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.

Notes