To Macvey Napier, Esq.

York:  March 22, 1830.

My dear Sir,—­I was in some doubt as to what I should be able to do for Number 101, and I deferred writing till I could make up my mind.  If my friend Ellis’s article on Greek History, of which I have formed high expectations, could have been ready, I should have taken a holiday.  But, as there is no chance of that for the next number, I ought, I think, to consider myself as his bail, and to surrender myself to your disposal in his stead.

I have been thinking of a subject, light and trifling enough, but perhaps not the worse for our purpose on that account.  We seldom want a sufficient quantity of heavy matter.  There is a wretched poetaster of the name of Robert Montgomery who has written some volumes of detestable verses on religious subjects, which by mere puffing in magazines and newspapers have had an immense sale, and some of which are now in their tenth or twelfth editions.  I have for some time past thought that the trick of puffing, as it is now practised both by authors and publishers, is likely to degrade the literary character, and to deprave the public taste, in a frightful degree.  I really think that we ought to try what effect satire will have upon this nuisance, and I doubt whether we can ever find a better opportunity.

Yours very faithfully

T. B. Macaulay.

To Macvey Napier, Esq.

London:  August 19, 1830.

My dear Sir,—­The new number appeared this morning in the shop windows.  The article on Niebuhr contains much that is very sensible; but it is not such an article as so noble a subject required.  I am not like Ellis, Niebuhr-mad; and I agree with many of the remarks which the reviewer has made both on this work, and on the school of German critics and historians.  But surely the reviewer ought to have given an account of the system of exposition which Niebuhr has adopted, and of the theory which he advances respecting the Institutions of Rome.  The appearance of the book is really an era in the intellectual history of Europe, and I think that the Edinburgh Review ought at least to have given a luminous abstract of it.  The very circumstance that Niebuhr’s own arrangement and style are obscure, and that his translators have need of translators to make them intelligible to the multitude, rendered it more desirable that a clear and neat statement of the points in controversy should be laid before the public.  But it is useless to talk of what cannot be mended.  The best editors cannot always have good writers, and the best writers cannot always write their best.

I have no notion on what ground Brougham imagines that I am going to review his speech.  He never said a word to me on the subject.  Nor did I ever say either to him, or to anyone else, a single syllable to that effect.  At all events I shall not make Brougham’s speech my text.  We have had quite enough of puffing and flattering each other in the Review.  It is a vile taste for men united in one literary undertaking to exchange their favours.