New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1905-10-22

The Editor of "Longman's Magazine" fn an
nouncing the discontnuance of that periodical,
patheticalIy observes that in the competition for
the patronage of the si1penny public, "the mere
endeaVor to keep up high literary standard Is
nowadays not sufficient" He does not care to
adopt any of the popular expedients, and 80
bids farewell to his contributors and subscrfb-
ers. Every one is sympathizing with Mr.. Long
man, and most of those who praise him for
what he has done in making his magazine at
tractfve to fastidious readers find something to
say in reprobation of those Developments in pc
riodical literature" which have driven him
from the field. The comment of the Saturday
Review" Is suggestive. Iongman's Maya
zine and others before Il, have ceased" It says
because there are too many readers In the
world, too many educated people Unfortunate
ly, these readers are not educated up to the
standard of such publications." It is difficult
not to feel sometimes that there Is, indeed, too
much education abroad, and certainly there are
too many books and magazines. An extraordi-
nary abundance of good work is done in both
directions, but the quantity of bad work is enor-
nous, and even intelligent readers occasionally
find themselves at a loss amid the tons of print
ed matter put before them. The unintelligent
readers are merely swamped, and SO in the
great turbid stream of literature that rolls on
direct hostility deliberate Indifference, but
because in the roar of the flood many worthy
voice is bound to go unheard-
An old question is brought up IN '-Ihe Acad-
envy" in this wise: How far may an author go
in putting himself and his works? The self-re-
speeding British author can have but one an
sWer to such a question, and that is, No way at
all The French man OF letters, showing surely
in this the wonderful 'horSeSense' of his nation,
goes about the matter in perfectly simple and
unashamed way" Then follows note on the
way they do the thing in Paris It IS amusing,
but not so funny the assumption about the
attitude of 1.-The self-respecting British author"
That individual and, we may add, his Ameri-
brother, frequently shows himself to be a
past master Of the art Of self-puffery. he is
wont to talk, with a languid air, as though he
were helpless in the pomp and circumstance of
his fame about the intrusive character of the
press and the indiscretion Of his publisher and
his friends But who, we would like to know,
goes and sits before the camera and then scat
tiers broadcast the resultant image of fatuous
c0nceit? Who is 1t that supplies the world with
intimate revelations Of an authors home life
his social habits and what he is pleased to call
his professional methods? Who is 1t who con-
trives to get into print the little vapid incidents
connected with the composition of his precious
works, as though they somehow lent the latter
9 romantic interest? We might go on asking
similar questions but abhorring cruelty we
forbear. But must add that the last touch
IS given 10 the absurdity of those who pretend
that they do not puff themselves, when they
prefix to one OF their superfluous bits of per-
sonala the solemn assertion that they wish to