al by those who have
referred directly or indirectly to the pleasure of reading,
and I have ventured to include some, which though less
frequently mentioned, are especial favourites of my own. I
have abstained for obvious reasons from mentioning works by
living authors.' ('Self Help,' however, is admitted into Sir
John's revised list), 'though from many of them, Tennyson,
Ruskin, and others, I have myself derived the keenest
enjoyment; and have omitted works of Science, with one or
two exceptions, because the subject is so progressive. I
feel that the attempt is over bold, and must beg for
indulgence; but indeed one object I have had in view is to
stimulate others, more competent far than I am, to give us
the advantage of their opinions. If we had such lists drawn
up by a few good guides, they would be most useful.'

The challenge thus thrown down was quickly taken up by the Editor of the
'Pall Mall Gazette,' who forthwith sent out a Circular to certain
eminent men of the day, inviting them 'to jot down such a list--not
necessarily containing a hundred volumes--as would help the present
generation to choose their reading more wisely.' Whether the majority of
the 'guides' thus appealed to have responded to the call, we are not
informed; the replies of several have been published; and our thanks are
due to those who have been instrumental in opening up a discussion of
great variety and universal interest; though we must confess to some
regret that the initiative was not given in a different form. Why the
number should be fixed at one hundred; why works of Science should be
excluded; why Biography and Travels should enjoy so meagre a
representation on Sir John Lubbock's list, are questions to which no
satisfactory answer has been given.

Who is it, we would ask in the first place, for whom this list is
primarily intended? Not the man whose love of books is firmly
established, for he will have chosen for himself his own walk among the
innumerable highways and byepaths of literature; nor he whose tastes are
just forming, for the field is too wide, and he would hardly prefer the
Analects of Confucius, the Shahnameh, and the Sheking, to 'Marco's
Polo's Travels,' Lockhart's 'Life of Scott,' and 'AEsop's Fables.' No
list, however, that could be drawn up would escape criticism, and our
desire is not so much to suggest in what manner the present list might
be