is the dictum true.  We authors who have studied a subject for years, are, I am convinced, ready enough to learn, but we justly object to sink our opinions and our judgment in those of a counsellor who has only “crammed” for his article.  Moreover, we must be sure that he can fairly lay claim to the three requisites of an adviser—­capacity to advise rightly, honesty to advise truly, and courtesy to advise decently.  Now the Saturday Review has neither this, that, nor the other qualification.  Indeed his words read like subtle and lurking irony by the light of those phenomenal and portentous vagaries which ever and anon illuminate his opaque pages.  What correctness can we expect from a journal whose tomahawk-man, when scalping the corpse of Matthew Arnold, deliberately applies the term “sonnet” to some thirty lines in heroic couplets?  His confusion of Dr. Jenner, Vaccinator, with Sir William Jenner, the President of the R. C. of Physicians, is one which passes all comprehension.  And what shall we say of this title to pose as an Aristarchus (November 4th, ’82)?  “Then Jonathan Scott, LL.D.  Oxon, assures the world that he intended to re-translate the Tales given by Galland(!) but he found Galland so adequate on the whole (!!) that he gave up the idea and now reprints Galland with etchings by M. Lalauze, giving a French view of Arab life.  Why Jonathan Scott, LL.D., should have thought to better Galland while Mr. Lane’s version is in existence, and has just been reprinted, it is impossible to say.”  In these wondrous words Jonathan Scott’s editio princeps with engravings from pictures by Smirke and printed by Longmans in 1811 is confounded with the imperfect reprint by Messieurs Nimmo and Bain, in 1883; the illustrations being borrowed from M. Adolphe Lalauze, a French artist (nat. 1838), a master of eaux fortes, who had studied in Northern Africa and who maroccanized the mise-en-scene of “The Nights” with a marvellous contrast of white and negro nudities.  And such is the Solomon who fantastically complains that I have disdained to be enlightened by his “modest suggestions.”  Au reste the article is not bad simply because it borrows—­again Americanice—­all its matter from my book.  At the tail-end, however comes the normal sting:  I am guilty of not explaining “Wuzu” (lesser ablution), “Ghusl” (greater ablution), and “Zakat” (legal alms which constitute a poor-rate), proving that the writer never read vol. iii.  He confidently suggests replacing “Cafilah,” “by the better known word Caravan,” as if it were my speciality (as it is his) to hunt-out commonplaces:  he grumbles about “interrogation-points a l’Espagnole upside down"(?) which still satisfies me as an excellent substitute to distinguish the common Q(uestion) from A(nswer) and he seriously congratulates me upon my discovering a typographical error on the fly- leaf.  No. iii. (August 14, ’86, handling vols. vi., vii. and viii.) is free from the opening pretensions and absurdities of No. ii. and it is made