And there is yet another consideration. To ignore the charges and criminations brought forward by certain literary Sir Oracles would be wilfully suffering judgment to go by default. However unpopular and despised may be, as a rule, the criticism of critique and however veridical the famous apothegm, “A controversy _in_ the Press _with_ the Press is the controversy of a fly with a spider,” I hold it the author’s bounden duty, in presence of the Great Public, to put forth his reply, if he have any satisfactory and interesting rejoinder, and by such ordeal to purge himself and prove his innocence unless he would incur wittingly impeachment for contumacy and contempt of court.
It is not only an instinct of human nature expressed by _nemo me impunè lacessit_ which impels to answering in presence of the passers-by the enemy at the gate; it is also a debt which his honour and a respectful regard for the good opinion of his fellows compel the author to repay. The man who is feeble enough silently to suffer detraction and calumny at the hands of some sciolist or _Halb-bildung_ sheltering his miserable individuality under the shadow (may it never be less!) of “King We,” simply sins against himself as the Arabs say and offends good manners by holding out a premium to wanton aggression and injurious doing. The reading world has a right to hear the _alteram partem_ before it shall deliver that judgment and shall pronounce that sentence wherefrom lies no appeal. To ignore and not to visit with _représailles_ unworthy and calumnious censure, may become that ideal and transcendental man who forgives (for a personal and egoistical reason) those who trespass against him. But the sublime doctrine which commands us to love our enemies and affect those who despitefully entreat us is in perilous proximity to the ridiculous; at any rate it is a vain and futile rule of life which the general never thinks of obeying. It contrasts poorly with the common sense of the pagan—_Fiat Justitia, ruat cœlum_; and the heathenish and old-Adamical sentiment of the clansman anent Roderick Dhu—
“Who rights his wrong where it was given, If it were in the court of Heaven,” _L. of the Lake_, v. 6.
—commends itself far more to what divines are pleased to call “fallen human nature” that is the natural man.