30 
MALLERY. 
mentaries there was one false and two doubtful statements 
of the law of England. Yet such was his perspicuous style 
and fascinating treatment of the English corpus juris, which 
before his authorship was hut a pile of dry bones, that his 
vitalizing presentation was at once accepted and has re¬ 
mained the unapproached text-book for subsequent genera¬ 
tions of lawyers. 
One of our best and most profound writers says that 
he never reads a book twice, but from a single perusal gets 
all he wants, preserves sufficient notes, and then closes the 
volume forever. If he is right it is the fault of the book, 
which may be useful only as providing more or less informa¬ 
tion in items, but if the work is good—a book to read and not 
to read about—the contents are like sound teeth, which are 
more valuable when left in the mouth than when extracted. 
A great book should he read often if only for the pleasure it 
gives. Innocent pleasures are not so many that we can 
afford to throw one away. How can a man gaze on one 
gorgeous sunset as a mere phenomenon and be satisfied 
never to see another? Or how can he travel to the shore of 
the ocean, verify the statement that there is an ocean, make 
a note thereof, and close his eyes ? But wholly apart from 
pleasure, there is new substantial gain on each reading of a 
masterpiece. To dismiss it summarily may imply that you 
consider yourself at least the author’s equal, if not his supe% 
rior. The old maxim—“ Dread the man of one book ”—the 
book being supposed to be a great work—means that its 
frequent reader has become imbued with its spirit as well 
as its lore. It would be well to say of many books as Avi¬ 
cenna did of Galen’s works—“Sexies legi et iterum vellem 
legere,” and it would be a better employment of time than 
to be a cormorant of professed novelty. 
But if a book is to be read more than once, it must be 
written more than once. Modern direct inspiration from a 
foreign source is not a safe reliance. The communications 
through spiritualistic mediums do not excel in grammar or 
intelligence. What passes for genius is in fact very hard 
labor. Even a work of imagination which is said to have 
