quite unsuitable for another. It is also very
doubtful whether a conscientious passage through a "cut-and-dried" list of
books will feed the mind as a more original selection by each reader
himself would do. It is probably best to start the student well on his way
and then leave him to pursue it according to his own tastes. Each book
will help him to another, and consultation with some of the many manuals
of English literature will guide him towards a good choice. This is in
effect what Mr. Bond, Principal Librarian of the British Museum, says in
his reply, to the circular of the editor of the _Pall Mall Gazette_. He
writes "The result of several persons putting down the titles of books
they considered 'best reading' would be an interesting but very imperfect
bibliography of as many sections of literature;" and, again, "The beginner
should be advised to read histories of the literature of his own and
other countries--as Hallam's 'Introduction to the Literature of Europe,'
Joseph Warton's 'History of English Poetry,' Craik's 'History of English
Literature,' Paine's History, and others of the same class. These would
give him a survey of the field, and would quicken his taste for what was
naturally most congenial to him."

There probably is no better course of reading than that which will
naturally occur to one who makes an honest attempt to master our own noble
literature. This is sufficient for the lifetime of most men without
incursions into foreign literature. All cultivated persons will wish to
become acquainted with the masterpieces of other nations, but this
diversion will not be advisable if it takes the reader away from the study
of the masterpieces of his own literature.

Turning to the comments on the _Pall Mall Gazette's_ list, we may note one
or two of the most important criticisms. The Prince of Wales very justly
suggested that Dryden should not be omitted from such a list. Mr.
Chamberlain asked whether the Bible was excluded by accident or design,
and Mr. Irving suggested that the Bible and Shakespeare form together a
very comprehensive library.

Mr. Ruskin's reply is particularly interesting, for he adds but little,
contenting himself with the work of destruction. He writes, "Putting my
pen lightly through the needless--and blottesquely through the rubbish and
poison of Sir John's list--I leave enough for a life's liberal
reading--and choice for any true worker's loyal reading. I have added one
quite vit