New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1907-03-16
Literary yNesvs G,sd Criticism.

largely 70 clear his reputation tnat Professor
Lounsbury has written the present history
Theobald's lapse into obscurity was due chiefly
to his "injudicious honesty" in creditng every
BODY else fairly and minimizing his own contrl-
buttons to ShakespeGrlan criticism.
In the character of Theobald Professor Louns-
bury has given US an excellent picture Of a
tyne q literary critic all too rare in every day
and age Few indeed are the text experts and
sonnet dissectors who Treekly invite oblivion AZ
did Pope's gea;lemaEy rival Although Dun
ciads' are no longer penned, there are still
many Shakespearian critics who remind one of
that sad verse in Chevy Chase" which runs
with amendments and apologies:
For Shakespeare critics must wall
As in doIeful DUMPS; o
For when their legs are sn1itten OH
They fight upon their stuFlps
TO be convinced OF this. let the reader turn to
that entertaining brief for the defendant erti-
tied The Critics vs. Shakespeare (Knicker-
booker Press), by Mr. Francis smith, This
champion Of the poet drops no courtesy, nor fine
phrase TO his opponents. the eensorious critics
of Shakespeare. Re scoras every man who
thinks that even ore word IN Shakespeares &C
credited lines was net scrubbed b. the bard
himself. He has no words fit 10 measure his
contempt for those who fancy that Shakespeare
dressed up older plays and turned scarecrows
into goddesses. And nothing but silence is
strong enough to CONVEX his opinion CT Bacon
fans and that Tx While dead mems bones are
made 10 rattle by the aroused NJ, Sm!th-Mar-
lowe. Fletcher, Peele and Or. Jonnaon being in
dividralIy seized vehoDeE:y by the scruH OF
their respective necls and scundly teTdted--
nevertheless. NJ. Smiths warmest words and
stifrest strokes are reserved for his con;einpo-
raries. notably Professors Barrett Wendell and
Ashley Thorndike. These two scholars incense
the author BY their critical construction OF
Shallespearian chronology. making X appear
that the swan Of Avon was really a parrot. the
most ski,ful nlitator the world has ever listened
10. Chronolog.es are dun reading, hut criti-
cism of them at Mr. Smiths hands IS not II
the citations he makes from his TWO arch enc
mics are not perverted by divorce from their
original con;ex; the chronologlsts have certain
~ been successfully indicted by Mr.. Smith on
several Of The many counts The casual reader
may convince himself Of this b. following the
analysis Of Professor TkorndiSe's reasoning by
which the dates Of 'Philaster" and "Cymbeline"
are fixed; OF again. even more forcibly. BY
watching the critic rend the Thorndihe-W Wendell
web OF dates in which "Timon of Athens" and
"Cymbeinc" are casually connected. But, after
having enjoyed the tourney in which victory has
been with tho stffcst lance. We are tempted to
criiCise the critic of critics. Mr. Smith makes
so many gratuitous assumptions that he must be
charged with carrying concealed weapons. He
refutes one chronology with n tacitly orthodox
one: and. worst Of al. in trying to prove that it
was psyChOlogcelly impossible for Shakespeare
to have initiated Beaumont. he commits the
gross anach-onism Of reading modern sentl-
ronts on plagiarism into the Elizabethan age-a
psychological blunder which the veriest tyro in
f.rirf trrl, Ard hOOlrf Re
good reading and not barren for ii plainly comes
from man 10 whom the plays OF Shakespeare
living spokesman for all that is beautiful and
true.
Critics may well excuse their pugnacity by
showing that they catch It from dranatists and
actors. with whom they have much to do. let US
hope. The temperament OF theatre deniZens
very often breeds its like in those who study
plays and acting. Hence the reliability Of much
literature that ought TO have been DULY scien-
tihc and scientifically dali That the passions Of
dramatists and actors are not merely imagined
inexperienced readers may learn by reading Mr..
Watson Nicholson's book. The Struggle for a
Free Stage IN London" (Houghton. Mifiiin &
Coz. This tale OF the rise and fall Of the Lon
don theatre monopoly demonstrates the vim Of
stagelanders and some critics. Mr.. Nicholson's
history is so painstaking that It gives many de-
fists for whom. though. the work is obviously
intended. Yet it gives such a vivid picture OF
government monopolles. managerial tricks. mis-
rule and eventual triumph Of common sense In
matters theatrical that every admirer OF tho
drama might prohtably read the volume with
judicious omissions.
Probably few people realize the backwardness
and blindness England showed for centuries in
dealing with drama. For generations actors
were legally regarded Migrants. Nor was
this stigma removed when Charles II granted
letters patent 10 two men making the latter sole
guardians OF London's theatrical amusements;
the only result of this concession was the per-
secution Of all managers and actors who tried
to compete with tire two Official theatres-Drury
Lane and Covent Garden. Almost equally dis
astrous were the effects OF the monopoly upon
the treatment and salaries Of actors in these
official theatres FIR. Nicholson sketches clearly
the long series Of revots against the patentees
on the part OF dramatists. actors and the pubic
revolts IN which Fielding's sharpest satires ana
the original Sunday concert" dodge were born
The patentees offered such miserable produc-
tons and extorted such admission prices that
for a long time Parliament did not dare suppress
the many unlicensed theatres which spranB up
TO meet an insistent public demand. Nheh inc
Covent Garden Theatre showed up its prices sui
higher In 1909 after rebuilding, the curious
"Old Price Riots" broke out. and demonstrate
that the Englishnlan. in spite OF his sluggish
ness. looks upon the theatre as pubic uuly
and trust 1t is a pity that mite OF this spirit
has not yet been diffused in America FunNc
sentiment finally triumphed in 1915 when FAR
lament abolished Charless patents Mr.. Mich
olson attributes the victory 10 a large complex
OF personal. political and business causes rather
than 10 any abstract love OF justice or re-
spect for a free stage" In this he shows him
self 20 re a sane historian.
The average reader will probably derive most