drama a further degree towards the level of 'The Penny Dreadful.' I am, your obedient servant, A Disinterested Observer."

When the defendants appeared at Guildhall, whither Mr. Irving summoned them to answer a charge of publishing a "scandalous and defamatory libel," they made a humble and complete apology, which, as Mr. Irving's character had been satisfactorily vindicated by the proceedings, was accepted, and the matter there ended. Mr. Irving was loudly cheered on his arrival at and departure from the court, the public exhibiting in the most marked way their sympathy with him under the outrageous and altogether unwarrantable attack. The writer of this rude, railing criticism, was a young and inexperienced journalist. He has since made some mark in the lighter walks of literature, and probably no one regrets so much as himself the misadventurous dash into which he was betrayed by the temptation to indulge in denunciation of the tremendous type.

Artistic circles were much interested, towards the close of the year 1878, in a civil action brought by Mr. Whistler against the eminent art-critic Mr. Ruskin. Mr. Whistler had exhibited some of his productions, which he called "Nocturnes"

and "Arrangements," at the Grosvenor Gallery, and their slightness of workmanship and want of anything like finish exasperated Mr. Ruskin into a very trenchant attack, on the new school in general and Mr. Whistler in particular, in the pages of "Fors Clavigera." The passage which Mr. Whistler deemed to be libellous and exceeding the limits of fair criticism was as follows:"For Mr. Whistler's own sake, no less than for the protection of the purchaser, Sir Coutts Lindsay ought not to have admitted works into the gallery in which the ill-educated conceit of the artist so nearly approached the aspect of wilful imposture. I have seen and heard much of Cockney impudence before now, but never expected to hear a coxcomb ask two hundred guineas for flinging a pot of paint in the public's face." The high authority of the writer gave to this severe condemnation a special importance, and very likely the sale of Mr. Whistler's "Nocturnes" and "Arrangements" was interfered with in consequence. Mr. Ruskin's defence was that the words were a fair and bonâ fide criticism upon pictures exhibited to the public view. A good deal of the evidence turned upon the technical merits of Mr. Whistler's work, and eminent experts were called

on both sides to give their opinion. The plaintiff explained what he meant to convey, and admitted that he often "knocked off" these pictures, for which he asked two hundred guineas, in a couple of days. Mr. Rossetti said he appreciated the meaning of the works, and thought some of them very artistic, and the productions of a conscientious artist. Mr. Albert Moore claimed for them that they possessed originality and were not put at too high a price. On the other hand, Mr. Burne Jones, Mr. Frith, R.A., and Mr. Tom Taylor spoke slightingly of Mr. Whistler's work. The first-named said that complete finish was the standard of painting; that these works were simply beginnings; and that the artist had evaded the difficulties of painting by not carrying his pictures far enough. Both Mr. Frith and Mr. Taylor spoke of them as clever arrangements in colour, but little more than a step in advance of delicately toned wall-papers. Mr. Ruskin's own theory, as set forth by his counsel, was that no piece of work should leave the artist's hands which by study or patience can be improved. His criticism was honest and sincere; and in using the term "coxcomb," he applied it to Mr. Whistler as an artist, not as a man. In summing up, Baron Huddlestone said it was "of

the last importance that a critic should have full latitude to express the judgments he honestly formed, and for that purpose there was no reason why he should not use ridicule as a weapon; but a critic must confine himself to criticism, and not make it the veil for personal censure, nor allow himself to run into reckless and unfair attacks merely from the love of exercising his power of denunciation." The jury appear to have thought that the criticism amounted, technically, to a libel, but that Mr. Ruskin was as nearly justified as possible in expressing himself as he did. At any rate, that is the only construction of which a verdict for the plaintiff with a farthing damages seems to be capable.

Mr. Whistler followed up the matter in an amusing pamphlet on "Art and Art Critics," to which reference has been made in a previous chapter, and in which, in his own peculiarly trenchant style, he argued that art-critics ought to have no existence at all.

CHAPTER VI.

THE CAUSES OF BAD CRITICISM.

T is impossible to deny that bad criticism exists-that it is sometimes shallow,

occasionally prejudiced, often hasty and ill-considered. Our literary and art-judges are not always competent men, or honest men, or even painstaking men. Ignorance, carelessness, and sometimes malice, are to be met with in the judgments which they throw off with flippant ease. While the great majority of professional critics are conscientious men, well informed on the subjects of which they treat, and animated by an honest desire to do justice, there is a small minority who not only bring discredit upon their calling, but by their faulty decisions mislead the public, and applaud what ought to be ridiculed, or censure that which is worthy of praise. Even conscientious criticism is not always accurate. A man may be very anxious to do what is right