Page:The Newspaper and the Historian.djvu/385

 p. 359.

has to contend is the tie of personal friendship .” The dramatic critic, he maintains, “ should avoid knowing actors and actresses, dramatic authors and theatricalmanagers. He should be chary

of accepting what may be termed ' professional' hospitality. He should have a prior engagement when asked to celebrate ' any thing in the customary fashion ' by anybody. He should train

himself to hate chicken ,' to loathe champagne'. ” While sup pers became the rule at a certain class of entertainment the best critics avoided the feasts, — “ the moment it was felt that the

suppers were intended for favours to be paid, those invited to the banquets absented themselves en masse.” Subsequently , he

waives aside all suggestion of the relations between critic and manager as being necessarily harmful to dramatic criticism and says, “ So long as the scholar is linked with the gentleman there is no fear of corruption ," and that since two persons have to be

squared in matters of this kind, — the dramatic critic and the editor, - between the two the freedom of the press is fairly pro

tected .131 The temptation of the critic is strong and the anxiety of both

playwright and players is understandable, - William Archer says that producing a play and waiting for the opinion of the critics is comparable to the sensation of a felon waiting for the verdict. A play that is condemned remains condemned, while a work of

art or of literature " remains to give the lie to an unjust judg ment.” It is this that leads Archer to say that “ there are in the literary world few more responsible positions than that of the dramatic critic of an influential daily paper.” 132 The actor in particular knows that his “ labour is forever lost if it miss instant recognition .” But this very instant recognition is fraught with danger since “ the mistaken kindness of his friends by indis criminate praise robs the player of his best encouragement to strive to a high mark, win definite appreciation for himself , and

honour for his calling.” 133

These differences of opinion between critics and actors did not 131 The Modern Adam, or How Things are Done, pp. 163, 166 - 167, 216 – 217. 132 “ The Duties of Dramatic Critics ,” Nineteenth Century, February , 1885, 17 : 249– 262.

133 Henry Morley, The Journal of a London Playgoer, p. 7.