HE claims of criticism to practical utility are not establish If we run our eyes over a list of books about books, of criti cal reviews and commentaries on the published works of remarkable men, which every day seem to grow in bulk, we must at times have asked: "Is it not a mistake thus to block up the way between the reading public and the great books, and to occupy any portion of the small amount of time which the most studious can hardly find sufficient to devote to the reading of the great works themselves?" Even in cases where the abstruseness of the subject or the obscurity of style in the writer might make some commentary acceptable, it may fairly be questioned; whether it be not better for the reader to be forced to make the salutary effort at grasping the meaning of any writer (in himself worth listening to) unaided by paraphrasing in the process of which much of the original author may be lost, while much may be acquired from the transcriber, not always to be considered gain? And as regards the critical review of the works of great men, in which an attempt is made at assigning to each work its position in the general series of similar efforts, of throwing light upon the origin and surrounding causes of its existence and its form, and finally of pointing out what is good and what is bad, what is ephemeral and what is lasting, what ought to be confirmed and prolonged in its existence or refuted and hastened to its descent into oblivion-in one word, the sifting of the literary wheat from the chaff -the utility of even this function of literary criticism may be questioned. The good and true have in themselves the power of vitality and persistency; while the negative character in the bad and the untrue is the weakness at the very heart of such work, and necessarily, from its own nature, leads to annihilation. It may thus be held that time and the general reading public are the surest and fairest judges. And it is further held that no one man in one given period of time can be an adequate substitute for the judgment of the reading public in the course of ages. However many instances may be adduced in support of this doubt, careful consideration will not confirm it in its absolute form. When we come to consider what is meant by "time" and the "general reading public," instances abound in which the verdict referred to them cannot be recognized as unquestionably. just. Time is a very elastic term; and merit has been known to sleep unacknowledged for centuries, until at last it was brought into recognition by the trumpet of quickening truth and justice. We cannot help realizing that centuries are a very long time; and it must make us shudder in our conscience when we face the possibility that there are many works |