(Ed. Note--The Crimson does not necessarily endorse opinions expressed in printed communications. No attention will be paid to anonymous letters and only under special conditions, at the request of the writer, will names be withheld.)

To the Editor of The CRIMSON:

The Critic is indeed deeply mortified to learn that it has trod on the toes of Mother Advocate. Certainly this was not its aim. From the beginning we have had not the slightest desire to bait a magazine so steeped in literary tradition and so encumbered with debts. But since Mr. H. M. Wade seems inclined to issue forth from behind the barricades conveniently provided by time and his creditors I suppose we upstarts must defend ourselves.

Not even Mr. Wade himself is inclined to criticize the Critic as a magazine. His real complaint seems to be that the men who revived it are merely providing a duplicate service with the Advocate and are unfair in ignoring the Advocate in their statement of policy. This is after all rather a weak line of argument. For clearly the Advocate is not even distantly related to the Critic in either content or policy. Anyone who will take the trouble to examine the Advocate for the last two years will see almost at a glance that no matter what its stated purpose was, in fact it was the organ of a certain specialized literary school, primarily interested in imitating and analyzing that small and misty corner of the literary world occupied by T. S. Eliot, Ezra Pound and Company. Now this is a perfectly legitimate undertaking, if anyone wants to read a magazine published along such lines. But Mr. Wade is hardly in a position to get annoyed when some of the rest of us grow a little restless on his own favorite diet. He has chosen to edit one kind of magazine; we have chosen to edit another. And if he finds some of his former contributors on our editorial board is he obliged, after all, to write a letter to the CRIMSON about it?

The Critic does not presume, as Mr. H. M. Wade implies, to the arrogant undertaking of teaching Harvard men to think. But it does propose to provide an adequate forum for those Harvard men who already have been thinking for some time on matters of real and earthly importance. Former Advocate contributors now writing for the Critic and many others among the long-suffering reading public seem to feel the need for such a forum. We propose to do nothing more than to provide it. Not for a moment do we propose to invade the far away country in which the Advocate has been disporting itself these many months. The opinions of men rather than the ramblings of individuals with wings will continue to be our primary concern. The student body, having virtually bought our entire issue in the first five days after publication, seems to be behind us in the undertaking.

In the meantime if the Advocate chases to make its "announced" policy a reality and become a truly adequate magazine of general critical thought rather than a mere trade journal of the esoterics we will welcome the new develoipment as a hopeful sign. We do not claim a monopoly on Harvard opinion. Putting it frankly, we are not competing with the Advocate as it is but with the Advocate as it could be. Mr. H. M. Wade would show, in our opinion, considerably more sense and even more good taste if he would admit that he has not lived up to his opportunities before he starts writing sarcastic and peevish letters to the papers. "Dies irae, dies illa." Charles R. Cherington '35.