deplores the spirit of tolerance and charity manifested toward the
mediocre productions of contemporary writers; he attributes the
degradation of criticism to the lack of critical standards and
principles, and indirectly to the neglect of the study of literature at
the English Universities. The plea for an English Academy has been made
at different times and with different ends in view, but under modern
conditions such an institution would hardly solve the problem. Mr.
Collins shows how the intellectual aristocracy of the past has been
superseded by the present omnivorous reading-public afflicted with a
perpetual craving for literary novelty. The inevitable rapidity of
production results in a deluge of poor books which are foisted upon
readers by a "detestable system of mutual puffery." This condition of
affairs naturally offers few opportunities for the development of
critical ideals; but it hardly applies to the incorruptible reviews of
recognized standing. The reasons for the lack of authority in modern
English criticism are more deeply grounded in an inherent objection to
the restraint imposed upon an artist by artificial canons of taste, and
in a well-founded impression that many of the greatest literary
achievements evince a violation of such canons.

It is not to be inferred that criticism is thereby disdained and
disregarded. The critical dicta of a Dryden or a Johnson, a Coleridge or
a Hazlitt, and, more recently, an Arnold or a Pater, are valued and
studied because they emphasize the vital elements essential to the
proper appreciation of a literary product; and, moreover, because such
critics, in transcending the limitations of their kind, establish higher
and juster standards for the criticism of the future. On the other hand,
the great majority of critical utterances must necessarily be ephemeral;
they may exert considerable contemporary influence, but are usually
forgotten long before the works that called them forth. Unless this