices, is the fault of almost every one of us.... It is the same with me, the same with Mr. Coleridge, and it is, I regret to state it, the same with his reviewer!”88... And this writer, who signs, himself J. S., sums up his valiant defense, declaring “it is from a love I have for generous and fair criticism, and a hate to everything which appears personal and levelled against the man and not his subject—and your writing is glaringly so—that I venture to draw daggers with a reviewer. You have indeed imitated, with not a little of its power and ability, the worst manner of the Edinburgh Review critics. Forgetting ... that freedom of remark does not exclude the kind and courteous style, you have entirely sunk the courteousness in the virulency of it.”89 Thus “Maga” redeemed itself and Coleridge was avenged.

As for the third of the three articles which best illustrate the whoopla-spirit of this new venture, Lockhart’s paper “On the Cockney School of Poetry”, all is said when we say it was the first of a series of corrosive and scurrilous articles directed against Leigh Hunt in particular, and Hazlitt and Webbe, and in general, the “younger and less important members” of that school, “The Shelley’s and the Keatses”! Modern critics! Beware how you cast stones at our Percy Smith’s and Reggie Brown’s! Says our young friend Lockhart in this article that Leigh Hunt is “a man of little education. He knows absolutely nothing of Greek, almost nothing of Latin”90 ... and so forth and so on. He cannot “utter a dedication, or even a note, without betraying the Shibboleth of low birth and low habits. He is the ideal of a Cockney poet.... He has never seen any mountain higher than Highgate-hill, nor reclined by any streams more pastoral than the Serpentine River. But he is determined to be a poet eminently rural, and he rings the changes—till one is sick of him, on the beauties of the different ‘high views’ which he has taken of God and nature, in the course of some Sunday dinner parties at which he has assisted in the neighborhood of London.... As a vulgar man is perpetually laboring to be genteel—in like manner the poetry of this man is always on the stretch to be grand.”91

This is just a taste of what is in reality very clever stuff. The subject of approbation or disapprobation had best be omitted. At any rate “Maga” “started something”, for the term “Cockney School” was taken up by the major and minor Reviews and nearly every daily paper of England and Scotland. What Wilson said later (1832) in a review of Tennyson’s poems, characterizes the Blackwood attitude toward the Cockneys from the first: “Were the Cockneys to be to church, we should be strongly tempted to break the Sabbath.”92 Whatever our evaluation of this sort of criticism, the admission perhaps saves the reputation of Lockhart and other Blackwood critics! Their opposition was more a matter of principle than of judgment.

The rest of the contents of the October 1817 number are interesting and lively, though it must be admitted scarcely so startling as this famous triad. A discussion of the “Curious Meteorological Phenomena Observed in Argyleshire”93 reads interestingly and rapidly, and is of sufficient weight to save the magazine from flying away altogether! “Analytical Essays on the Early English Dramatists, No. II., Marlowe’s Edward II”94 is the work of John Wilson, and bears the stamp of his outpouring of appreciation and enthusiasm. Another article, “On the Optical Properties of Mother-of-Pearl, etc.”95 seems to be a purely scientific offering, and so far as the writer can judge, presumably accurate and just as it should be. Page 47 bears side by side, a tender little “Elegy” of James Hogg’s and a poem in honor of the Ettrick Shepherd and his songs by John Wilson. “Strictures on the Edinburgh Review”96 and “Remarks on the Quarterly Review”97 are two articles one would scarcely go to sleep over.

There are other papers in this same issue which time will not allow even brief mention. It is easy to picture the great publisher when the new copies first arrived, crisp and new with the smell of printers’ ink upon them. There was no despair, no disappointment this time, but the eager palpitation and anxiety of the parent, solicitous but equally certain of the success of his child! A letter penned in haste to John Wilson before ever “Maga” was seen by public eye betrays better than any polite effusion could have done, the genuine emotion of the man.

“John Wilson, Esq. Queen Street October 20, 1817

My dear Sir,—As in duty bound I send you the first complete copy I have got of the Magazine. I also beg you will do me the favor to accept of the enclosed. It is unnecessary for me to say how much and how deeply I am indebted to you, and I shall only add that by the success of the Magazine (for which I shall be wholly indebted to you) I hope to be able to offer you something more worthy of your acceptance.—I am, dear Sir,

Yours very truly, W. Blackwood”98

Mrs. Oliphant draws a pretty picture, which reveals better perhaps than some more erudite account, the mental state of William Blackwood the night before “Maga” was offered to the world. “He went into his house, where all the children ... rushed out with clamor and glee to meet their father, who, for once in his excitement, took no notice of them, but walked straight to the drawing room, where his wife, not excitable, sat in her household place, busy no doubt for her fine family; and coming into the warm glow of the light, threw down the precious Magazine at her feet. ‘There is that that will give you what is your due—what I always wished you to have’, he said, with the half-sobbing laugh of the great crisis. She gave him a characteristic word, half-satirical, as was her way, not outwardly moved.... Sometimes he called her a wet blanket when she thus damped his ardor,—but not, I think, that night.”99

It might easily be guessed that after the sudden bursting into glory of the October number, the same high level would be difficult to sustain. But although subsequent numbers boast no Chaldee to convulse or enrage the town, the popularity of “Maga” seems never again to lag. The November number begins properly enough. The afore-mentioned apology and explanation of the Chaldee introduced it to the watchful waiters, impatient to ascertain what a second issue would bring forth. The first long article, nine and a half pages, “On the Pulpit Eloquence of Scotland”100, very thoughtful, very serious, very earnest, in tone, thanks God that Scotland has been blessed with the heavenly visitation of her well loved preacher, Dr. Chalmers, and extols and praises and appreciates the man, “like an angel in a dream”. The second article continues the learned discussion “On the Optical Properties of Mother-of-Pearl”101. The third is John Wilson’s famous review of Byron’s “Lament of Tasso”102, wherein says he “There is one Poem in which he (Byron) has almost wholly laid aside all remembrance of the darker and stormier passions; in which the tone of his spirit and his voice at once is changed, and where he who seemed to care only for agonies, and remorse, and despair, and death, and insanity, in all their most appalling forms, shews that he has a heart that can feed on the purest sympathies of our nature, and deliver itself up to the sorrows, the sadness and the melancholy of humbler souls.”103

The lighter tone again asserts itself in “Letters of An Old Bachelor, No. 1.”104, who waxes indignant over French opinion concerning English ladies! He quotes a certain French writer who represents “the dress of the English ladies” as mere imitation of the French, only “all ridicule and exaggeration. 'Does a French lady, for instance, put a flower in her hair—the heads of the English ladies are immediately covered with the whole shop of a bouquetiÈre. Does a French lady put on a feather ... in this country—nothing but feathers is to be seen!’ This, of course”, says the old bachelor in all earnestness, “is all a vile slander”105,—although he must admit having seen heads covered with flowers, and “ladies wearing quite as many feathers as were becoming.”106 He resents too that a French priest should accuse English ladies of having bad teeth. “Is he ignorant”, he would know, “that young ladies by applying to Mr. Scott, the dentist, may be supplied with a single tooth for the small sum of two guineas, while dowagers may be accommodated with a complete set of the most beautiful teeth, made from the tusks of the hippopotamus ... for a very trifling consideration? In fact, it is quite astonishing, to see the fine teeth of all our female acquaintances;... And yet this abominable priest has the impudence to talk of bad teeth!”107 Besides, “what ladies of any nation”, says he, “play so charmingly the pianoforte?”108

This little skit is followed by the second installment “On the Cockney School of Poetry”109,—this time that well known and scandalous handling of Hunt’s “Story of Rimini”,—Lockhart’s again, of course. This was the article whose turbulent discussion of the moral depravity of Leigh Hunt threw Baldwin, Cradock and Joy, then Blackwood’s London agents, into such a state of pious horror. They evidently feared getting mixed up in anything livelier than antiquarian projects, and threatened to withdraw their name. The articles on the Cockney School went merrily on, however; and so did Baldwin and Cradock even until July 1818. No doubt they found it a paying proposition!

Sir Walter Scott tried to wean both Wilson and Lockhart away from “that mother of mischief”110 as he termed the magazine. According to Mr. Lang, he “disapproved (though he chuckled over it) the reckless extravagance of juvenile satire”. But it is easy to comprehend how “a chuckle” from Sir Walter would be the last incentive to curb their literary abandon. Blackwood worked long for the support of Scott, knowing well what it would mean to “Maga”. A semblance of support, at least, he secured through his patronage of Scott’s favorite, William Laidlaw, whose agricultural chronicles ran for a time as one of the regular features. Scott even contributed an occasional article himself from time to time, which, though anonymous, could not escape recognition. Probably he never attained a very cordial affection for the publisher, and it is well known that he disapproved of much that “Maga” said and did, yet outwardly he professed neutrality between Constable’s and Blackwood’s; and in a letter to William Laidlaw, February 1818, while “Maga” was still in its youth, his verdict is not vindictive. “Blackwood is rather in a bad pickle just now—sent to Coventry by the trade, as the booksellers call themselves and all about the parody of the two beasts. Surely these gentlemen think themselves rather formed of porcelain clay than of common potters’ ware. Dealing in satire against all others, their own dignity suffers so cruelly from an ill-imagined joke! If B. had good books to sell, he might set them all at defiance. His Magazine does well and beats Constable’s; but we will talk of this when we meet.”111

Continuing the panorama, the issue for February 1818 contains three pages of notes “To Correspondents”, of which several deserve mention: “We have no objection to insert Z.’s Remarks on Mr. Hazlitt’s Lectures, after our present Correspondent’s Notices are completed. If Mr. Hazlitt uttered personalities against the Poets of the Lake School, he reviled those who taught him all he knows about poetry.” This same issue was then starting a series of articles entitled “Notices of a Course of Lectures on English Poetry, by W. Hazlitt”.112 With no personal comment, they give the gist of Hazlitt’s lectures at the Surrey Institution in London. The first article covers the lectures on “Poetry in General”113, “On Chaucer and Spenser”114, and “On Shakespeare and Milton”115. These papers ran for several months, and the promised Remarks of Z. do not appear in any recognizable form unless the paper “Hazlitt Cross-Questioned”116 in the August issue (1818) is the awaited article. It is presented in the form of eight questions, the first: “Did you, or did you not, in the course of your late Lectures on Poetry, infamously vituperate and sneer at the character of Mr. Wordsworth—I mean his personal character; his genius even you dare not deny?”117 Again—“Do you know the difference between Milton’s Latin and Milton’s Greek?”118 and—“Did you not insinuate in an essay on Shakespeare ... that Desdemona was a lewd woman, and after that dare to publish a book on Shakespeare?”119 The eighth question closes the article: “Do you know the Latin for a goose?”120

But to return to our notes “To Correspondents” in February 1818, there remains one or two others of especial interest as illustrating the attitude these notes assumed. For instance: “Can C. C. believe it possible to pass off on us for an original composition, an extract from so popular a work as Mrs. Grant’s Essay on the Superstitions of the Highlands? May his plagiarisms, however, always be from works equally excellent.” Another: “The foolish parody which has been sent us is inadmissible for two reasons; first, because it is malevolent; and secondly, because it is dull.” We are inclined to think the latter was the decisive reason.

This same issue includes the first contribution of a man who was henceforth to wield an important pen in the make-up of the magazine—one William Maginn. He was a brilliant writer, and a reckless, and contributed copiously. Some one has characterized him as “a perfectly ideal magazinist”. The article, “Some Account of the Life and Writings of Ensign and Adjutant Odoherty, Late of the 99th Regiment”121, well reveals the serio-comic tone of his work which was so popular. Ensign Odoherty was destined to fill many a future page. In fact, Maginn was “a find”!

Quoting from this article: “One evening ... I had the misfortune, from some circumstances here unnecessary to mention, to be conveyed for a night’s lodging to the watch-house in Dublin. I had there the good fortune to meet Mr. Odoherty, who was likewise a prisoner. He was seated on a wooden stool, before a table garnished with a great number of empty pots of porter.... With all that urbanity of manner by which he was distinguished, he asked me ‘to take a sneaker of his swipes’.”122 This is the Ensign Odoherty of whom it is said “Never was there a man more imbued with the very soul and spirit of poetry.... Cut off in the bloom of his years, ere the fair and lovely blossoms of his youth had time to ripen into the golden fruit by which the autumn of his days would have been beautified and adorned,”123—etc.—“His wine ... was never lost on him, and, towards the conclusion of the third bottle he was always excessively amusing.”124 The writer offers one or two specimens of Odoherty’s poetry, among them verses to a lady to whom he never declared himself. “This moving expression of passion”, we are told, “appears to have produced no effect on the obdurate fair one, who was then fifty-four years of age, with nine children, and a large jointure, which would certainly have made a very convenient addition to the income of Mr. Odoherty.”125 On being appointed to an ensigncy in the West Indies, he sailed for Jamaica with a certain Captain Godolphin, and has left a charming poetical record of the trip, of which the following will sufficiently impress the reader: “The captain’s wife, she sailed with him, this circumstance I heard of her,
Her brimstone breath, ‘twas almost death to come within a yard of her;
With fiery nose, as red as rose, to tell no lies I’ll stoop,
She looked just like an admiral with a lantern at his poop.”126
The whole poem is not quoted, but the latter part of it gives an account “of how Mrs. Godolphin was killed by a cannon ball lodging in her stomach”127, as well as other pathetic and moving events. In describing the rest of the stanzas, however, Maginn assures us, “It is sufficient to say they are fully equal to the preceding, and are distinguished by the same quaintness of imagination.”128!

This article is followed by “Notices of the Acted Drama in London”129, the second of a series of sixteen articles which ran regularly, January 1818 to June 1820.130 These are decidedly interesting,—even thrilling, if such a term may be employed,—in that they approach with contemporary assurance names which dramatic legend bids the present day revere:—Mr. Kean, Mrs. Siddons, Miss O’Neil, Mr. C. Kemble, and others. The first of these articles (January 1818) states: “our fixed opinions are few;” ... but continues further that one of these fixed opinions is that “it would be better for all the world if he (Shakespeare) could be thought of as a poet only—not as a writer of acting dramas. If it had not been for Mr. Kean, we should never have desired to see a play of Shakespeare’s acted again.”131 As for Desdemona,

“If we had been left to ourselves we could have fancied her anything or anybody we liked, and have changed the fancy at our will. But, as it is, she is nothing to us but a slim young lady, in white satin, walking about on the boards of a Theatre.”132 The writer of this article furthermore reminds the public: “we shall ... always have more to say on five minutes of genius, than on five hours of dulness.”133 And—“It would also be desirable for both parties, if our Edinburgh readers would not forget that we write from London, and our London ones that we write for Edinburgh.”134 The second installment, February 1818, of these dramatic notices, comes down to more specific criticisms.—“Perhaps we were more disgusted by this revived play, the Point of Honour, than we should otherwise have been, from being obliged to sit, and see, and hear Miss O’Neil’s delightful voice and looks cast away upon it.—Though they have chosen to call it a play, it is one of that herd of Gallo-Germanic monsters which have visited us of late years, under the name of Melo-Dramas;... It makes the ladies in the galleries and dress-boxes shed those maudlin tears that always flow when weak nerves are over-excited.”135

Needless to say, the whole tone of the magazine was not of this light and popular kind. Much that it published was heavy, some of it dry. All the preceding gives in general the atmosphere of what ensured the success of the budding “Maga”. It continued in this manner, but ever mingling the steady, the serious, the grave, with the lively and the scandalous. For instance in the number for April 1818 we find an article “On the Poor Laws of England; and Answers to Queries Transmitted by a Member of Parliament, with a View to Ascertaining the Scottish System”136,—some four pages or more of serious discussion. In the same number appears “Letters on the Present State of Germany, Letter I”137, earnestly setting forth the causes of discontent in Germany, acknowledging into the bargain, that “the triumph of human intellect over the sway of despotism was never made more manifest than it has been within the last fifty years among the Germans”138, and concluding with a paragraph from our modern point of view more than interesting: “If the Germans have a Revolution, it will, I hope and trust, be calm and rational, when compared with that of the French. Its precursors have not been, as in France, ridicule, raillery, derision, impiety; but sober reflection, Christian confidence, and manly resolutions, gathered and confirmed by the experience of many sorrowful years. The sentiment is so universally diffused—so seriously established—so irresistible in its unity,—that I confess I should be greatly delighted, but not very much astonished, to hear of the mighty work being accomplished almost without resistance, and entirely without outrage.”139 This number likewise includes an article discussing the “Effect of Farm Overseers on the Morals of Farm Servants”140, another called “Dialogues on Natural Religion”141, and a “Hospital Scene in Portugal. (Extracted from the Journal of a British Officer, in a series of Letters to a Friend)”142, a graphic description which spares no horrible detail or opportunity for the pathetic.

The first article in the number for May 1818 is a brief but strictly specific “Description of the Patent Kaleidoscope, Invented by Dr. Brewster”143. This issue too presented the first of a series entitled “The Craniologists Review”144, No. I being a description of Napoleon’s head, supposedly by “a learned German”, a Doctor Ulric Sternstare, who may or may not have been a bona fide personage. One is apt to suspect, however, that these articles are by our young friend Lockhart. “Maga” owed many a nomme de plume to Lockhart’s German travels; the subject matter, craniology, is one of his own hobbies, as later revealed in Peter’s Letters; and the last sentence is more reminiscent of the young scamp than any “learned German”! The article concludes: “I think him a more amiable character than that vile toad Frederick of Prussia, who had no moral faculties on the top of his head; and he will stand a comparison with every conqueror, except Julius Caesar, who perhaps deserved better to be loved than any other person guilty of an equal proportion of mischief.”145

143 Ibid., V. iii, p. 121