1924.) 
To the Editor of the Monthly Magazine. 
Sir, is \ 
, last paper in the seventh vo-’ 
‘lume of the Spectator’ (No. 555), 
contains’several interesting facts respect- 
ing the principal writers engaged in that 
celebrated work. “All the~ papers,” 
says Steele, “ which I have distinguished 
by any letter’ in the nameof the Muse 
CLIO, were given me by the gentlemen 
of whose’ assistance I formerly boasted 
in the preface and concluding leaf of 
my Tatlers.” The generality of readers, 
and among them many persons of acute- 
ness and discrimination, have inferred 
from this passage that Addison was the 
author of all these papers; an infe- 
rence which is neither fairly deducible 
from the words of Steele, nor consis- 
tent with the evidence furnished by 
subsequent writers. Tickell has indeed 
contributed to strengthen this opinion 
by inserting these papers indiscrimi- 
nately in his edition of Addison’s works ; 
and Dr. Johnson has likewise fallen into 
the common error on this subject. 
“ The papers of Addison,” says the 
author of the Lives of the Poets, “ are 
marked in the Spectator by one of the 
letters in the name of Clio, and in the 
Guardian by a hand; whether it was, 
as Tickell pretends to think, that he was 
unwilling to usurp the praise of others, 
or, as Steele, with far greater likelihood, 
insinuates that he could not, without 
discontent, impart to others any of his 
own. T have heard,” continues this 
snarling writer, “that his avidity did 
not satisfy itself with the air of renown, 
but that with great eagerness, he laid 
hold on his proportion of the profits.” 
And why not ? The Spectator andGuar- 
dian are always spoken of as the joint pro- 
ductions of these friends ; and, though 
Steele was the nominal editor of both, 
Addison is known to have contributed 
the greater number of original papers, 
and was, therefore, entitltd to at least 
an equal share of the profits. With 
respect, indeed, to the part which Addi- 
son took in the Guardian, Dr. Johnson 
himself says, that it is not known 
whether his communications were fur- 
nished “ occasionally, or by previous 
engagement,” and the Doctor had pro- 
bably no better ground for his insinua- 
tion, as regarded the Spectator. Addi- 
son, however, though he bears the palm 
of industry from Steele, unquestionably 
derived some assistance from the kind- 
ness of his friends; nor is Dr. Johnson 
quite correct in attributing indiscrimi- 
nately to his pen all those papers marked 
Papers contributed to the Spectator by Addison and Steele. 
101 
by one of the letters in the name of the 
muse Crio. This, at least, is not a fair 
inference from the words of Steéele, who 
only tells us that these papers were 
given him by Addison, and does not ex- 
pressly assert that Addison wrote them. 
From the known integrity: of Steele’s 
character, I feel persuaded that he made 
these acknowledements to his friend 
Addison, as he himself tells us,(No.555), 
“ because he would ‘not let his heart 
reproach him with a consciousness ‘of 
having acquired a praise which ‘was not 
his: right; and purposely expressed 
himself in these qualified terms, that’ he 
might not pledge his word to’ a fact 
which he was not prepared+to verify. 
There might, too, be something of a 
fellow-feeling in the case; for Steele, 
“ whose negligence kept him always in 
a hurry,” was not unfrequently obliged 
to avail himself of the kindness of his 
friends. 
Bishop Hurd states that “ of the 
three periodical papers, in which Mr. 
Addison was happily induced to bear a 
part, the only one, which was planned 
by himself was the Spectator ;” (Addi- 
son’s works, Vol. III. p. 3.), but Tickell 
informs us that the Spectator “ was 
projected by Addison im concert with 
Sir Richard Steele.” However, this may 
be, the following statement will go far 
to prove, that both Addison and Steele 
had a property in the work, and conse- 
quently that Dr. Johnson’s insinuation 
respecting Addison’s greediness in seiz- 
ing on his share of the profits, is a mere 
ebullition of spleen and ill-humour. 
The first six papers were alternately 
supplied by Addison and Steele. Of 
‘the next twenty-five papers, namely,: 
from seven to thirty-one, sixteen were 
supplied by Addison, seven by Steele, 
and two (twenty-two and thirty) were 
printed without any signature. The 
thirty-second and thirty-third numbers 
were furnished by Steele; but the letter in 
No. 33 was claimed as the production of 
Mr. John Hughes, by the friends of that 
gentleman, in a posthumous work con- 
taining his correspondence with some of 
the most eminent literary characters of 
the age. The thirty-fourth and thirty- 
fifth numbers were furnished by Addi- 
son. The next four papers were’ sup- 
plied alternately by Steele ‘and Addison. 
Numbers forty and forty-five bear Addi- 
son’s signature ; but the four interme- 
diate numbers were alternately supplied 
by Steele and Addison. Of the next six 
numbers (46-51), three were. furnished 
by Addison, and three by Steele. Num- 
bers 
