ular editor at first, although the
publication of the first three numbers was practically superintended by
Smith. Afterwards Jeffrey became editor at a salary of L300. He had
previously written some articles (including a critique of Southey's
_Thalaba_) for the _Monthly Review_ and was pessimistic enough to
anticipate an early failure for the new venture. However, at the time he
assumed control (July, 1803) the circulation was 2500, and within five
years it reached 8,000 or 9,000 copies. Jeffrey's articles were
recognized and much admired; but the success of the _Edinburgh_ was due
to its independent tone and general excellence rather than to the
individual contributions of its editor. Its prosperity enabled the
publishers to offer the contributors attractive remuneration for their
articles, thus assuring the cooeperation of specialists and of the most
capable men of letters of the day. At the outset, ten guineas per sheet
were paid; later sixteen became the minimum, and the average ranged from
twenty to twenty-five guineas. When we recall that the _Critical Review_
paid two, and the _Monthly Review_ sometimes four guineas per sheet, we
can readily understand the distinctly higher standard of the _Edinburgh
Review_.

Horner left Scotland for London in 1803 to embark upon a political
career. During the next six years occasional articles from his pen--less
than a score in all--appeared in the review. Smith and Brougham likewise
left Edinburgh in 1803 and 1805 respectively; but they ably supported
Jeffrey by sending numerous contributions for many years. During the
first quarter-century of the review's existence, this trio, with the
cooeperation of Sir James Mackintosh and a few others, constituted the
mainstay of its success. Jeffrey's remarkable critical faculty was
displayed to best advantage in the wide range of articles (two hundred
in number) which he wrote during his editorship. It is true that his
otherwise sound judgment was unable to grasp the significance of the new
poetic movement of his day, and that his best remembered efforts are the
diatribes against the Lake Poets. Hence, in the eyes of the modern
literary dilettante, he figures as a misguided, domineering Zoilus whose
mission in life was to heap ridicule upon the poetical efforts of
Wordsworth, Coleridge and the lesser disciples of romanticism.

There are in the early volumes of the _Edinburgh_ no more conspicuous
qualities than that air of vivacity and