To all who have thought of my name and conferred upon me the honour I have just received, and to those who have given me such a kindly reception, I send my best thanks, and I wish prosperity and success.
At this time, and indeed ever since his retirement from the Council Office, Reeve's chief work was in connexion with the 'Review;' but he also did a very great deal as literary adviser of the Longmans. He had indeed, to some extent, acted in this capacity ever since he undertook the conduct of the 'Review;' the two offices fitted into and were supplementary to each other; and it will be remembered that in 1875 [Footnote: See ante, p. 243.] he had contemplated retiring from the public service, with the view of undertaking the main responsibility of this work for the firm. Circumstances had delayed his retirement; but by an arrangement with the firm in 1878, which continued in force during the rest of his life, the number of works he examined and reported on was considerably increased, and must have been very large. Books in French, German, or Italian offered for translation, MSS. in English offered for publication—whatever there was of grave, serious, or important, as well as a good deal that was not, was sent to him for a first or a revised opinion. And this opinion was given very frankly, and most commonly in the fewest possible words: 'My advice is that you have nothing to do with it' was a not unfrequent formula. Another, less frequent, was, 'He—the aspirant to literary fame and emolument—can neither write nor spell English;' 'I wish they wouldn't send their trash to me' was an occasional prayer; 'Seems to me sheer nonsense;'—'What a waste of time and labour!'—'It is very provoking that people should attempt to write books who cannot write English,' were occasional reports. Of course many of his judgements were very different: 'A work of great interest which must have a large sale;' 'Secure this if you possibly can;' 'A most able work, but will scarcely command a remunerative sale;' 'Not worth translating, but send me a copy for the "Review,"' are some of his more favourable verdicts. But in all cases the judgements were sharp and decisive; there was about them nothing of the celebrated 'This work might be very good if it was not extremely bad,' or its converse. These reports were, of course, in the highest degree confidential; and, especially of the unfavourable ones, Reeve made a point of forgetting all about the origin of them. On one occasion, when a reference was made to a work he had reported on a few weeks before, he wrote in reply, 'The numerous MSS. &c. sent for an opinion leave no trace on my memory.'
As it was with printed books and larger MSS., so it was with articles submitted for the 'Review;' but he did not encourage casual contributions, and seldom—perhaps never—accepted any without some previous understanding. The political articles and the reviews of important books were almost invariably written in response to a direct invitation; but whether the articles sent in were invited or offered, he equally reserved the right to express his approval or disapproval or disagreement, and to insist, if necessary, on the article being remodelled or withdrawn. Such an insistence is more than once noticed in his correspondence, quite irrespective of the high reputation of the author. Probably every one whose contributions have been at all numerous has had an opportunity of noticing how perfectly candid and yet how courteous his remarks always were. If an article pleased him, he said so in terms that from anyone else might have seemed extravagant. Many letters of this type might be given; one must suffice, written to a valued contributor, dead, unfortunately, many years ago—Colonel Charles Cornwallis Chesney:—
C. O., February 26th, 1873.—I received the proofs of your article on Lee last night, and therefore I conclude that you have received them also. I don't exaggerate the least when I say that the article strikes me as a chef d'oeuvre of military biography. You have drawn a most heroic character with peculiar grace and fervour, and the account of the military operations is singularly clear and interesting. It only strikes me that you have repeated the comparison with Hannibal rather too often.
Pray be so good as to return the proofs to me as soon as you can, that I may have the article made up and printed off. I feel infinitely obliged to you for it.
The value of such praise was heightened, its apparent extravagance done away with, by the knowledge that dissatisfaction would be expressed in language equally unmistakable, and that either by the contributor or the editor the modifications which seemed to him desirable would be made. It was partly because he reserved to himself this power and accepted all the responsibility, that he insisted so strenuously on the anonymous character of the articles. But more even than that was his abhorrence of anything like 'log-rolling,' which, in his opinion, was inseparable from signed reviews. To the very last he discouraged, and indeed openly expressed his disapproval and dislike of the presumably inspired announcements of authors' names in the 'Athenaeum' or other journals. Here is an extract from a letter dated October 6th, 1891, which illustrates this objection:— 'The only objection I have to the republication of articles with the name of the writer is that it destroys their anonymous character, which ought especially to be retained when they contain criticism of contemporaries.' So careful was he lest anything might warp the perfect fairness of criticism, which should 'nothing extenuate, nor set down aught in malice.' I, who write these lines, can say positively, after having written for the 'Review' under Reeve for upwards of twenty years, that in all that time I never received a hint or suggestion that any book should be dealt with otherwise than on its merits; and whilst engaged on this present work I have learned, for the first time, that men whose books I have reviewed, not always favourably, were personal friends of the editor. The following letter, addressed to Mr. T. N. Longman, is merely a concrete illustration of this:—
December 26th, 1891.—I thought it best to tell Froude frankly that the review of his book [Footnote: The Divorce of Catherine of Aragon,' in the Review of January 1892.] in the 'Edinburgh' would be an unfavourable one. At the same time I disclaimed in the strongest language any disposition to make a personal attack on himself. Unfortunately he seems to ascribe adverse criticism of his works to personal animosity, which, in his case, is entirely wanting.
It is a painful necessity. Froude and his book are too important to be passed over in silence. But the judicial character and consistency, and I may say honour, of the 'Review' absolutely require that the truth should be told about the book. I should consider it a derogation to my duty to the 'Review' if, from personal motives or affection, I suppressed an adverse criticism of a work which imperatively demands an answer. The independence of the 'Review' requires an independent judgement; but I expressly stipulated with the writer of the article that he should abstain from bitterness, which was carried too far in Goldwin Smith's article on the same subject in 1858. The 'Review' is pledged to the views already expressed on that occasion.
I have therefore modified as far as possible any expressions which appeared to be of too censorious a character; but it is impossible to avoid condemning a mistaken book because the author is a personal friend. Judex damnatur si nocens absolvitur is our motto.
Froude does not like Mr. Gardiner's book. He says, 'It's a menagerie of tame beasts.' I think very highly of the book; and as we differ, I have yielded to his wish to be released from the engagement.