Mr. Hogg and the Edinburgh ReviewLiterary Gazette[William Jerdan] Markup and editing by David Hill Radcliffe Completed January 2010 WiJerda.1820.HoggER Center for Applied Technologies in the Humanities Virginia Tech
Published under Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-Share Alike 3.0 Unported
License
Lord Byron and his Times: http://lordbyron.org
Jerdan, William, 1782-1869Mr. Hogg and the Edinburgh ReviewLiterary GazetteLondon18 November 1820200746
Any dashes occurring in line breaks have been removed.
Obvious and unambiguous compositors’ errors have been silently corrected.
NINES categories for Genre and Material Form at
http://www.performantsoftware.com/nines_wiki/index.php/Submitting_RDF#.3Cnines:genre.3E on
2009-02-26BibliographyBook HistoryCollectionCriticismDramaEphemeraFictionHumorLawLettersLife WritingHistoryManuscriptNonfictionPeriodicalPoliticsReference WorksPoetryReligionReviewTranslationTravel
THE LITERARY GAZETTE,ANDJournal of Belles Lettres, Arts, Sciences &c.
No. 200.SATURDAY, NOVEMBER 18, 1820.PRICE 8d.
LITERATURE & LEARNED SOCIETIES.MR. HOGG AND THE EDINBURGH REVIEW.
An Edinburgh friend informs us, and indeed we observe it stated in a public newspaper, The Scotsman, that the letter purporting to be from Mr. Hogg to the Edinburgh Reviewer of his Jacobite Relics, inserted in Blackwood’s Magazine, is what in
England is denominated a hoax, the production of the editor of the
Magazine. Our friend adds, “the good folks in the North will have a hearty laugh at your
simplicity in so gravely quoting the letter as Hogg’s,”
&c. To this we an only say, that we are not ashamed of our simplicity, if it be simplicity
to be imposed on by a paper of this construction, which our happy ignorance of the parties and
squabbles which disgrace the press of the northern Athens prevented us from understanding in
its true light. The wit and waggery of the article was quite lost upon us, and we dare say upon
the great majority of its readers; which, we beg to suggest to the writer, is proof that this
species of drolling may be carried too far. It is neither consistent with good sense, good
taste, nor humour to be unintelligibly smart. But censurable as such misleading representations
are, and injurious to any publication prone to them, as tending to cast a doubt on all its
contents, and destroy its character for authenticity where it really means to obtain credit; we
are infinitely more disgusted with the Billingsgate which has been introduced into the pages of
disputing periodicals. If we do not greatly mistake the public feeling, their conductors had
better leave their mutual quarrels alone, and stick to matters more useful and agreeable. It is
very indifferent to the reading and respectable classes of society, what John O’ Nokes thinks of Tom
o’ Stiles, or what grounds of rivalry exist between Blackwood and Baldwin, or their editors.
One paragraph of information or light pleasantry is worth a hundred sheets of their silly disputes: and neither their own
interests nor the interests of literature can be promoted by their indulging in invective and
vituperation against each other. On the contrary, and amicable intercourse would be
advantageous to the cause of letters, in which they are, or ought to be, engaged. It is always
suspicious when publications in the same walk try to persuade the world that the most important
service they can render to literature is to write down a competitor. They had better leave
their respective merits to be appreciated by public discernment.—Verbum sat.