It is time that the line should be firmly drawn between criticism and reviewing. In the August number of Harper's Magazine (which, by the way, contains a thrilling account of Custer's last fight) Mr. Howells does not seem to draw this line. He once more endeavours to abate the insolence of ‘critics’, assures them that criticism has usually tried to depress originality, tells them that, being anonymous, they are tempted to be savage, and, generally, labours to make them ‘know their place.’ To myself he seems to overrate their influence – and their savagery. The ordinary anonymous reviewer is (as the Scotch lassie said of a modest lover) ‘senselessly ceevil.’ He is good-natured to a degree. Occasionally he hits hard, and sometimes below the belt. Occasionally he may have a bad motive – a motive of envy, spite, or personal dislike. But on the other hand, as Mr. Thackeray said, authors should make up their minds to a great deal of ‘honest enmity,’ and ‘to be abused for good as well as bad reasons.’ This is a hard lesson for authors, yet they should learn it. The anonymous is not necessarily, nor often, the dishonest reviewer. Mr. Howells tells a parable of a journal, the Clarion which ‘is opposed to So-and-So's book.’ Now if a reviewer lets his editor impose a task on him, if he attacks the books merely because the Clarion is opposed to them, he is selling his soul extremely cheap. But I believe such a bargain is rare. If the reviewer finds that he differs from the literary policy of his paper, he says, ‘Send the book to some other man.’ It is a mistake, to be sure, for a journal to have a ‘policy’ about an author's books at all; each should be judged on its merits. But there is no need, in any case, for the reviewer to dissemble. After reviewing for many years, I myself can only recall two cases in which an editor made any suggestions. One of the books was Mr. Rossetti's first poems, the other was a volume of Mr. Matthew Arnold's.