TO OUR CORRESPOIN DENTS. 
35 
ests than detrimental to the art we in common profess and prac¬ 
tise. We are well aware, in forming such a resolution, that 
there are some potent and influential objections to be urged 
against us; but, let it be remembered on the other hand, that 
the present system of anonymous writing is also one far from 
being unexceptionable : indeed, we have our doubts, abused as 
the latter has been of late, whether it has done most good or 
most harm to the cause it professed to espouse and the interests 
it stood pledged to protect. There are comparatively in society 
but few individuals who can be said to be even tolerably fitted 
for the duties of criticism and literary dominion • and few 
indeed even out of those who have sufficient discernment, rec¬ 
titude, and independence, to mete out praise and censure with 
equal impartiality and justice. Criticism may be said to be to 
the mind what the actual cautery is to the body: judiciously 
applied, a most potent and efficient agent; injudiciously 
handled, a cruel and destructive instrument; and, to pursue 
the metaphor, both are likely to be employed with most judg¬ 
ment when the operator finds himself, nominally at least, if not 
morally, responsible for his undertakings. Were not it the 
custom in this country for critiques to be anonymous, the press 
would not be infested with that race of unprincipled scribblers 
with which it teems at the present day—in medicine as well as 
in politics: such as were really capable would then appear alone 
in the character of critics; pretenders would hide their di¬ 
minished heads the demon of sarcasm would sink into that 
gulph of infamy into which he would, to serve his own base pur¬ 
poses, hurl all those who might stand in his way. 
We might be induced to pursue this subject further did we 
not imagine that enough has been aleady said to draw the at¬ 
tention of our subscribers to its bearing, and to convince them, 
whether the step turn out to be politic or impolitic as regards 
ourselves, it is one we are prompted to take in consideration of 
the respectability of our journal, and the unanimity of the pro¬ 
fession. 
He who labours in the cause of science, whatever his labour 
may amount to, acts a meritorious part and deserves the ac¬ 
knowledgments of his professional brethren; and ought, in 
justice to himself and satisfaction to them, to annex his name to 
his performance : and he who writes with a view to correct the 
conduct of others or reform abuses, and has not the courage or 
candour to subscribe his signature, is the most likely of all 
other persons at another time to find fault without cause, as¬ 
perse private character, make a stab at reputation, and thus dp 
more harm* by one such lampoon than the amount of good from 
D 2 
