R. G. THWAITES: I do not suppose I ought to speak on this matter, for I am one of Mr. Larned's contributors. I have done a good deal of annotation, or evaluation, of this sort, upon request; I have a fair acquaintance with reviewers, and have done a good deal of reviewing myself. I know the limitations of reviewers, and there is, I think, a great deal of truth in what Dr. Ely says. I always want to know, when I read a review, who wrote the review; after I know the individual who has written the review, I make up my mind more or less regarding its verdict. Often, in writing annotations for this work of Mr. Larned's I have felt the very serious responsibility which rested upon me as an individual contributor, in seeming to crystallize judgment for generations perhaps--if this book is to be used for generations--and the possible harm that might result from such crystallization. I know that my point of view will be entirely different from another man's point of view. You take four or five men and ask them to write a note on the same book for this annotated list, and you will have four or five different judgments--absolutely, radically different. It is perhaps, a dangerous thing to crystallize these judgments; and yet, after all, I sympathize very greatly with Mr. Iles' position. I think the thing should be done. Librarians are asked for such judgments all the time. All of us who write text-books are continually asked for annotated bibliographies for students to follow, and we are always passing judgments--other people might call them "snap" judgments--upon various books. Great wisdom is necessary in this matter. For instance, the other day Mr. Larned sent a note to two of us who are contributing to this annotated bibliography. It happened through some editorial mistake that two notes, asking for comment on a certain book, were written to different individuals. It was Dr. Davis Dewey, of the Institute of Technology, who happened to cross my path and wrote a note on the same book. Now we had two absolutely different opinions about this book. And yet it was very natural. I had looked at this book as the story of an exploring tour down the Mississippi valley; he had looked at it as a study in sociology from an economic standpoint. It was exceedingly interesting from my standpoint; it was filled with fallacies and whims from the standpoint of an economist and sociologist. Well, I threw up my note and let his stand. What are we going to do about it? Some work of this kind ought to be done, because it is most useful; but after all, I think Dr. Ely's word of warning is one that we should take to heart very thoroughly. Personally I really don't know whether we ought to "evaluate" literature or not; and yet I am doing it all the time.