attempt of Dr. Kippis to produce a revised and enlarged edition of that work came to an untimely end with the letter F in 1793. Mr. John Murray, about 1856, had announced a new ‘Biographia Britannica’, compiled by various writers and edited by Dr. William Smith, but the project ended with the list of names to be included under the letter A. It was, therefore, very fortunate that in 1882 a publisher of great enterprise, genuine interest in literature, and ample means conceived the scheme which developed into the Dictionary of National Biography. Mr. George Smith’s first idea was a Dictionary of Universal Biography, with many editors and contributors, English and foreign. ‘From that wild attempt’, said he, ‘I was saved by the knowledge and sound judgement of Mr. Leslie Stephen.’ In November 1882 Stephen was appointed editor, and on 23 December he published in the Athenæum the announcement of ‘A New Biographia Britannica’. It was a very clear and concise statement of the editor’s programme.
‘Apart from precedent’, Stephen wrote, ‘one or two principles are clear. We should aim at giving the greatest possible amount of information in a thoroughly business-like form. Dates and facts should be given abundantly and precisely; it is of primary importance to give in all cases, and upon a uniform plan, a clear reference to the primary authorities; and in the case of literary biographies it is important to give a full bibliographical notice. It would, however, be easy to ensure failure by attempting too much. We must exclude much if the Dictionary is not to break down under its own weight. We must in the first place exclude (with certain exceptions) names which are only names. A biographical dictionary must be a collection of biographies, and cannot be a full catalogue of names. This, I may add, implies a limit to the bibliographical part of the work....’
‘We shall have to deal with a great mass of information. Biographies of this kind may err by being too diffuse or too meagre.... We must of course aim at being condensed. Philosophical and critical disquisition, picturesque description, and so forth, are obviously out of place and must be rigorously excised.... On the other hand, it is a mistake to economise space by omitting any useful information. And when we ask what information comes under that head, it is not easy to draw the line. Elaborate analysis of character or exposition of critical theories is irrelevant; but a reader may fairly ask to have characteristic anecdotes in their most authentic form, and a clear statement of the view taken by a statesman of political controversies or of the position in the history of literature of a remarkable poem....’
‘I have been asked whether anything in the way of “literary style” is to be admitted. If style means superfluous ornament, I say emphatically, no. But style, and even high literary ability, is required for lucid and condensed narrative, and of such style I shall be anxious to get as much as I can. A biography written with a single eye to giving all the information presumably desirable by an intelligent reader may be not only useful, but intensely interesting, and even a model of literary art....’
‘Finally I have one remark to add. The editor of such a work must, by the necessity of the case, be autocratic. He will do his best to be a considerate autocrat.’
xiv
