and rubbish." He opposed also what he saw as the narrow dogmatism of the New Critics, those "tight-lipped Calvins of art", as he called them, of Criterion and Scrutiny. Discussions of I. A. Richards's criticism appear in his essay 'English Literature' in the volume University Studies: Cambridge 1933 and in Chapter 4 of his Decline and Fall of the Romantic Ideal (1936), and of Eliot's in the 1929 essay 'Modern Criticism', reprinted in his Studies French and English (1934). An anonymous New Statesman review (29 December 1928) of Eliot's criticism, however, to which F. R. Leavis replied apparently believing it was by Lucas, and which Leavis's biographer says "was certainly by Lucas", was in fact by Richard Ellis Roberts. Lucas had stopped reviewing for the New Statesman in 1926 and never reviewed anonymously. His critique of Q. D. Leavis's Fiction and the Reading Public (1932) in University Studies: Cambridge 1933 was described by F. R. Leavis's biographer as "improper": "senior academics do not use quasi-official publications to attack graduate students". (The volume, though printed by the University Press, was not published there; its editor stressed that the contributions were "unofficial" glimpses into the "intense mental activity" of each Cambridge department; and published theses are not normally considered exempt from criticism.) Lucas and Eliot Lucas's 1923 review of The Waste Land, much reprinted in the decades since his death, was omitted from his Authors Dead and Living (1926), a collection of New Statesman pieces, probably because he had ended by saying the poem should be left to sink. Remarks elsewhere confirm that he had not changed his opinion. Described by F. W. Bateson as "brilliantly wrong-headed", the review is better known today than it was during Lucas's lifetime. His only other comment on the poem occurs in his essay 'English Literature' in the volume University Studies: Cambridge 1933, where he contested I. A. Richards' view of it in Science and Poetry (1926): "The Waste Land is praised [by Richards] for its 'complete severence' from all beliefs, when it is really a yearning cry for them, and at its close some sort of faith is so clearly impending that it has been praised by others as a great religious poem (such are the triumphs of obscurity)." The Letters of T. S. Eliot includes correspondence between Eliot and Lucas from the mid-1920s but no reference to the review. Historians of The New Statesman