GHL to John Chapman, [London, 18 July 1853]
Title
GHL to John Chapman, [London, 18 July 1853]
Title
GHL to John Chapman, [London, 18 July 1853]
Sender
George Henry Lewes
Recipient
John Chapman
Date(s)
- 1853-07-18
Place
London
Letter Content
GHL to John Chapman, [London, 18 July 1853]
MS: University of California, Los Angeles. Endorsed: G. H. Lewes | July 18th 1853.
My dear Sir
I confess to having been annoyed by your proposal (though your last removes the annoyance) and for these reasons: --
It was I who indoctrinated you with the advantage and necessity of limiting your contributors, and have -- in my own case -- always written within the limits -- allowing you indeed to cut out and even materially injure my contributions (as in Mad. von Kr'fcdener 174) although during 10 years contributing to the Edinburgh I never was limited at all and in the British and foreign Review have had even 70 pages when I wanted it. 175 I still maintain the principle of short articles. But brevity is a relative term, and to limit a paper such as the one I scheme would be to stultify it; therefore from the first I declined to think of limits. It has cost me a great deal of severe thinking, patient research, and even dissection; it is a subject, I conceive, of the very highest importance and I do not intend that it shall suffer from any procrustean tyranny. I mean to write an essay not a volume; if the essay extend beyond the limits which would be advisable in a review under any circumstances, I shall enlarge it with more illustrations and publish it as a volume; but the space it will occupy as an essay or article I do not know.
It will not be ready for the October number in any case. This proposition however I will make. Should the article extend beyond 60 pages (I don't think it will reach 50, but it is impossible to say -- and my object in this, as in all cases, is brevity for the sake of effect) you are at liberty to decline it, and I will then do something else with it. 176 The only reason I have for wishing any understanding at all about it is that if written for publication in a Review it will be written in the plural editorial form, and written with more uniform brevity of illustration and citation. As it is historical as well as expository you can imagine how such a condition would operate -- a phrase taking the place of a section in a book.
Ever faithfully yours
G. H. Lewes.
MS: University of California, Los Angeles. Endorsed: G. H. Lewes | July 18th 1853.
My dear Sir
I confess to having been annoyed by your proposal (though your last removes the annoyance) and for these reasons: --
It was I who indoctrinated you with the advantage and necessity of limiting your contributors, and have -- in my own case -- always written within the limits -- allowing you indeed to cut out and even materially injure my contributions (as in Mad. von Kr'fcdener 174) although during 10 years contributing to the Edinburgh I never was limited at all and in the British and foreign Review have had even 70 pages when I wanted it. 175 I still maintain the principle of short articles. But brevity is a relative term, and to limit a paper such as the one I scheme would be to stultify it; therefore from the first I declined to think of limits. It has cost me a great deal of severe thinking, patient research, and even dissection; it is a subject, I conceive, of the very highest importance and I do not intend that it shall suffer from any procrustean tyranny. I mean to write an essay not a volume; if the essay extend beyond the limits which would be advisable in a review under any circumstances, I shall enlarge it with more illustrations and publish it as a volume; but the space it will occupy as an essay or article I do not know.
It will not be ready for the October number in any case. This proposition however I will make. Should the article extend beyond 60 pages (I don't think it will reach 50, but it is impossible to say -- and my object in this, as in all cases, is brevity for the sake of effect) you are at liberty to decline it, and I will then do something else with it. 176 The only reason I have for wishing any understanding at all about it is that if written for publication in a Review it will be written in the plural editorial form, and written with more uniform brevity of illustration and citation. As it is historical as well as expository you can imagine how such a condition would operate -- a phrase taking the place of a section in a book.
Ever faithfully yours
G. H. Lewes.
Signature
G. H. Lewes.
Citation
George Henry Lewes, GHL to John Chapman, [London, 18 July 1853], 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/94821