Book contents
- Frontmatter
- CONTENTS
- Dedication
- Contributors
- Abbreviations
- Introduction
- 1 Plotting the Success of the Quarterly Review
- 2 ‘Sardonic grins’ and ‘paranoid politics’: Religion, Economics, and Public Policy in the Quarterly Review
- 3 A Plurality of Voices in the Quarterly Review
- 4 Politics, Culture, and Scholarship: Classics in the Quarterly Review
- 5 Walter Scott and the Quarterly Review
- 6 John Barrow, the Quarterly Review's Imperial Reviewer
- 7 Hung, Drawn and Quarterlyed: Robert Southey, Poetry, Poets and the Quarterly Review
- 8 Robert Southey's Contribution to the Quarterly Review
- Appendix A List of Letters
- Appendix B Transcription of Key Letters
- Notes
- Works Cited
- Index
7 - Hung, Drawn and Quarterlyed: Robert Southey, Poetry, Poets and the Quarterly Review
- Frontmatter
- CONTENTS
- Dedication
- Contributors
- Abbreviations
- Introduction
- 1 Plotting the Success of the Quarterly Review
- 2 ‘Sardonic grins’ and ‘paranoid politics’: Religion, Economics, and Public Policy in the Quarterly Review
- 3 A Plurality of Voices in the Quarterly Review
- 4 Politics, Culture, and Scholarship: Classics in the Quarterly Review
- 5 Walter Scott and the Quarterly Review
- 6 John Barrow, the Quarterly Review's Imperial Reviewer
- 7 Hung, Drawn and Quarterlyed: Robert Southey, Poetry, Poets and the Quarterly Review
- 8 Robert Southey's Contribution to the Quarterly Review
- Appendix A List of Letters
- Appendix B Transcription of Key Letters
- Notes
- Works Cited
- Index
Summary
In 1809 Robert Southey outlined the economic realities facing any would-be ‘man of letters’, that only ‘two branches’ of literature provided ‘adequate remuneration … writing for reviews, or for the stage’. Whilst he did not dismiss the profitable opportunities to be found in writing for the theatre, the larger part of his analysis was devoted to a craft he knew much better – ‘well paid’ reviewing. As he explained, ‘Reviewing is not an unpleasant task’ and after a decade of contributing to periodicals he was an old hand:
Carlisle introduced me to the Critical in 1798, and I wrote some years for it at the low rate of three guineas per sheet. My work was not worth more. It brought me from 50 to100£ yearly, a very acceptable addition to my very straightened income. It made me look for my opinions upon many subjects which had not occupied much of my attention before, and it made me acquire more knowledge of contemporary Literature than I should else have possessed. For the Annual I received four guineas, as much as the concern could afford, but greatly below the value of my work, for the former apprenticeship had made me a skilful workman.
After such relatively humble beginnings, by the late 1800s Southey was in demand by the reviews and (or so he claimed) even able to choose which ones he wrote for. In 1807 he ‘refused ten guineas per sheet’ from the Edinburgh on ‘the grounds of my total dissent from all its principles of morals and politics as well as taste’. Within less than two years, he did, however, accept the offer of work from another periodical – the Quarterly – and by 1810 noted that the money it brought in was ‘a great help … They pay ten guineas a sheet, and for the life of Nelson … twenty’.
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- Conservatism and the Quarterly ReviewA Critical Analysis, pp. 151 - 164Publisher: Pickering & ChattoFirst published in: 2014