Attributions of Authorship in the Gentleman's Magazine,
1731-1868: An Electronic Union List
Emily Lorraine de Montluzin
I wish to express my thanks to the staff of the Electronic Text Center of the University of Virginia for providing the technical expertise and the meticulous care necessary to launch this database as an online publication. In particular I wish to thank David M. Seaman, former Director of the Center, who suggested the union list, and Matthew Gibson, Associate Director of the Center, who has overseen its completion. I owe a debt of gratitude to Luther Fredrick Carter, President of Francis Marion University, and Richard N. Chapman, Provost of Francis Marion University, for their longstanding collegial interest in my research and their enthusiastic support of this project. I would also like to express my appreciation to the Francis Marion University Board of Trustees for graciously creating the position of Trustee Research Scholar which has afforded me crucial additional time to devote to the completion of this research. I am very grateful to the reference staff of Rogers Library, in particular Roger K. Hux and John M. Summer, for their ready assistance over many years; and to Julian Pooley, FSA, Manager of the Surrey History Centre, Kingston upon Thames, and director of the Nichols Archive Project, who has generously made his vast database of transcripts of Nichols manuscript correspondence available to me, thus enabling me to identify the authors of scores of letters, articles, and obituaries in the Gentleman's Magazine that would otherwise have remained unattributed. Finally, I would like to thank John Nichols, John Bowyer Nichols, John Gough Nichols, Isabella Nichols, and Richard Gough, who assembled the attributions of authorship in the original Nichols File of the Gentleman's Magazine laboriously, over many years, with pen and ink, and who, if they were alive today, would deeply appreciate the amazing possibilities of electronic databases.
E. L. de M.
From its founding in 1731 by the printer Edward Cave, to its heyday under Cave's successors, David Henry and John Nichols, the Gentleman's Magazine was one of the most influential periodicals in Britain. The breadth of its coverage is stunning. The fluctuating prices of grain or coal or Smithfield beef, daily closing quotations for stocks and bonds, mortality figures (categorized by disease) for the city of London, theatre reviews, original poetry, the parliamentary debates, theological disputes, lists of promotions civil and military, Church preferments, and obituaries by the thousands all crowd the pages of the magazine. In addition, as an indispensable source of news to its loyal readership scattered throughout the towns, villages, country houses, and parsonages of Britain, the Gentleman's Magazine was unsurpassed. There if nowhere else could eighteenth- and early-nineteenth-century readers in remote corners of the nation find what was often their first account of the news of the day, whether it be the Lisbon Earthquake of 1755, 1 the unearthing of mosaics and frescoes at Herculaneum, 2 Benjamin Franklin's experiments with the lightning rod and with the kite and the key, 3 the hanging and burning of Phoebe Harris for coining, 4 the visit of the chief of the Yamacraw Indians to the court of George II, 5 the ambush of General Braddock in the woods near Fort Duquesne, 6 the "skirmish" at Lexington and Concord, 7 the latest method of cutting for cataracts before anesthesia, 8 the ongoing debate over the application of caustics for breast cancer, 9 the Gordon Riots of 1780 10 and the Peterloo Massacre of 1819, 11 the guillotining of Louis XVI and Marie Antoinette, 12 the discovery of the Rosetta Stone, 13 or the mutiny on the Bounty. 14 Certainly for present-day researchers the GM constitutes a mine of contemporary information concerning virtually every facet of British life and public interest during the first century of the magazine's existence.
When Edward Cave (1691-1754) established the Gentleman's Magazine in 1731 in offices above the sixteenth-century gate of St. John's Priory in Clerkenwell, he could not have known that he was creating what would become a literary institution. His intention was to launch a monthly magazine that would provide foreign and domestic intelligence, original poetry, helpful hints covering everything from agriculture to home remedies, and a digest of newspaper excerpts on leading topics of the day, tailored to attract readers in London and points beyond. Listing himself only as printer on the magazine's title page, Cave created a fictitious editor, "Sylvanus Urban, Gent.," borrowing the name from a 1691 newspaper, Urbanicus and Rusticus, in testimony to his hopes of appealing to city and country dwellers alike. The early monthly numbers were short (48 pages), and the domestic news columns were deliberately sensationalist, 15 reporting supposed sightings of mermen; 16 graphic accounts of hanging, drawing, and quartering, of spousal abuse, and of the trial and punishment of Eleanor Beare, the peripatetic abortionist; 17 and the issuance of an all-points-bulletin for the capture of Dick Turpin, the highwayman. 18 Excerpts from newspapers constituted a large proportion of the monthly numbers during Cave's regime, fed in the 1730s by the escalating press war generated by the Opposition's efforts to oust Robert Walpole and during the 1740s by debate over the conduct of the War of the Austrian Succession and by the national fright over the Jacobite Rebellion of the 'Forty-Five. 19 The number of original submissions remained small except for letters posing or responding to mathematical queries, commentaries on astronomy and theology, and a plethora of verse contributions, most of dubious merit.
Within two years of the founding of the GM Cave added a new feature that would make his magazine justly famous: the printing of a crude form of the parliamentary debates in defiance of the House of Commons' ban on just such an undertaking. Capitalizing on an ambiguity in the Commons' rules that might be interpreted to permit reporting of the debates after but not during a parliamentary session, Cave took the risk and with the August 1732 issue began regularly devoting the GM's lead article to "Debates in Parliament." 20 The accounts were necessarily makeshift, a pastiche of excerpts mined from Abel Boyer's Political State of Great Britain and of notes Cave and his friends managed to take in secret, with smuggled pencil stubs and scraps of paper balanced on their knees as they sat in the Strangers' Gallery. The resultant "speeches," reconstructed in a nearby tavern by the historians William Guthrie and Thomas Birch from the pooled jottings and retentive memories of Cave and his helpers, 21 were approximations at best and sometimes were more reflective of the redactors' political prejudices than the thoughts of the speakers themselves. Samuel Johnson, who eventually succeeded Guthrie as the compiler of the debates, was notorious for putting his own words into the Members' mouths and making sure, as he once told Sir George Staunton, "to put Sir Robert Walpole in the wrong, and to say every thing he could against the electorate of Hanover." 22 When an affronted House of Commons in April 1738 forbade the reporting of its debates at any time, regardless of whether or not the sessions had ended, the GM simply renamed its monthly leader "Debates of the Senate of Lilliput," complete with thinly disguised anagrams or corruptions of the Members' names. 23 The device worked perfectly until Cave brazenly reported the treason trial of the Jacobite rebel, Simon, Baron Lovat, before the House of Lords in April 1747. Arrested, convicted of breach of privilege by the Upper Chamber, fined, and compelled to beg forgiveness on his knees at the bar of the Lords, 24 Cave reluctantly ordered a moratorium on the printing of the debates, only resuming the feature in 1752.
With the death of Edward Cave in 1754 and the succession of David Henry (1709-92) and later John Nichols (1745-1826) to the mantle of Sylvanus Urban, the GM entered into a period of tremendous growth, not only in the length of its monthly numbers but also in the range of materials offered up to the magazine's readers. Henry began the transformation, working after 1778 in close cooperation with Nichols, who that year became part proprietor of the GM with Henry, handled much of the editorial duties of the magazine during the 1780s, and succeeded Henry as editor in 1791. Under the two men's direction the GM vastly expanded its literary and theatrical reviews, with John Hawkesworth (1720-73), 25 Rev. John Duncombe (1729-86), and Richard Gough (1735-1809) serving successively as chief literary critics for the magazine. At the same time, the GM all but abandoned the practice of allotting large amounts of space to excerpts from the newspaper press, with the exception of the early 1760s, when the nation was caught up in a contentious debate over Lord North's Peace of Paris. Just as the magazine in Cave's day brought mathematical and astronomical concerns before its readership, the GM under the aegis of Henry and Nichols continued its coverage of pure and applied science, publishing letters on Halley's Comet, Herschel's discovery of Uranus, Vincent Lunardi's balloon flight (the first in Britain), and Edward Jenner's discovery of vaccination for smallpox; 26 disquisitions on archaeology and numismatics; meteorological diaries; descriptions of newly invented agricultural implements, including a diagram of Jethro Tull's seed drill; 27 and synopses of the Transactions of the Royal Society. Building on readers' interest in Samuel Johnson's earlier series on the lives of celebrated admirals, the GM gave extensive space to accounts of voyages of discovery, most notably a lengthy series of articles on Captain James Cook's voyage of 1768-71 in the Endeavour. 28 David Henry, who was a friend of Benjamin Franklin and a first cousin of Patrick Henry of Virginia, was particularly interested in news from America, and under his direction and that of Nichols the GM provided substantial coverage of events in the New World, reporting with remarkable impartiality the build-up and progress of the American Revolution and milestones in the history of the new republic, including the ratification of the Constitution (printed in its entirety), 29 festivities attending the inauguration of George Washington (himself a subscriber to the GM), 30 the naming of Washington's first cabinet and Supreme Court appointees, 31 the laying out of the District of Columbia, 32 and the publication of Washington's Farewell Address (printed in entirety). 33 Henry and Nichols carried on Cave's tradition of embellishing the magazine with illustrative plates and filled the GM with superbly executed engravings of birds, maps, coins, Roman inscriptions, country houses, Bronze-Age dolmens, erupting volcanoes, and South Sea islanders. Nichols doubled the size of the magazine, which grew from its original 600 pages per year to a two-part, 1,200-page annual publication beginning in 1783; and he expanded the GM's obituary columns and memoirs to such a degree and with such assiduousness that he earned the unflattering sobriquet of "death-hunter." 34 Above all, Henry and Nichols presided over a magazine overwhelmingly devoted to original submissions from a growing readership, 35 submissions that flowed in by the thousands from chiefly anonymous or pseudonymous contributors, avid to see their offerings in print.
The use of fictitious signatures offered several advantages to Mr. Urban's correspondents. In an age when many gentlemen still regarded "writing for the papers" as a dubious activity fit only for Grub Street hacks, such literary camouflage provided contributors the protection of anonymity. It afforded others of more liberal mind the delight of concealing their identities behind classical pseudonyms, artfully crafted anagrams, and misleading sets of initials. In addition, the use of a variety of different signatures by the same contributors permitted them the amusement of deceiving their readers by corresponding with themselves, as well as the luxury of correcting their own mistakes with minimal loss of face. Thus in 1793 Samuel Pegge the Elder, signing "L.E." (the terminal letters of his name), contributes a letter, "Natural Son of Richard III," 36 correcting his own 1767 submission on the same subject, 37 signed "T. Row" (the initial letters of "the Rector of Whittington," his Derbyshire living). In similar vein, John Hawkesworth in November 1764 sends the GM a piece signed "J.H." enclosing "Rules for Writing and Speaking correctly," which purports to be "a Letter from a Father to a Daughter" concerning grammar. 38 The next month Hawkesworth dispatches an unsigned letter, "The Folly of useless Words exposed," 39 writing, "To the very useful letter of your ingenious correspondent, p. 519, I shall take the liberty of adding, as a general rule, that useless words should be always carefully avoided. . . ." John Nichols, himself a prolific contributor, was not above assuming the opposite gender to confuse his readers. Not only did he submit a multitude of letters signed "M. Green" (taken from the name of his second wife, Martha Green); in addition, in a 1795 letter, "Burial Ground of the Jews at Mile-end described," 40 Nichols, coyly signing himself "Eusebia," writes, "I don't know, Mr. Urban, what you will say to my inquisitive pen. Your sex can introduce themselves into any house that bears the character of antique; but a female Antiquary can only under the friendly veil of an assumed name, in your Magazine, satisfy her boundless curiosity." Since some women did contribute to the magazine, including Anna Seward (who generally signed her own name to her submissions), the GM's readers probably accepted Nichols's deception.
Subtle changes start to appear in the content of the GM during the early nineteenth century, as John Nichols began to relinquish more and more control of the operation of the magazine to his son, John Bowyer Nichols, who had become a partner in the firm in 1800; and those changes accelerated after John Nichols's death in 1826. Under John Bowyer the magazine allotted an increased amount of space to religious topics, just as it would later expand its interest in antiquarian and archaeological submissions and reports from learned societies under the influence of John Bowyer's son, John Gough Nichols. An inevitable byproduct of the GM's new focus was a diminution in the variety of its offerings, together with a loss of the sense of spontaneity that had distinguished the magazine for many decades. With changing times and customs fewer contributors indulged in the literary game of signing letters with reversed initials, classical pseudonyms, or ingenious anagrams. With altered editorial policies and the commencement of new series in 1834 and 1856, less and less space was allotted to letters to the editor from the GM's far-flung readership. The thousands of letters to Sylvanus Urban, by turns whimsical or argumentative or recondite, that had been the mainstay of the magazine under David Henry's and John Nichols's stewardship dwindled to a trickle, relegated increasingly to the Minor Correspondence page or to the filler rounding out each monthly number. Mr. Urban in his mid-nineteenth-century incarnation was clearly less interested in the topics and passions that had preoccupied his eighteenth-century readers: the interpretation of a troublesome passage in Juvenal; 41 details of a newly discovered Roman coin; 42 helpful methods for destroying black beetles in London kitchens; 43 the elucidation of the origins of the phrase "to run amuck"; 44 the minute description of "a curious, and . . . non-descript . . . caterpillar . . . [,] uncommonly large and beautiful," found in a potato field in Kent. 45 Under the direction of John Bowyer Nichols and his editor, the Rev. John Mitford, longer articles and reviews, written by a staff of paid contributors, replaced the myriad short items and letters on a vast variety of subjects that had formerly crowded Mr. Urban's pages. 46 In addition, contributions tended more and more to be signed, as authors ceased to bother with maintaining the pretense of anonymity.
Unquestionably the Gentleman's Magazine in its mid-nineteenth-century format was quite a different animal from the periodical that had appeared under Edward Cave's direction a century and a quarter before. Alterations in style and content only intensified in early 1850, when contributions signed with initials and pseudonyms virtually disappeared except for the Minor Correspondence section. In the mid 1860s the pace of change became precipitous. The Nichols family had already sold the magazine in 1856, and J. H. Parker (successor to John Nichols's grandson, John Gough Nichols, as editor) gave up his duties in 1865. The latest publishers (Bradbury, Evans, and Co.) launched a second new series (commencing with Vol. 220 for January- June 1866) with the sanguine promise that the GM would maintain its strength in antiquarian matters, cover a more diverse array of subjects in book reviews, reserve considerably more space for contemporary literature, and do an even better job in recording births, marriages, obituaries, and appointments. Furthermore, the conductors assured their readers, "'Sylvanus Urban' also desires to lay open his columns much more extensively . . . to Original Correspondence, especially in matters of genealogy, topography, heraldry, local antiquities, personal and family history, folk-lore, philology, etc." 47
The promise of a Gentleman's Magazine redivivus was unhappily short-lived. After a five-volume run, the second new series came to an end and with it any attempt to restore the magazine to even a semblance of its old character. Vol. 225 (June-November 1868) ushered in a third new series, under the direction of a different editor (Joseph Hatton) and at the reduced price of 1s. in place of half a crown. Calling the GM "one of the institutions of the country," 48 the new management in its "Preface" to readers gamely tried to evoke the mystique of Samuel Johnson and Edward Cave and capitalize on the magazine's venerable past, a past of which it was clearly in awe. True, the "Preface" acknowledged, the Gentleman's Magazine would be abandoning any further attempt to provide comprehensive coverage of "Politics, Science, Art," the parliamentary debates, literary criticism, or the activities of the learned societies, as "[i]t is no longer desirable, it is indeed scarcely possible, for a monthly magazine to comprise the features" to which the GM's old audience had been accustomed. 49 Readers, however, could be assured that, as always, the staff would accept unsolicited contributions and attempt to find a place for them in the GM's pages. "The new number . . . is another link in the long chain that reaches back to 'Edward Cave at St. John's Gate,'" Hatton asserted. "We give up no jot of the Urbanian Succession. . . ." 50 But to anyone familiar with the magazine in its heyday the new management's attempt to affect the persona of Sylvanus Urban seems self-conscious, awkward, and uncomfortably anachronistic, as if the GM's mid-Victorian editor had unsuccessfully dressed himself in borrowed robes. In the course of the following two volumes (226-227) Hatton dropped all pretense of emulating the gracious old magazine in which eighteenth- and early-nineteenth-century readers had delighted, abruptly withdrawing the welcome he had extended to unsolicited letters and articles (those mainstays of the old GM) and jettisoning the obituaries for once and for all. Clearly with the commencement of the third new series in mid 1868 the Gentleman's Magazine became an entirely different entity, a thing that Edward Cave, Samuel Johnson, David Henry, John Hawkesworth, Richard Gough, John Nichols, and their readers and contributors would not even have recognized. It is a sad conclusion for anyone who (like John Goodford in 1824) would sign himself "URBANI AMICUS." 51
The Gentleman's Magazine has for many decades been the subject of close scrutiny by researchers endeavoring to determine the authorship of the vast number of anonymous and pseudonymous letters, articles, reviews, poems, memoirs, and notes filling its volumes from 1731 until mid-1868, when new editors recast the magazine and irretrievably altered its make-up. Many scholars have directed their attention to the initial decades of the GM's existence, particularly the Edward Cave epoch (1731-54), attracted in part by the fact that those were the years that saw the bulk of Samuel Johnson's involvement with the magazine. Early studies by C. Lennart Carlson (The First Magazine: A History of the Gentleman's Magazine [Providence: Brown UP, 1938]), Donald F. Bond ("The Gentleman's Magazine," Modern Philology 38 : 85-100, with its extensive corrections and additions to Carlson), and Albert Pailler (Edward Cave et le Gentleman's Magazine [1731-1754] [2 vols.; Lille: Atelier Reproduction des Theses, 1975]) provided numerous attributions of authorship of the GM's poetry, as has Titia Ram's recent Magnitude in Marginality: Edward Cave and The Gentleman's Magazine, 1731-1754, Containing a First-Line Index of all the Poems, With Notes and References on Authorship (N.p.: Gottmann & Fainsilber Katz, 1999). While Carlson, Bond, Pailler, and Ram have concentrated overwhelmingly on the GM's poetry, works by other scholars have focused on identifying prose submissions to the GM, particularly John L. Abbott's John Hawkesworth: Eighteenth-Century Man of Letters (Madison: U of Wisconsin P, 1982) for Hawkesworth contributions; Bertram H. Davis's A Proof of Eminence: The Life of Sir John Hawkins (Bloomington: Indiana UP, 1973) for Hawkins finds; Claude E. Jones's "Charles Woodmason as a Poet" (South Carolina Historical Magazine 59 : 189-194) for submissions from colonial South Carolina by Woodmason; James M. Osborn's "Dr. Johnson's 'Intimate Friend'" (TLS, 9 October 1953, p. 652) for Stephen Barrett finds; James L. Clifford's "Johnson and Lauder" (Philological Quarterly 54 : 342-356) for William Lauder and William Brakenridge entries; and Arthur Sherbo's "From the Gentleman's Magazine . . ." (Studies in Bibliography 35 : 285-305). In addition, numerous specialists in the literary career of Samuel Johnson have worked painstakingly to identify an impressive number of Johnson's contributions to the GM. (See Section V below.)
When James M. Kuist published The Nichols File of The Gentleman's Magazine: Attributions of Authorship and Other Documentation in Editorial Papers at the Folger Library (Madison: U of Wisconsin P, 1982), he provided scholars of the periodical press with an indispensable resource: the identification of authorship of nearly 14,000 hitherto anonymous articles, reviews, poems, and other items appearing in the Gentleman's Magazine from its beginning in 1731 until 1856, when the descendants of John Nichols relinquished ownership of the magazine. The publication in 1982 of Kuist's Nichols File, supplying as it did the identification of the authors of thousands of the GM's articles and letters on politics, history, theology, travel, science, inventions, medicine, literature, philology, and antiquarian lore, was justly welcomed as a signal achievement in recent British press history. However, Kuist's Nichols File, though breathtaking in its accomplishment, did not purport to be a complete listing of all the known or decipherable authors of the myriad letters, articles, queries, obituaries, and verse addressed over a century and a quarter to Sylvanus Urban. In fact, Kuist made a conscious decision to confine his list to those attributions of authorship specifically identified in handwritten marginal annotations by John Bowyer Nichols 52 and others in his family in the staff copy of the GM, now housed in the Folger Library. Those marginal attributions of authorship in the GM, put together by the Nichols family in a massive reconstruction of their office files after a destructive fire in 1808, contain perforce a multitude of omissions, some the result of haste or sheer carelessness on the part of the annotators, some because the authorship of certain articles and letters defied all efforts at identification, others conversely because the authors' identities seemed at the time too obvious for anyone to bother writing down.
Kuist's editorial guidelines, namely, to reproduce the attributions in the Nichols File exactly as written, unavoidably preserved the annotators' omissions as well as their errors. Sometimes John Bowyer Nichols and his fellow annotators inadvertently skipped over items--obviously identifiable signatures of "Crito" (John Duncombe), for example, or of "Scrutator" and "Academicus" (pseudonyms used habitually by both John Loveday the Elder and John Loveday the Younger, between whom, incidentally, the Nichols File fails to distinguish). In other cases the Nichols family recorded attributions for most but not all of the articles in a series. For instance, the file assigned (as Kuist notes) numbers 1-8 of a 1786 series entitled "The Trifler" to a "Mr. Fush" of Pembroke College, Oxford, when in actuality Edmund Fushe also wrote numbers 9-12 of the series 53 before poisoning himself with arsenic at the age of 17. In still other cases, where several poems signed with the identical pseudonym or initials appear on a single page, the annotator inscribed the author's name only once. Since Kuist's list prints only the specific poem against which the annotator happened to write the name, evidence that could be used to add a wealth of new attributions to The Nichols File is thus excluded. In addition, John Bowyer Nichols and his family seem to have ignored crucial geographical evidence when compiling their file of attributions of authorship, failing to take advantage of the opportunity to match authors with the towns or even street addresses whence they wrote. As many of the GM's contributors chose in occasional bursts of candor to forego the anonymity of initials and sign their full names, it is possible to search forward and backward through the pages of the GM, identifying with reasonable certainty a number of unassigned contributions by means of pairing sets of initials with place-names. "J.H.," a common enough signature, is for example safely identifiable as that of John Holt when it happens to appear in letters dated from Holt's home of Walton, near Liverpool, during the period when Holt was an active contributor to the magazine.
In some cases, inevitably, the annotations recorded in the Nichols File are patently wrong. A major case in point consists of the file's identification of the person who used the signature "L.E." as Samuel Pegge the Younger. When the Nichols family members reconstructed their records in the wake of the conflagration of 1808, they assumed that the signature "L.E." appearing from 1788 through 1795 was that of Pegge the Younger. Thus Kuist lists it for forty-two items included in The Nichols File. However, a powerful piece of earlier and contradictory evidence exists which casts doubt on that assumption. Immediately following the death of Samuel Pegge the Elder the GM published a three-part unsigned memoir of Pegge by his son, Samuel Pegge the Younger, 54 subjoining to it a comprehensive listing of virtually all of Pegge's writings published in the GM and elsewhere. 55 The 1796 list categorically attributes the "L.E." articles in question to Pegge the Elder, a designation that is quite convincing. In the first place, the "L.E." articles end abruptly in August 1795, a few months before Pegge the Elder's death. Second, if the GM's comprehensive Pegge list had erroneously attributed dozens of items to Pegge the Elder, Pegge the Younger presumably would have written to the GM to correct the historical record. There is no evidence that he did so. Furthermore, according to Nichols himself, Pegge the Younger's contributions to the GM were few in number. "To Mr. Pegge we are indebted for the . . . Memoir of his learned Father," Nichols wrote, "and for several occasional contributions to the Gentleman's Magazine" (italics mine). 56 The bulk of the evidence adduced thus points overwhelmingly to Pegge the Elder as the author of the "L.E." items, items incorrectly attributed in The Nichols File to his son.
With the help of the lists of known pseudonyms and sets of initials provided in Kuist's own index, plus a mine of information contained in contemporary letters, literary memoirs, and the GM's invaluable obituaries, as well as determined detective work involving the unscrambling of anagrams and the use of geographical links, it has been possible to fill literally thousands of the gaps in the record. Since the appearance of Kuist's Nichols File, a large number of post-Kuist articles and books by various scholars have contributed significantly to the expansion or correction of identifications of authorship provided in The Nichols File or in earlier scholarship. Those publications include John L. Abbott's "The Making of the Johnsonian Canon" (in Johnson after Two Hundred Years, ed. Paul J. Korshin [Philadelphia: U of Pennsylvania P, 1986]) for John Hawkesworth contributions; Marion B. Smith's "South Carolina and The Gentleman's Magazine" (South Carolina Historical Magazine 95 : 102-129) for John Lining contributions; Kenneth Monkman's "Did Sterne Contrive to Publish a 'Sermon' in 1738?" (The Shandean: An Annual Devoted to Laurence Sterne and His Works 4 : 111-133) for two Laurence Sterne items; Richard C. Cole's "Recovering William James (fl. 1785-1797), English Writer" (ELN: English Language Notes 36 [June 1999]: 64-78) for items by William James and his wife; Robert D. Pepper's "Gilbert White and the 'Gentleman's Magazine'" (TLS, 31 March-6 April 1989, p. 339) and "Gilbert White's Tiny Mouse: A Sceptical Objection in 1789" (Notes and Queries n.s. 37, no. 3 [September 1990]: 315-317) for several new attributions to Gilbert White of Selborne; Arthur Sherbo's "John Coleridge and the Gentleman's Magazine" (Bulletin of Research in the Humanities 86 : 86-93), "Additions to the Nichols File of the Gentleman's Magazine" (Studies in Bibliography 37 : 228-233), "The English weather, The Gentleman's Magazine, and the brothers White" (Archives of Natural History 12 : 23-29), "More from the Gentleman's Magazine: Graves, Mainwaring, Wren, Sterne, Pope, Bubb Dodington, Goldsmith, Hill, Herrick, Cowper, Chatterton" (Studies in Bibliography 40 : 164-174), "Further Additions to the Nichols File of the Gentleman's Magazine" (Studies in Bibliography 42 : 249-254), The Achievement of George Steevens (New York: Peter Lang, 1990), "Thomas Martyn (1735-1825), 'P.B.C.': his contributions to the Gentleman's Magazine" (Archives of Natural History 22 : 51-59), Letters to Mr. Urban of the Gentleman's Magazine, 1751-1811 (Studies in British History 44 [Lewiston, NY: Edwin Mellen P, 1997]), and "William Hamilton Reid (fl. 1786-1824): A Forgotten Poet" (Studies in Scottish Literature 29 : 245-257) for numerous supplementary attributions both of prose and verse; and my six-part "Attributions of Authorship in the Gentleman's Magazine, 1731-77: A Supplement to Kuist" (Studies in Bibliography 44 : 271-302), "Attributions of Authorship . . . , 1778- 92 . . ." (Studies in Bibliography 45 : 158-187), "Attributions of Authorship . . . , 1793-1808 . . ." (Studies in Bibliography 46 : 320-349), "Attributions of Authorship . . . , 1809-26 . . ." (Studies in Bibliography 47 : 164-195, "Attributions of Authorship . . . , 1827-48 . . ." (Studies in Bibliography 49 : 176-207), and "Attributions of Authorship . . . , 1849-68, and Addenda, 1733-1838 . . ." (Studies in Bibliography 50 : 322-58), as well as my "Topographical, Antiquarian, Astronomical, and Meteorological Contributions by George Smith of Wigton in the Gentleman's Magazine, 1735-59" (ANQ 14 [Spring 2001]: 5-12).
Under the auspices of the Bibliographical Society of the University of Virginia and the university's Electronic Text Center, I published from 1996 through 1999 three electronic databases amassing collectively nearly 20,000 attributions of authorship of items appearing in the GM:
My first electronic database, Attributions of Authorship in the Gentleman's Magazine, 1731-1868: A Supplement to Kuist (Charlottesville: Bibliographical Society of the University of Virginia, 1996) was designed to integrate and in several instances correct the identifications of authorship I had published in my six-part "Attributions of Authorship in the Gentleman's Magazine . . . ," Studies in Bibliography 44 (1991): 271-302, 45 (1992): 158-187, 46 (1993): 320-349, 47 (1994): 164-195, 49 (1996): 176-207, and 50 (1997): 322- 58. Attributions of Authorship . . . : A Supplement to Kuist added approximately 4,000 new or corrected attributions of authorship in the GM to the items catalogued by Kuist in the Nichols File. In addition to providing an integrated list, publication of my finds in the form of an electronic database had the further advantage of insuring that the information contained in the database was accessible to scholars through a variety of means including searches by author, title, volume and page, date, source of attribution, and (when applicable) pseudonyms used by contributors.
My second electronic database, Attributions of Authorship in the Gentleman's Magazine, 1731-1868: A Synthesis of Finds Appearing Neither in Kuist's Nichols File nor in de Montluzin's Supplement to Kuist (Charlottesville: Bibliographical Society of the University of Virginia, 1997) brought together over 1,850 additional attributions of authorship of items in the GM. Those items, synthesized for the first time in one comprehensive supplementary list, were compiled from approximately sixty books and articles by various scholars who, over a number of decades, had made their own significant contributions to the identification of the anonymous authors of the GM's letters, reviews, articles, poems, and staff notes. Since those additional attributions were scattered through very many publications (many of them out of print), and since a number of those publications bore titles nondescriptive of their relevance to Gentleman's Magazine studies, researchers interested in the GM had long been hard-pressed to make effective use of them, even when aware of their existence. The publication of Attributions of Authorship in the Gentleman's Magazine, 1731-1868: A Synthesis of Finds . . . , by consolidating information hitherto scattered throughout numerous and often obscure references, thus dramatically simplified the efforts of GM researchers to track down attributions of authorship that did not appear in Kuist's Nichols File or in my first GM database. Taken together, my first two GM databases added forty percent to the total number of items available in Kuist, presenting the finds in a way that permitted researchers to conduct an electronic search of the two GM databases simultaneously.
The purpose of my third electronic text, Attributions of Authorship in the Gentleman's Magazine: An Electronic Version of James M. Kuist's The Nichols File of the Gentleman's Magazine (Charlotte: Bibliographical Society of the University of Virginia, 1999), was to recast Kuist's Nichols File, with its 13,950 attributions of authorship, as an online database in a format identical to that used in my first two GM electronic publications.
Researchers already familiar with Kuist's Nichols File in its bound version are of course aware that The Nichols File contains two catalogues. The first (and by far the more valuable for most users) consists of the aforementioned list of nearly 14,000 attributions of authorship of items printed in the Gentleman's Magazine, attributions transcribed by Kuist and his research associates directly from the marginal annotations in the Folger copy of the GM. Catalogue II, Documents in the Gentleman's Magazine, contains lists of drawings, printed materials in the Folger Nichols File, and a variety of manuscripts, associated documents, and other papers pertaining to the GM, either tipped into the pages of the magazine or maintained separately by John Nichols and his descendants. Though Catalogue II provides valuable information for students of the Nichols family publishing business (and though it has furnished me with many useful clues in my own efforts to identify contributors to the magazine in the mid nineteenth century), it was not germane to the scope of the online version of Kuist's Nichols File and thus was excluded from the database.
The greatest challenge in converting the printed version of Kuist into an electronic format compatible with my earlier GM databases was one of rearrangement of the material. Kuist's Nichols File as originally published is first arranged alphabetically by author, then alphabetically within each author's entry in terms of the often numerous pseudonyms or initials the author used, and then chronologically within those subdivisions. Despite the best efforts of Kuist's team of researchers, there are unfortunately frequent errors in the above sequence, not only in alphabetizing but in the listing of volume numbers, page numbers, dates, and signatures as well. Since each of my GM databases begins with a complete chronological listing of the attributions contained therein (followed by an alphabetical synopsis by contributor as a cross reference), the first task was to convert an alphabetical arrangement of all of the attributions in Kuist's volume into a strictly chronological listing. It was then essential to compare each typed entry with the corresponding item in the microfilm version of the GM itself, making sure that errors in volume numbers, page numbers, dates, and signatures were corrected. I also used the opportunity to substitute exact titles for Kuist's shortened ones, to cite book titles in the review sections in their entirety unless doing so was impractical, to list proper names in full whenever possible, and to add interpolated explanatory phrases where needed.
The present database, Attributions of Authorship in the Gentleman's Magazine, 1731- 1868: An Electronic Union List, is designed to bring together in one key-word-searchable and fully browsable electronic text the total number of known attributions of authorship of the GM's letters, articles, reviews, poems, and other items, gleaned from all available published and unpublished sources for the magazine. It consists in part of an integration of my three previous electronic databases, as corrected and refined. However, the union list goes far beyond those texts to expand the citations of thousands of items in order to make them more conducive to key-word searches, to create new indices of contributors and of pseudonyms, and to incorporate over 6,000 new finds, many of them from the GM's eighteenth-century run (the period least well represented in Kuist's Nichols File). Designed to facilitate searches by proper name and subject (as well as by volume, page, date, and pseudonymous signature), and presented in a logical and clear sequence, Attributions of Authorship in the Gentleman's Magazine, 1731-1868: An Electronic Union List at last makes it possible to bring together in one electronically accessible, fully browsable, and user-friendly format the 25,585 known attributions of authorship in Georgian England's greatest magazine.
Like my three earlier GM electronic texts, the union list contains a complete Chronological Listing of all of the attributions of authorship contained in the database, followed by an alphabetized Synopsis by Contributor supplied as a cross reference to the approximately 2,362 contributors whose work is encompassed in the database. Expanding upon an additional feature I had provided in the online version of Kuist's Nichols File, I have also included a comprehensive Index of Pseudonyms and Initials used by way of signature in all of the items cited in the present database.
The present database, like my first GM electronic text and the six-part series of articles that preceded it, makes extensive evidentiary use of Kuist's list of thousands of manuscript articles and unprinted letters to the GM's editors dating mainly from the 1830s, 1840s, and 1850s, materials which form the bulk of Catalogue II in Kuist's Nichols File. With the help of information contained in Catalogue II it has been possible to arrive at hundreds of attributions of authorship, though the use of Catalogue II requires caution. Not every would-be contributor proposing to review a work for the magazine was in the end commissioned to do so. In addition, as Catalogue II demonstrates, in various instances several writers sent letters to Bowyer Nichols and his staff offering to review the same publication. As a result, I have continued to treat as tentative all attributions of authorship based on offers from would-be contributors to supply book reviews, memoirs, and the like, unless the evidence makes it certain that the proffered material was actually accepted. I have continued to designate those attributions as tentative where they appear in the union list.
The union list, like the online version of Kuist's Nichols File, contains hundreds of attributions of review articles written by Richard Gough, the leading reviewer for the Gentleman's Magazine during the late eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries. Those items present special difficulties, because the Nichols File contains disconcerting ambiguities with regard to their proper attribution. Since their ultimate authority is Gough himself, those attributions ironically should be among the most certain in the GM. Knowing that his old friend John Nichols was struggling to reassemble his papers and literary collections after the 1808 fire at his printing office, Gough kindly bequeathed to Nichols his personal set of volumes of the GM with Gough's own contributions marked therein. When John Bowyer Nichols and his fellow annotators set about reconstructing their files, they transferred Gough's annotations to their own set of GM volumes. 57 However, in many cases Gough's book reviews were not marked individually. Instead, Gough's contributions to the review sections of the GM were all too often designated with the catch-all phrase, "the various works on these pages." Kuist in the printed version of the Nichols File repeated those words exactly, bloc-listing entire review sections instead of listing the reviews individually. (Incidentally, Kuist's decision to preserve the designation en masse of Richard Gough's reviews accounts for nearly 800 items in the thousand-odd discrepancy between the nearly 13,000 attributions Kuist thought he had in the Nichols File and the 13,950 attributions that he actually had.) Sometimes the designation "the various works on these pages" is clear enough, but in other cases the placement of articles on a page in the GM makes attribution of authorship very difficult indeed.
In preparing the union list I have maintained certain conventions I adopted in the online version of the Nichols File to assure consistency in the listing of Richard Gough's attributions of authorship. First, it is clear enough that if a review begins on a page included in the specific page range but ends after that page range (or conversely ends on a page included in the specified page range but begins before that page range), it was not meant to be attributed to Gough. I have not included any such items in Gough's list. However, the main problem lies in numerous instances in which a piece definitely attributed to Gough ends on the last page of a page range but is followed by one or more works that fall entirely on that same page. Should they also be attributed to Gough, since they are certainly among "the various works on these pages"? The same difficulty arises at the beginning of a specified range of pages, when several reviews fall totally on the first page of the page range, followed by a review that spills over from the first to the second page in the range. Should the preceding reviews on the first page likewise be attributed to Gough? Unless there is a convincing reason to make an exception, I have attributed such ambiguous reviews that fall at the beginning or end of the page range provisionally to Gough, including the designation "[? (attribution unclear in Kuist)]" in the text of the entry. Though the attribution of certain items to Gough remains perforce an imprecise business, the application of the above conventions at least insures consistency. 58
The identification of Samuel Johnson's contributions to the GM presents unusual difficulties centering upon a host of conflicting claims, published over many years, concerning Johnson's authorship of various disputed items. This is particularly true with regard to Johnson's role in the compilation of portions of the parliamentary debates. In preparing the union list I have continued to follow conventions I developed for my second GM database to govern the inclusion of purported Johnson attributions. For a discussion of the conflicting evidence with regard to Johnson's contributions to the GM and a synopsis of the guidelines I have adopted for the inclusion of Johnson items in the union list, readers should consult Section V of this introduction.
The union list contains over 6,000 new attributions of authorship. Many of them involve items excerpted from the London newspaper press chiefly during the 1730s-1760s, items written for the papers by such contributors as Samuel Johnson, Henry Fielding, Lord Chesterfield, Arthur Murphy, John Hawkesworth, John Wilkes, Charles Churchill, Tobias Smollett, and Henry St. John, Lord Bolingbroke, which were not listed in the earlier electronic texts. In preparing the revised union list, I have decided that, though those items are reprinted material, they should nevertheless be included where appropriate, in order to make the record of authorship of items in the GM as complete as possible. (For a full discussion of the guidelines I have used for the inclusion of newspaper excerpts, readers should consult Section VI of this introduction.) The union list also makes use of various attributions of authorship kindly furnished to me by Edward W. Pitcher, Emeritus Professor of English, the University of Alberta, from his massive research on eighteenth-century magazines, and by Julian Pooley, Director of the Surrey History Centre, from his ongoing Nichols Project, a tremendous undertaking dedicated to the creation of an electronic database cataloging thousands of manuscript letters written by and to John Nichols and his descendants which are currently scattered throughout many public and private collections on both sides of the Atlantic. In addition, in order to make the union list as comprehensive and useful as possible, I have chosen to include several thousand items which, though signed, bear only a partial and therefore potentially confusing signature. Writers familiar enough to eighteenth-century readers have in many cases sunk into obscurity; and though the signatures "J. Sackette" or "G. Smith" would have meaning for the GM's subscribers in the 1740s, it is useful for readers today to known that those signatures refer specifically to Rev. John Sackette (d. 1753; clergyman and poet) and to George Smith of Wigton (d. 1773; astronomer, topographer, and traveler), respectively. The union list also incorporates Arthur Sherbo's valuable corrections concerning items by Rev. John Kynaston (who wrote under the signatures "Q." of Wigan and "Q." of Caerhaes, Cornwall, and whose work I had earlier misattributed to Richard Gough).
Throughout the union list I have made every reasonable effort to list all proper names in full, tracking down the individuals in question in the Dictionary of National Biography, the Oxford and Cambridge alumni lists, the British Library's General Catalogue of Printed Books, Robert Watt's Bibliotheca Britannica (Edinburgh, 1824), David Erskine Baker's Biographia Dramatica (London, 1812), the GM obituary lists, and other references. Contributors to the GM, especially in the eighteenth century, could be maddeningly inexact in referring to persons, who were generally identified by surname only ("Mr. Smith," "Dr. Middleton"), by pseudonym ("Clericus," "your recent Correspondent from Wigton"), or by ambiguous references to title ("Earl of H---ke," "the late Bishop of London"). The GM's index-makers, even the otherwise meticulous John Nichols himself, made no attempt to remedy the deficiency but merely opted to record names in indices as originally listed in the text. Indeed, indices of persons mentioned in the lengthy lists of births, marriages, deaths, appointments, and preferments for the early decades of the GM habitually provided nothing beyond surnames, leaving researchers with the mind-boggling task of searching, for example, through hundreds of citations (many directing the reader to the wrong volume or page) for an elusive "Mr. White," full name unknown. Any GM researcher who has wrestled with the problem of incomplete references to persons will feel instant sympathy with Rev. Samuel Pegge the Elder, who in a fit of exasperation wrote in 1792 to rail against both the magazine's careless omission of first names and its frequent slip-ups in citation:
A Gentleman, whose signature is G.M. . . . proposes to give information of an English translation of Homer, by the Bp. of Ossory; and the account appears to be very satisfactory. But who is this Bp. of Ossory, now defunct? I am in the dark, and cannot help myself, as there is no series of the prelates of that see in any book I have; and 500 or 1000 of your readers, Mr. Urban, I am inclined to believe, are in the same predicament. But the paper in question, it may be said, is in answer to Academicus. But in what year, and in what month, and in what page, am I to find Mr. Academicus? So that I am in the dark here again. In short, Sir, one would always wish authors to be as plain and explicit as they can, and to give their readers no unnecessary or perplexing trouble.
Another culpable piece of conduct, Mr. Urban, in many of your very numerous correspondents, is, that they say, Mr. Jackson, or Mr. Thompson, &c. without giving the Christian name of the person; as if there was no other person of the name in England but the party there spoken of; whereas every body knows what numbers of Jacksons and Thompsons we have in this island. One name might do in the Saxon times, where few surnames were used, the Christian names were so various, and the country was not so populous as now; but at this time, it is inexcusable in writers to omit the Christian names of such popular denominations as Smith, Taylor, Wood, &c. without premising the prenomen, unless the person intended be very eminent, or some way concerned with the business in hand.
Following up on the expanded form of citation that I had introduced into the online version of Kuist's Nichols File, I have taken the opportunity to replace the short titles listed in thousands of items in my first and second GM databases with complete titles for all letters, articles, poems, and book reviews. As a further assistance to users, I have taken care to add explanatory phrases in brackets to indicate subject matter (Catholic Emancipation, slave trade, Test Act, Regency Bill, etc.) in instances of titles that are otherwise nondescriptive of the contents of the items in question. In the case of certain contributors (notably James Roche and James Temple Mansel) who wrote unusually discursive essays, I have made sure to include in the titles all of the various subjects that appear as page headings in the articles. My aim throughout has been to make the union list not just a listing of who wrote what in the Gentleman's Magazine but also a user-friendly resource for researchers interested in English literature, history, economics, medicine, science, theological controversies, topography, and antiquarian matters, presenting the text in a way that would not only be fully browsable but would readily permit key-word searches by name or topic.
Researchers attempting to piece together an accounting of which items Samuel Johnson did or did not write for the GM must sift through the claims and counterclaims advanced by numerous Johnson scholars. The obvious starting points are William Prideaux Courtney's and David Nichol Smith's A Bibliography of Samuel Johnson (Oxford: Clarendon P, 1915), the first of the twentieth-century attempts to put together a reliable Johnson canon, and J. D. Fleeman's A Bibliography of the Works of Samuel Johnson, Treating of his Published Works from the Beginnings to 1984, 2 vols. (Oxford: Clarendon P, 2000); 60 W. J. Bate, John M. Bullitt, and L. F. Powell, eds., The Idler and The Adventurer (vol. 2 of The Yale Edition of the Works of Samuel Johnson [New Haven: Yale UP, 1963]; W. J. Bate and Albrecht B. Strauss, eds., The Rambler (vols. 3-5 of The Yale Edition of the Works of Samuel Johnson [New Haven: Yale UP, 1969]; E. L. McAdam, Jr., and George Milne, eds., Samuel Johnson: Poems (vol. 6 of The Yale Edition of the Works of Samuel Johnson [New Haven: Yale UP, 1964]); Donald J. Greene, ed., Samuel Johnson: Political Writings (vol. 10 of The Yale Edition of the Works of Samuel Johnson [New Haven: Yale UP, 1977]); and the Johnson entry in The New Cambridge Bibliography of English Literature (ed. George Watson; vol. 2: 1660-1800 [Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 1971]). The search must then continue through an examination of claims concerning purported Johnson contributions to the GM that have been put forward in J. Reading's "Poems by Johnson" (TLS, 11 September 1937, p. 656); D. J. Greene's "Was Johnson Theatrical Critic of the Gentleman's Magazine?" (Review of English Studies n.s. 3 : 158-161); Benjamin Beard Hoover's Samuel Johnson's Parliamentary Reporting: Debates in the Senate of Lilliput (Berkeley: U of California P, 1953); James L. Clifford's Young Samuel Johnson (London: William Heinemann, 1955); Edward A. Bloom's Samuel Johnson in Grub Street (Providence: Brown UP, 1957); Jacob Leed's "Samuel Johnson and the 'Gentleman's Magazine': An Adjustment to the Canon" (Notes and Queries 102 : 210-213), "Samuel Johnson and the Gentleman's Magazine: Studies in the Canon of His Miscellaneous Prose Writings, 1738-1744" (Diss.; U of Chicago, 1958), and "Two Notes on Johnson and The Gentleman's Magazine" (Papers of the Bibliographical Society of America 54 : 101-110); Donald J. Greene's "Some Notes on Johnson and the Gentleman's Magazine" (PMLA 74 : 75-84); Gwin J. Kolb's "More Attributions to Dr. Johnson" (Studies in English Literature 1500-1900 1 : 77-95); Arthur Sherbo's "Samuel Johnson and The Gentleman's Magazine, 1750-1755" (in Johnsonian Studies, ed. Magdi Wahba [Cairo: n.p., 1962]); Donald J. Greene's "The Development of the Johnson Canon" (in Restoration and Eighteenth-Century Literature: Essays in Honor of Alan Dugald McKillop, ed. Carroll Camden [Chicago: U of Chicago P, 1963]); F. V. Bernard's "Common and Superior Sense: A New Attribution to Johnson" (Notes and Queries n.s. 14 : 176-180) and "Johnson and the Authorship of Four Debates" (PMLA 82 : 408-419); John L. Abbott's "Samuel Johnson and 'The Life of Dr. Richard Mead,'" Bulletin of the John Rylands Library 54 (1971): 23; Timothy Erwin's "The Life of Savage, Voltaire, and a Neglected Letter" (Notes and Queries 30 : 525-526), John L. Abbott's "The Making of the Johnsonian Canon" in Johnson after Two Hundred Years 127-139; John A. Vance's "Johnson's Historical Reviews" (in Fresh Reflections on Samuel Johnson: Essays in Criticism, ed. Prem Nath [Troy, New York: Whitston, 1987]); and Thomas Kaminski's brilliant work, The Early Career of Samuel Johnson (New York: Oxford UP, 1987), which is rich not only in new Johnson attributions but also in William Guthrie finds.
Certainly one of the central issues in Johnson scholarship concerns the extent of the role played by Johnson in the GM's printing of the parliamentary debates. I have already taken note of the haphazard manner in which the magazine re-created the debates, relying on the hit-or-miss efforts of Edward Cave and his band of spectators in the galleries to listen attentively to the speeches in the chambers, take surreptitious notes when they could, and later reconstruct the gist of what Lords and Commons had said, turning out a version of the debates that was part summary, part fictionalized rhetorical flourishes. Since it was very often Johnson who supplied those rhetorical flourishes, recasting the speeches to such an extent that they were more his own than their nominal authors' words, the duration of Johnson's involvement in the enterprise is of key importance in the matter of assigning attributions.
For a long time the standard authority on Johnson's participation in the writing of the debates has been Hoover's 1953 Samuel Johnson's Parliamentary Reporting: Debates in the Senate of Lilliput. Greene in "Some Notes on Johnson and the Gentleman's Magazine" and Bernard in "Johnson and the Authorship of Four Debates" (both cited above) have attributed some additional debates to Johnson, in particular claiming that Johnson's production of the debates did not cease with early 1744 but extended throughout that year. Kaminski has added further possible Johnson contributions to the debates in his authoritative and extremely detailed Early Career of Samuel Johnson, which has displaced both Clifford's Young Samuel Johnson and Bloom's Samuel Johnson in Grub Street as the best available account of Johnson's early career as a writer for the Magazine.
In synthesizing the attributions of authorship listed in this database, I have followed Kaminski in assigning to the Scottish historian William Guthrie the parliamentary debates that appear in the GM's volume 8 (1738), with revisions by Johnson, and likewise those in volume 9 (1739) and the beginning of volume 10 (1740), without revisions by Johnson. I have accepted Kaminski's attribution to Guthrie of several of the debates printed in the middle of volume 10 (with revisions by Johnson), that in GM 10 (1740): 530-545 to Guthrie alone, and the opening two paragraphs of that in GM 10 (1740): 579 provisionally to Johnson. Beginning with the debate printed in GM 10 (1740): 585-592 through that in GM 14 (1744): 59-64 Johnson was clearly the sole author, as shown (in the cases of the debates in GM 10 : 585-592 and 11 : 2-13) by Bernard and Kaminski and as asserted for the rest of the period by Courtney and Smith in their Bibliography of Samuel Johnson and by Hoover in Samuel Johnson's Parliamentary Reporting. Johnson may also have written the debate on pay for Hanoverian troops that appeared in GM 14 (1744): 64-67 (for which see Courtney and Smith, Hoover, and Greene) and probably contributed that in GM 14 (1744): 119-125. Bernard claims the debates in GM 14 (1744): 125-137 and 175-186 for Johnson as well. Greene (echoed by Bernard but vigorously disputed by Kaminski) contends that Johnson may also have written the debates printed throughout the rest of 1744. I have included those provisional attributions in the database, designating them in each case by a question mark to indicate that scholarly opinion is still unresolved on those items.
As for the contention put forward by Sir John Hawkins in his Life of Johnson that John Hawkesworth succeeded Johnson as the author of the parliamentary debates, 61 Abbott in his John Hawkesworth: Eighteenth-Century Man of Letters declares himself unable to decide whether to accept or reject the claim. "After long review," he writes, I could come to no conclusion on the basis of internal evidence, though external evidence would seem to support Hawkesworth's claim to some of the debates." 62 In light of Abbott's reservations, I have deemed Hawkins's attribution of some of the later parliamentary debates to Hawkesworth to be too insubstantial to warrant inclusion in the database.
Researchers should note that I have deleted from the union list 51 supposed Johnson attributions that I had included in my second GM database, items claimed as Johnson's by Arthur Sherbo in his "Samuel Johnson and The Gentleman's Magazine, 1750-1755," Johnsonian Studies, ed. Magdi Wahba (Cairo: n.p., 1962) 133-159. Professor Sherbo in his subsequent Letters to Mr. Urban of the Gentleman's Magazine, 1751-1811, Studies in British History 44 (Lewiston, NY: Edwin Mellen P, 1997) 229 disclaimed the attributions to Johnson contained in his 1962 article. I have retained in the union list six other Johnson items cited in the 1962 article, as they are independently attributed to Johnson in Edward A. Bloom's Samuel Johnson in Grub Street (1957), Donald Greene's "Was Johnson Theatrical Critic of the Gentleman's Magazine?" Review of English Studies n.s. 3 (1952): 158-161, and The New Cambridge Bibliography of English Literature (1971).
Attributing authorship of excerpts from the newspaper press is an undertaking fraught with difficulty and especially susceptible to problems of inexactitude. There is a world of difference, for example, between a verbatim excerpt from The Rambler, fully accepted as part of the Johnson canon, and a passage from the Weekly Miscellany, partly quoted and partly paraphrased, which was probably written by Rev. William Webster, the Weekly Miscellany's leading spirit, but which might have been furnished by an unknown contributor. Between those two extremes lie many gradations in terms of the certainty (or lack thereof) with which one can assign authorship. The problem is compounded by the fact that eighteenth-century sources and modern-day scholars alike are sometimes woefully imprecise in describing the duties of various writers for the newspaper press. Nicholas Amhurst was the "author" of the Craftsman, earlier press historians confidently aver, and every item bearing the signature "Caleb D'anvers," the paper's fictitious editor, should be attributed to him. Nicholas Amhurst was the "conductor" of the Craftsman, other scholars state with more caution, leaving to their bemused readers the task of deciding exactly what the word "conductor" means. Nicholas Amhurst was the "editor" or the "editor and chief writer" of the Craftsman, still others write, progressively hedging their opinions even to the point of unhelpfully describing Amhurst by turns as "author," "conductor," and "editor" within the same handful of pages, as if the terms were interchangeable. Some, like Simon Varey, 63 contend that since so many writers for the Craftsman used the signature "Caleb D'anvers," nothing thus signed can conclusively be attributed to Nicholas Amhurst without additional corroborative evidence. As a result, researchers attempting to sort out who wrote what for the newspaper press are in many cases left to cope as best they can with various shades of ambiguity.
In compiling this union list, I have considered it imperative, first, to arrive at precise guidelines to be used for inclusion or exclusion of newspaper excerpts and for determining the degree of certainty with which authorship can be assigned; second, to follow those guidelines with the utmost consistency; and third, to state them explicitly for the benefit of readers. Users of this database should note that in dealing with the attribution of newspaper excerpts, I have attempted throughout to err on the side of caution in separating the certain from the tentative and, in the case of the latter, to differentiate clearly and consistently among various degrees of probability when assigning authorship. Though some users may disagree with the wisdom of including tentative attributions and may choose simply to ignore those items, they may be assured that I have made every effort to avoid the trap of indiscriminately mingling certainty and mere guesswork in attributing authorship.
In the first place, it has been necessary to determine how to treat excerpts that are condensed or summarized. As F. V. Bernard has noted, 64 Edward Cave's competitors complained constantly of his habit not only of pirating but of drastically condensing excerpts from newspapers and journals until sometimes they were twisted out of all recognition by their authors. Cave's editorial practice of condensing material presents the problem of arriving at a standard to use in dealing with excerpts that are sometimes printed verbatim, sometimes printed with quoted material interspersed with editorial connective tissue, sometimes paraphrased, and sometimes simply summarized (on occasion with approving or disparaging comments by the GM included for good measure). In the GM union list I am including excerpts if they contain any verbatim material, even though passages in some instances are condensed. I am excluding items that are simply paraphrases or summaries.
In addition, I am using the following conventions with regard to assigning authorship of newspaper excerpts:
I am including excerpts from a number of newspapers in cases in which their authorship is a certainty or highly likely:
In the case of five newspapers, I am including tentative attributions of authorship for items signed with a pseudonym that is generally associated with a particular writer:
In three cases in which a newspaper was conducted by one or two persons known to have been the principal author or authors, I am including excerpts from that newspaper but attributing them tentatively:
The Old England Journal presents special difficulties, as the tenure of its conductors has never been determined satisfactorily. William Guthrie and James Ralph were the co-editors and principal, perhaps exclusive, authors of the Old England Journal, which they conducted under the pseudonym of "Jeffrey Broadbottom." The Old England, founded by Chesterfield to be the chief mouthpiece of the Broad-Bottom Opposition to the Carteret ministry, was left in limbo when Chesterfield and his fellow Broad-Bottom politicians joined the government in late 1744 upon Carteret's retirement and withdrew their support for the paper. 68 Despite the fact that Guthrie was given a pension by the new regime in January 1745, the Old England in its 2 February 1745 issue fired a warning shot, declaring that unless the new ministers pursued new policies, "the Old England Journal would then attack them with the ferocity that had characterized the dismemberment of the metamorphosed Actaeon by his dogs." 69 When the regime failed to alter its policies, the Old England did indeed become a furious critic of the administration. 70 As the GM, drawing extensively from the Old England's own account, summarized the paper's volte-face:
While the exact date of Guthrie's and Ralph's departure is uncertain, the 4 October 1746 issue of Old England (no. 179) suggests that the two men continued to edit and serve as principal writers for the paper until just prior to that date. Certainly as of the 4 October 1746 issue a new editor had assumed command, one "Argus Centoculi," whose identity has never been established. 72
In the case of the Weekly Miscellany, the problem lies not in determining when its editor resigned but when he ceased to be assisted by others in writing material for the journal. Rev. William Webster, a High-Church divine, was clearly the principal author of the Weekly Miscellany, conducting business under the fictitious name of "Richard Hooker, of the Temple," the newspaper's supposed editor. It was Webster who established the paper's rabidly anti-Dissenter, anti-Methodist, and anti-Catholic character, dedicating the Weekly Miscellany so exclusively to religious and moral topics that it came to be known as "Old Mother Hooker's Journal." Though he was assisted in the beginning of the undertaking by several other contributors, he notes in the final issue of the Weekly Miscellany (27 June 1741) that those writers gradually withdrew their assistance, as did the booksellers he had originally engaged as backers, so that eventually he was left the sole prop of the enterprise, to his own financial loss. As it is unclear at what point Webster's occasional contributors ceased to provide materials for the paper, I am taking the precaution of attributing all but the last of the Weekly Miscellany excerpts printed in the GM to "Rev. William Webster [?] (or others)."
Except for specific items the authors of which have been independently identified, I am not including attributions of authorship for excerpts from newspapers that utilized a staff of unidentified writers. Those newspapers include the Champion and the Universal Spectator. Though James Ralph became the editor and leading writer for the Champion after the withdrawal of Henry Fielding in early 1741, it has so far proved impossible to determine the authorship of articles published during 1742-44, the period during which the GM published excerpts from the newspaper. As for the Universal Spectator, though originally edited by Henry Baker under the name "Henry Stonecastle," the Universal Spectator was in fact written by a team of contributors. Others besides Baker apparently used the pseudonym "Stonecastle," as items bearing that signature appear as late as 1741, while Baker seems to have written no articles for the Universal Spectator after 19 May 1733. 73
A careful count of all of the letters, articles, reviews, poems, and other items in Attributions of Authorship in the Gentleman's Magazine, 1731-1868: An Electronic Union List, reveals the following incidence of attributions:
The greatest incidence of identification of authors comes from the period beginning with volume 53 (1783), the first volume for which John Bowyer Nichols and others in his family began a systematic attempt to record contributors to the GM, through 1856, the year the Nichols family sold the magazine. Determined efforts by numerous scholars have nevertheless identified the authors of 10,428 items from the period of 1731-1800, with the other 15,157 attributions dating from the years 1801-68. There would be far fewer identifications of contributors to the GM's eighteenth-century volumes were it not for the fact that Richard Gough, the GM's single most prolific contributor, bequeathed his marked copies of the GM to John Nichols after the fire in 1808, with the result that his own multitudinous reviews, articles, and letters found their way into the Nichols File, though sometimes in a maddeningly ambiguous way.
Because Attributions of Authorship in the Gentleman's Magazine, 1731-1868: An Electronic Union List is an Internet database, it is of course fully searchable electronically by volume number, page number, date, title, author, pseudonym, and key word. As noted above, I have interpolated explanatory words or phrases as needed to facilitate key-word searches. However, readers conducting key-word searches should be aware that I have strictly preserved quirks of original spelling, punctuation, and capitalization in listing titles of articles and of books reviewed in the Gentleman's Magazine.
The Union List is also designed to be fully and easily browsable. Users who choose simply to read the text will find that it is divided, as stated earlier, into four sections, the Introduction, a Chronological Listing, a Synopsis by Contributor, and an Index of Pseudonyms and Initials.
The Chronological Listing is exactly what the name implies, a chronological sequence of all of the 25,585 known attributions of authorship in the Gentleman's Magazine, beginning with the earliest attribution (a paper by Henry St. John, 1st Viscount Bolingbroke, excerpted from the Craftsman and reprinted in GM 1 : 3) and ending with the last (a letter from Bernard Bolingbroke Woodward, librarian in ordinary to Queen Victoria, in GM 224 : 661). Each item in the Chronological Listing contains the volume number, year, and page number followed by the item in question, the author's name (listed in bold type for ease of viewing), the source of or authority for the attribution, and the original signature appended to the item (if there is one). Each item in the Chronological Listing bears one of the following designations:
The Synopsis by Contributor consists of a listing of all of the approximately 2,362 contributors known to have written items printed in the GM, arranged alphabetically by author and providing in each entry the fullest possible version of the author's name, the author's birth and death dates (when available), and a succinct description of the author's occupation ("antiquary and topographer," "schoolmaster," "divine and historian," etc.) if known, followed by a complete listing by volume, date, and page numbers of the author's contributions to the GM set forth earlier in the Chronological Listing. Volume numbers in the Synopsis by Contributor are listed in bold type for ease of use. The Synopsis by Contributor is thus designed to be an alphabetical cross reference to the entries that appear in the Chronological Listing.
Users of the Synopsis by Contributor should be aware of an important caveat involving the problem of whether or not to assign to an author a number of items which seem to have been written by the same person but which have been attributed to him (by authority of whatever source) under slightly different versions of his name. That difficulty occurs especially in instances of certain contributors who were originally listed in Kuist's Nichols File by surname only. Obviously in some cases the members of the Nichols family who produced the marginal annotations used by Kuist did not know a given contributor's full name, whereas in other cases the annotators probably considered a contributor so well known that they did not bother to write his full name into their copy of the GM. Since Kuist made a conscious effort to print the attributions of authorship exactly as they are written in the staff copy, in some cases items by a single contributor appear in Kuist under multiple authorial entries, a fact that can lead users of the printed version of Kuist's Nichols File to the erroneous conclusion that the items in question were written by more than one person. For example, contributions by Rev. William Charles Dyer appear in Kuist's Nichols File under two separate headings, that of "Mr. Dyer" and that of "Rev. Mr. Dyer." Whether deriving my information from Kuist or from any other source, in cases in which I have been able to determine that such items were in fact by the same contributor, I have merged the lists. In cases in which there is insufficient proof to be sure of that assumption, I have continued to list the items under separate authorial headings, believing that caution is essential in such instances. Separate listing of contributors should not, however, preclude the possibility that the contributions in question are by one and the same person.
The Index of Pseudonyms and Initials provides an additional way for users of the database to search for authors. Though in many cases attributable items in the Gentleman's Magazine bear no signatures at all, tremendous numbers of others are signed in ways designed to conceal the identity of the contributor. Scholars familiar with eighteenth- and nineteenth-century periodicals know that in some cases contributors wrote simultaneously for several magazines or reviews and that occasionally they signed their work in various publications with the same pseudonyms. In order to assist researchers investigating other facets of the eighteenth- and nineteenth-century British periodical press, I have provided for easy reference an index of pseudonyms and initials used by known contributors to the GM, dividing it for convenience into four parts. Part I, pseudonyms exclusive of symbols and Greek characters, I have arranged alphabetically by the first letter of the word or phrase (other than articles) used in the signature. Part II, signatures in the form of initials (exclusive of Greek characters), requires a different system of determining sequence, since in many cases the letters used as signatures are simply the initials of the authors' own names. Therefore I have followed the method used in Kuist's Nichols File of alphabetizing sets of initials first according to the terminal letter in each signature and then in sequence according to the letters that precede it. Thus the entries for the letter A begin as follows: "A.," "A.A.," "E.A.," "F.B.A.," "F.R.A.," "F.S.A.," "G.A.," "G.E.A.," "J.A.," "J.P.A.," "J.Y.A.," etc. Part III (pseudonyms and initials using Greek characters) begins with a list in alphabetical order of the signatures using Greek words or phrases followed by the handful of signatures consisting of Greek initials, the latter (like the entries in Part II) listed sequentially according to terminal letters. Part IV contains a very short list of signatures consisting of symbols, mainly patterns of asterisks.
Most of the pseudonyms or sets of initials were used only once or twice by any one particular contributor, while some of them (especially generic terms such as "An Old Correspondent," "An Observer," or "Clericus") were used by more than one author. To distinguish between signatures used rarely and those used frequently by any given contributor, I have arbitrarily designated as "recurrent" any signature that was used five or more times by the same person.
Short titles used in the database are given below, followed by a list of other works consulted:
1. GM 25 (1755): 521-522.
2. GM 13 (1743): 472, 586-587.
3. GM 20 (1750): 208 and GM 22 (1752): 560-561, respectively.
4. GM 56-i (1786): 524-525.
5. GM 4 (1734): 449.
6. GM 25 (1755): 378-380.
7. GM 45 (1775): 253, 293-294.
8. GM 24 (1754): 325.
9. GM 34 (1764): 526-531.
10. GM 50 (1780): 266-268, 312-314, 367-369.
11. GM 89-ii (1819): 171-173.
12. GM 63-i (1793): 85-86; 63-ii (1793): 963-964.
13. GM 72-ii (1802): 725-727.
14. GM 60-i (1790): 463-464.
15. C. Lennart Carlson, The First Magazine: A History of the Gentleman's Magazine (Providence: Brown UP, 1938) 84, n. 3.
16. GM 7 (1737): 703.
17. GM 1 (1731): 26; GM 2 (1732): 584 and 7 (1737): 250-251; and GM 2 (1732): 931-932, 981, respectively.
18. GM 7 (1737): 370.
19. See Jeremy Black, The English Press in the Eighteenth Century (Philadelphia: U of Pennsylvania P, 1987); Michael Harris, London Newspapers in the Age of Walpole: A Study of the Origins of the Modern English Press (Cranbury, NJ: Associated UP, 1987); and Robert Harris, A Patriot Press: National Politics and the London Press in the 1740s (Oxford: Clarendon P, 1993).
20. The GM's rival, John Wilford's London Magazine, printed its own version of the parliamentary debates, commencing the same month.
21. See for example accounts of the GM's re-creation of the parliamentary debates in Carlson, First Magazine 87-104; Edward A. Bloom, Samuel Johnson in Grub Street (Providence: Brown UP, 1957) 51-62; and Sir John Hawkins, The Life of Samuel Johnson, LL. D., 2nd ed. (London, 1787) 95.
22. James Boswell, Life of Johnson, ed. R. W. Chapman (Oxford: Oxford UP, 1953) 1308.
23. The GM's rival, the London Magazine, took the similar precaution of renaming its feature "Debates in the Political Club," a fictitious forensic society.
24. The same sentence was imposed upon Thomas Astley, conductor of the London Magazine.
25. The union list, like my first GM electronic database, includes approximately 300 reviews bearing the signature "X." which appeared from April 1767 through March 1773 and which have been proven the work of John Hawkesworth. The complete "X." list had never appeared in print before its inclusion in my "Attributions of Authorship . . . , 1731-77 . . . ," Studies in Bibliography 44 (1991): 271-302. Donald D. Eddy, following up on a claim in Charles Harold Gray's Theatrical Criticism in London to 1795 (New York: Columbia UP, 1931) 171- 172, was the first to publish convincing evidence that Hawkesworth wrote the "X." reviews. (See Eddy's "John Hawkesworth: Book Reviewer in the Gentleman's Magazine," Philological Quarterly 43 : 223-238.) G. J. Finch ("John Hawkesworth, 'The Gentleman's Magazine', and 'The Annual Register,'" Notes and Queries 22 : 17-18), James F. Tierney ("Edmund Burke, John Hawkesworth, the Annual Register, and the Gentleman's Magazine," Huntington Library Quarterly 42 : 57-72), and John L. Abbott (John Hawkesworth 213, n. 10) corroborate Gray's and Eddy's claim. I am grateful to Arthur Sherbo for correcting two "X." items (GM 40 : 510-511 and 616-617) and one "J.H." item (GM 24 : 413-415) I had tentatively and erroneously attributed to John Hawkesworth in "Attributions of Authorship . . . , 1731-77 . . . ," Studies in Bibliography 44 (1991): 271-302. Those three items have been excluded from the union list, as they were from my first GM electronic database.
26. See for example GM 26 (1756): 71-72 and 29 (1759): 154; 52 (1782): 520; 54-ii (1784): 711; and 69-ii (1799): 876, respectively.
27. GM 34 (1764): plate facing p. 632.
28. GM 43 (1773): 589-596, 547-652; 44 (1774): 17-22, 68-74, 111-115.
29. GM 57-ii (1787): 1009-1011, 1110-1112.
30. GM 59-i (1789): 559.
31. GM 59-ii (1789): 1041.
32. GM 66-i (1796): 154.
33. GM 66 (1796): 1089-1095.
34. Such was John Walcot's characterization of Nichols. (Julian Pooley, review of Emily Lorraine de Montluzin's Daily Life in Georgian England as Reported in the Gentleman's Magazine [Lewiston, NY: Edwin Mellen P, 2002), in Reviews in History, published online by the Institute of Historical Research, February 2002 <http://ihr.sas.ac.uk/ihr/reviews/pooleyj.html>, p. 6.)
35. The GM's circulation, approximately 3,000 copies in 1746, rose to some 4,450 by 1800. (Alvin Sullivan, ed., British Literary Magazines: The Augustan Age and the Age of Johnson, 1698-1788 [Westport, CT: Greenwood, 1983]: 137-138; Richard D. Altick, The English Common Reader: A Social History of the Mass Reading Public, 1800-1900 [Chicago: U of Chicago P, 1957] 392.)
36. GM 63-ii (1793): 1106-1107.
37. GM 37 (1767): 408.
38. GM 34 (1764): 519-520.
39. GM 34 (1764): 559-562.
40. GM 65-i (1795): 98-99.
41. GM 42 (1772): 255-256.
42. GM 37 (1767): 498.
43. GM 61-i (1791): 398.
44. GM 38 (1768): 283-284.
45. GM 48 (1778): 408.
46. James M. Kuist, The Nichols File of The Gentleman's Magazine: Attributions of Authorship and Other Documentation in Editorial Papers at the Folger Library (Madison: U of Wisconsin P, 1982) 4.
47. GM 220 (1866): v.
48. GM 225 (1868): 1.
49. Ibid., p. 2.
51. GM 94-ii (1824): 19.
52. Kuist, Nichols File 6, 13-20.
53. GM 56-ii (1786): 758-760, 840-842, 958-960, 1057.
54. GM 66-i (1796): 451-454; 66-ii (1796): 627-630, 803-807.
55. GM 66-ii (1796): 891-895, 979-982, 1081-1085.
56. John Nichols, Literary Anecdotes of the Eighteenth Century (9 vols.; London, 1812- 15) 6: 259.
57. Kuist, Nichols File 9-10, 11-12 (n. 42).
58. Certain exceptions are instructive. Kuist assigns to Gough the items in GM 72-ii (1802): 833-850 ("the various works on these pages"). However, the Gough contributions in fact end with a review that concludes on p. 850, the other items that follow on p. 850 having been written by John Nichols, to whom Kuist correctly attributes them. Conversely, in the case of the bloc-attribution of items in GM 59-i (1789): 141-144 to Gough, I made the decision to include in Gough's list a plethora of very short reviews on p. 144, since they all concern the Regency Question, as do the reviews on p. 143. I have not, however, attributed to Gough the review of Gilbert White's Selborne, which spills over onto the next page.
59. GM 62-ii [Supplement to 1792]: 1195-1196.
60. I have compiled the Johnson entries in the union list from twentieth-century studies of the Johnson canon (beginning with Courtney and Smith), as those twentieth-century studies have incorporated all previous attempts (by Boswell, Sir John Hawkins, and others) to construct a reasonably reliable Johnson canon.
61. Sir John Hawkins, The Life of Samuel Johnson, LL.D. (2d ed., rev.; London, 1787), p. 132. George Steevens's "Account of the Writings of Dr. Samuel Johnson, including some Incidents of his Life" (European Magazine 7 : 9) and John Gough Nichols's "The Autobiography of Sylvanus Urban. Chapter VIII" (GM 202 : 285) disagree with Hawkins's claim.
62. P. 214, n. 14.
63. "The Craftsman," Prose Studies 16 [April 1993]: 74, n. 2.
64. "Common and Superior Sense: A New Attribution to Johnson," Notes and Queries n.s. 14 (May 1967): 176.
65. Alexander Chalmers, "Historical and Biographical Preface to The Connoisseur," The British Essayists: with Prefaces, Historical and Biographical (38 vols.; Boston: Little, Brown, 1856-66) 25 (1864): 15-16, 34.
66. Simon Varey, Lord Bolingbroke: Contributions to the Craftsman (Oxford: Clarendon UP, 1982) xxiv-xxv makes a strong case that the initials appended to the essays in the 1737 reprint edition of the Craftsman, when combined with corroborative evidence, point convincingly to Bolingbroke's authorship of the Craftsman papers signed "O" and strongly suggest William Pulteney's authorship of the "C" papers and Nicholas Amhurst's authorship of the "D" papers. Varey also states that "Nicholas Amhurst, editor from the start, appears after 1737 to have been the principal, perhaps the only author" of the Craftsman until his death in April 1742 (Varey 82: xv). However, Martin C. Battestin in his New Essays by Henry Fielding: His Contributions to the Craftsman (1734-1739) and Other Early Journalism, With a Stylometric Analysis by Michael G. Farringdon (Charlottesville: UP of Virginia, 1989) convincingly attributes a number of essays in the Craftsman, 1738-39, to Henry Fielding. In light of Battestin's evidence, I believe that Varey's conjecture that Amhurst was "the principal, perhaps the only author" of the Craftsman from 1738 through early 1742 is not strong enough to justify making any attributions to Amhurst during that period, for which there exists no collected edition to provide the corroborative evidence of initials.
67. Originally edited jointly by John Martyn and Richard Russel, the Grub-Street Journal became Russel's responsibility after Martyn retired from the enterprise to become professor of botany at Cambridge. (James T. Hillhouse, The Grub-Street Journal [Durham, NC: Duke UP, 1928] 40 [n. 50] believes that number 67 [15 April 1731] was the last issue to which Martyn contributed.) Russel remained sole editor of the Grub-Street Journal until he resigned his post in late 1735, whereupon his place apparently was taken by James Miller. (Hillhouse 30 [n. 38], 45-46) Nineteenth-century commentators, swayed by the letter designations included in Russel's preface to his collected edition of the periodical's first twenty months (Memoirs of the Society of Grub Street, 2 vols. [London, 1737]), tended to attribute early contributions signed "B[avius]" to Martyn and those signed "M[aevius"] to Russel. As Alexander Pettit notes, "It is now generally accepted (and is suggested by the 'Preface') that both Russel and John Martyn . . . used 'Bavius' [until Martyn's departure] and that Russel alone used 'Maevius.'" (Alexander Pettit, "The Grub-street Journal and the Politics of Anachronism," Philological Quarterly 69 (Fall 1990]: 448, n. 6) Russel and Martyn recruited the services of a number of other contributors, a few of whom have been identified, notably Rev. Joseph Trapp. Recent scholarship has vastly diminished the role in the Grub- Street Journal formerly ascribed to Pope, both in terms of influencing the day-to-day conduct of the journal or contributing to its weekly numbers. (See Bertrand A. Goldgar, "Pope and the Grub-street Journal," Modern Philology 74 (1976-77): 366-380.)
68. Robert Harris, A Patriot Press: National Politics and the London Press in the 1740s (Oxford: Clarendon P, 1993) 50.
69. Ibid. 16.
70. Ibid. 50.
71. GM 16 : 540, quoting from Old England, no. 179 (4 October 1746).
72. Harris, Patriot Press 50, n. 5; Martin C. Battestin and Ruthe R. Battestin, Henry Fielding: A Life (London: Routledge, 1989) 429.
73. Alvin Sullivan, ed., British Literary Magazines: The Augustan Age and the Age of Johnson, 1698-1788, Historical Guides to the World's Periodicals and Newspapers (Westport, CN: Greenwood P, 1983) 346