The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1854-01-07
Opera Criticism.

| ------------
Opera Criticism.
One of our youthful contemporaries which
follows very closely in the wake OF the "Sa
tanic press" though much given to tell false
hoods of it, and abuse it in its leading articles
has recently endeavored to carry out our me-
thod of opera criticism in respect to the late
Maretzek benefit. AT the close of the season
as most Of our readers are aware. quarrel
took place between Manager Maretzek and his
tenor, Salvi and our youthful contemporary
not having the fear Of ten thousand dollar
verdict before its eyes, thought fit to espouse
the cause Of the former, and to abuse the latter
in no measured terms We are bound to say, in
justice, that in speaking thus, after the Fry YER
dict, our contemporary displayed degree of
pluck which is highly commendable and praise
worthy. The similarity between the case
which provoked its structures and the Fry con-
troversy is really very striking. In the for
mer we have quarrel between IN opera mana
ger and one Of his singers in the latter pre-
cisely the same thing. In the one, the tenor
goes to the newspapers to vindicate himself
from the censure cast upon him by q card pub.
lished by the manager in the other, lady,
whose private character endeared her to the
public as deeply as her artistic talents. came
10 the HERALD to solicit the insertion of para
graph in reply to the SANDERS Of the hired PEN
men Of her manager So far as the statements
and counter statements which have appeared in
the Maretzek and Salvi controversy throw
light on the true merits of the case, it
would appear that the tenor is some
what in the wrong, and the manager
somewhat in the right: in the Fry case the man
ager was decidedly in the wrong. and poor
Madame Trufi clearly in the right. In the
former case, it would seem that the tenor was
guilty of discourtesy, and gross breach of
etiquette; in the latter. credible witnesses
swear that Fry the manager, actually hired men
to write down his artists for the purpose of re-
placing them by others whom he was importing
from Europe. This is the first point in which
the parallel fails. AS we advance, we find the
divergence between the two cases increase
There never was any thing said Of Sgnor Fry
in the controversy on this subject half so Sc
we're or SO unjust as the remarks of the Times
on the Maretzek and Salvi difficulty. Our crit
icism of Fry's opera was mild compared to the
violent abuse of Salvi contained in the articles
in the Times, or that on Maretzek in the Mr.
ror.
1t has SO happened that the victim Of the
Times cepsure has not sought the same revenge
as Sigpor Fry. No action for libel that has
come to our knowledge has been instituted.
The cases being parallel in every respect ex-
cept in those points where the Times was more
open to prosecution than ourselves, this fact
must be regarded as purely accidental. 1t is
probable that Signor Salvl has other resources
besides libel suits and is unwilling to plead his
poverty and his misfortunes as ground for ex-
torting money from his prosperous neighbors
Whatever motive may have dlssuaded him
from resorting to the schemes so successfully
put in practice by Signor Fry it is clear that,
legally, he had as good right Of action as that
estimable individual. The Times now stands
in really worse position than we did before
the Fry verdict
The question, therefore, arises-and it dc.
serves calm attention from the whole commu-
nity-does the public welfare require the
cessation of such articles as those published by
the Times on the Fry verdict? II the private
and accidental reasons which prevented Salvi
from appealing to the courts had not existed,
would public sentiment sustain condemnation
of the Times for what it said? We think 1t
would not. We are Of opinion that. however
exaggerated the view taken by the Times may
have been, il was justified and authorized to
review the Salvi controversy, and to put on
paper the sentiments which 1t suggested. Those
sentiments may have been harsh. 1t may have
been prejudiced. 1t may have had pee uliar
reasons for sustaining Marctzek and opposing
his rebellious tenor. But, however these mat
tiers may have been, We are settled in the con-
viction that 1t had as good right to speak its
mind fearlessly as we had in the case of Fry.
II the verdict in our suit is sustained by public
sentiment, then the Times is as liable to con-
demnation as ourselves and only escapes
through peculiar and accidental circumstances,
II we were wrong in defending Madame Truni
against the salsried penny-a-liners Of Signor
Fry, then the Times was equally wrong in de-
Tending Manager Maretzek against tenor Salvi
II our offence deserved fine Of s1o0 then
the offence Of our contemporary called for fine
Of double that amount as being much more
Sio'cft more Tcrooal, and more severe.
In plain truth, If the precedent established