University of Virginia Library

[Joseph Jekyll], obituary for Robert Nares, GM 99-i (1829): 371.

Pp. 23, 265 (n. 53, n. 54, n. 60), 268 (n. 99). Among the contributors to the British Critic whom Roper cites (p. 23) are the geologist Jean André Deluc (1727-1817) and the sermon writer Samuel Partridge (1750-1817), though their contributions have not been identified. In addition, Roper notes (ibid.), the British Critic's contributors in all probability included Thomas Maurice (1754-1824), the historian of India; and Thomas Rennell (1754-1840), dean of Westminster and master of the Temple.

Nathaniel Teich's six-page account of the British Critic over the course of its entire run (1793-1843) provides valuable information concerning the review, but his treatment of Nares's first series is of necessity cursory at best. (See Nathaniel Teich, "The British Critic," in Alvin Sullivan, ed., British Literary Magazines: The Romantic Age, 1789-1836 [Westport, Connecticut, 1983], pp. 57-62.)

Derek Roper believes that two grants of £50 each that Nares received from Pitt's secret service money were in fact start-up funds for the British Critic (Roper 23, 180, and 265 [n. 50]).

See for example Francis E. Mineka, The Dissidence of Dissent: The Monthly Repository, 1806-1838, under the Editorship of Robert Aspland, W. J. Fox, R. H. Horne, & Leigh Hunt; with a Chapter on Religious Periodicals, 1700-1825 (Chapel Hill, 1944), p. 51; John O. Hayden, The Romantic Reviewers, 1802-1824 (London, 1969), p. 44; and Reiman 1: 125. Walter [James] Graham, English Literary Periodicals (New York, 1930), p. 221, takes the path of least resistance in naming Nares and Beloe as joint editors.

Roper 23, and Teich, "The British Critic," in Sullivan, ed., British Literary Magazines: The Romantic Age, p. 58, concur in considering Nares to have been the British Critic's editor. Nares and Beloe did, however, have an equal interest in the financial fortunes of the British Critic, each owning a one-third share in the periodical, with Francis and Charles Rivington holding the third equal share.

See for example Nares's letter to Nichols of 17 March 1814 (Illust. 7: 621, 621n) concerning the eventual publication of John Hellins's review of Baily's Doctrine of Life Annuities and Assurances (GM 84-i [1814]: 261-264, 472-477) and Nares's letter to Nichols of 23 May 1814 (Illust. 7: 622, 622n) concerning the eventual publication of George Gleig's review of McCrie's Life of John Knox (GM 84-i [1814]: 569-571) and of Gleig's cover letter (GM 84-i [1814]: 545) pertaining to the review. See also Nares's recommendation of Richard Polwhele's services as a reviewer "to my successors," as he phrased it (Illust. 7: 618-619).

See for example Nares's correspondence with Thomas Percy, Bishop of Dromore (Illust. 6: 583; 7: 601, 601n, 604-607, 607n), Samuel Parr (ibid., 7: 609), and Richard Polwhele (ibid., 7: 610; Biog. Sketches 3: 176).

See Esther Rhoads Houghton, "A 'New' Editor of the British Critic," Victorian Periodicals Review 12 (1979): 102-105.

Good surveys of the events leading to the downfall of the British Critic are provided in Houghton's "The British Critic and the Oxford Movement," Studies in Bibliography 16 (1963): 119-137, and Houghton's and Josef L. Altholz's "The British Critic, 1824-1843," Victorian Periodicals Review 24 (1991): 111-118.

Vincent's concluding paragraphs are to be found on p. 69.

See Whitaker's letter of 26 July 1797 to Polwhele, Biog. Sketches 3: 120.

The Reverend John Brand, rector of St. George's, Southwark, is not to be confused with the Reverend John Brand (ca. 1743-1806), rector of St. Mary-at-Hill and secretary to the Society of Antiquaries.

[Richard Polwhele], "The Lawfulness of Defensive War . . . ," Anti-Jacobin Review 3 (1799): 185.

Richard Warner, Literary Recollections (2 vols.; London, 1830) 2: 127.

White's obituary (GM 84-i [1814]: 628) states that he "was the Reviewer of publications in Hebrew and subjects of Oriental literature in 'The British Critic.'" For the purpose of determining which British Critic reviews White wrote or may have written, this article makes use of the following guidelines: Scholarly reviews of oriental literature (especially Arabic or Persian literature) are assumed to be White's, particularly if they contain explications of passages quoted in oriental characters. Reviews of oriental literature of which White's authorship is less sure are attributed to him with a cautionary question mark. Scholarly reviews of Hebrew works (particularly those emphasizing textual criticism and containing explications of passages in Hebrew script) are also attributed to White with a question mark, taking into consideration the fact that expertise in Hebrew scholarship was not as specialized an accomplishment as expertise in Arabic and Persian. (In those cases a second strong possibility exists for the author of the reviews in question: Rev. George Bennet [1750-1835], described by the DNB [2: 229-230] as a Hebraist and "[o]ne of the principal contributors to the 'British Critic,' . . . [who] reviewed from time to time the works of some of the most celebrated English divines . . . ," though the DNB does not identify them.) Reviews of works dealing with the history, theology, jurisprudence, etc., of oriental lands are not assigned to White, even provisionally, as Thomas Maurice (who supplied unidentified contributions to the British Critic) or other reviewers could likewise have written them.