ABSTRACT
An adaptation necessarily validates the work which it adapts, confirming that the original has enough of interest in it for it to be worth reworking. Shakespeare's adaptations of the histories of the Plantagenet kings continue problematically to contend with more factual but less dramatic versions. John Dryden and William D'Avenant's popular 1667 revision of The Tempest considerably altered the text, adding numerous parallel characters to the cast and reinflecting Caliban's rebellion specifically to mock anti-monarchical modes of government. Reviewers also inhibited or damaged the reputations of many of the canonical Romantics, in the most extreme cases remediating their works as foolish radical polemic or nonsense. The Edinburgh Review, then, emerged in 1802 into a literary climate in which periodical writing was regularly portrayed as being politically and socially suspect. One of the Edinburgh's key innovations was its paying focused attention to a relatively small selection of works, rather than attempting comprehensive coverage.
