New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1878-04-05

his fathers spare cash; whereupon the
mutinous and hungry troupe dispersed with
much hard language and fist-shaking'
while sad-eyed public, twelve strong
went home wondering what could nave
tempted it to attend. There was inc
Great Patriotic Enterprise, which came 10
sudden and notifying close because there was
not money enough in the till to pay for the
music. There was the Grand Wagner-Meyer-
beer Italian German Opera-C Combination, which
amid much wrangling and recrimination ex-
ploded itself with debts. and suddenly van
ished at quarter past L o'clock in the alter
noon, while crowd of deluded ladies were
accommodating at the door in search OF Rlenn.
But why should we extend the melancholy
record The story of theatrical enterprises In
New-YOrk gives us every season fresh cause
to wonder at the simplicity of part OF the
public, and the daring of spectators who trade
upon 1t.
A few years ago, when the Academy OF
Music was always occupied by bankrupt opera
companies, a strike of the chorus used to be
the ordinary method of winding up the season;
and as Mr.. Max Maretzek, after a brief period
of eclipse, regularly came back brisk and
cheerful to the conductors chair and beat time
with inimitable nonchalance while a new
troupe sang and fddled its way to the devil,
the reckless youth of America conceived an
odd sort of liking for him as one who had
probably been ruined Oftener, and minded 1t
less, than any other manager in existence.
But there had TO DE an end of that sort OF
thing after while the condition of the lyric
stage sank lower and lower; and we have
not yet recovered from the depression
and discredit Of those dark ages of make
shift and disaster On the dramatic stage, as
the opportunities are greater, the frequency
of headlOng presumption is greater likewise,
and were there not certain houses which resO-
lutely uphold the standards of fair dealing and
conscientious management, we might look for
a speedy decline in the good repute OF the
business, and a consequent decay of the entire
profession. Whenever a fool or pretender
is allowed to strut few nights on the met
ropolitan boards, and then run away with the
box-oiiice receipts, il there happen to be any,
or leave his scene-shifters penniess if there
be none, great injury is done to honest
actors and to genuine theatrical managers,
and through them wrong is done to art.
1t seems TO us that the press hardly does all
that it might toward the correction OF the
growing evil to which these remarks refer.
The critic has higher Office to fulfil than
reporting on the incidents Of a performance
as they come under superficial review, or
writing as pleasantly as lie can about every
new show to which his attention is invited.
1t is his privilege to point out the difference
between solid melit and humbug, not merely
in the actual representation of play, but in
the very spirit and conception of theatrical
enterprise. The bane of a great deal OF our
criticism is excessive good nature. The pes
tilent adycnurer in art il often treated with
as much tenderness as the struggling and
deserving artist; not, perhaps, that we puff
HIM up with false praise, but we carelesSly
let him pass with a few words Of civil but
mischicvous general notice. 1t is time to drop
the coddling system of criticism. Let us put
a little more vinegar in the ink.