the more influential journals. They lack the moral courage, however favourably they may, in their consciences, think of the works of a particular author, to adventure a word on his behalf, if the reviewers in some of the leviathan journals have fallen foul of himself or his works. This is a painful fact; it is one which is very degrading to human nature; but all who are conversant with the literary criticism of the day know that it is a fact. Envy at the success of particular authors, without any intelligible motive for that envy, Joseph found to be, in a great many cases, the cause of the savage ferocity with which many popular writers were assailed. Where the critic has himself attempted success, but failed, in the same walk of literature, one could comprehend the feeling which would dictate a coarse and violent tirade against the productions of the triumphant author; but where an author has not, in any way, come in collision with his reviewer, the unqualified censure which the latter heaps on

the name and works of the author, is not so easily accounted for. In many instances the hostile criticism was seen by Joseph to have had no other motive than personal dislike to the writer. Our current criticism is very deeply tainted with this unworthy feeling. If an author happen to incur the personal displeasure of a reviewer, the latter rarely makes a distinction between his works and himself; but, by means of his works, indulges in his vindictive feelings towards himself. There were other authors, again, whom Joseph found to be habitually attacked by certain reviewers for no other reason than that the latter, being on terms of personal intimacy with the former, conceived that they were slighted in not being asked to dinner on particular occasions, when they, fancied they ought to have been invited. What made the neglect the more unpardonable was that, according to their own notions on the subject, they had a much better claim to such attentions than certain other persons who re

ceived them. None but those who have had

opportunities of observing what takes place behind the curtain in the literary circles of the metropolis, could imagine the extent to which modern criticism is affected by this circum

stance.

But it were an endless task to enumerate the various motives which dictate the hostile criticism to be met with in the periodical literature of the day. Equally various are the motives. which prompt the extravagant praise, amounting to positive puffery, which so many books receive. If Joseph did not meet with instances in which praise was literally purchased with money, just as candidates for the representation of corrupt boroughs purchase the votes of profligate electors, innumerable instances were brought to his knowledge of lavish commendation having been insured by personal attentions on the part of the author to the reviewer. Personal friendship with the critic was found to be the secret why many authors were systemati

cally praised in particular journals, no matter how poor and worthless their productions. With several of the less influential newspapers and magazines, the way to insure extravagant praise was discovered to be, the sending them an advertisement or two of the work itself. The praise of other journals, again, could be procured on still easier terms. They were satisfied if the compliment were paid them, of sending them a copy of the book immediately on its appearance.

But is it to be inferred from all this that, when Joseph first became acquainted with the secrets of metropolitan reviewing, there was no such thing as honest criticism? Far from it. There were several editors whose constant aim it was, after a careful and unbiassed examination of the works submitted to them, to form a just opinion of their merits, and to express that opinion with fairness, and yet with freedom and force. The reviewers in these journals sought to divest their minds of all prejudices and par

tialities, and to speak of the book as impartially as if they had never before heard the name of the author. But the number of such persons, compared with that of the reviewers who were influenced by very different considerations, was very small indeed.

Nor is there any material difference between the state of our current literary criticism, and what it was when Mr. Jenkins first became acquainted with it. The same causes are still in active operation to produce dishonest reviews of books. A really unbiassed honest piece of criticism, if found inseveral of our leading journals that could be named, would be a moral rarity worthy of being rescued from the corrupt mass by which it is surrounded, and handed down to posterity as something which merits preservation. A glance at some of the more prominent reviewers of the day, will serve to give a better idea of the real state of literary criticism than any general observations that might be made on the subject.