FUNCTION OF CRITICISM IN ADVANCEMENT OF SCIENCE. 339 
classes of critics to whom no quarter should he shown, namely, 
the “ omniscient critic ” and the “ professional critic,” the man 
who knows all about all subjects, and the man who knowing 
little, yet criticises all things in heaven and earth. The for¬ 
mer, that is the all-knowing critic, may really know some 
subject very well, but has conceived that this is guaranty that 
he may express equalty positive views in many other fields 
of learning; the latter, the regular critic of all subjects, is 
usually equipped with sarcasm, innuendo, and a large phrase¬ 
ology. How often it has happened that men of power in one 
field of work have not modestly confined their criticism to 
that particular department of work. How common a thing 
it is for a man who has a reputation in some direction to be¬ 
come a sort of general authority and have all sorts of essays, 
papers, and treatises referred to him for his opinion. Now we 
all know very well that this sort of thing is practically impos¬ 
sible in the advancing specialization of science. The ramifi¬ 
cations are too minute and too subtle for any one man even to 
keep posted on the bare facts in many directions. Hence this 
class of critics must necessarily go. The journals and maga¬ 
zines requiring the monthly quota of review material have 
been largely at fault in sustaining this class of criticism, but 
they ought to adopt the one obvious method of meeting the 
difficulty, namely, by sending for review the new paper to 
the best authority known, and then accept for publication 
his comments over his own signature. Let us do away with 
this anonymous kind of criticism. The best man writes sym¬ 
pathetically, he expresses valuable opinions, and generally 
courtesy and gentleness will mark his work. That is the 
kind of review which authors welcome, and it does not exas¬ 
perate, nor does it discourage further endeavor. The harsh 
and destructive criticism is as seldom needed as a whip for 
a willing child ; for surely, after a man has for years sought 
earnestly and painfully to secure a more correct knowledge 
of his subject, can anything be more distressing and unjust 
than to see his work caricaturized by a critic who plainly does 
not understand it—by one, for instance, who selects the wrong 
