Page:The Newspaper and the Historian.djvu/386



begin yesterday and they will not end to-morrow ,134 and it is this

that has led Archer to propose " A Critical Court of Honour” 135 competent to decide disputes where players and playwrights believe they have been too harshly dealt with by critics . These disputes have sometimes been decided by courts of law, but

Archer deems them incompetent to render judgment on such technical questions. Occasionally the press has been the victim of a jest at the hands of a dramatic critic and these jests must add a cheerful

tone to the somewhat depressing aspects of dramatic criticism .136 It is probably because there have been so many critics who “ came short of rendering the best service to the public because of counting-room

pressure in favor of liberally advertising

theatres, or against the theatres whose patronage was less valu able,” because sometimes actors were friends or foes of editor or owners, and “ the critic was bidden to be 'a respecter of per

sons'” 137 that an eminent dramatic critic has raised the question “ Is dramatic criticism necessary ?” 138

The historian has but one answer to the question, dramatic criticism is absolutely essential if he is to reconstruct the dramatic

representation of the past, and it is this that leads him to change slightly an opinion expressed by Henry Austin Clapp and to say , “ The qualities of Master Samuel Pepys which made him a

dangerous neighbor in 1670 make him valuable to an historian in But press criticism of the drama is much more than the simple

question of a favorable or an unfavorable judgment. There is as yet no consensus of opinion as to what principles should 134 René Doumic, “ La Querelle des auteurs et des critiques au théâtre," Revue des Deux Mondes, September 15, 1906, Per. V , 35: 446 -457 . 136 Fortnightly Review , April, 1903, n . s. 73: 698-705. The suggestion of such a court grew out of the exclusion of A . B . Walkley from the Garrick theater. Henry Arthur Jones wrote “ An Appeal to the Press” claiming

that Walkley's criticism had shown personal animus. 136 A. W. à Beckett wrote for the Oriental Budget a criticism of an amateur theatrical performance given for a charitable purpose and in it criticized severely the part he had taken himself. The editor sternly rebuked him and characterized the notice as libellous, but was relieved when told, “ The

actor I went for was myself! I always try to be impartial.” — Recollections of a Humorist, pp. 81-82.

137 H. A. Clapp, Reminiscences of a Dramatic Critic, pp. 23- 24.

138 Brander Matthews, Bookman, September, 1915, 42: 82-87.