The evening telegraph. [volume] (Philadelphia [Pa.]) 1864-1918, 1867-09-06
LONDON DRAMATIC CRITTCS.


nearly all the critics on the metropolitan
press are playwrights, whose want of indie
pendence is mainly due to the dealings they
have with managers. This is a mistake,
and, more, it is an injustice. With two or
three exceptions, our dramatic critics are
men who never write plays for the stage, or
for the pigeOn-holes of managers desk
They enter into no competition with the
authors they are called upon to criticize; and
if their judgment is biased in any way, it is
by personal more than by pecuniary infiu
enees. Mr.. Dumphy, the dramatic critic Of
the Morning Post, is not a playwright, and
Mr.. Desmond Ryan, who represents the
Standard and Herald, and is a musical as well
as a dramatic critic, never wrote drama or an
operetta. Mr.. E. L. Blanchard, of the DAILY
Telegraph, supplies pantomimes very regu-
larly to Drury Lane Theatre, but does no
other dramatic work. Mr.. F. g. TOmlins, who
represents the Morning Advertiser, wrote a
tragedy called Garcia; or, the Noble Error,
many years ago, but has never repeated the
error; and Mr.. J. Hollingshead, who writes the
dramatic notices for the Daily Ne,0S is the
author of one farce, produced in 1858, and has
never written another The Pail Mall Gazette
is represented by Mr.. G.. H. Lewes, and the
Globe by DR.. Granville, both unconnected
with stage writing. The principal critics
on the London daily press who are active
dramatic authors are Mr.. John Oxen
ford, of the Times, and Mr.. Leicester
Buckingham, of the Morning Star. Mr.. Oxen
ford is an accomplished author and adapter,
whose writings would be accepted and paid
for at the market price, even if he had no
connection with the Times; and Mr. Bucking-
hams connection with the Star can have very
little effect upon managers. AS one of Mr..
Webster's chief toadies, he probably secured
rlu oft for iron lafin oV1A fEo
way in which he made the Democratic free
trade organ play few weak protectionist
tunes, when the Music Hall verSuS Theatres
controversy was in its infancy, was worthy of
some little reward. The Star has since wisely
discovered that it cannot safely be conserva-
tive when even the Morning Herald is liberal
on this subject.
The weekly papers are represented by
writers who have quite as little to do with
stage business. The Examiner critic is Mr..
Henry Morley, who reads plays, but never
writes them. The Despatch is represented by
Mr.. Bayle Bernard, conscientious and re-
tired dramatist. The Weekly Times notices
are written by Mr.. f. G.. Tomlins. Mr.. Sidney
Blanchard represents LLoyd'S. The Atheneum
and the IIluStrGt London NesoS both obtain
their dramatic criticism from Mr.. J. A. Heraud,
mystic dramatist, who obtains footing
occasionally at the minor theatres. The Sat
atrday Review obtains its dramatic matter from
Mr.. John Oxenford. The Spectator theatrical
notices are very rare, except when Miss Kate
Terry is acting. The illustrated Times is repre-
sented by Mr.. w. S. Gilbert, young bur-
lesuue writer. The Era and the Sunday Times,
both professedly theatrical papers, and bound
to praise everything, may be left out of the
catalogue. The Observer is represented by a
gentleman of taste, who is not dramatic
author, but simply an old playgoer. The
sporting papers may be passed by; and the
religious papers never meddle with anything
so abandoned as public amusements.
Out of this long list of newspapers, daily
and weekly, only three are represented by
active dramatic authors, and only six, in
cluding those three, by dramatic authors pas
sive and active-a sufficient answer to those
who assert that the hope of selling pieces,
mostly translations from the French, at fancy
prices, is the chief cause of newspaper critical
mildness. Dramatic authors, far from being
gentle Judges of the work of their fellow-crafts
men, are often remarkable for Draconiar
severity. Mr.. Tom Taylor is the most prolific
modern dramatist with the exception OF Mr.
Boucicault, and when he gets an opportunity
of passing judgment upon contemporar,
drama, he is far from being merciful. Hi
criticisms in the now defunct Reader were full
of spleen and Indignation, and his notices II
the Times during the illness of Mr.. Oxen
ford) of a Wild Goose at the Haymarket
and of the defects of stage management at tn
Adelphi. when his own drama of Henry DunbG
was revived, were like galVanlc shocks 70 Tn
readers of the leading journal. The public
used to nothing but critical sugar, were nc
prepared for this sudden dose of bitters, an
the change of diet was evidently mystery {
the uninitiated.
All the writers named above have their II
dividual peculiarities apart from the systeI
of criticism they are supposed to uphold
Mr.. 0xenford is a graceful and schOlarl
writer, never eager to use the admitted powe
of his journal to crush an actor or an author
Having written for the same paper for nearl
thirty years. and being a sensible, observan
and cautious, not to say timid, man, 1t
almost unnecessary to remark that he is tho
Oughly imbued with the spirit of the Tim
newspaper. On the first night of new dram
he is not so anxious to ascertain whether II
play is bad or good, when judged by hig
literary standard, as to see whether it is a
cepted by the public, and has the chance
becoming popular. If it will "run" hui
dred nights, 1t is quite good enough for IL
Times, and the analytical criticism is reserve
for the pages Of the Saturday Reuie1o.
Mr.. Dumphy's criticisms in the Iforai,
Post are the work of a thoughtful readir
man. whose natural amiability is often sore
tried by the rubbish he is compelled 10 wi
ness. Mr.. +. g. TOmlins is one of the mo
accomplished Shakespearan scholars ON n
London press and one of the most genial h,
morists. If his dramatic notices in the Nor
ina Adyertiser do not more frequently she
traces of fun and culture, it is because tb,
lave 10 be written hurriedly very late
;,bt or beaausa the dramas produced seldc