GHL to Henry Danby Seymour, [London], 13 January 1865
Title
GHL to Henry Danby Seymour, [London], 13 January 1865
Title
GHL to Henry Danby Seymour, [London], 13 January 1865
Sender
George Henry Lewes
Recipient
Henry Danby Seymour
Date(s)
- 1865-01-13
Place
London
Letter Content
GHL to Henry Danby Seymour, [London], 13 January 1865
640
Text: Printed letter enclosed in letter to Lord Houghton, 6 February 1865, Trinity College, Cambridge.
[Private and Confidential.]
13th January, 1865.
My Dear Seymour,
Allow me to submit to you and our friends a brief statement of my conception of the proposed Review. It is needless to enter upon the details; the principles are the most important, and they alone can justify the scheme: --
It is clear that important political changes, both at home and abroad, are slowly but inevitably approaching. Any periodical which can acquire commanding influence with the intellectual classes will have a great part to play. We must first aim at influence -- a large circulation will follow. To gain this two things are necessary: we must address ourselves to various interests; and we must secure the best services of the best writers.
Besides the many political and social topics which will constantly solicit attention, there are the topics specially interesting to the Literary, Philosophical, Artistic, Financial, Manufacturing, Military, and
Sporting classes, which we should keep steadily in view, making ourselves, as far as possible, the well-informed and authoritative organ of each class. I do not mean that we should rival the Sporting Magazine or the Banker's Magazine; but that our treatment of subjects interesting to Sportsmen and Bankers should be such as would attract these classes while giving variety to our pages. The publication once a fortnight, and our wide connection, should enable us to do this.
The spirit of the Review ought to secure excellence as well as variety. Keeping ourselves untrammelled by the limitations of a party, or a sect, we shall give expression to every idea which justifies itself by its tendency towards Progress and is consistent with Order -- in conformity with the poet's estimate of our country, as one
"Where freedom broadens slowly down 641 From precedent to precedent."
The writers will be asked to express their own opinions, not the opinions of the editor. At present it is notorious that most of the able writers contribute to several journals of different parties, and are rarely, if ever, allowed to express their most cherished convictions with perfect sincerity, because they have to maintain "consistency." I propose to remove all such editorial restraints. The responsibility of selecting the writer and the subject is all the editor should assume; that done, he should throw all the responsibility of each article on its writer. By this the Review would gain greatly in force and authority, and would never be called upon to answer for a consistency to which it avowedly made no claim. By this also no one contributor would be implicated in what was written by another. The example of La Revue des Deux Mondes shows with what admirable success diversity in opinions may co-exist with a general policy. Unless we had the intention of becoming the organ of a party it would be unwise, in losing the intensive force of limitation, not to avail ourselves to the utmost of the extensive force of a large and liberal range.
Such latitude of course demands that the articles shall be signed. There are many obvious advantages in keeping certain political communications anonymous; but in most other cases -- especially where the personality of the writer or the individuality of his views gives a relief to his contribution -- the signature should appear. It will be an earnest of sincerity. It will give authority to praise and dignity to attack. It will give the writer freedom to a sense of serious responsibility, without which freedom is apt to become anarchy. It will lessen the insolent asperity and the culpable carelessness of criticism. In avowing that the opinions expressed are truly nothing but the opinions of an individual, to be valued as such, it will remove the false prestige which too often belongs to judgments that would be disregarded were the judges known.
I am aware of all the objections that have been often urged against the practice of signing articles. It is unnecessary for me to answer them here; the fact that I think it an essential part of our scheme shows that I think its advantages greatly outweigh its disadvantages. Let me simply add that it will be a great temptation to many important writers who would otherwise refuse their aid.
In allowing great latitude of opinion and great diversity of opinion, the only difficulty will be in fixing the limits beyond which it would be fatal to pass. If I rightly understand the temper of the public we address it is one which, while yearning for greater freedom of discussion, would never tolerate a negative or aggressive spirit in reference to the fundamental principles of Government and Religion. Our motto, Progress and Order, must inspire us. We have no ism, Theological or Political, to advocate. But we shall claim for Theology, Philosophy, and Science their perfect independence, each pursuing its own serious course. In the Church, and out of it, there is the agitation of a deep unrest which is daily becoming wider, and which is exasperated by the want of freedom; serious discussion on such questions must arise, and we cannot disregard them. Our course is plain: -- we must take no side; we must espouse no party; we must open our pages to various opinions, vigilant only as to their agreement with our motto -- Progress and Order.
Believe me, my dear Seymour,
Yours very truly,
George Henry Lewes.
H. Danby Seymour, Esq., M.P.
640
Text: Printed letter enclosed in letter to Lord Houghton, 6 February 1865, Trinity College, Cambridge.
[Private and Confidential.]
13th January, 1865.
My Dear Seymour,
Allow me to submit to you and our friends a brief statement of my conception of the proposed Review. It is needless to enter upon the details; the principles are the most important, and they alone can justify the scheme: --
It is clear that important political changes, both at home and abroad, are slowly but inevitably approaching. Any periodical which can acquire commanding influence with the intellectual classes will have a great part to play. We must first aim at influence -- a large circulation will follow. To gain this two things are necessary: we must address ourselves to various interests; and we must secure the best services of the best writers.
Besides the many political and social topics which will constantly solicit attention, there are the topics specially interesting to the Literary, Philosophical, Artistic, Financial, Manufacturing, Military, and
Sporting classes, which we should keep steadily in view, making ourselves, as far as possible, the well-informed and authoritative organ of each class. I do not mean that we should rival the Sporting Magazine or the Banker's Magazine; but that our treatment of subjects interesting to Sportsmen and Bankers should be such as would attract these classes while giving variety to our pages. The publication once a fortnight, and our wide connection, should enable us to do this.
The spirit of the Review ought to secure excellence as well as variety. Keeping ourselves untrammelled by the limitations of a party, or a sect, we shall give expression to every idea which justifies itself by its tendency towards Progress and is consistent with Order -- in conformity with the poet's estimate of our country, as one
"Where freedom broadens slowly down 641 From precedent to precedent."
The writers will be asked to express their own opinions, not the opinions of the editor. At present it is notorious that most of the able writers contribute to several journals of different parties, and are rarely, if ever, allowed to express their most cherished convictions with perfect sincerity, because they have to maintain "consistency." I propose to remove all such editorial restraints. The responsibility of selecting the writer and the subject is all the editor should assume; that done, he should throw all the responsibility of each article on its writer. By this the Review would gain greatly in force and authority, and would never be called upon to answer for a consistency to which it avowedly made no claim. By this also no one contributor would be implicated in what was written by another. The example of La Revue des Deux Mondes shows with what admirable success diversity in opinions may co-exist with a general policy. Unless we had the intention of becoming the organ of a party it would be unwise, in losing the intensive force of limitation, not to avail ourselves to the utmost of the extensive force of a large and liberal range.
Such latitude of course demands that the articles shall be signed. There are many obvious advantages in keeping certain political communications anonymous; but in most other cases -- especially where the personality of the writer or the individuality of his views gives a relief to his contribution -- the signature should appear. It will be an earnest of sincerity. It will give authority to praise and dignity to attack. It will give the writer freedom to a sense of serious responsibility, without which freedom is apt to become anarchy. It will lessen the insolent asperity and the culpable carelessness of criticism. In avowing that the opinions expressed are truly nothing but the opinions of an individual, to be valued as such, it will remove the false prestige which too often belongs to judgments that would be disregarded were the judges known.
I am aware of all the objections that have been often urged against the practice of signing articles. It is unnecessary for me to answer them here; the fact that I think it an essential part of our scheme shows that I think its advantages greatly outweigh its disadvantages. Let me simply add that it will be a great temptation to many important writers who would otherwise refuse their aid.
In allowing great latitude of opinion and great diversity of opinion, the only difficulty will be in fixing the limits beyond which it would be fatal to pass. If I rightly understand the temper of the public we address it is one which, while yearning for greater freedom of discussion, would never tolerate a negative or aggressive spirit in reference to the fundamental principles of Government and Religion. Our motto, Progress and Order, must inspire us. We have no ism, Theological or Political, to advocate. But we shall claim for Theology, Philosophy, and Science their perfect independence, each pursuing its own serious course. In the Church, and out of it, there is the agitation of a deep unrest which is daily becoming wider, and which is exasperated by the want of freedom; serious discussion on such questions must arise, and we cannot disregard them. Our course is plain: -- we must take no side; we must espouse no party; we must open our pages to various opinions, vigilant only as to their agreement with our motto -- Progress and Order.
Believe me, my dear Seymour,
Yours very truly,
George Henry Lewes.
H. Danby Seymour, Esq., M.P.
Signature
George Henry Lewes.
Citation
George Henry Lewes, GHL to Henry Danby Seymour, [London], 13 January 1865, Complete George Eliot Letters(2026), George Eliot Archive, edited by Beverley Park Rilett. https://GeorgeEliotArchive.org, Accessed September 7, 2026. https://www.georgeeliotarchive.org/items/show/94557