The Saint Paul globe. (St. Paul, Minn.) 1896-1905, 1896-11-08

Yentleman," which will be seer at the
Grand, following New York AS 1t Is"
Mr.. Heege's Characterization is said to
be an amusing and faithful presenta-
ton, true to nature, and unexaggerated.
Hoyt's "a Trip to Chinatown" must have
taken on new graces since it was produced
in the Antipodes. A dramatic writer of the
Free Lance, Melbourne, expresses his feel
ings about it In this unique and picturesque
manner:
For a rare old razzle, dazzle, right-down
rickety rackety rorty show, "A Trip to China
town would be hard to wipe out. II is
enough to make the w. c.. T. U. snort for
a month. There is considerably more female
leg to the square inch in 1t than any enter
tainment that has paraded since the days of
Sfmonsen's Spanish Students who hold the
limb record for the Southern hemisphere.
Moreover, the dialogues and gags are also OF
a pronounced cobalt complexion, and, alto
gether, there is an atmosphere about the pro-
ductfon which seems very, very naughty. and
at the same time very, very nice. 1t is
the Frenchiest Of dainty dishes. piquant
risque, and la, la la. la. la. Also, 1t Is q lot
more things which the Free Lance wouldn't
dare to express, even in French"
When an author does not know how his
play should be performed the magnitude Of
the problem Of art becomes appalling, says
Hillary Bell in the New York Press. That
mao wag, Bernard Shaw, wrote q play called
Arms and the Man." He produced IL IN
London as a serious drama, and 1t was a
failure. Richard Mansfield produced it as
upon Shaw declared that Mansfield had ruined
his work. Now riddle us that. Yet Bernard
Shaw is the dramati critic Of the Saturday
Review and a high authority in London, al
though his Judgment is openly despised by
that greater critic, William Archer. Clement
Scott declared that in april Weather our
Mr.. Fitch had written a play that would
go down the corridors of time; but 1t got no
further than the doorway, for the public
promptly condemned it as rubbish. Yet many
folk consider Clement Scott the best critic
find similar confusion. When Walter Dam
rosch produced his Scarlet Letter IN Bos-
ton last year Mr.. Martinez, an excellent
Judge Of music, approved the score highly in
the World. A few days later Reginald de
Koven condemned the opera emphaticaliy.
Here, then, is a newspaper paying handsome
salaries to critics Of reputation who fatty
contradict each other in their own journal.
Letter" could have been a good opera in Bos-
ton and a bad opera in New York.
Yet after keeping him on a pedestal for ten
days or SO the World knocked Mr.. Dam
rosch down. Now that journal itself had
nothing to do with this illogical conduct.
The managing editor had full confidence in
the Judgment of Mr.. Martinez and Mr.. De
Koven, and SO far as their musical know
ledge goes, this confidence was justified. But
these gentlemen had different conceptions Of
art. Their opinions were entirely sincere,
quainted with both critics could easily under
stand their rival arguments. But what is
the outside public to think? The journal
was honest and its critics were honest, yet
the author Of the opera and it's audiences
had reasonable cause for complaint. The
Musical Courier is our chief authority on
music matters. Yet in it's current issue the
principal critic of that journal praises Oscar
Hammerstein and Santa Maria" while the
editor holds the opera and its author up
to scorn. How shall we get out of that di-
lemma? Mistakes may occur in a daily
newspaper whose managing editor has SO
ers about the art department. But here is
a trade weekly devoted to music, whose edi-
tor and critic, both Of them renowned In
judgment. are at loggerheads over the value
of a comic opera. Mr.. Huneker advises us
to hear Santa Maria" his editor urges
us to stay away from It. In the same
breath our chief authority on music blows
hot and cold. What is art, anyway?