writer. The proper exercise of this art occasionally demands rare
qualifications on the part of the critic; at the same time it adds
dignity to his calling and value to his utterance. It serves to dispel
the popular conception of a critic as a disappointed _litterateur_ who
begrudges his more brilliant fellow craftsmen their success and who dogs
their triumphs with his ill-tempered snarling. Interpretative criticism
needs few rules and no system; yet it serves a noble purpose as a guide
and monitor for subsequent literary effort.

The question of anonymous criticism has occasioned much thoughtful
discussion. In former times anonymity was often a shield for the
slanderer who saw fit to abuse and assail his victim with the rancorous
outburst of his malice; but it is also clear that the earlier reviewers
were mere literary hacks whose names would have given no weight to the
critique and hence could be omitted without much loss. The authorship of
important _Edinburgh_ and _Quarterly_[E] articles in the days of their
greatness was usually an open secret. Later periodicals, like the
_Fortnightly_ and the _Academy_ found it a profitable advertisement to
publish the signatures of their eminent critics. The tendency of the
present day is largely in favor of anonymity; no longer as a cover for
the dispensation of malicious vituperation, but as a necessary
safe-guard for the unbiased and untrammeled exercise of the critical
function. Certain abuses of the privilege are inevitable. Mr. Sidney
Colvin in looking over the criticisms of Mr. Stephen Phillips' poetry
recently discovered in three periodicals convincing parallels that led
Mr. Arthur Symons to confess to the authorship of all three critiques.
The average reader would in most cases be strongly influenced by the
united verdict of the critics of the _Saturday Review_, the _Athenæum_
and the _Quarterly Review_; in this instance his convictions would
undoubtedly be rudely shattered when he learned the truth. Under such