2049. Robert Southey to John Murray, 26 February 1812

2049. Robert Southey to John Murray, 26 February 1812 ⁠* 

Keswick. Feby. 26. 1812.

My dear Sir

The two proofs [1]  are by this post returned to the Printers, & you have here the concluding Postscript. I could not please myself in a dedication, & as the thing was not necessary have think it best to let it alone. No preface is required, unless you think it proper to say that ‘this essay is reprinted from the Q.R. with some alterations & considerable additions.’ [2]  – of this you are the best judge.

I wish that article upon the other Dr Bell [3]  was not in the Quarterly. it is neither tolerant, nor generous, nor wise. [4] 

Yrs very truly



* Address: To/ Mr Murray/ Fleet Street/ London.
Stamped: KESWICK/ 298
Postmark: E/ 29 FE 29/ 1812
Watermark: IPING [some lower letters cut off]
Endorsement: 1812 Feb/ Southey Esqr
MS: National Library of Scotland, MS 42550. ALS; 2p.
Unpublished. BACK

[1] Southey’s The Origin, Nature and Object, of the New System of Education (1812), an expansion of his advocacy of Bell in Quarterly Review, 6 (August 1811), 264–304. BACK

[2] This was not inserted. BACK

[3] Dr William Bell (1731–1816; DNB), Anglican clergyman and editor of Courayer, see note below. BACK

[4] The article on Peter Francis Courayer (1681–1776), Traité où l’on Expose ce que l’Ecriture Nous Apprend de la Divinité de Jésus Christ (1810) in Quarterly Review, 6 (December 1811), 391–405; which argued that because the ‘doctrine contained in this book be contrary to the scriptures … the publication of it in an evil in the highest degree, and therefore ought, on no account, to have taken place’ (404). The review has been attributed to John Ireland (1761–1842; DNB). See also Southey to Grosvenor Charles Bedford, 24 February 1812, Letter 2046. BACK

Places mentioned

Keswick (mentioned 1 time)