sees it, and then his life is
sublimed with an insoluble conundrum. Sometimes, still, he sees what the
critic means, and disagrees with him. In this case he is not likely to
go to the end of his journey without finding a critic whom he agrees
with about the passage in question.

After all, however, it was asked by one that had not spoken before (with
that fine air of saying a novel thing which people put on who have not
spoken before), would not the superficial knowledge of the poets
imparted by quotational criticism result in a sort of pseudo-culture
which would be rather worse than nothing, a kind of intellectual plated
ware or aesthetic near-silk?

The talker said he thought not, and that he had already touched upon
some such point in what he had said about going to Europe for a few
months. He offered the opinion that there was no such thing as
pseudo-culture; there was culture or there was not; and the reader of a
quotational criticism, if he enjoyed the quotations, became, so far,
cultivated. It could not be said that he knew the poets treated of, but
neither could it be said that he was quite ignorant of them. As a
matter of fact, he did know them in a fashion, through a mind larger and
clearer than his own.

For this reason the talker favored the reading of criticism, especially
the kind of criticism that quoted. He would even go so far as to say
that there was no just and honest criticism without quotation. The
critic was bound to make out his case, or else abdicate his function,
and he could not make out his case, either for or against an author,
without calling him to testify. Therefore, he was in favor of
quotational criticism, for fairness' sake, as well as for his pleasure;
and it was for the extension of it that he now contended. He was not
sure that he wished to send the reader to the authors quoted in all
cases. The reader could get through the passages cited a pretty good
notion of the authors' quality, and as for their quantity, that was
often made up of commonplaces or worse. In the case of the old poets,
and most of the English classics, there was a great deal of filth which
the reader would be better for not taking into his mind and which the
most copiously quotational critics would hardly offer him. If any one
said that without the filth one could not get a fair idea of those
authors, he should be disposed to distinguish, and to say that without
the filth one could not get a fair idea of their a