The authors of the two preceding articles are sensible and fair-minded,—rare enough qualities in the case of authors who air their grievances in public. With E. L. B., indeed, the editor of Lippincott's can have no dispute. E. L. B. expressly reminds us that it is other editors he is alluding to: the things he complains of could never have occurred in the Lippincott sanctum, and the editor of that periodical can only hold up his hands in horror and express his sympathy, with just so much vicarious shame as may arise from the consciousness that it is at the hands of his own brethren—of men of his own calling—that this helpless victim has suffered. But with the other writer, wise and temperate as he is in the main, the editor may exchange a word or two, and take this opportunity, also, of answering many other complainers who are neither wise nor temperate. And first as to that question of literary log-rolling which has of late been harped upon so much. "The Author of " acknowledges that editors are not responsible for this evil, though they may take an improper advantage of it. But does the evil exist? It is true, of course, that many critics allow their friendships to warp their judgment. It is true, also, that many of them, and these are the ones whose judgments are most likely to have weight with the public, guard so carefully against favoritism that in their anxiety to keep straight they may be warped on the other side, they may err in over-severity. But it is untrue that either the favorable or the unfavorable notices have any serious influence upon the sale of a book, or in raising the market-value of an author's reputation. Any publisher of experience will bear witness to this. Year after year books that have nothing to commend them to the public save the good opinions of the critics fall dead from the press, year after year books that are assailed by the critics but liked by the public run into countless editions. The only commercial use of a criticism is that it is one more means of calling public attention to the fact that such and such a book is in existence. If the public like the book they will buy it; if they don't they will let it alone.
But are editors subject to partiality? That is a more important question; for, though critical partiality can do no harm, editorial partiality can do a great deal, by depriving younger and unknown men of one of their most important channels for reaching the public. The question cannot be answered by a simple yes or no; but an appeal to circumstantial evidence may go far towards settling it. The duty of an editor is simply that of a caterer. He provides the public with the food that it craves, only ascertaining that what it craves is food and not poison. Now, his success or failure in this duty is a simple matter of mathematics. It may be decided by an appeal to the publisher's ledger. It may be decided by a glance at any newsdealer's stand on publication-day. A magazine which is the mere organ of a mutual admiration society, or run in the interest of a local clique, would not sell outside of the radius of that admiration society, that local clique. Another proof may be cited. New York is said to be the centre of literary log-rolling. In one of the great monthlies published in that city there recently appeared an article on the new writers of the South. The mere fact of the publication of this article in New York seems sufficient proof that outside talent is recognized in that hot-bed of log-rolling. But this is not the only bit of evidence to be deduced from the article. Of the score or so of writers mentioned therein, hardly one was known to the public five years ago. How, then, did they win their spurs? Almost without exception, in the magazines,—in Lippincott's, in Harper's, in the Century, in the Atlantic. They made no concerted movement to capture these journals; they are too widely scattered over
