John Chapman to George Combe, London, 5 April 1852
Title
John Chapman to George Combe, London, 5 April 1852
Title
John Chapman to George Combe, London, 5 April 1852
Sender
John Chapman
Recipient
George Combe
Date(s)
- 1852-04-05
Place
London
Letter Content
John Chapman to George Combe, London, 5 April 1852
MS: National Library of Scotland. Endorsed: London 5 April 1852 | John Chapman.
London April 5. 1852.
My dear Sir,
I was surprised to learn from Miss Evans your report of the announcement that the '91Westminster'92 is about to become a very staid and decorous journal, conducted with due regard to the prejudices of the time. 68 I am happy to assure you that there is not one word of truth in the assertion, whatever quarter it may come from. So long as all the articles are determined upon by me, as they are now, with the aid and counsel of Miss Evans, I shall not shrink from the effort to make the work what I conceive it should be -- the bold and uncompromising exponent of the most advanced and philosophical views in reference to the various subjects it will discuss. Of course my own convictions as to what are philosophical views will not meet with the assent of all liberal thinkers, and it is natural that such men will be disappointed with the Review under my controul. But this is inevitable from the limitations of the human mind; and all I can promise is that I shall strive to be faithful to my own convictions. I can fully rely upon Miss Evans for the same endeavour, and as our views coincide upon nearly all points both in reference to opinions and duty, I believe her influence will be in the right direction.
I am aware that Miss Martineau is not likely to approve of the Review, -- she expressed her disapproval of the Prospectus; but since I cannot regard as verities all the articles of her last formed faith, it is not likely that I could allow the Review to endorse them. I suspect that she and those who think with her, on mesmeric matters, are the originators of the rumour you report to us. If she or Dr. Gregory 69 or any able writer whom we could rely on as competent to the task, were to offer us a paper embodying the well ascertained result of magnetic investigators it would be welcome, and if we distrusted the impartiality of the observer, his statements could be published in the "Independent Section." Such would be our views in reference to this subject and all other questionable ones, regarded by themselves, -- but such being our views, we should nevertheless not feel obliged to put subjects, to us more important, aside in order to give publicity to topics not yet within the domain of science. I shall be happy to be still more explicit, if there is any point you would like me to clear up.
I hope you have received your copy of the Review ere this. I forwarded it through Messrs Maclachlan and Company. You will perceive that my article on the commerce of literature 70 is creating some stir; Longman and Murray wrote to the Times after the appearance of the Times article, 71 which was taken from mine, asking for delay of judgment. Bentley replied 72 (I wrote his letter, but this you must keep a secret, -- of course he signed it); then Murray and Parker came out separately. I have sent an answer to Murray, which however is not yet published and my friend Spencer (Social Statics) has written a letter which appears today. 73 So far "The Times." The Leader (i.e. Hunt and Lewes in separate articles) 74 "blows hot and cold"; the Athenaeum and Spectator 75 are both on my side, but do not forget the source of their advertisements. The Globe, Herald, Atlas, and Literary Gazette (Longman and Company) are against me, from fear of the Publishers.
I have written to Maclachlan and Company to desire them to supply copies of the Review to your order, charging them to me, with the intention of asking you to present copies to such persons as would be likely to become interested in the work by your doing so.
With kind regards to Mrs. Combe believe me my dear Sir
Yours faithfully
John Chapman.
P.S. There is a very laudatory article in the Daily News on the Review. I have just received a letter from Messrs J. W. Parker and Son to say they have withdrawn from the Association. Bentley preceded them, so I am sure to break it up.
MS: National Library of Scotland. Endorsed: London 5 April 1852 | John Chapman.
London April 5. 1852.
My dear Sir,
I was surprised to learn from Miss Evans your report of the announcement that the '91Westminster'92 is about to become a very staid and decorous journal, conducted with due regard to the prejudices of the time. 68 I am happy to assure you that there is not one word of truth in the assertion, whatever quarter it may come from. So long as all the articles are determined upon by me, as they are now, with the aid and counsel of Miss Evans, I shall not shrink from the effort to make the work what I conceive it should be -- the bold and uncompromising exponent of the most advanced and philosophical views in reference to the various subjects it will discuss. Of course my own convictions as to what are philosophical views will not meet with the assent of all liberal thinkers, and it is natural that such men will be disappointed with the Review under my controul. But this is inevitable from the limitations of the human mind; and all I can promise is that I shall strive to be faithful to my own convictions. I can fully rely upon Miss Evans for the same endeavour, and as our views coincide upon nearly all points both in reference to opinions and duty, I believe her influence will be in the right direction.
I am aware that Miss Martineau is not likely to approve of the Review, -- she expressed her disapproval of the Prospectus; but since I cannot regard as verities all the articles of her last formed faith, it is not likely that I could allow the Review to endorse them. I suspect that she and those who think with her, on mesmeric matters, are the originators of the rumour you report to us. If she or Dr. Gregory 69 or any able writer whom we could rely on as competent to the task, were to offer us a paper embodying the well ascertained result of magnetic investigators it would be welcome, and if we distrusted the impartiality of the observer, his statements could be published in the "Independent Section." Such would be our views in reference to this subject and all other questionable ones, regarded by themselves, -- but such being our views, we should nevertheless not feel obliged to put subjects, to us more important, aside in order to give publicity to topics not yet within the domain of science. I shall be happy to be still more explicit, if there is any point you would like me to clear up.
I hope you have received your copy of the Review ere this. I forwarded it through Messrs Maclachlan and Company. You will perceive that my article on the commerce of literature 70 is creating some stir; Longman and Murray wrote to the Times after the appearance of the Times article, 71 which was taken from mine, asking for delay of judgment. Bentley replied 72 (I wrote his letter, but this you must keep a secret, -- of course he signed it); then Murray and Parker came out separately. I have sent an answer to Murray, which however is not yet published and my friend Spencer (Social Statics) has written a letter which appears today. 73 So far "The Times." The Leader (i.e. Hunt and Lewes in separate articles) 74 "blows hot and cold"; the Athenaeum and Spectator 75 are both on my side, but do not forget the source of their advertisements. The Globe, Herald, Atlas, and Literary Gazette (Longman and Company) are against me, from fear of the Publishers.
I have written to Maclachlan and Company to desire them to supply copies of the Review to your order, charging them to me, with the intention of asking you to present copies to such persons as would be likely to become interested in the work by your doing so.
With kind regards to Mrs. Combe believe me my dear Sir
Yours faithfully
John Chapman.
P.S. There is a very laudatory article in the Daily News on the Review. I have just received a letter from Messrs J. W. Parker and Son to say they have withdrawn from the Association. Bentley preceded them, so I am sure to break it up.
Signature
John Chapman.
Citation
John Chapman, John Chapman to George Combe, London, 5 April 1852, 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/95496