A Budget of Paradoxes, Volume I | Page 9

sought knowledge in the subject they were to handle before they
completed their speculations. I shall further illustrate this at the
conclusion of my list.
Before I begin the list, I give prominence to the following letter,
addressed by me to the Correspondent of October 28, 1865. Some of
my paradoxers attribute to me articles in this or that journal; and others
may think--I know some do think--they know me as the writer of
reviews of some of the very books noticed here. The following remarks
will explain the way in which they may be right, and in which they may

be wrong. {15}
* * * * *
THE EDITORIAL SYSTEM.
"Sir,--I have reason to think that many persons have a very inaccurate
notion of the Editorial System. What I call by this name has grown up
in the last centenary--a word I may use to signify the hundred years
now ending, and to avoid the ambiguity of century. It cannot
conveniently be explained by editors themselves, and edited journals
generally do not like to say much about it. In your paper perhaps, in
which editorial duties differ somewhat from those of ordinary journals,
the common system may be freely spoken of.
"When a reviewed author, as very often happens, writes to the editor of
the reviewing journal to complain of what has been said of him, he
frequently--even more often than not--complains of 'your reviewer.' He
sometimes presumes that 'you' have, 'through inadvertence' in this
instance, 'allowed some incompetent person to lower the character of
your usually accurate pages.' Sometimes he talks of 'your scribe,' and,
in extreme cases, even of 'your hack.' All this shows perfect ignorance
of the journal system, except where it is done under the notion of
letting the editor down easy. But the editor never accepts the mercy.
"All that is in a journal, except what is marked as from a correspondent,
either by the editor himself or by the correspondent's real or fictitious
signature, is published entirely on editorial responsibility, as much as if
the editor had written it himself. The editor, therefore, may claim, and
does claim and exercise, unlimited right of omission, addition, and
alteration. This is so well understood that the editor performs his last
function on the last revise without the 'contributor' knowing what is
done. The word contributor is the proper one; it implies that he
furnishes materials without stating what he furnishes or how much of it
is accepted, or whether he be the only contributor. All this applies both
to political and literary journals. No editor acknowledges {16} the right
of a contributor to withdraw an article, if he should find alterations in
the proof sent to him for correction which would make him wish that

the article should not appear. If the demand for suppression were
made--I say nothing about what might be granted to request--the
answer would be, 'It is not your article, but mine; I have all the
responsibility; if it should contain a libel, I could not give you up, even
at your own desire. You have furnished me with materials, on the
known and common understanding that I was to use them at my
discretion, and you have no right to impede my operations by making
the appearance of the article depend on your approbation of my use of
your materials.'
"There is something to be said for this system, and something against
it--I mean simply on its own merits. But the all-conquering argument in
its favor is, that the only practicable alternative is the modern French
plan of no articles without the signature of the writers. I need not
discuss this plan; there is no collective party in favor of it. Some may
think it is not the only alternative; they have not produced any
intermediate proposal in which any dozen of persons have concurred.
Many will say, Is not all this, though perfectly correct, well known to
be matter of form? Is it not practically the course of events that an
engaged contributor writes the article, and sends it to the editor, who
admits it as written--substantially, at least? And is it not often very well
known, by style and in other ways, who it was wrote the article? This
system is matter of form just as much as loaded pistols are matter of
form so long as the wearer is not assailed; but matter of form takes the
form of matter in the pulling of a trigger, so soon as the need arises.
Editors and contributors who can work together find each other out by
elective affinity, so that the common run of events settles down into
most articles appearing much as they are written. And there are two
safety-valves; that is, when judicious persons come together. In the