perverse and mischievous; the "Westminster Review" branded it as
reactionary. "The Quarterly," in an article ascribed to A. H.
Layard, condemned its style as laboured and artificial; as palling
from the sustained pomp and glitter of the language; as wearisome
from the constant strain after minute dissection; declaring it
further to be "in every sense of the word a mischievous book."
"Blackwood," less unfriendly, surrendered itself to the beauty of
the writing; "satire so studied, so polished, so remorseless, and
withal so diabolically entertaining, that we know not where in
modern literature to seek such another philippic."

Reeve, editor of the "Edinburgh," wished Lord Clarendon to attack
the book; he refused, but offered help, and the resulting article
was due to the collaboration of the pair. It caused a prolonged
coolness between Reeve and Kinglake, who at last ended the quarrel
by a characteristic letter: "I observed yesterday that my malice,
founded perhaps upon a couple of words, and now of three years'
duration, had not engendered corresponding anger in you; and if my
impression was a right one, I trust we may meet for the future on
our old terms."

On the other hand, the "Saturday Review," then at the height of its
repute and influence, vindicated in a powerful article Kinglake's
truth and fairness; and a pamphlet by Hayward, called "Mr. Kinglake
and the Quarterlies," amused society by its furious onslaught upon
the hostile periodicals, laid bare their animus, and exposed their
misstatements. "If you rise in this tone," he began, in words of
Lord Ellenborough when Attorney-General, "I can speak as loudly and
emphatically: I shall prosecute the case with all the liberality
of a gentleman, but no tone or manner shall put me down." And the