labourers in that department of literature, I have sought to keep back my name rather than to thrust it obtrusively before the public in connection with productions which, however good or bad of their kind, had no individuality or importance sufficient to warrant their being connected with any particular author. That is the usual feeling of public writers in this country; but there is always some one insensible to it. A few months ago one of those candid friends who are the gentian and rhubarb of life, remarked to me: "What a stupid article that is on the CUTTLE-FISH which you have in -! I wonder you put your name to it." Now the cuttle-fish is a denizen of the ocean with which I am well acquainted, from its toughness as an article of diet, it having been the habit of my Hong-Kong butler to give me a curry of it whenever he was displeased with me, adding, when he saw my frown, the dubious consolation: "Eh! No likey? I tinkee he makee you likey to-mollow (to-morrow) cully too muchee." But to write articles on the cuttle-fish was, I knew, out of my line; and I was shocked at having my name pointed out to me, printed in full, at the bottom of such an article. At first I cherished the hope that this was the work of some practical humourist; but found, on inquiry, that this alter ego, the cuttlefish A. W., was a sad reality; that he had published several articles of the same kind, and had as much title as myself to the name he bears. I know how vain it is to hope that any pushing young Scotchman will consent to preach behind a screen if he has any opportunity of doing so in front of it; therefore I address no remonstrance or request to the ichthyologist himself. But, would not some Scotch University-say Aberdeen or Glasgow-have the goodness to make a distinction between us by conferring upon him the degree of D.D., L.L.D., or whatever other high academical distinction his arduous researches into the character of the cuttle-fish may justify? LONDON, July 1875. |