Criticism and the rise of periodical literature

Abstract

The rise of periodical literature changed the face of criticism between 1660 and 1800. The genres and publishing vehicles that came to dominate critical discourse by 1800, particularly review criticism and the review journal, would have been all but unrecognizable to Dryden and his contemporaries. The impact of journalism on critical practice, and on its underlying principles, was broad and complex. It introduced new, more accessible forums for critical discussion; it multiplied and diversified the opportunities for critical expression; it fostered new critical values, drew attention to new literary genres, systematized the treatment of established ones, and expanded the audience for criticism. Its impact was felt by authors, readers, and publishers, as well as institutions ranging from scholarly libraries to rural reading societies; in subtler ways it affected canon formation, reception history, the emergence of affective criticism, the assimilation of foreign influences, the segregation of ‘women's literature’, and ultimately the politics of culture. Because of the sheer mass and complexity of material involved in the history of journalism, this chapter will focus primarily on major patterns in English critical history, with intermittent attention to the parallel developments elsewhere in Europe. In tandem with the growth of print culture generally, the rapid expansion of the periodical press was a pan-European phenomenon. Scholars differ on definitions and methods of counting, but by any measure there was a dramatic increase in the number of periodicals between 1660 and 1800. In England political upheaval and various licensing acts caused erratic shifts during the seventeenth century – three periodicals in print during 1641, then fifty-nine in 1642, for example, or thirty-four in 1660 and then seven in 1661 – but the average of five periodicals per year from 1661 to 1678 grew to twenty-five titles by 1700, ninety in 1750, and 264 in 1800.

Cite this work

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 12 citations exist upstream.

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.