University of Virginia Library

A BIBLIOGRAPHICAL HISTORY
OF THOMAS HOWES' CRITICAL OBSERVATIONS (1776-1807)
AND HIS DISPUTE WITH JOSEPH PRIESTLEY

by
David Chandler

Thomas Howes' Critical Observations on Books, Antient and Modern
(1776-1807), published by Benjamin White, is an early example of the
single-authored scholarly journal.[1] Howes combined the serious and scholarly
elements of such monthly miscellanies as the Gentleman's Magazine
(founded 1731) with the taste for expert reviewing established by the Monthly
Review (founded 1749) and its rivals. Critical Observations (hereafter CO)
was largely ignored in its own time, when contemporary reviewing periodicals
considered it a rival work, and has been overlooked by later scholars of
eighteenth-century periodical publication, not recognised, or accepted, as a
periodical at all. It merits reappraisal for its intriguing genre and the
esteem in which it was held: Samuel Parr was prepared to place CO "in the
highest class of literary publications."[2] The recent renaissance of interest in
Joseph Priestley should also recall attention to Howes, Priestley's main
opponent (after Samuel Horsley) in the celebrated Unitarian disputes of the
1780s. As documented here, Howes' contributions to that controversy were
incorporated into CO.

CO presents a daunting bibliographical problem. Almost all surviving
copies are incomplete, sometimes wrongly bound, and library copies have
often been catalogued incorrectly. The object of the present article is to
describe a complete set as originally published (i.e. before title pages of the
individual numbers may have been discarded when the parts were bound
into volumes) and how it came to assume this shape. It is hoped this will
clarify the problems of gaps, sequence, and apparent suspension in midarticle
in surviving copies, while also giving a brief overview of Howes'
critical project and dispute with Priestley. The main points are summarised
on the appended chart.

"Number I" of CO (1776), pp. 1-97, concluding with a blank verso, was
miscellaneous in nature, examining recent Homeric criticism and several
historical works concerned with "the State of Scotland under the Romans"

(80). It provides a useful insight into Howes' original conception of his
work. "Number II" (1777), pp. 99-198, followed by two unnumbered pages
of "Errata and Corrections," was superficially a review of recent scholarship
respecting ancient chronology, but was more broadly synthetic and announced
the problem which Howes was from now on principally concerned
with: "until some more fixed and indubitable standard of prophane chronology
shall be established, it is impossible to judge how far the dates in
scripture do or do not accord to truth" (106). Neither of these numbers bear
any reference to their being parts of a volume, though consecutive pagination
obviously left that option open. The bibliographical problems begin with
"Number III" (1778), again concerned with ancient chronology. An article
listed on the title page—"Conjectures concerning the Meaning of the Word
VENTA in British Names . . . [etc.]"—is not included in the number's consecutive
pagination, pp. 201-272. Another curiosity of "Number III" is that
it ends in mid-article. "Number IV" (1779) commences with the remainder
of this article, and lists two articles on the title page not included in the
consecutive pagination,[3] which extends through pp. 273-336:

The consecutive pagination of "Number V" (1780), the first number to read
"Vol. I." in the direction line, extends through pp. 337-356 and concludes
with two pages of "Corrections in the First Volume." Again the title page
lists two articles not included in that numbering:

A clue to what had happened is supplied by the title page to volume two
(the only title page issued for any of the volumes), which is dated 1783, and
includes the following list of articles:

What is odd about this list is that "Doubts . . . ," while seeming to be just
another article, actually serves as a general title for three entire numbers of

CO: "Number VI" (1781), pp. 127-219 (with final blank verso),[4] "Number
VII" (1782), pp. 221-318, and "Number VIII" (1783), pp. 319-449 (with final
unnumbered verso containing "Corrections," concluding the volume), all
concerned with aspects of ancient chronology. The articles listed on the individual
title pages of these numbers should all, apparently, be read as subsections
of "Doubts" (which they essentially are). It is noteworthy that
"Number VI" listed, as its first article, "Doubts": this title (with slight
variations[5] ) thus appears on "Number V" (1780), "Number VI" (1781), and
the volume two title page (1783). In the first case it seems to refer to a single
short article, but in the last case it refers to a whole series of articles. "Number
VI" clearly begins with the second article listed on the title page ("The
Titles to Isaiah and the other Prophets, writ by themselves . . . [etc.]"), so it
seems that here too Howes intended "Doubts" as a sort of general title, even
though it is not differentiated from the remainder of the contents list. Perhaps
he was already considering this the easiest way of simplifying the
volume's contents.

The first three articles enumerated on the title page of volume two, those
which had been previously listed as part of "Number III" and "Number IV,"
extend over pp. 1-104. They are followed by a series of "Additions and Corrections
in the Second Volume" (relating to the first 104 pages), pp. 105-108,
and an article entitled "Doubts," as on the "Number V" title page, pp. 109126.
"The Histories of Ezra and Nehemiah vindicated . . . ," announced on
the "Number V" title page, was in the event incorporated into the "Remarks
on Mr. Richardson's Dissertation." The absence of catchwords on pages 22
and 104 suggests that pp. 1-126 were printed in three parts: the "Conjectures,"
pp. 1-22, the two sets of "Remarks," pp. 23-104, and the "Additions"
and "Doubts," pp. 109-126. All three parts carry "Vol. II." in the direction
line. At first sight it would seem fair to conclude that the title pages for "Numbers
III-V" accurately describe the published units. If so, the contents of
these numbers would be represented thus:

       

	Vol. 1	Vol. 2	Page Length
Number III	201-272	1-22	94
Number IV	273-336	23-104	146
Number V	337-356	105-126	42

The very disproportionate lengths of "Number IV" and "Number V" creates
some unease, however, and it is possible that pp. 23-104 of volume two was
divided, and that what was issued as "Number IV" actually concluded in
mid-sentence. There is, in particular, the strange circumstance, mentioned
above, that "Number V" announced an article which had-on the above

model—already been absorbed into an article in "Number IV." British Library
copy 72.e.19-22, moreover, has the title page for "Number V" bound
after page 52 of volume two, where it seems oddly placed, especially as other
title pages in this copy are placed where we would expect to find them.
It is at this point, though, that Howes does start to discuss Josephus. If he
was compelled to break off "Number IV" in mid-sentence here the numbers
would be of equal length, in fact: 94 pages each.

The reason for this odd publishing arrangement seems to have been a
late decision on Howes' part to make his periodical into an organised and
systematic part-work. It was in "Number III," significantly, that he stated "I
shall hereafter pay less attention to the mistakes of others, and confine myself
more to the mere investigation of truth . . . " (204). Howes sent the printer
the various numbers in installments: "In such periodical publications as
these of my Critical Observations, the first part of each number . . . is generally
printed off before the last part is committed to paper," he later noted.[6]
It is probable, then, that while he was working on "Number III" he decided
to make the "Conjectures concerning . . . the Word VENTA" part of the
second volume, so as to preserve a connected study of the chronology question.
Presumably he reasoned that as volume one had begun with miscellaneous
material, volume two could as well. A plan for a two-volume work
(at least), both volumes starting with miscellaneous material before focussing
on issues of ancient chronology, can thus be reasonably dated to 1778. At the
end of the troublesome reorganisation in "Numbers II-V" Howes felt that
CO had been successfully transformed. "Number V" accordingly included a
sort of retrospective prospectus. Howes' "principal subject," he now clarified,
would be to explain "doubtful and contested passages in the Jewish Scriptures
by means of a more accurate system of prophane chronology," but he
would also examine "into a variety of other inferior subjects . . . the several
parts together assist in forming the whole into one connected and consistent
body of truths" (110-111). In the years 1781-83 CO certainly had its most
"connected and consistent" shape, but such recondite researches inevitably
had a small public, and when Joseph Priestley started a major controversy
over the theological tenets of the early church with his History of the Corruptions
of Christianity (1782), Howes recognised a better arena in which to
display his scholarship. The publishing history of CO was consequently
thrown into disarray again.

On 23 June 1784 Howes preached in Norwich Cathedral at the primary
visitation of the Bishop of Norwich, Lewis Bagot. At "the request of the
Clergy" his sermon was published soon afterwards as A Discourse on the
Abuse of the Talent of Disputation in Religion, Particularly as practiced by
Dr. Priestly [sic], Mr. Gibbon, And others of the modern Sect of Philosophic
Christians by J. and C. Berry of Norwich. The published sermon makes no
reference to Gibbon, but includes incidental criticism of Priestley's History.
Against Priestley, Howes stated, with brief support, "[not] one Christian sect

whatever of the first ages, ever held any such opinion as the mere humanity
of Christ . . . that is, as if humanity extended throughout the whole life of
Jesus" (13-14). In a note he added: "The evidence on which the above
assertions are made will be collected more at large in the 4th vol. of Critical
Observations on books antient and modern" (15). Samuel Parr submitted an
approving review of the Discourse, gratis, to the Monthly Review, which was
published in October. He carefully avoided a comment on the correctness or
otherwise of Howes' account of the early Christian sects,[7] but took the opportunity
of including an advertisement for CO:

The only clue to the Discourse being a part of CO was the inclusion of "Vol.
III" in the direction line. It was certainly issued as a separate work by Berry,
so Howes seems to have been intent on killing the proverbial two birds with
one stone, publishing his sermon to oblige the Norwich clergy while also
ensuring that White had something to offer subscribers to CO.[9] It can be
supposed that having worked on the Unitarian question in 1783-84 he had
no other new material for the 1784 number of CO. In other respects the
decision to make the Discourse part of volume three is puzzling, for in terms
of subject matter it would naturally have taken its place in the planned
fourth volume on the Unitarian question. (That Howes, who clearly recognised
the topicality of the Unitarian question, was not tempted to simply
call this the third volume indicates his desire that CO be a structured whole.)
However, Howes or White must have decided that to start publishing parts
of volume four before any of volume three had appeared would be confusing
for purchasers, and, as noted above, volumes one and two had established a
precedent for beginning a volume with miscellaneous materials. There is no
suggestion in surviving copies that purchasers of the Discourse from White
in 1784 received any sort of covering page announcing its identity as part
of CO.

It was probably late in 1785 that an (undated) title page for "Number
IX" of CO was issued, explaining how the Discourse would fit into the work
as a whole:

This title page was misleading in its implication that "Number IX" was
going to be stretched over two full volumes, embracing two quite different
types of material. Howes had, in fact, only a rough idea of what was going
into his third volume (not completed until 1807), and this title page was
clearly issued with a view to stalling his chronological "observations" so that
he could continue with his researches on the Unitarian question, to be included
in volume four. In fact this title page gives very little clue to the
eventual shape of these two volumes. Retrospectively it becomes apparent that
"Number IX" only embraced the Discourse, in volume three, and the "Preface"
(pp. i-xv) and "Remarks in Vindication of Justin [etc.]" (pp. 1-88) in
volume four. The latter were published late in 1785. The date is confirmed
by a subsequent statement of Howes',[10] and is made more exact by the fact
that the "Preface" responds to Priestley's Importance and Extent of Free
Inquiry in Matters of Religion: A Sermon, not published until NovemberDecember
that year. Priestley had just obtained a copy of Howes' Discourse
(which he had known earlier by repute), and made some provocative remarks
on it. At this point, it would appear, Howes' "Remarks"—dealing with
Priestley's History of the Corruptions and the first two parts of his Letters to
Dr. Horsley (1783-84)—had been "printed off." The hastily written "Preface"
was then added, in a notably less courteous tone accusing Priestley of deliberate
misconstruction in his Importance . . . of Free Inquiry. The "Remarks"
set out Howes' ambitions modestly; he did not wish to go over ground
already covered by Samuel Horsley, Priestley's principal theological opponent
since 1783. He promised a further article "relative to the tenets of the Ebionites"
(10). Obviously the title page to "Number IX" cannot have been
printed earlier than the "Preface," and it was probably issued with it. At the
bottom of this title page was added: "Sold by B. White, Fleet-Street. / Where
may be had any single Number of the first Two Volumes, and those, who
have purchased the above Introductory Discourse, may have the remainder
of this Number separate." This confirms the fact that "Number IX" was
meant to be understood as published in two installments. Howes probably
realised that the Discourse, just 36 pages long, could not claim to be an independent
number, but, as suggested above, wanted to ensure that regular
subscribers to CO received some part of the work in 1784.

Priestly responded to Howes in June 1786, in his Letters to Dr. Horsley
Part III . . . To which are added strictures on Mr. Howe's [sic] ninth number
of Observations on books ancient and modern, pp. 56-64. His dispute with
Horsley had now run its course, and the Letters sought to lure Howes into
the role of Priestley's principal Trinitarian adversary: "In Mr. Howes I have

a much more respectable, and a somewhat more temperate antagonist than
the Archdeacon of St. Albans [i.e. Horsley]" (56). Priestley concluded his
volume with the hope that Howes' efforts would hasten the demise of
Trinitarianism:

Howes responded in "An Appendix to the Fourth Volume of Critical Observations
on Books, Antient and Modern," published with no title page
and no date, though dateable to February-May 1787. The "Appendix" makes
a reference to "Mr. Parkhurst in his late excellent tract against Dr. Priestley"
(112), that is John Parkhurst's The Divinity and Pre-Existence of Our Lord
and Saviour Jesus Christ, Demonstrated From Scripture (1787), listed in the
Gentleman's Magazine as a "New Publication" for February.[11] By 29 May
Priestley had seen the "Appendix."[12] The "Appendix" was issued with separate
pagination (pp. 1-128) and was designed to woo new readers. It combined
the promised article on the Ebionites with a review of Priestley's History
of Early Opinions Concerning Jesus Christ (1786), a defensive preface
stressing Howes' own informed impartiality, and a personal attack on Priestley.
He later explained the circumstances attending the writing of the
"Appendix" thus:

Priestley was, or affected to be, very unimpressed with Howes' "Appendix."
"A more peevish and ill-judged performance than Mr. Howes's I hardly
ever saw. I shall be in no haste to reply . . . ," he wrote to Theophilus Lindsey
on 29 May. He considered Howes' arguments "even more contemptible than
those of Dr. Horsley."[14] However Priestley quickly published a letter in the
Gentleman's Magazine for June 1787, stating that a reply to Howes was
"ready for the press," but that he was delaying publication "as Mr. Howes
intimates that he has more to produce, which he postpones for the present,
and other learned works in defence of the Doctrine of the Trinity are expected,
[and] I wish . . . to consider what they may all advance at the same

time."[15] In his "Appendix" Howes had indeed promised further "Remarks
on the Fathers" and "a proof or two, that not even among the orthodox any
more than among the sectaries has any evidence been produced by Dr. Priestley,
that the doctrine of Humanism had ever been known during the first
two centuries" (126). He published nothing more in 1787, so Priestley included
his "very severe"[16] "reply" in Defences of Unitarianism for the Year
1787 (1788), pp. 71-108. He was now openly contemptuous of Howes' scholarship,
considering his adversary "entitled to no sort of respect."[17]

Howes does appear to have felt worsted by Priestley, a position doubtless
not softened by the popular Monthly Review reprinting a large extract of
the latter's attack.[18] He seems to have lost some confidence in CO, and in the
end the continuation of the "Remarks" did not appear until 1795, as "Number
X," essentially completing the fourth volume. By this time the subject
had lost its interest and Priestley had emigrated to America. In the interim
Howes had made two desultory attempts to begin volume three. In 1788 "An
Appendix to Vol. III" appeared, which necessarily had separate pagination
(pp. 1-93, with a final unnumbered page of "Corrections"). The opening
remarks made it clear that this was appearing before the main body of the
volume, as an astronomical tool enabling readers "to form some Judgement
for themselves of the truth of [Howes'] computations" (2). That Howes was
smarting from Priestley's attacks in 1786 and 1788 is clear from the incorporation
of a series of sarcasms directed at Priestley into this unlikely context
(pp. 24-25, 45-47, 52, 72-73, 77-78, 81, 86, 89). Howes was now attempting
to establish Priestley as the type of the bad, rash scholar. In 1791 Howes
stalled CO again with some overlong "Illustrations of the Appendix to
Volume Three" (pp. 95-269, with a final unnumbered page of "Errata"):
"the present Illustrations are intended to supply such information as may
still be wanting concerning some subjects in the Appendix to Vol. 3, and to
explain and prove in others the truth and accuracy of various assertions to
be found there" (96). Howes again included a series of incidental attacks on
Priestley's scholarship (pp. 141, 148, 161, 167-169, 171, 177, 245-246, 263264),
and in a final note picked up the old dispute. In his Defences of Unitarianism
for the Years 1788 & 1789 (1790) Priestley had claimed to have

Howes responded by stating:

Parts of CO continued to appear, but at long intervals. Howes was now
an old man. As noted already, "Number X" appeared in 1795, essentially
completing volume four (pp. 89-198). It was entirely taken up with the "suspended
subject . . . of Jewish theology," and Howes described it as "in addition
to, in confirmation and defence of what I have already advanced upon
the subject in my foregoing Remarks on the Fathers" (93). A note explained
that its delayed appearance was "owing entirely to the intervention of other
literary enquiries, together with avocations from ill health, domestic and
worldly affairs" (93). "Number XI," finally extending the main body of the
long-delayed volume three on chronological questions, appeared in 1800 (pp.
37-162). This began on a weary note:

Two further parts completed volume three, and Howes' chronological studies:
"Number XII" of CO was published in 1805 (pp. 163-296), "Number XIII"
in 1807 (pp. 297-430).

A late addition to volume four was an undated "Illustrations of Various
Subjects in the Preceding Four Volumes," pp. 129-152 (extending the 1787
appendix). These "Illustrations" refer only to "Numbers X-XI" (1795, 1800),
which provides a terminus a quo respecting their date. They are cited, and
in one case corrected, in "Number XIII" (pp. 348, 352, 375), which provides
a terminus ad quem. It is probable, then, that they were issued with "Number
XII." "Number XIII" announced that there would be yet further "Illustrations,"
though in the end they do not appear to have been issued: "I have
hitherto delayed bringing forward my Illustrations and Corrections of various
articles in the preceding volumes . . . In those Illustrations I shall include
answers to some criticisms made on parts of the preceding volumes. . .
(307-308).

The attached chart lists the various parts of CO chronologically and
shows how the four volumes were constructed. Unnumbered pages of CO
which incorporate text are recorded in square brackets. Supplementary pagination
schemes are italicised.

APPENDIX
Synopsis of the Publishing History of Critical Observations

                                     

	Date	Vol. 1	Vol. 2	Vol. 3	Vol. 4	Notes
Number I	1776	1-97
Number II	1777	99-198[2]
Number III	1778	201-272	1-22			"Vol. II" in direction line of 1-22. 199-272 ends in mid-article.
Number IV	1779	273-336	23-104(?) (or 23-52)			"Vol. II" in direction line of 23104. 273-336 commences in midarticle. Possible installment 23-52 would end mid-sentence.
Number V	1780	337-356	105(?)-126 (or 53-126)			"Vol. I" in direction line of 337356, "Vol. II" of 105-126. Possible installment 53-126 would start mid-sentence.
Number VI	1781		127-219			"Vol. II" in direction line.
Number VII	1782		221-318			"Vol. II" in direction line.
Number VIII	1783		319-449[1]			"Vol. II" in direction line. A general title-page for vol. 2 issued with this number.
Discourse on the Abuse of the Talent of Disputation . . .	1784			1-36		"Vol. III" in direction line. Published by Berry of Norwich. Retrospectively treated as the first part of "Number IX" but apparently issued in 1784 with no sort of covering page referring to CO.
Number IX	[1785]				i-xv, 1-88	Not dated. "Vol. IV" in direction line. Intended to incorporate the previous Discourse. Title page outlines contents of vols 3 and 4. The "Preface,"' i-xv, a late addition, responding to Priestley's Importance and Extent.
Appendix to the fourth volume	[1787]				1-128	Not dated. "APPENDIX TO VOL. FOUR" used as a running title. No title page. A response to Priestley's Letters . . . Part III.
Appendix to vol. III	1788			1-93[1]		"APPENDIX TO VOL. THREE" used as a running title. An astronomical tool designed to assist readers with the main part of this volume.
Illustrations of the appendix to volume three	1791			95-269[1]		"APPENDIX TO VOL. THREE" used as a running title.
Number X	1795				89-198	"Vol. IV" in direction line.
Number XI	1800			37-162		"Vol. III" in direction line.
Number XII	1805			163-296		"Vol. III" in direction line.
Illustrations of . . . the . . . four volumes	1805(?)				129-152	"Vol. IV" in direction line. Relates only to nos. X and XI. Referred to in XIII. Probably issued with XII.
Number XIII	1807			297-430		"Vol. III" in direction line. Announces further "Illustrations," apparently never published.