Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-dh8gc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-10T08:23:23.287Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Edmund Burke and the Book Reviews in Dodsley's Annual Register

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 December 2020

Thomas Wellsted Copeland
Thomas Wellsted Copeland*
Affiliation:
Yale University
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The problem of Burke's anonymous writings in Dodsley's Annual Register has baffled biographers and critics for nearly a century and a half. Since Burke himself never acknowledged any of these writings, and since no conclusive evidence exists to fix their authorship, it is impossible to make use of them with any sense of security. On the other hand, since the Register must contain, even at a low estimate, some thousands of pages of Burke's writing, important both intrinsically and as our principal record of the early development of his mind, we cannot ignore it. Burke's biographers have about evenly divided themselves into those who were willing to take the risk of asserting on their own authority that specific parts of the magazine had been written by Burke, and those who preferred to make no use whatever of the dubious material. Thus Murray boldly assumes that Burke wrote all parts of the magazine from 1758 to 1791, and constantly quotes expressions of opinion in the magazine as Burke's personal expressions. Magnus on the contrary makes no direct use of the Register's contents in his biography. Neither those who have assumed Burke's authorship, nor those who have rejected it, have ever informed the public concerning the grounds of their judgment. But, admitting that certainty is impossible, such evidence as exists to make probable Burke's authorship of parts of the magazine deserves to be carefully weighed and analyzed.

Type
Research Article
Information
PMLA , Volume 57 , Issue 2 , June 1942 , pp. 446 - 468
Copyright
Copyright © Modern Language Association of America, 1942

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Note 1 in page 446 Edmund. Burke. By Robert Murray (Oxford, 1931).

Note 2 in page 446 Pp. 84 f., 92, 121, 146, 257 ff., 288, 305, 385 f.

Note 3 in page 446 Edmund Burke. By Philip Magnus (London, 1939).

Note 4 in page 446 The evidence which concerns Burke's editorial relation to the Register has been analyzed by the present writer in “Burke and Dodsley's Annual Register,” PMLA, liv (March, 1939), 223–245.

Note 5 in page 447 The Editor says of the books reviewed: “We have observed upon none that we could not praise; not that we pretend to have observed upon all that are praise-worthy. Those that do not deserve to be well spoken of, do not deserve to be spoken of at all.”

Note 6 in page 448 The exact numbers of the reviews in each volume of the Register between 1758 and 1773 are:

17586176241766517703
17597176351767417713
17606176441768317723
17615176541769317733

Note 7 in page 449 Letters of David Hume, ed. J. Y. T. Greig (Oxford, 1832), i, 303.

Note 8 in page 449 Idem, i, 312. For other evidence that Burke took an interest in the book, see James Prior, Life of Edmund Malone (London, 1860), p. 369.

Note 9 in page 449 Mrs. Montagu, her Letters and Friendships, ed. Reginald Blunt (London, 1923), i, 224.

Note 10 in page 449 Margaret Forbes, Beattie and his Friends (Westminster, 1904), p. 75 f.

Note 11 in page 449 C. B. Tinker, The Salon and English Letters (New York, 1915), p. 68.

Note 12 in page 450 Correspondence of Edmund Burke, ed. Fitzwilliam & Bourke (London, 1844), i, 223 f. See also ibid., 337 f.; iii, 441 f.

Note 13 in page 450 See a letter of Shenstone in Works of William Shenstone, 3rd ed. (London, 1773), iii, 323, discussing Dodsley's projected book: “... Spence, Burke, Lowth, and Melmoth, advise him to discard Italicks.”

Note 14 in page 450 Correspondence of Burke, i, 80.

Note 15 in page 450 Baretti wrote to his brother in Italy on September 18, 1766: “If Samuel Johnson, Edmund Burke, Dr. Goldsmith, and others among the leading men of letters and gentlemen of this nation do not deceive me, the work should win me an honorable position throughout England, and make them all, ladies and gentlemen alike, eager to know an author who writes their language as I do.”—Lacy Collison-Morley, Guiseppe Baretti (London, 1909), p. 186.

Note 16 in page 451 See Burke's Works, Beaconsfield ed. (London, 1901) i, 457; v, 239; also Cavendish's Debates in the Mouse of Commons (London, 1841), ii, 106.

Note 17 in page 451 See Works, ii, 125; iii, 272; xi, 38, 62, 88.

Note 18 in page 451 Unfortunately this lists some books that were not in the possession of Burke: the full printed title of it is A Catalogue of the Libraries of the Late Rt. Hon. Edmund Burke, and a near Relative of the late Sir M. B. Clare, M.D. There are copies of this catalogue in the British Museum and the New York Public Library.

Note 19 in page 451 The following items in the catalogue have some significance for the present study. Except 383 and 561 these are the exact editions which would have been in the Register's reviewer's hands. The exceptions illustrate a connection of Burke with the author or book:

31 Baretti's Travels in Italy, 1769.

33 Brown's Estimate of the Principles of the Times, 1757.

171 Anderson's History of Commerce, 2 vol. 1764.

312 Marshall's Travels in Holland, &c. 3 vol. 1772.

335 Hume's History of England, 6 vol. 1762.

355 Leland's History of Ireland, 1773.

383 Orme's Military Transactions of the British in Hindostan, some passages marked by Mr. Burke, 1775.

384 Ossian's Fingal, by Macpherson, 1762.

469 Rousseau, Emile, 2 vol. 1762. Rousseau's Emilius, by Nugent, 2 vol. 1763.

476 Shakespeare's Plays, with Notes by Johnson, 8 vol. 1765.

522 Webb on Painting, 1761. Webb on Poetry and Music, 1769.

547 Priestley on Vision, Light and Colors, 1772.

554 Swift's Works, with his Life and Notes by Hawkesworth, 6 vol. plates, 1755.

561 Sullivan's Lectures on the English Laws, with a MS Inscription to Burke, 1776.

617 Stuart's Antiquities of Athens, vol. 1, Mr. Burke's Subscription Copy, with the list of Subscribers and the errata, uncut, plates, 1762.

Note 20 in page 452 For evidence of Burke's acquaintance with Leland, see A. P. I. Samuels, Early Life of Edmund Burke (Cambridge, 1923), p. 94; Prior's Life, p. 65; Macknight's Life, i, 116; Correspondence of Burke, i, 109; Correspondence of Burke and William Windham (Cambridge, 1910), p. 3.

Note 21 in page 454 There is a slight hint of another such puff in the review of Benjamin Stillingfleet's Miscellaneous Tracts in 1759, where the reviewer says the merit of the work “will make everyone wish that learned author otherwise employed than in translation.”

Note 22 in page 454 Their acquaintance began around 1757, and soon became intimate. (See Robert Phillimore, Memoirs of Lord Lyttelton, London, 1845, ii, 579; also Prior's Life of Burke, p. 65.)

Note 23 in page 454 A letter of Walpole to George Montagu in July, 1761—Letters of Horace Walpole ed. Mrs. Paget Toynbee (Oxford, 1905), v, 86—says: “I dined with your secretary [this refers to William Gerard Hamilton] yesterday; there were Garrick and a young Mr. Burk, who wrote a book in the style of Lord Bolingbroke, that was much admired. He is a sensible man, but has not warn off his authorism yet—and thinks there is nothing so charming as writers, and to be one—he will know better one of these days.”

Note 24 in page 454 Perhaps also for his interest in a book which attacked some of Hume's conclusions: William Tytler's Enquiry into the Evidence Against Mary Queen of Scots, reviewed in 1760.

Note 25 in page 454 See James Prior, Life of Edmund Malone, p. 370.

Note 26 in page 454 Burke's friend and protegé, the painter Barry, wrote from London to a friend in Ireland, either at the end of 1764 or early in 1765: “At present I am at a kind of journey work for Mr. Stewart, Hogarth's successor, where I am likely to have a great deal of satisfaction. This was brought about by your friend Mr. Burke ...” Works of James Barry (London, 1809), i, 15.—Barry also makes reference in another letter, after some mention of Burke,... “to his friends, Athenian Stewart, to Sir Joshua, to myself, and others”... (Works of James Barry, ii, 538).—We have already referred above to the fact that the copy of Stuart's Antiquities of Athens in Burke's library was a subscription copy, which may be another reason for believing that Burke knew the author before the book appeared.

Note 27 in page 455 Bisset records the fact that Burke and Smith met and conversed (Life of Burke [2nd ed.], London, 1800, ii, 428 f.), but he does not say when they first became acquainted.

Note 28 in page 455 He must have known him at least as early as 1768, when Percy became a member of the Literary Club.

Note 29 in page 455 Burke and Stillingfleet were both frequent attendants at Mrs. Elizabeth Montagu's salons, and certainly had opportunities to meet. (See, for example, a letter of Mrs. Montagu in 1764 referring to a dinner party to which both were invited, though Burke could not come [Mrs. Montagu, her Letters and Friendships, i, 89]). A remark of Burke to Boswell (Private Papers of James Boswell, ed. Scott & Pottle, privately printed, 1928–1934, xiv, 209) may also be evidence that he was acquainted with Stillingfleet.

Note 30 in page 455 In the composition of his History of Ireland, Dr. Warner made a trip to Dublin, where he applied to the Irish Parliament for permission to use state archives in the compilation of his work. Burke was at that period resident in Dublin where he had gone as Hamilton's secretary to act as a political manager of the Irish Parliament. If it is accepted as probable that Burke wrote the review of Ossian's Fingal in 1761, he very likely knew Dr. Warner as early as that, for the review quotes Warner's opinions on the authenticity of Fingal and also describes him “as an Englishman unbiassed to Ireland, and as an historian now compiling the history of that country.”

Note 31 in page 455 As Burke through life maintained his acquaintance with several of the professors of Trinity College, Dublin, it is quite likely that he met Sullivan, who became Regius Professor of Law there in 1750. Burke certainly knew Him by the year 1776: we have already referred to the copy of Sullivan's Lectures on English Law in Burke's library “with a Ms inscription to Mr. Burke.”

Note 32 in page 456 See Works, ii, 38, Prior's Life, p. 355; and for a more general prejudice against lawyers as a class, Works, ii, 124 f, and iii, 286.

Note 33 in page 456 Ibid, vii 477.

Note 34 in page 456 Private Papers of James Boswell, xvii, 100.

Note 35 in page 458 Works, ii, 96. See also a remark in his Appeal from the New to the Old Whigs (Works, iv, 95): “He was the first man who, on the hustings, at a popular election, rejected the authority of instructions from constituents,—or who, in any place, has argued so fully against it.” See also Works, vii, 74, 99; Cavendish Debates, i, 287 f.

Note 36 in page 459 Works, iii, 349.

Note 37 in page 459 Ibid., iii, 398.

Note 38 in page 460 Morley, Works (London, 1921), xiv, 47.

Note 39 in page 460 Morley pointed out (Works, xiv, 15 f) the nearness in time and also in subject of Burke's Vindication and Rousseau's Second Discourse. Mr. Richard Sewall has presented more fully the case for believing that Burke was familiar with Rousseau's work at the time the Vindication was written (See PQ, xvii, 97–114.)

Note 40 in page 461 Letter to a Member of the National Assembly (Works, iv, 32).

Note 41 in page 461 Idem, 32 f.

Note 42 in page 461 Idem, 31. See also for other expressions of opinions of Rousseau, the Reflections on the French Revolution (Works, iii, 459). Mr. Reginald Buehler's unpublished Harvard dissertation entitled Burke and Rousseau should also be consulted.

Note 43 in page 463 The Register's review of Adam Ferguson's Essay on the History of Civil Society in 1767 should be considered in connection with the question of Burke's attitude toward Rousseau. The reviewer's own words and a long passage which he quotes from Ferguson parallel strikingly Burke's opinions of the theory of Natural Society.

Note 44 in page 463 The following reviews give evidence of their author's rather special interest in politics, constitutional history, and law:

Note 1759 in page 463 Blackstone's Discourse on the Study of Law

  • Leland's Life of Philip of Macedon (containing a four-page extract on the Greek constitution).

  • Warner's Memoirs of Thomas More (containing the extract already cited on More's defiance of royal power in the name of the House of Commons).

1760 Life of Edward, Earl of Clarendon. Robertson's History of Scotland (with a four-page extract on the Scotch feudal constitution).

  • Wallace's Laws of Scotland.

1761 Hume's History of England (extract on its constitutional bearings, and reviewer's comment on the extract).

1763 Letters of Henry, Earl of Clarendon.

  • Warner's History of Ireland (with Remarks on the early Irish constitution).

  • Grey's Debates of the House of Commons.

1765 Ellys's Liberty of Subjects in England.

1767 Lyttelton's Life of Henry the Second (three extracts treating the constitutional aspects of feudalism).

  • Blackstone's Commentaries.

  • Ferguson's Essay on Civil Society.

  • Beccaria's Essay on Crimes and Punishment.

1768 Blackstone's Commentaries.

1771 Dalrymple's Memoirs of Great Britain and Ireland (with five pages of extracts describing constitutional crises in the reign of James II).

1773 Sullivan, Lectures on the Feudal and English Laws.

Note 45 in page 464 The following reviews may be noticed, however, as being either by Irishmen or about Ireland:

1758 Leland's Philip of Macedon.

1760 Webb's Beauties of Painting.

1762 Webb's Beauties of Poetry.

1763 Slate Letters of Henry, Earl of Clarendon, Lord Lieutenant of Ireland (with extracts of letters on the affairs of Ireland).

  • Warner's History of Ireland.

1764 Leland's Christian Revelation.

1765 Swift's Works (with a long extract relating to English treatment of Ireland).

1771 Dalrymple's Memoirs of Great Britain and Ireland.

1772 Sullivan's Lectures on Feudal and English Laws.

1773 Leland's History of Ireland.

Note 46 in page 464 Burke's lifelong interest in early Irish customs, laws, and language may easily be illustrated from Prior's Life, p. 268, Bisset's Life, ii, 249 f., the Letters of David Hume, ed. Greig (Oxford, 1932), i, 400, the Private Papers of James Boswell, xvii, 51, 89–90, the Works of James Barry, i, 266, 445, or Burke's own Works, vi, 299. The reviewer shows various aspects of the same antiquarian interest in the following reviews:

1760 [Macpherson's] Ossian's Fingal (with a six-page discussion of the merits of the “Celtic Homer,” comment on the question whether he was an Irish or a Scotch bard, comment on the accuracy of his picture of ancient Irish customs).

1763 Warner's History of Ireland (a seven-page review dealing in detail with laws, customs, and manners of the earliest period of Irish historic and

Note 47 in page 464 The following should be noted:

1760 Webb's Beauties of Painting.

1762 Webb's Beauties of Poetry.

  • Walpole's Anecdotes of Painting.

  • pre-historic times).

1766 Rowland's Mona Antiqua Restaurata (a seven page review of this study of Celtic antiquities).

1773 Leland's History of Ireland (twelve page review, entering into the details of the earliest period of reliable Irish history. Burke's own discovery of new manuscript material in this field is alluded to).

1763 Stuart and Revett's Antiquities of Athens.

1764 Algarotti's Essay on Painting.

1773 Burney's History of Music.

Note 48 in page 464 The six-page review of Anderson's History of Commerce is given first place in the Register's reviews for 1764. We know that Burke was deeply absorbed in the study of commerce at about this time. (Works, ii, 87.)

Note 49 in page 465 Two reviews reflect this interest:

1764 Orme's Military Transactions in Indostan.

1766 Holwell's Historical Events Relative to Bengal.

Burke's interest in India was years in advance of that of most of his countrymen (cf. Bisset's Life of Burke, i, 63). Burke later showed a thorough familiarity with Holwell (Works, ix, 396–493), quoting passages from the Historic Events three times in the course of the Hastings trial. (Idem., 384–385, 389, 391). Orme's history was in Burke's library, “with some passages marked by his own hand.”

Note 50 in page 465 In the course of this study I wrote to Mr. Murray to ask him whether he had any evidence besides the internal evidence of style for ascribing so many of the reviews to Burke. His reply read in part: “I am afraid I have no evidence to offer you that Burke wrote the reviews in the ‘Annual Register,‘ though I am perfectly convinced that he did so. After all, what can be stronger than the internal evidence? Edmund Burke is written all over them.” Other biographers and critics of Burke have presumably found themselves in Mr. Murray's dilemma; at least they have frequently enough made ascriptions of specific reviews to Burke without citing any external evidence. See Prior's Life, p. 65; MacKnight's Life, i, 33, 116, 235; also E. J. Payne's Select Works, i, 237, 243, 249, 277, 339, 377.

Note 51 in page 466 Burke wrote years later in the Letter to a Noble Lord: “The first session I sat in parliament, I found it necessary to analyse the whole commercial, financial, constitutional, and foreign interests of Great Britain and its empire. A great deal was then done; and more, far more, would have been done, if more had been permitted by events. Then, in the vigour of my manhood, my constitution sank under my labour. Had I then died (and I seemed to myself very near death), I had then earned for those who belonged to me, more than the Duke of Bedford's ideas of service are of power to estimate.”

Note 52 in page 466 As usual, the date can be only approximate. Burke became secretary to the Marquis of Rockingham in July of 1765, and entered the House of Commons in December of that year; it is possible that he realized at once that he would need another worker on the Register and engaged one in 1765. But it is slightly more probable that, still needing his salary from Dodsley, or perhaps unsure of his position as Rockingham's secretary, Burke did not make any change in the Register's arrangements until the pressure of his duties had shown him it was absolutely necessary. The Annual Register for 1765, which normally would have appeared in the Spring of 1766, was considerably delayed in coming out, for which its Preface apologized. The issue for 1766, containing the questionable review of Cranz's History of Greenland, is more likely to have been the first to contain the work of a collaborator. Dr. Donald Cross Bryant, who has presented valuable evidence concerning the matter in his Edmund Burke and His Literary Friends (Washington University Studies, St. Louis, 1939, p. 292 ff.) puts the first serious collaboration in the year 1767, which would of course be the calendar year in which the Register for 1766 was published.