192
��A REVIEWER REVIEWED.
��that makes him ridiculous even to those favorable to vices. An honest reviewer makes mention of the article in which he finds sentiments that conflict with his own as a whole. He throws no mud at its author, and seeks no quarrel. He does not guess at grievances or hy- pothicate .motives. He is exceedingly careful to understand the author's crea- tion that he would desert, to commend whatever is commendable as well as to condem whatever seems to him wrong in theory and spirit. Not so with this new school reviewer. He brushes aside all these considerations and pro- ceeds with the "cut direct." We com- plain, therefore, of ungenerous treat- ment, and insist that we have been, placed in a wrong light. And why? For the simple reason that what we said about lawyers was very meager, and, on the whole, quite complimenta- ry. Taken in connection with other matter in the article, its spirit need not be misunderstood — the whole being a review of the lesser side of professional men rather than the larger ; of the things to be avoided by those starting out in life, rather than a measure of the measurer of success or failure those far advanced in life have attained. The very text was balanced with exceptions, so that the application was in every readers possibility. The argument, if argument there was, accommodated it- self to a "class" within a profession, and with those who understand the mystery of a mouse-trap there is no oc- casion for misunderstanding. Those, therefore, who are above the pettifogg- er and the cheap demagogue, are not disturbed by what is unquestionably true of men in the law business, and, unlike vain and silly women, are con-
��tent that others should sound their praise or speak their condemnation.
2. No other professional man, aside from the "class" of lawyers mentioned, would attempt to magnify the virtues of a mere politician, on the hypothesis that the article he is grieved about assails them, when in truth and in fact every word he quotes (as he must know) is set down against another class — the gambler and sporting man. In this particular his review ceases and bitter irony possesses him. He is terribly out of joint with the times, and withal severe on the author. "The 'professor of politics' needs no special notice in New Hampshire. He is an ever pres- ent individual, and what he don't know — unless he is mightily mistaken, and he never will admit as much — no mag- azine writer can tell." Only this and nothing more is said about politicians, and hence my learned and discourte- ous reviewer, who quoted me as saying all manner of evil against them, must stand convicted of perverting the facts to make out a case — not an uncommon occurrence with cheap lawyers. My conclusion is that he should summons for the spirit of his "saintly teacher," and request to be taught that the first, last, and only qualification of a reviewer is honesty. After he has learned this lesson he should be told by some "bili- ous magazine scribbler, who has been righteously whipped in a law-suit," that his argument — it is not a review — re- putes itself; that no better evidence of the statement that lawyers are "not burdened so heavily with knowledge as by cheek" is needed among ordinary people than the exhibition he makes of himself as a would-be reviewer.
�� �
