The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1853-11-27
Dramatic Criticism and PuEery.

Dramatic Criticism and PuEery.
No department of this paper has given US
more trouble of late than our musical and
dramatic criticism. Our instructions to the
gentlemen who are entrusted with those
branches are confined to the simple injunction ::
Be just. Unfortunately, it would seem that
their notions of justice seldom coincide with
those of the performers whom they criticse, for
the appearance Of critique in our columns is
almost sure to be followed by the appearance
Of actor or singer in our office. complaining
bitterly that he has been maltreated abused,
insulted. We are called upon to interfere to
protect him from the malevolence and rancour
of our attachf If the appeal were made on
the ground Of error in the critiqne, we could
have little hesitation in deciding how to act
most artists are Indifferent judges Of their own
performances and we are not in the habit of
entrusting duties to writers in whose ability to
discharge them we cannot implicitly rely But
the appellants seldom impeach the accuracy of
our structures. They prefer the argumentum
ad hominem to the Grgumentnm ad rem. Thus
we are told that our censure is destroying the
prospects OF most promising young man, and
will drive him into some employment Of less
exalted nature than the stage. Or we are ac-
cused of blighting the tender hopes Of q charm
ing deJutante, whose gentle heart will surely
break if we continue to accuse her Of pro-
nouncing the vernacular incorrectly. Or we
are given to understand that devoted wife and
seven sweet children will be reduced to beg
gary, five repeat our objections to Mr.. Shocks
rendering of Macbeth or julius Caesar Or, we
are warned, with awful solemnity, that we shall
certainly bring old Mr.. Smiths gray hairs with
sorrow to the grave, if we allow our wicked
critic to hint that his daughter, that infant
phenomenon. Amalia, had better be in the nur-
sery than on the stage.
Assailed with arguments of this nature occa-
sionally not unmingled with rather clumsy at
tempts at flattery, we find it sometimes difficult
to resist the charitable impulses of our heart.
and torefrain from yielding to the piteous appeal,
even at the expense of our critics reputation
and our own consistency. Whether the triumph
thus achieved by our petitioners is of any sub
stantial benefit to themselves, they can decide
better than we. We are content that they
should make the most of it; but as the practice
appears to be becoming general we should like
them. before going any further, to think calmly
over its character and consequences.
Reduced to plain words. the pretensi0ns of
the artists to whom we allude place one simple
question in issue Shall there be any such
thing as musical and dramatic criticism in
New York, or shall there be nothing but puff
cry? This is the real point to be settled; and
it is worth little careful examination.
Pufery is not without its advantages. 1t is
very pleasant thing for a singer to perceive
that half million Of people are told that his
voice is admirable, his style perfect, and his
accentuation above reproach for an actor to
find the same number Of confding souls perus-
ing a vivid narrative of his spirited perform
ance; or for an actress to read Of the witchery
of her voice, the brilliancy of her jeu, and the
charm of her manner. These things are, we
say very gratifying to be told, more especially
when strict conscience would have been salts
fed with much milder form of appreciation.
Nor is puffery destitute of recommendations to
the newspaper which puffs. As compared with
criticism, it is incomparably easier and plea
santer to do. Any blockhead can beslaver
performer with indiscriminate praise, sure that,
in the delight with which his drivel will be
read by the object of the puffs, such TRIES as
grammatical errors and dashes of nonsense will
be graciously overlooked. We can buy puis
dirt cheap criticism, like other valuable COM
modities, fetches a respectable price in the Lite
rary market. 1t must not, therefore, be said
that pufery is indefensible
But still the question remains: what is the
use Of the stuff we call puffery? Granted that
It pleases artists, and is considerable economy
for newspapers, what is the net result and mp
shot Of the practice? Does it really confer any
solid benefit on art, on artists, or on our
selves Is there single instance of ar rising
to respectable rank in any country, where
was not loud, fearless and severe!
Can single actor or singer be mentioned who
gained lasting position through newspaper
pufs? Is it not perfectly obvious that Of all
possible performances, lavish, senseless praise is
the most wearisome to read, and the most direct
ly detrimental to the character of the paperin
which it appears? We shall be happy to re-
ceive further light on the subject, if we are in
error but il does seem to us as well establish
lshed as any other lesson of experience, that
nothing tends to degrade art, artists, and critics
so directly as the system Of indiscrmnatc
putting. A judieious censorship is as necessary
to the formation and preservation Of o fine
dramatic or lyric talent as study or practice
and, in like manner, the adoption Of a tono of
strict justice by Critics is as essential to their
influence as knowledge Of the rules Of art.
We are told that such or such criticism was
unusually unnecessarily severe. Suppose it
was, what practical injury flows from the fact
Row many artists Of real merit have sssn their
pr6ypscts destroyed BY adverse criticism! We