ade entirely upon this principle, which, indeed, is a kind of
literary gambling. They publish a dozen works, we will suppose, of which
six produce an absolute loss; four just cover-their expenses; and the
other two realize a profit. The publisher, especially if he be his own
printer, may find this answer in the end; it may at least just keep him
out of the Bankruptcy Court, and supply his family with bread. But the
system can not be a really advantageous one either to publishers or
authors. To the latter, indeed, it is destruction. No inconsiderable
portion of the books published every year entail a heavy loss on author
or publisher, or on both--and the amount of this loss may be set down,
in most instances, as so much taken from the gross profits of the
literary profession. If Mr. Bungay lose a hundred pounds by the poems of
the Hon. Percy Popjoy, he has a hundred pounds less to give to Mr.
Arthur Pendennis for his novel. Instead of protesting against the
over-caution of publishers, literary men, if they really knew their own
interests, would protest against their want of caution. Authors have a
direct interest in the prosperity of publishers. The misfortune of
authorship is not that publishers make so much money, but that they make
so little. If Paternoster Row were wealthier than it is, there would be
better cheer in Grub-street.

It is very true that publishers, like other men, make mistakes; and that
sometimes a really good and salable work is rejected. Many instances of
this might readily be adduced--instances of works, whose value has been
subsequently proved by extensive popularity, having been rejected by one
or more experienced member of the publishing craft. But their judgment
is on the whole remarkably correct. They determine with surprising
accuracy the market value of the greater number of works that are
offered to them. It is not supposed that in the majority of cases, the
publisher himself decides the question upon the strength of his own
judgment. He has his minister, or ministers of state, to decide these
knotty questions for him. A great deal has been written at different
times, about the baneful influence of this middleman, or "reader"--but
we can see no more justice in the complaint than if it were raised
against the system which places a middleman or minister between the
sovereign and his people. To complain of the incapacity of the publisher
himself, and to object to his obtaining the critical serv