The intelligencer. [volume] (Lexington, Mo.) 1887-1891, 1890-12-13
THE DRAMATIC CRITIC.

We saw in a contemporary a day or
two ago a head line-"Do our Dramatic
Critics Abuse Their Privilegest''-
placed over the complaint of an actor
that "ne wspaper critics often do not
know the inside deallngs of a com.
pany." II that were all, the public
would not be a sufferer as often as it is.
The truth IL, that while there is a good
deal of rot on the stage there Is al
equal amount of it in the so-called crit.
cism of what is done there. FRONTS
cuous putting is,ot course ,dissgreeable,
but even that is better than censure
where II is not deserved, and which is
only bestowed for the purpose of
protesting the nal admirari in order to
gain a reputation for knowing some
thing. IL 1t were only that the critic
"does not know the inside workings of
a company" the public might have no
right to complain. This or that minor
actor might be suppressed in glory TO
lend greater eflulgence to a star, but
the honest statement that the part was
subdued or sighted would be true, and
truth is the most desirable of all Things.
II was the sum of all beauty the fullness
of all justice, the heart of science, and
the soul of art.
Dramatic critics abuse their privi-
leges, however, not 80 much because
they do not know the ~peccadillos and
jealousies Of actors, as that they do not
understand the art which they attempt
to write of. 1t is hardly to be expected
that they should themselves possess the
creative genius of an Accius Paulus,
the comprehensive knowledge of a
Shakespeare, the versatility and purity
of diction of an Addison, or the
patriotic fervor of a Leasing. These
were master builders of plays. But if
to write ignorantly ever upon the
pedigree of swine brings with it certain
exposure, then at least something
should be known OF the drama by those
who write upon it. The person who
credits Riohelieu to Shakespeare, who
speaks Of Dryden as a great | a ywright;
who has v even heard of Moliere,
OF Terence or Of Rabelais, is everywhere
posing az a ~''critic. " The entire to the
theater, the two hours subsequently, to
write against space familiarity with the
names of the authors oi"The Rag
Baby" "The Brass Parrot" and "The
Keyhole in the Door Knob" constitute
an equipment and the patient public that
thinks 1t knows a good thing when 1t
sees it, is inexpressibly sold when it
seeks amusement guided by the "criti-
cisin" of the press So many extraneous
things come in to color this "criticism."
A good looking woman here; a bottle
OF champagne there; q little snub,
perhaps; a curtailment of q dignity.
When the public pays its penny for its
paper, 1t is not always that it gets it's
moneys worth of Information here.
There are honorable exceptions to
this rnle, for 1t is q rule. There are
here and there upon the press of the
country men whose work is In itself an
art. Whose praise Is worth something,
and whose censure condemns a play or
player beyond redemption. These are
men of genius. They ere men OF sense.
They are honorable gentlemen. They
are not mere iconoclasts. They realize
that it Is easier, much easier, to tear
down than to build mp, and they would
rather praise than blame. A critic
need not be a cynic. Indeed cynicism
units him for his work.
One need not exactly be a carpenter
in order to criticise the making of a
bench or box, but still there should at
least exist q knowledge Of what Is a
bench, what IL q box. Too often, we
fear, the dramatic critic abuses his
privilege because he has not begun by
learning what is q play and 10 care
less, slipshod and dishonest is much of
his work that the veteran play-goer
passes It by with that utter contempt,
which is so often marked with the
largest audiences to the most abused
plays and players.