Criticism is one form of the game of writing. It differs from other forms only as whist differs from poker and as tennis differs from golf. The motives are the same, the exercise of the player's brain and muscles, and the entertainment of the spectators, from whom, if the player be successful, he derives profit, livelihood, applause, and fame. The function of criticism at the present time, and at all times, is the function of all literature, to be wise, witty, eloquent, instructive, humourous, original, graceful, beautiful, provocative, irritating, persuasive. That is, it must possess some of the many merits that can be found in any type of literature; it must in some way be good writing. There is no other sound principle to be discovered in the treatises on the art of criticism or in fine examples of the art. Whether Charles Lamb writes about Shakespeare or Christ's Hospital or ears is of relatively slight importance compared with the question whether in one essay or another Lamb is at one of his incomparable best moments of inspiration. Remy de Gourmont says, apropos Brunetiere's views of Renan: Contre l'opinion commune, la critique est peut-etre le plus subjectif de tous les genres litteraires; c'est une confession perpetuelle; en croyant analyser les oeuvres d'autrui, c'est soi-meme que l'on devoile et que l'on expose au public ... voulant expliquer et contredire Renan, M. Brunetiere s'est une fois de plus confesse publiquement. That is true, except that it may be doubted whether one type of literature is more subjective than another, since all types are subjective. Even a work that belongs, according to De Quincey's definition, to the literature of information as distinguished from the literature of power, even an article in an encyclopaedia, an article, say, on Patagonia, has a man behind it; it cannot be quite objective and impersonal.