derstand that my
general expressions, where slighting or contemptuous, refer to the
ignorant, who teach before they have learned. In every instance, those of
whom I am able to speak with respect, whether as right or wrong, have
sought knowledge in the subject they were to handle before they completed
their speculations. I shall further illustrate this at the conclusion of my
list.

Before I begin the list, I give prominence to the following letter,
addressed by me to the _Correspondent_ of October 28, 1865. Some of my
paradoxers attribute to me articles in this or that journal; and others may
think--I know some do think--they know me as the writer of reviews of some
of the very books noticed here. The following remarks will explain the way
in which they may be right, and in which they may be wrong. {15}

* * * * *

THE EDITORIAL SYSTEM.

"Sir,--I have reason to think that many persons have a very inaccurate
notion of the _Editorial System_. What I call by this name has grown up in
the last _centenary_--a word I may use to signify the hundred years now
ending, and to avoid the ambiguity of _century_. It cannot conveniently be
explained by editors themselves, and _edited_ journals generally do not
like to say much about it. In _your_ paper perhaps, in which editorial
duties differ somewhat from those of ordinary journals, the common system
may be freely spoken of.

"When a reviewed author, as very often happens, writes to the editor of the
reviewing journal to complain of what has been said of him, he
frequently--even more often than not--complains of 'your reviewer.' He
sometimes presumes that 'you' have, 'through inadvertence' in this
instance, 'allowed some incompetent person to lower the character of your
usually accurate pages.' Sometimes he talks of 'your scribe,' and, in
extreme cases, even of 'your hack.' All this shows perfect ignorance of the
journal system, except where it is done under the notion of letting the
editor down easy. But the editor never accepts the mercy.

"All that is in a journal, except what is marked as from a correspondent,
either by the editor himself or by the correspondent's real or fictitious
signature, is published entirely on editorial responsibility, as much as if
the editor had written it himself. The editor, therefore, may claim, and
does claim and exercise, unlimited right of omission, addition, and
alteration. This is so well understood that the