estion of
eating, for reasons unnecessary to specify. But before estimating your
literary pretensions, I must ask if you ever frequented Paff's
beer-cellar?"

Horvendile said, "No."

Now this mummy was an amiable and cultured old relic, unshakably made
sure of his high name for scholarship by the fact that he had written
dozens of books which nobody else had even read. So he said,
friendlily enough: "Then that would seem to settle your pretensions.
To have talked twaddle in Paff's beer-cellar is the one real proof of
literary merit, no matter what sort of twaddle you may have written in
your book, or in many books, as I am here in this academy to attest.
Moreover, I am old enough to remember when cookery-books were sold
openly upon the newsstands, and in consequence I am very grateful to
the garbage-man, who, in common with all other intelligent persons,
has never dreamed of meddling with anything I wrote."

"But, sir," says Horvendile, "do you esteem a scavenger, who does not
pretend to specialize in anything save filth, to be the best possible
judge of books?"

"He may be an excellent critic if only he indeed belongs to the
forthputting Philistine stock: that proviso is most important, though,
for, as I recently declared, we have very dangerous standards
domiciled in the midst of us, that are only too quickly raised--"

Says Horvendile, with a shudder: "You speak ambiguously. But still, in
criticizing books--"

"Plainly, young man, you do not appreciate that the essential
qualifications for a critic of Philistine literature are," said this
mummy bewilderingly, "to have set off fireworks in July, to have
played ball in a vacant lot, and to have repeated what Spartacus said
to the gladiators."[3]

[Footnote 3: It is a gratifying tribute to the permanence of aesthetic
canons to record that Dr. Brander Matthews (connected with Columbia
University) has, in an article upon "Alien Views of American
Literature," contributed to the _New York Times_ of 14 November, 1920,
accepted these three qualifications as the essential groundwork for a
literary critic even to-day; although Dr. Matthews is inclined, as a
concession to modernism, to add to the list an ability to recite
Webster's Reply to Hayne. Since Dr. Matthews frankly states that he
has been incited to this recital of a critic's needs by (in his happy
wording) "the alien angle" of "standards domiciled in the midst of
us," it is sincerely to be hoped that his requ