In illustration of these remarks and suggesting them, take these book reviews in a single number of _The Atlantic_. There we learn, concerning Mr. Cable, that his controlling purpose in _The Grandissimes_ was that of “presenting the problem of the reorganization of Southern society”—that “the book was in effect a parable”; that in _Dr. Sevier_ he “essayed to work out through personal relations certain problems [always a problem or two] which vexed him regarding poverty and labor”; that in _Bonaventure_ he “sets himself another task,” which is “to work out [always something to ‘work out’] the regeneration of man through knowledge”—a truly formidable “task.” Of the author of _Queen Money_, we are told by the same expounder that she has “set herself no task beyond her power,” but “had it in mind to trace the influence of the greed for wealth upon a section of contemporaneous society.” Of Mr. Bellamy, author of _Looking Backward_ (the heroine of which is not Mrs. Lot) we are confidently assured in ailing metaphor that “he feels intensely the bitter inequalities of the present order” of things and “thinks he sees a remedy,”—our old friends again: the “problem” and the “solution”—both afterthoughts of Mr. Bellamy. The “task” which in _Marzio’s Crucifix_ Marion Crawford “sets himself” is admirably simple—by a “characteristic outwardness” to protect us against “a too intimate and subtle corrosive of life.” As a savior of the world against this awful peril Crawford may justly have claimed a vote of thanks; but possibly he was content with that humbler advantage, the profit from the sale of his book. But (it may be protested) the critic who is to live by his trade must say _something_. True, but is it necessary that he live by his trade? Carlyle’s prophecy of a time when all literature should be one vast review is in process of fulfilment. Aubrey de Vere has written a critical analysis of poetry, chiefly that of Spenser and Wordsworth. An _Atlantic_ man writes a critical analysis of Aubrey de Vere’s critical analysis. Shall I not write a critical analysis of the _Atlantic_ man’s critical analysis of Aubrey de Vere’s critical analysis of poetry? I can do so adequately in three words: It is nonsense.