PREFACE

A study of eighteenth century periodicals lies on the borderland between literary and political history. Most of the papers printed from 1700 to 1750 were inspired by political events; consequently they are in many ways valuable for students of party government. The materials of such periodicals as well as the causes behind their production are of interest to the political historian. An investigator of the literary taste of the period will likewise turn to the periodicals for facts regarding the vogue of such essays as first appeared in the Review, the Tatler, and the Spectator. He will find also in the popularity of the news journals ground for broader conclusions as to the economic conditions of all literary production during the eighteenth century, and will inevitably realize that a constant demand for partisan and factional newspapers led many writers into channels quite unnatural for men of literary tastes. The student of politics is the one most interested in the partisan periodicals that these men produced, but the student of literature shares his regard for the economic phases of journal production in an age of literary dependence as well as of party development.

In the course of the present study reference is made to many facts of eighteenth century social practice. Literature and politics were both subjected then to the pressure of new forces, chief of which was the tendency to exalt the common good of society at the expense of special privilege. In 1700 "divine right" was a failing principle. Men were taking the place of a lifeless theory. Yet the transformation was not made without cost. The bloodless Revolution of 1688 marked the turn from a full trust in kings to the doctrines supporting modern modes of government, but that was only the preliminary to a grievous civil struggle.

To win the prize of political domination offered to men of remarkable individuality, Whigs and Tories fell upon one another with the greatest fury. Greed for power possessed individuals. Leaders were ruled by their ambitions, for the new constitutional provisions seemed to afford unlimited opportunity for self-advancement. Such intimate friends as Oxford and Bolingbroke worked together for a time in order to win political power, only to fall soon into suspicion, then into open hostility, and at last into a struggle that brought one to political ruin and the other to loss of everything excepting his intrepid resolution. The situation of Oxford and Bolingbroke in 1714 represents the worst state possible for individuals to reach under an unregulated system of constitutional

government: that of Robert Walpole ten years later displays the possibilities of such conditions for a politician strong enough to dominate the minor actors in the play of statecraft. The three embody much of the eighteenth century theory and practice in political matters, and their acts show what a spirit of opportunism possessed the age.

The men striving for a livelihood through a use of their pens were naturally affected by such conditions. In some cases reasons are found for a complete change in their interests. Such data, which may be counted proof of the spirit of opportunism pervading English society in the eighteenth century, must likewise be considered important for literary history. The partisan acts of various writers were merely the consequences of economic laws. The economic conditions of literary production determined what should be their field of activity. Consequently, literary periodicals gave place to party journals, private patronage languished because of new publishing conditions, and personal opinions were sold out to the leader or group willing to pay. The changing status of professional writers has long been counted one of the most distinctive facts of eighteenth century literary history, but very little has been done to show how completely the literary craftsman was a creature of his age. Addison brought philosophy out of closets to become an active force in English life, but he and the lesser essayists brought forth their individual talents for use in party service for no such altruistic purpose.

This assumption the following pages should establish. The present work has as its chief end to present proof of political influence in the literary world of Queen Anne and the first two Georges. This proof is offered, both as new fact in itself, and as a partial explanation of current literary standards. It should show why men of letters then wrote with reason rather than emotion, and why their demonstrations of feeling were restricted largely to acrid satire and personal abuse. In short, it is hoped that to disclose the ends sought by politician and writer will be to enforce the obvious truth that in determining literary vogues current demands must be considered of quite as much importance as any critical rules.

I am under obligations to many for assistance during the course of my work. Attendants in the British Museum and the Public Record Office showed me every courtesy. George A. Aitken, Esq., whose life of Steele has been more useful to me than any other single work, also made highly profitable my stay in England by suggesting sources of material and by giving me the benefit of his broad knowledge of eighteenth century literature and politics. Professor C. N. Greenough of Harvard University

and Professor Conyers Read of the history department of the University of Chicago advised me on specific points. I wish to express my thanks to the attendants in our own University library and to Mr. A. W. Shaw of Chicago for helping me to secure copies of scarce books needed from time to time. My greatest obligation, however, is to members of the English department of the University of Chicago. Professor Myra C. Reynolds, Professor W. D. MacClintock, and Dr. G. W. Sherburn have made many valuable suggestions. Professors Robert Morss Lovett and John Matthews Manly have been of similar service, and have also read the manuscript repeatedly during its preparation. To Professor Manly I am particularly grateful for the training gained in his classroom and for the encouragement given in private conference.

Chicago.

D. H. S.