But, as a general rule, these volunteer censors plume themselves on discovering defects and not beauties.  When any author is particularly popular and has been long before the public, they have two methods of discoursing upon him in relation to their literary friend.  In the first, they represent him as a model of excellence, and recommend their friend to study him, though without holding out much hope of his ever becoming his rival; in the second, they describe him as ‘worked out,’ and darkly hint that sooner or later [they mean sooner] their friend will be in the same unhappy condition.  These, I need not say, are among the most detestable specimens of their class, and only to be equalled by those excellent literary judges who are always appealing to posterity, which, even if a little temporary success has crowned you to-day, will relegate you to your proper position to-morrow.  If one were weak enough to argue with these gentry, it would be easy to show that popular authors are not ‘worked out,’ but only have the appearance of being so from their taking their work too easily.  Those whose calling it is to depict human nature in fiction are especially subject to this weakness; they do not give themselves the trouble to study new characters, or at first hand, as of old; they sit at home and receive the congratulations of Society without paying due attention to that somewhat changeful lady, and they draw upon their memory, or their imagination, instead of studying from the life.  Otherwise, when they do not give way to that temptation of indolence which arises from competence and success, there is no reason why their reputation should suffer, since, though they may lack the vigour or high spirits of those who would push them from their stools, their experience and knowledge of the world are always on the increase.

As to the argument with regard to posterity which is so popular with the Critic on the Hearth, I am afraid he has no greater respect for the opinion of posterity himself than for that of his possible great-great-granddaughter.  Indeed, he only uses it as being a weapon the blow of which it is impossible to parry, and with the object of being personally offensive.  It is, moreover, noteworthy that his position, which is sometimes taken up by persons of far greater intelligence, is inconsistent with itself.  The praisers of posterity are also always the praisers of the past; it is only the present which is in their eyes contemptible.  Yet to the next generation this present will be their past, and, however valueless may be the verdict of today, how much more so, by the most obvious analogy, will be that of to-morrow.  It is probable, indeed, though it is difficult to believe it, that the Critics on the Hearth of the generation to come will make themselves even more ridiculous than their immediate predecessors.

SHAM ADMIRATION IN LITERATURE.