to obtain as their critics men of known and publicly recognised authority. They are bound, to a greater or less extent, to depend on the assistance of those writers who, though sufficiently well-informed for all ordinary purposes, have not had the good fortune to win for themselves a noteworthy and trusted individuality. Nothing would be gained by these comparatively unknown critics putting their names to their judgments, while the fact of their doing so would in many cases provoke a ready sneer at what would be called their impertinence.

The fact that the anonymous system does invest with the nimbus of importance the utterances of a fallible individual, is an argument for the exercise of great care in the selection of its critics by a public journal, but it is hardly an argument for the supersession of the system. It is sometimes said that the adoption of signed criticisms would compel the employment of men of known authority, competence, and impartiality. The probability is, that it would make very little practical difference in the quality of the critics employed, except perhaps in the case of those obscure journals-if any such there be-which now find it economical to combine junior report

ing with musical criticism, and to utilise the spare time of their intelligent compositors in the reviewing of books. All the higher class reviews and newspapers exhibit a laudable anxiety to place their critical departments in competent hands, and it is difficult to see that they could do much more, even if it were the fashion for critics to append their names to their articles. It does not follow that because a man is unknown to fame, he is therefore disqualified for the position of a critic. Some of the ablest criticisms that have ever appeared have been written by men whose names were entirely unknown outside the office of the publication in which their articles were printed. If any one has a ground of complaint it is they, inasmuch as the journal, in its collective and impersonal character, gets all the credit of their individual work. One of the strongest arguments, indeed, in favour of signed criticisms, is that individual merit would no longer be merged, as it is now, in what has been called the "wegotism" of the press. It no doubt suits the pockets of proprietors to keep up this impersonal character, inasmuch as the individual writer is unable to obtain a direct hold upon the public, whereby his commercial value would be

enhanced.

The English system of journalism involves self-effacement on the part of those who do the actual work, but although this is a hardship, and in many cases an injustice to those concerned, it possesses the counter-balancing advantage of lending a dignity and a loftiness to the function of journalism, which might be gravely imperilled by the adoption of any other plan.

The late Lord Lytton discussed this subject some years ago in "England and the English," and the conclusion at which he arrived was adverse to anonymous criticism. He wound up a lengthy argument very pungently by saying, "There are only two classes of men to whom the anonymous is really desirable: the perfidious gentleman who fears to be cut by the friends he injures, and the lying blackguard who dreads to be horsewhipped by the man he maligns." As has been already said, the conditions of journalism have changed very much since this was written. The "lying blackguard" no longer finds a vehicle for his abuse, save in the very scum of the press, where it carries no weight and does no injury. To the honest and capable critic it matters very little whether his productions be signed or not;

he certainly has no particular motive for screening himself behind the shield of anonymity; nor, on the other hand, has he any particular wish to thrust himself before the public in the selfassumed character of a judicial authority.

It is, unfortunately, too true that advantage has sometimes been taken of the shelter thus afforded to indulge in spiteful and malevolent attacks. It is true, too, that the system may here and there give some encouragement to the delivery of slapdash judgments, through the critic being free from any sense of personal responsibility. But these evils are largely counterbalanced by the desire of the conductors of the press to gain a reputation for fairness and honesty. Nothing does a critical paper more harm than to have its criticisms impugned by thoughtful and informed readers, and there is consequently a constant endeavour to keep its articles free from the least suspicion of partiality or carelessness.

CHAPTER IX.

THE QUALIFICATIONS OF A CRITIC.

ND what are the qualifications of a true critic? What is it he has to learn, and

to put in practice? What principles are to guide him, what knowledge is he to possess, what rules has he to keep in view? Well, there is nothing new to be laid down under these heads. To quote Mr. Leslie Stephen, one would scarcely ask for originality in such a case, any more than one would desire a writer on ethics to invent new laws of morality. "We require neither Pope nor Aristotle to tell us that critics should not be pert nor prejudiced; that fancy should be regulated by judgment; that apparent facility comes by long training; that the sound should have some conformity to the meaning; that genius is often envied; and that dulness is frequently beyond the reach of reproof." Still, in the practical work of