Page:The Newspaper and the Historian.djvu/387



govern dramatic criticism and yet in no form of criticism are so

many complex factors involved. The play is first of all a work of literature and it is naturally reviewed as such. But the play

acted on the stage becomes something entirely different and it must be criticized as such .139 These entirely different and even

contradictory characteristics in a play to be read as literature and to be acted as drama explain why certain admirable works of literature as Tennyson 's Harold and Queen Mary and Brown ing's Strafford have failed on the stage, as they explain why the

Greek drama and Shakespeare survive. “ The play,” says Clapp , “ which never passes into literature; the play, which in the cold permanency of print cannot endure reading and re-reading, has

the sure seed of death within it.” 140

The critic may regard the play as literature and give the out line of the plot, — this is useless to those who have seen the play ; it may be disconcerting to those who wish to see it; but it is even more disappointing to the historian who can read the play as literature. The nominal critic may be in reality a reporter and

hence regard the play as a piece of news to be written up enter tainingly. The critic may be the man in the office who is willing to spend his evenings at the theater, and he may be paid by

space and hence criticize all plays by procrustean methods. The critics may disagree among themselves, as when one drama tic critic recently wrote of a first night that the actors had made the play, while another wrote of the same performance that a good play had been spoiled by bad acting. Personal criticism

may be written of the actors in the play, rather than of their acting, still less of the dramaas acted. The confessions of drama tic critics themselves often give interesting revelations of their qualifications to act as such and of their conception of the duties involved .141 From Aristotle to the present day there has been 139 Edmund Yates while dramatic critic for the Daily News once utterly condemned a play of his own. He had thought the play very good in manu script, but when he saw it on the boards, he changed his mind and felt bound

to condemn it. - J. McCarthy and J. R. Robinson, The Daily News Jubilee, pp. 83 -84.

140 Reminiscences of a Dramatic Critic, p. 45.

141 C. T. Congdon says that when Rachel began her season in Boston, he wrote for his paper all the articles on her acting without knowing a word of French. “ A really good journalist,” he adds, “ never betrays his ignorance of anything.” — Reminiscences, p. 315.