The western sentinel. [volume] (Winston-Salem, N.C.) 1887-1926, 1889-05-23
CRITICISM OF OTHERS.

dSdiuSI Dy tHOSc WHO WOulu ODey
the Golden Rule is careless, un-
thinking criticism Of other people
and their works.
The mere desire to say something
to maintain a conversation some
times leads to the expression Of So
called opinions based upon INSULT
cient knowledge that may do great
harm to the subject of criticism.
Even indiscriminate praise is harm
f'nl. lcsseniny the influence, Of those
who indulge in it, AMI thereby de
priving them OF power for good
where praise is deserved and might
otherwise be of advantage. More
harm is probably done by the care
less expression of opinions, whether
of praise or censure, than by mali
cious criticism, because it is so much
more common.
Good pr ople-that is to say, people
of good intentions, are very often I'M
conscious offenders in this respect,
and when they also happen to be
writers or public speakers they null
tiply each offense. The really
thoughtful and considerable person
will be very chary Of his criticism of
others, and especially of their mo-
tives. If he is considering only the
products of their labor, he will make
sure that he is fitted to crilic;se be-
fore giving uttcrance to an opinion
that may have far-reaching effect in
misleading others either as to the
merits or faults of the perform
ance
How often this general rule of
conduct is violated may be realized
by any one who stops to consider
the freedom with which works of
art, literary productions and music
are criticised, not only without due
consideration, but by people who
have not the slightest foundation of
knowledge on which to base critical
judgment. 1t seems, indeed, absurd
to have thoughtless creature with
no experience and little Judgment
settiog himself up to pronounce an
opinion on the work Of one who has
devoted a lifetime t., study and sub
mitted the fruits of his labor to his
fellow-men. Yet such things are
seen every day, though they too
often pass unnoticed by those who
have fallen into the habit of talking
or writing without thinking of the
possible effect of that to which they
give utterance.
But if injustice may be wrought
by those who carelessly or thought
lessly criticise the works of others,
much greater harm may be done
when the opinions expressed relate
to the characters, motives or pur-
poses of the subjects of remark.
These are in any case obscure or hid
den, as any one may realize who,
with his own large knowledge of
himself, attempts a self-examination
to determine his own character, or
his own motives or purposes in any
particular action. When he looks
upon others. the best he can do is to
deduce character from known be-
havior and reason out motives or
purposes from the results he has
seen, and whose causes may not be
fully known.
Deductions of this kind are not
proper subjects for free publication
and comment, especially where they
may seriously affect the regulations
Or fortunes of others. There are
cases, it is true, where opinions must
be formed and expressed even on in
sufficient information; cases in pub
lie life where the characters and mo-
tives of public men must be inferred |
from their acts and freely criticised !; |
but the comments made under such |
circumstances ought to be tempered
by the consideration that the deduc-
tions may be imperfect, and that in
justice may be done through their
publication.
The revised opinions of public
men, formed long years after they
have passed away, have not, as a
rule, been softened by charity so
much as by the clearer view afford
ed to those who approach their sub
ject free from partisan or other pref
udice. The contemporaneous critic,
however DESTROYS he may be to rid
himself of bias and deal justly with
the subject ofhis criticisms, can sell
dom free himself from prejudices
born of his religious and political be-