It requires far more ability to recognize beauties than to perceive defects, in any object which is before the mind. Whether it be of a personal character, or a creation of nature, or a work of art, its defects are likely to be apparent to very many who are incapable of seeing its real beauties. Yet only he who can point out the merit of that on which he passes is competent to show its departure from the perfect standard. Any man can see the roughness of a bit of stone. It requires a trained eye to see that such a bit is a diamond in the rough. And whether the diamond be that of mineral, of metal, or of moral worth, the measure of power in its recognition is much the same. And because faults and flaws are more common, as well as more apparent, than beauties and merits, the man of nobler sense and keener vision is ever more alive to the latter than to the former, as worthier of his finding. It is to these that his eyes are open, and his ears are attent; and never until he has gauged and measured the good before him, does he turn his thoughts to the shortcomings of that which he admires. And here is a standard by which critics themselves are to be judged. He who on seeing a bit of natural scenery, or an exhibit of human character, or a production in the realm of literature, of painting, of sculpture, of architecture, of music, of oratory, or of personal endeavor of any sort whatever, thinks first of its faults and its lack, thereby proves himself incapable of competent criticism. If, therefore, a man would be thought a capable and an intelligent critic, whether he is one or not, let him have a care to speak first of that which is to be commended in any object of his criticism, as giving him a right to suggest, subsequently, his opinion of its shortcomings and defects.—Sel.