The work saw the light, and, externally, it certainly did look very like a novel. The reviews, which BROWZER read with frenzied excitement, also looked very like reviews of novels. They were usually about two inches in length, and generally ended by saying that "Mr. BROWZER has still much to learn." Some of them condensed BROWZER'S plot into about eight lines, in this manner:--
"He was a yearning psychologist--she was a suburban flirt. He sighed, and analysed; she listened, and yawned. Finally, she went on the stage, and he compiled this record of the stirring transaction."
But at last there came a longer criticism of _Wilton's Wooing_ in the _Erechtheum_. Somebody took BROWZER to pieces, averring that "Mr. BROWZER has neither grammar" (here followed a string of examples of BROWZER'S idioms) "nor humour," (here came instances of his wit and fancy), "nor taste" (again reinforced by specimens), "nor even knowledge of the French language, which he habitually massacres." (Here followed _à l'outrance, bête noir, soubriquet_, all our old friends.) Finally, Mr. BROWZER was informed that many fields of honourable distinction might be open to him, but that a novelist he could never be.
The wrath of BROWZER was magnificent. He went about among his friends, who told him that the critique was clearly by that brute ST. CLAIR; they knew his hand, they said; a confounded, conceited pendant, and a stuck-up puppy. The review was calculated to damage the sale of any book; it was a dastardly attack on BROWZER'S reputation as a man of wit and humour, a linguist, and a grammarian. They thought (as BROWZER wished to know) that an action would lie against the reviewer, or the review. BROWZER went to a Solicitor, who espoused his cause, but without enthusiasm. The name of the reviewer was demanded. Now ST. CLAIR was not the reviewer; the critic was a man just from College, hence his fresh indignation. Whether for the sake of diversion, or for the advertisement, the critic wished himself to bear the brunt of BROWZER'S anger, and the _Erechtheum_ handed him over to justice; his name was _Smith_. This damped BROWZER'S eagerness; no laurels were to be won from the obscure SMITH. The advocate of that culprit made out a case highly satisfactory to the learned Judge, who had been a reviewer himself upon a time. He showed that malice was out of the question; SMITH had never heard BROWZER'S name, nor BROWZER, SMITH'S (in this instance) before the book was published. He called several professors of the French tongue, to prove that BROWZER'S French was that usual in fiction, but not the language of MOLIÈRE, or of the Academy. He left no doubt on the question of grammar. As to the wit and pathos, he made much mirth out of them. He cross-examined BROWZER: had other reviews praised him? Had publishers leaped eagerly at his work? On what terms was it published? BROWZER'S answer appeared to show that _Wilton's Wooing_ was not regarded as a masterpiece by the Trade.