Reviewed by:

• 10,000 Not Out: The History of the Spectator 1828–2020 by David Butterfield
• Richard Fulton (bio)

David Butterfield's 10,000 Not Out is the latest in a long line of publications marking milestones in the 193-year history of the Spectator, including William Beach Thomas's Story of the Spectator, 1828–1928 (1928); special issues of the paper on the centennial (November 1928), the six thousandth issue (June 1943), the 125th anniversary (1953), and the 150th anniversary (September 1978); and Simon Cortauld's To Convey Intelligence, the Spectator 1928–1998 (1999). Like its predecessors, Butterfield's book celebrates the newspaper-cum-magazine's virtues: its recognition for excellence among its contemporaries, its important social and political stands, the quality of its contributors, and the cultural importance of its voice. It is not a scholarly book, nor does it try to be. Rather it is, as Michael White terms it in his review of the book, "a romp through its history" ("A Magazine or a Cocktail Party?," Literary Review, June 2020, 7). Butterfield is informal, chatty, gossipy. He relates anecdotes like Charles Dickens's referring to the founder and editor of the paper, Robert Rintoul, with the rhyming appellation "Squint-owl" (36), and he refers to H. H. Asquith as "Ol' Squiffy" (63). Rintoul's arrangement to allow his daughter to continue to live in the Spectator attic after Meredith Townsend took over the paper prompts Butterfield to ponder drily, "What Townsend's reaction was to finding this rather highly-strung thirty-something pining in the rafters is unknown" (47). Thus, 10,000 Not Out is an enjoyable, readable survey of the weekly over its long and storied history. It contains innumerable nuggets of information about contributors, editors, finances, circulation, contested political and social positions, and the actual process of printing. Until about 1900 the paper was still issued with pages uncut, for example (73). Who knew?

Butterfield surveys the remarkable influence of the paper during its first hundred years, examining the role of the four owner/editors: Rintoul, Richard Holt Hutton, Townsend, and John St. Loe Strachey. The editors and a handful of staff critics wrote most of the copy for every issue until the turn of the century, although they occasionally recruited leading statesmen, scholars, thinkers, writers, and artists who either submitted essays or debated issues in the correspondence column. Until 1922 leaders and most columns were anonymous; from the mid-1920s on, signed columns revealed that some of the most important figures of the century were contributing to the paper: Evelyn Waugh, John Betjeman, Jean Paul Sartre, T. S. Eliot, and others between the wars; Kingsley Amis, John Wain, and Kenneth Tynan in the 1950s and 1960s. From the 1970s on, celebrated artists and writers for the most part were displaced by regular columnists. [End Page 150] Butterfield lists them all; in fact, his lists of contributors are an important contribution of the book.

For a variety of reasons, the Spectator morphed from weekly newspaper to weekly magazine in 1953. Butterfield describes in some detail the new opportunities that the revised structure provided. He also surveys the various owners in the twentieth and twenty-first centuries, the carousel of editors, and the slow evolution of the paper's politics from somewhat liberal and independent to stoutly Tory, closing his account in 2020. The lean to the right has been most pronounced in the last several decades as the magazine and Tory leadership carried on a somewhat incestuous relationship, culminating with the ascension of former editor Boris Johnson to Ten Downing Street.

Because it avoids much of the apparatus of a scholarly study, Butterfield's book is sometimes annoyingly incomplete. He cites most of his sources, and the endnotes are accurate as far as I could tell. But he fails to include a bibliography, and his index is woefully incomplete. Thus, when looking for information about a citation for, say, Robert Tener or Marysa Demoor, one is forced to read through the 1,200 endnotes for the original citation because the bibliography (which would...

审核人：

• 10,000 人未出局：1828-2020 年观众的历史，大卫·巴特菲尔德 (David Butterfield)
• 理查德富尔顿（生物）

大卫巴特菲尔德的10,000 Not Out是一系列出版物中最新的一部，这些出版物标志着旁观者193 年历史上的里程碑，包括威廉·比奇·托马斯的《旁观者的故事》，1828-1928（1928 年）；百年（1928年11月）、六千（1943年6月）、125周年（1953年）、150周年（1978年9月）专刊；和西蒙·科托德的《传达情报，旁观者 1928-1998》(1999)。像它的前辈一样，巴特菲尔德的书颂扬了报纸兼杂志的优点：在同时代人中对卓越的认可、重要的社会和政治立场、贡献者的素质以及其声音的文化重要性。它不是一本学术书籍，也不想成为。相反，正如迈克尔怀特在他对这本书的评论中所说的那样，它是“历史的狂欢”（“杂志还是鸡尾酒会？”，文学评论，2020 年 6 月，7）。巴特菲尔德不拘小节、健谈、八卦。他将查尔斯·狄更斯 (Charles Dickens) 提及该论文的创始人兼编辑罗伯特·林图尔 (Robert Rintoul) 等轶事与押韵的称谓“Squint-owl” (36) 联系起来，并将 HH Asquith 称为“Ol' Squiffy” (63)。林图尔Meredith Townsend 接手报纸后的观众阁楼提示 Butterfield 沉闷地思考，“Townsend 的反应是在椽子上发现这个相当紧张的三十多岁的人，这是未知的”（47）。因此，《10,000 Not Out》是对周刊在其悠久而传奇的历史中进行的一次愉快、易读的调查。它包含无数关于撰稿人、编辑、财务、流通、有争议的政治和社会地位以及实际印刷过程的信息。直到大约 1900 年，该纸仍带有未剪裁的页面，例如 (73)。谁知道？

巴特菲尔德调查了该论文在其最初一百年中的显着影响，考察了四位所有者/编辑的角色：Rintoul、Richard Holt Hutton、Townsend 和 John St. Loe Strachey。直到世纪之交，编辑和少数评论员为每个问题撰写了大部分副本，尽管他们偶尔会招募领先的政治家、学者、思想家、作家和艺术家，这些人要么在通信专栏中提交论文，要么就问题进行辩论。直到 1922 年，领导人和大多数专栏都是匿名的；从 1920 年代中期开始，签名专栏显示本世纪一些最重要的人物为该报做出了贡献：伊夫林·沃、约翰·贝杰曼、让·保罗·萨特、TS 艾略特以及其他战争期间的人；金斯利·艾米斯、约翰·韦恩和肯尼斯·泰南在 1950 年代和 1960 年代。从 1970 年代开始，[第 150 页结束] Butterfield 列出了所有这些；事实上，他的贡献者名单是本书的一个重要贡献。

由于种种原因，1953 年《旁观者》从周报转变为周刊。巴特菲尔德详细描述了修订后的结构提供的新机会。他还调查了 20 和 21 世纪的各种所有者、编辑的旋转木马，以及报纸政治从有点自由和独立到坚定的保守党的缓慢演变，并在 2020 年关闭了他的帐户。向右倾斜是在过去的几十年中最为明显，因为该杂志和保守党领导层保持着某种程度的乱伦关系，最终以前编辑鲍里斯约翰逊登上唐宁街十号而告终。

因为它避免了学术研究的大部分设备，巴特菲尔德的书有时令人讨厌地不完整。他引用了他的大部分资料来源，据我所知，尾注是准确的。但是他没有包括参考书目，而且他的索引非常不完整。因此，在寻找有关引用的信息时，例如，罗伯特·特纳 (Robert Tener) 或玛丽莎·德莫尔 (Marysa Demoor)，人们被迫通读原始引文的 1,200 个尾注，因为参考书目（这将...