It is difficult to see how Mark Twain could have written this statement in his autobiography: "I believe that the trade of critic, in literature, music and the drama, is the most degraded of all trades, and that it has no real value, certainly no large value. The genial Mark was not unduly annoyed by critics during his life-time. What has been called his exuberant lying" was never the subject of any serious diatribes on the part of critics. That is why the extremely bitter remark must be taken as the expression of a momentary pique, a resentment at some unexpected abuse.

The function of the critic hardly needs a serious defense in this more or less enlightened day, and what defense is necessary he himself is well able to make. Mr. H. L. Mencken, who is perhaps the high priest of modern American criticism, has said that the function of the critic is to cherish and point to the highest literary standard possible.

This, unfortunately, does not still the ancient fond between authors and critics. The author feels that his whole literary life may be destroyed by a spiteful commentator, and if his work has no real merit, that is what is likely to happen. It is the resentment which any craftsman feels on having his work weighed and condemned, or perhaps accorded some slight mead of praise, by a mere layman. The obvious solution is to admit that critics are also authors and that the creation of an intelligent reading public, which is the critic's function, is no less essential than the creation of good literature, which is the sphere of the author. But this is really too much to expect of the most temperamental and jealous of all the professions.