.

Then why does the mighty _we_ pretend to review a book like Lavengro?
From the arrogance with which it continually delivers itself, one would think that the mighty _we_ is omniscient; that it understands every language; is versed in every literature; yet the mighty _we_ does not even know the word for bread in Armenian.

It knows bread well enough by name in English, and frequently bread in England only by its name, but the truth is, that the mighty _we_, with all its pretension, is in general a very sorry creature, who, instead of saying nous disons, should rather say nous dis: Porny in his "Guerre des Dieux," very profanely makes the three in one say, Je faisons; now, Lavengro, who is anything but profane, would suggest that critics, especially magazine and Sunday newspaper critics, should commence with nous dis, as the first word would be significant of the conceit and assumption of the critic, and the second of the extent of the critic's information.

The _we_ says its say, but when fawning sycophancy or vulgar abuse are taken from that say, what remains?
Why a blank, a void like Ginnungagap.
As the writer, of his own accord, has exposed some of the blemishes of his book--a task which a competent critic ought to have done--he will now point out two or three of its merits, which any critic, not altogether blinded with ignorance, might have done, or not replete with gall and envy would have been glad to do.

The book has the merit of communicating a fact connected with physiology, which in all the pages of the multitude of books was never previously mentioned--the mysterious practice of touching objects to baffle the evil chance.