or less fixed and arbitrary set of
critical principles. The champions of this objective criticism point to
the occasionally ludicrous divergence of the views expressed in
criticism of certain poets or novelists, and insist that there is no
occasion for such a bewildering difference of opinion. They seem to
forget that the criticism which we esteem most highly at all times is
the subjective criticism in which the personality of a competent and
sincere critic is manifest. Literature, like music, painting and the
other arts, has its own laws of technique--fundamental canons that must
be observed in the successful pursuit of the art; but at a certain point
difference of opinion is not only possible but profitable. The critics
who would unite in condemning a thirteen-line sonnet or a ten-act
tragedy could not be expected to agree on the relative merits of
Milton's and Wordsworth's sonnets. Unanimity of opinion is as impossible
and undesirable concerning the poetic achievement of Browning and
Whitman as it is concerning the music of Brahms and Wagner, or the
painting of Turner and Whistler. Great artists who have taken liberties
with traditions and precedents have done much to prevent the critics
from falling into a state of self-complacency over their scientific
methods and formulas.

The most helpful form of criticism is the interpretative variety, not
necessarily the laudatory "appreciation" that is so popular in our day,
but an honest effort to understand and elucidate the intention of the
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 author