The record-union., 1893-12-18
DRAMATIC CRITICISM.
Guy de Maupassant's Definition Of a
Critic.
The Disgusting Display of Ignorance
by Some of the So-CaIIed Critics
Their Dramatic Knowledge.

nal
The late Guy de Maupassant defined
critic as one who must, without preju-
dices, without preconcelved opinions.
without the ideas OF any particular
school, without connection with any
class of artist, understand, distinguish
and explain the most adverse tendencies,
the most contrary temperaments, and
admit the most diversified researches of
art"
If these be the essential characteristics
Of a true critic then Milwaukee should
establish kindergarten devoted to the
study of rudimentary principles of the
critics art; judging from the tone of some
OF the dramatic reviews that nave lately
appeared in several Milwaukee papers.
The writer's are past masters in the knOwI-
edge OF what criticism Is not but are sadly
in need OF mentor to develop in their
embryotic intellects-an inkling of what
criticism, ordinary intelligence and jour
nalistlc dignity cons SITS. The visit OF
Thomas w .Reene to the Davidson Theater
last week was made the occasion for an
outburst of empty TRADE from these tup-
penny ha'penny Sir Oracles OF the press
that would be amusing If it were not dis
guSting, Thomas w. heene is an actor
who has won his spurs honorably; he has
forged his way into the front rank by
sheer force of inborn geniuS-Supp
ed by thirty years OF energy, research
and unremitting study. Is it not lament
able that such man should be made the
luminary at which these toads spit their
venom. Is it not an insult to an inteili-
gent public who by their continued sup
port Of Mr.. keene evidence their admira-
tlOa of his art to be told that their admi-
ration is ignorance and their attendance
idiocy?
These scribblers plainly say to theater-
goers, Poor beggars, you are not capa-
BILE of judging for yourselves. We will
judge Tor you," and the we Is always
capitalized. The trouble is that these
novices are not capable of mbibing, di-
gesting or analyzing the original trend
of master mind. They have formed
their models from the prefaces of
French's dime edition of the standard
drama, and their uniformed intellects al
low them to go no further. They are ca
bined, cribbed and confined by moldy
precedent circumscri bed by a limited
mentality. Their ebullitiOns are not
therefore surprising. Their dramatic
knowledge is limited, though their con-
ceit is immense They evidently mis-
judge, and could as well print their criti-
cisms in advance. What follows? An
ignorant, often badly written effort to dis
play the perspicacity of the writer and the
critical incompetence of everybody else.
He rejects originality because he cannot
understand it. Breadth Of conception
and execution are gall and wormwood be-
cause he is unable 10 cope with Uhem
Individuality is to him Synonymous with
mannerism. 1t is a good mouth-fillIng
word, and he likes it. He is not quite
clear as to its subtle distinctions, but
what of that, it sounds erudite and criti-
cal. And that is his aim. Be critical or
nothing. de generally succeeds in the
lztter.
The true critic is welded to no school,
has no ideal, and, above all, no passion in
his work. He is broad-minded, pliable
and open to cOnVlctlOn-lf the argument
be convincing. He is not one-idead
creature; he is or should be a calm, dis
passionate patiently hoping for
perfectness, seeking new truths among
the debris Of old commonplace. and with
his clear eyes fixed on the horizon wait
ing for the light of idealistic novelty TO
break through the mOnotomous grey of
tradition.
Mark the difference. The fedglings
who made such pitiable spectacle of
themselves in writing of Mr.. Keene's
performances last week possess the eX-
act opposite of these characteristics. They
attend the theater enveloped in an atmos-
phere OF owlish wisdom-not to gain new
insight into old Characterization, not to
ponder over and digest freshness of
conception either in action or reading, not
to enjoy an unexpected spark from the
salad days they had seen a Hamlet. They
never got beyond that. They didn't un-
derstand IL when they saw it. but they
did remember it. Then they saw Richie
lieu. They remembered that also, be-
cause it was the first time they ever wore
long pants, and it impressed itself on
their Jelly1ng gray matter. 1t was the
finest Richelieu they ever witnessed.
They secuted the idea of the Cardinal
ever being played in any other manner
than as they saw it at that Wednesday
matinee. Their opinions of these charac-
ters are like their first fond love tor the
doughnuts they used to get at home when
they wore roundabouts. Never were
doughnuts like them. They have
munched scores of them since, but the
present doughnut is simply beneath crit
icism. Same way with mothers mince
pies. All, there are no mince pies now.
So they stick to their Hamlet doughnut
and their Richelieu pie, and there is no
health In any other pie or cruller under
heaven.
Progression is out of the question with
them. There can be no progression.
Temperamental difference in an actor has
no more right to exist than a change in
the recipe of doughnut. All nature, all
characterization, all personality is mold
ed in one form. They are simple Great
ures-these would-be critics simple, cal
low, and it must be confessed, slightly
ignorant at times. One dissective mind,
speaking of the Cibberean version of
Richard Ill. refers to it as Mr.. Keene's
version, and implies that that gentleman
has coldly and calmly crumpled up and
arranged to suit his own taste a thing
that should cause the great playwright
to turn uneasily in his grave. This is
plainly confusion to the reader. The
opinion has gained ground that one
Colley Cibber turned the bard in his
nd SiTlcn hot
time innumerable great actors have given
him another hunch by obStinately insist
ing on playing the Cibber version.
Some years ago Edwin Booth endeav-
ored to restore the defunct Swan of Avon
to a comfortable quiescence by produc-
ing his Richard III. according to the
original text-but it was SO united for
stage presentation and was such CHASTITY
failure, and the author grew so restless
that Mr.. Booth struck it from his roper
tory-tinding that even his genius could
not make it interesting. Perhaps the
young gentleman who wrote the article
does not know this. Perhaps he has not
read the folio addition. Perhaps-but
why digress?
Another equally fluent and critical
mind bemoanS the ingratltude OF players
in general, and Mr.. keene in particular,
in that Richard is presented as deformed
in mind and body. The reason for his
lamentation is that the real Richard was
good TO the stage" Mr.. Keene is to be
severely censured for this. Such ingrati-
tude is base. He should engage Bronson
Howard or some well-known playwright
to revamp the original text and set forth
Richard in his true colors, mlld-man-
nered gentleman of exemplary habits
and endowed with a physical charm that
would be invaluable at matinees. Then
Mr.. Keene could sell it to Sandow or
Pauline Hall. They would look the part
according to their different types-and