obstacles than stupidity-and these are the very wells they are set to keep pure. interests and prejudices.

Modern publishing-styled with such inTo effect reforms, truth and abstract imitable innocence, "the trade," is pure justice have hitherto been found compre- and glorious by the side of modern critihensively insufficient; nor does the reason cism. And if there are honorable exceplie very deep. But if'once you implicate in- tions, of what avail are they in this swarm terests and palliate prejudices, your victory of gadflies? Did not the plague of flies is assured, for these are things which "come darken the land of Egypt, and are not these home to the business and bosoms of men," writers, though individually beneath con-they are palpable, calculable advantages tenipt, like grains of gunpowder, powerful felt by the dullest; while truth and justice in a mass? are neither readily conceived nor universally recognized. When backed by interest and prejudice, it is so sweet to labor in the cause of justice, and the banner of truth makes such a triumphant rustle over the orator's head, fanning him to victory! With these prosaic convictions we are reformers-with these views of obstacles we intend attacking an abuse. Our course is therefore plain before us. We have first to prove it to be an abuse, then to prove it susceptible of reform, and finally to prove that the interests of the world are implicated, and their prejudices baseless. We are not critical Quixottes, and have not therefore the sanguine madness of supposing a reform will follow our exposure; but every energetic voice raised is of value, if it carry conviction to half a dozen, and in time

one

may reasonably hope the cause tri

umphant.

With so perfect an unanimity of execration as exists on the subject of criticism, it would be tedious to enter into the question as to whether it be an abuse or not; all we have to inquire is, whether this evil be inevitable; and if not, how can it be reformed? We are firmly convinced that it is not inevitable, and that it could be very materially reformed by the abolition and interdiction of the present infamous use of the anonymous.

The anonymous nature of all present criticism we regard, with many other writers, as the parent evil, and although the subject is not new, yet we believe it has never been systematically discussed, and we shall therefore make an opening for such a discussion, by examining the arguments usually brought forward in defence of the anonymous, which may be thus summed up:

I. Abolish the anonymous, and you destroy the influence of a criticism, by making it the opinion of an individual, and not that of an organ. It is the 'Times' that is quoted, and not the writer.

II. You also abolish just severity. The critic will feel his judgment hampered by publicity. No one will dare to blame.

III. You open the door to gross adulation in the place of appreciation; inducing men to praise influential authors, when the praiser can come forward in his own person.

Formally to demonstrate the working abuses of criticism, in its present state, would be too liberal an expenditure of resistless logic. We need only point to criticism itself, and say, "Behold!" and its imbecility and insincerity will, as the French say, leap up at your eyes. There is fortunately no difference of opinion on this point -all men, journalists and critics included, are agreed in condemning it as rife with glaring ignorance and dogmatic incapacity -and the few honorable exceptions (which t would be invidious to specify, and which, once for all, we beg to acknowledge and to exempt from our remarks) only make the general evil more apparent. No one doubts that it is distorted by shameless cupidity, unblushing subserviency, and arrogant insolence-no one doubts that its influence on literature, and on the public taste, is Such are the most plausible defences we pernicious-in short, no one doubts that it have been able to collect in the course of s a great and serious evil; the only pallia- an inquiry of some years, and they have intion offered is, that it is an inevitable one. variably been given by critics themselves, Prove the abuses of criticism? They are so that they may be taken as excuses for here-there-everywhere; they rot and individual conduct, as well as general argustink around you; they are on the highways ment. All the rabid nonsense has been set and byeways, infesting every corner; they aside, and only those selected which have a taint every breath drawn in by the great "show of reason." We assure the reader system of modern publishing, and poison that, so far from suppressing any real or

IV. There is conceit in substituting the individual name and opinion for the vague and mysterious "we." Egotism is invariably disgusting.

V. Writers would not accept the perils of criticism if they were not protected.

plausible argument, we have sought on all sides for the best, in order that our present examination might be satisfactory;-and the above summary may be taken as expressing the best arguments hitherto commonly held: any stronger ones concocted by the solitary thinker we of course ignore, but shall be happy to see them brought forward and considered.

On a first glance the above objections to the abolition of the anonymous are both serious and practical; on nearer inspection they turn out to be somewhat weak, and on attentive consideration they will be found either to be built on gross misconception of human nature and of literature, or on illconcealed cowardice. Twist them how you will, sophisticate with "forty-parson power," and the glaring fact still remains that these defences are grounded on ignorance or cowardice. We will argue them separately, and endeavor to lay bare the rottenness at their roots.

I. The influence of a criticism, it is said, would be destroyed by making it an individual opinion. The verdict delivered by a John Smith (an ideal critic, of course, is meant here) would be disregarded, whereas the verdict of the Times commands assent and the "sale of copies." The writer, while unknown, may be supposed to be some illustrious thinker employed for the occasion; but if once you avow the authorship, all such supposition is at an end.

confessed that the opinion which would have no weight in itself, must borrow the weight of the journal!

For in truth the opinion is that of an individual after all. On party matters it is the individual expression of party feeling, but in purely literary matters (to which we confine ourselves) the opinion is simply individual. It may be said that the organ, the Times,' is a party paper, and therefore the editor chooses his critic as one who will support that party, and consequently the opinion is a collective one after all. True in one sense-but if the writer affixed his name (as if Twining labelled his sloe-leaves) this would still be the case (because the editor would not choose one who thought differently from him), and yet no deception would be practised. The public would be aware that it was in some sort a collective opinion, but the stupidity would be the writer's ownand no unfair influence would throw a nimbus round his folly, making it an oracle. There can be no commercial objection to Mr. Twining selling sloe-leaves, should there be a demand for them-but there are very weighty objections, moral and commercial, against his selling them as "highflavored souchong."

But mark another consequence of the "we!" By reason of the equivocal parentage of articles, success is beneficial to the journal, while blunders fail to injure This is a fact, and we at once accept it it. A criticism is either individual or col-but what does it indicate? Simply this: lective, according to circumstances. If the -that the journal chooses to avail itself writer goes on blundering and blundering, of a deceptive, dishonest influence, purely filling the enormous cavity of his deficienextrinsic, derived from its wealth and rep-cies with "three-piled hyperbole," or writutation, and not from the intrinsic merit of ing absurdities in slovenly language, with the article! This is deliberate dishonesty. an ostentation of ignorance "only critics If you go to Messrs. Twining and Co. for your tea, you go there confident that from their reputation you will be sure not to get sloe-leaves, and you purchase without hesitation; now if they chose to take advantage of their reputation, and sell their unsuspecting customers sloe-leaves, no one would hesitate to pronounce it dishonest. Yet this is of precisely the same nature as the argument which would palm off a bad article under an influential reputation-which refuses to let John Smith be valued at his own merit, and insists on his being valued at the merit of the Times.' It is coolly

The reader will of course understand that we select the Times' merely because the most influen

tial, and therefore the fittest type; but we beg, once

for all, to observe, that this article being one of principles, not persons, we have throughout rigidly abstained from personalities of every sort.

know," the integrity and reputation of the journal remains intact. People say, "What an ass that writer must be," but no one discontinues the journal, and no one discontinues looking for its opinion on that very subject so illustrious for stupidity. This is the effect of impersonality. It is the opinion of the Times;' and as there are many writers employed on that journal, and no one knows whether the writer of today will be the writer of to-morrow, confidence is never shaken by failure. On the other hand, the mighty and mysterious "we" throws a falsifying nimbus over mediocrity, and carries with it the force of a matured collective judgment.

That such a system is iniquitous few sophists would deny. Observe also, that while it generates the most extreme carelessness of the public as to the writer,

directing all the attention to the journal, to our notions, yet fortunately we have it fosters and disseminates mediocrity and bad taste, represses healthy criticism, and cloaks skulking cowardice with immunity. Merit can stand on its own broad basis, and needs borrow no force from the "we," but we have yet to learn that dullness is so excellent a thing that it must needs be patronized, and that incompetence should go forth with the seal of approval.

facts to point to as confirmatory. In France and Germany criticism is open, and accordingly we find in those countries extensive reputations grounded almost exclusively on criticism, viz., Nisard, Sainte Beuve, Gustave Planche, Philarète Chasles, Jules Janin, Théophile Gautier, &c., in France, and such men as Menzel and Rellstab in Germany. Without asserting the excellence of all But admitting as we do, while deploring these writers, we must admit that they are it, that the impersonality of criticism in- men of ability, and their reputations are uncreases its influence, we contend that on questionable-and European. Much as our a proper basis the personality of criticism literature is studied abroad, we may assert would be still more influential, and would with safety that no critic's name has crossed be unalloyed by dishonesty, intentional or the frontier--simply because no critic's otherwise surely no small consideration name is known. If therefore only as an in a Christian country! That is to say, if encouragement to excellence, the anonyinstead of uneducated nobodies, self-con- mous ought to be abolished. stituted judges, a set of competent critics There is one remaining argument on this were engaged-men who had qualified point it may be well to notice. It is said themselves by special previous study-the that editors very often want their own reputation they would speedily earn for opinions expressed, and not the opinions of themselves would far exceed the anony- individual writers, and that the onus of mous influence, because the public would these opinions being shifted from the have the double security of personal res- shoulders of the writer on to those of the ponsibility and personal reputation. To journal, they may be expressed without intake a broad instance, no one doubts that volving his conviction or honesty; which if one of the witty Smiths-the Rev. Syd- could not be done if writers owned their ney, the late James, or the present Horace articles. -were to affix his signature to a favorable opinion of some witty work, the public confidence and curiosity would be more stimulated than by the same opinion unavowed in any of the reviews. The opinion of John Mill on a philosophical treatise would be worth all the anonymous reviews put together. The proof of this is seen by the ostentation with which all such personal criticisms are paraded by the delighted" cues." cues." There is bitter irony in every

authors.

This is intelligible, but sophistical. Critics are not machines-at least they should not be. Besides, the office of criticism is not that of expressing the personal predilections of some "able editor," but that of conscientiously giving deliberate and impartial opinions for the guidance of public taste and correction of an author's errors. An ideal state, not to be realized by editorial

prospectus of a journal or review when it Abolish the anonymous, and competent lays so much stress on the "impartiality" men must be engaged, because the public of the criticisms it will be its object to place would not tolerate avowed mediocrity; and before the world. This impartiality we all moreover, as a critical reputation might know, and although journalists and reviewthen be made, some men of superior abili-ers have manifold excuses of haste and idleties would gladly undertake the task and ness, with a readiness at "making up their execute it conscientiously. This reputa- minds" upon works they have not read, and tion would in turn be a guarantee for their speaking of performances which did not opinions, while the incapacity of the in- take place, still we cannot be made to accompetent would daily become prominent. cept an editorial convenience as an arguThe daily reader of criticisms, signed John ment for the continuance of a moral Smith, would in a fortnight detect his pecu- iniquity. Men defending unjust causes liar bias, prejudices, and standards of com- have faltering consciences and feeble logic; parison, so that, however previously un--thus only can we explain the feebleness known, John Smith would rapidly become of the arguments for the anonymous. famous or infamous in proportion to ability or dishonesty.

This we say must take place, and although we are here taking the "high priori road," and arranging the future according

Having proved No. I. to be iniquitous in its foundation, pernicious in its result, and very effectually to be reformed, let us proceed to II., which says: abolish the anonymous, and you abolish just severity. This

is a case of misconception. It is true that they would be said, owing to the heat of by affixing the name of the writer you personal argument being absent. Perhaps would abolish much, if not all, personality a stronger and apter illustration is to be -all cowardly insult and irrelevant jeering all insinuation of unworthy motivesall enumeration of an author's pimples when his errors are not abundant-and by so doing it would purify the press of its greatest disease. The fear of personal chastisement and the force of public opinion would restrain the licentious pen, the bold scandal, the hasty accusation, or the venal eulogy. But that critical severity or minute faultfinding, even violent reprobation, would also disappear, could only be supposed by those utterly misconceiving one of the most potent springs of human action-self-love.

There would be as much severity, most probably more than at present. It would be often unjust-for who is not so ?-but mostly conscientious and always responsible. Rash blame would be rarer when the blamer might be called upon to substantiate it; but the blame which convictions always bestow on errors would be still more plentiful than it is now; and for this reason:

found in the debates in Parliament. Here men are placed in an analogous position to that of the critic. They have to argue for the public benefit and their own advancement. They are aware that the perception, ridicule, and exposure of errors, and the utterance of important truths, is the duty they owe their country and themselves. We find no want of fault-finding here. Errors are not passed over in friendliness and idleness-absurdities meet with no courteous silence! An honorable member proposes a measure, and in the discussion all the weak points are brought into view, not always in perfect grammar, seldom in adequate perception of the meaning of words, still seldomer with any dialectical accuracy; nevertheless, one way or the other they are dragged forth, and exposed to the fire of sarcasms (not always in good taste or good breeding) and placed in the vice-grip of syllogisms. In this way does what Carlyle calls the "National Palaver" perform its duty. Without holding it up as a model, we may point to it as confirmation of what the severity of criticism would be were it avowed.

The error or absurdity which the irresponsible critic may now in friendliness or idleness pass over, would then impeach his own judgment, and as his reputation would be involved, we may safely leave all to its A writer once told us, with an air of secare. For a man to praise a bad book, or rene knowingness, that he had become a to abuse a good one under the present sys- "brigand in literature, attacking all and tem, is simple enough; he is not convicted sparing none." Whatever we might think of want of taste or judgment; but were he of the profession he had chosen, we could forced to own it, his judgment or his hones- not but admire his frankness; but as all the ty would be periled, and they know little brigands in literature do not thus confidentof authors who suppose them capable of ly carry their colors, we wish at any rate sacrificing their vanities to their partialities. that they were not encouraged by immunity. Friends are not always the most friendly cri- That there will always be brigands and tics their method of showing how they ad- blackguards, ready to plunder or stab at mire your work is indeed mostly to add-mire. random, we admit; but it is one thing to The result may be correctly anticipated admit the existence of an evil and another from what takes place in conversation to protect it, and it is our object to make where religious, moral, and political errors this protection cease. We anticipate no are exposed and pursued with a rancor perfection from the adoption of reform, but quite as fierce as any journalism-where a simply amelioration. We do not hope to man tells you to your face that you are an eradicate vice, but to expose it. When a atheist if you suspect the infallibility of the man is declared an outlaw, his name and bishops, or tells you that you want to plunge person are described-when a man is known the nation in blood if you express a desire as a swindler, prudent people shun his confor more general humanity-and where ab- nection-so would we have the literary surdities and illogicalities are ridiculed and scoundrel shunned and punished by public combated with flushed and eager violence. opinion in proportion to his infamy. If a Now, if such things are said to a man's face man chooses to prostitute his pen for pat-with all the decencies of society, and all ronage-to stifle his honesty in dinners, let the personal risks acting as restraints-will the public know him as such compel him they not be said with equal boldness when to sign his disgrace, and he is welcome to the reviewer is speaking to the world at it. In the present state of things he has large? Obviously; the only difference every temptation to be dishonest, and to be would be the greater courtesy with which honest none.

National.' Madame Sand is not only of the extreme republican party, and therefore a fighter in the same cause as the 'National,' but she is the friend of its remarkable editor, Armand Marrast, and a shareholder of the property. From these circumstances one would anticipate nothing but eulogy; but we find, on the contrary, that one of the most violent attacks on her Compagnon du Tour de France' appeared in its columns, by Louis Reybaud. Can a similar instance be quoted in English criticism?

Men are seldom victims to their virtues -they are seldom honest but by restraint. Restraint, so necessary in all periods of society, becomes daily more urgent as it becomes more material. The true high feeling of morals may be said to be extinct. Lofty virtue now leans with grim gracefulness against a haggard gallows, instead of reposing on great convictions; and in the absence of this internal regulation there is the greater urgency of external restraint, which now assumes two forms, viz., public opinion and law (with a subsidiary prospect Now, although we by no means approve of the gallows)-these make the responsi- of the violence of party feeling and personal bility of actions still a serious matter;-so prejudice which so often disgrace French serious as effectually to keep the mass hon- criticism, yet we may refer to them as est. Yet if some theorist, deploring the proof of our position, that to abolish the aptness of men to crime, were to suggest anonymous is not to disarm severity. We as a reform that all personal responsibility must again repeat that party feelings and should cease at once, and all misdemeanors prejudices, inasmuch as they will always be laid to the charge of "society at large," exist, must always find vent; we do not you would laugh in his face. Yet precisely therefore hope to be rid of them, but simply this doctrine do you maintain for critics. to be enabled to recognise them. If the You allow a man the indulgence of envenomed malice, of careless scandal, of obtuse ignorance, or of wilful defamation, and yet you maintain that all this should be irresponsible. Now, to make men honest is no easy task, but the first step towards it is unquestionably to make them responsible, or if not, then is irresponsibility an anomaly in the moral world worthy of all study.

Bishop of London were to review Lovett's Chartism, all the world would be aware of the opinions and prejudices which must neces sarily influence him, and the public would therefore "allow for the wind;" but if he were to review this without affixing his name, who would know how much to "allow for the wind?" This is the point we wished gained.

We foresee a slight objection it may be as well to anticipate. It may be said that in France the articles are not always signed, or have assumed signatures, and therefore cannot be adduced as fair illustrations. But who does not know that "J. J.” is Jules Janin, that "XXX." is Rolle, that the "Vicomte de Launay" is Madame Emile Girardin, that "Quelqu'un" is Gérard, &c. If any one in France is ignorant of such assumptions he can always learn them, many of them being as notorious as "Boz," "Barry Cornwall," "Father Prout," "The Opium Eater," &c. So that to all intents and purposes criticism is open and acknowledged.

We see, therefore, that the misconception on which has been founded the supposition of the anonymous favoring severity has been a misconception of the springs of human action; and although nothing will entirely extirpate the evils of criticism till the golden age of honesty, the millennium of morals, arrives, yet we think that the abolition of the anonymous would considerably lessen the evils; first, by bringing good criticism into the field; secondly, by preventing a number of easy-tempered men from indulging in the popular sophism of their not being responsible (for are they not responsible to their own souls ?); and thirdly, by rousing their self-love by implicating III. It is said that the door would be their judgments. These would give hon- opened to gross adulation in the place of esty a premium, talent a reward, and medi-appreciation; inducing critics to praise in. ocrity the death-blow. Mistaken as well as mercenary kindness would greatly disappear, and malevolence and ignorance would stand exposed.

To conclude our argument with an illustration, we refer to the state of criticism in France as a proof that the publicity of critics does not disarm their severity-a curious example of which may be noticed in the case of George Sand's reviewers in the

• To prevent misconception it is necessary to state that the National' has a profound admiration for the genius of George Sand-as who has not ?-but that the work in question contains doctrines which that journal opposes, and therefore was it attacked. On a closer inspection, however, a suspicion arises that the reviewer's judgment was somewhat influ enced by George Sand's having exposed, in her preface, a gross plagiarism by the National' from viz., Le Compagnonnage.-Vide Preface to her the work which first gave her the idea of her own novel.