Page:The Newspaper and the Historian.djvu/388



no consensus of opinion as to whether criticism should deal with the drama as literature, or with literature as interpreted through dramatic representation.

Contemporaries are everywhere prone to regard the dramatic criticism of their own age, as a recent writer has said it is still regarded in America, - as “ ephemeral, unprincipled, jejune.” 142 An occasional oasis is sometimes found and the student of history

rejoices for coming historians when he reads of the work of the late William Winter, “ The amount of sagacious, instructional, and descriptive comment in his total output is amazing. Much

of it, in its general shrewdness, competency, and accuracy, is of great and permanent historical value a living picture of a

theatrical era .” 143 But the real difficulty is not in finding the ideal dramatic critic, but in limiting and describing the functions of dramatic

criticism. His task is to bring to his criticism a sympathetic and adequate knowledge of the drama, an understanding of the

technical machinery of the stage, an appreciation of the effect of the drama upon the audience, and a comprehension of the

problems of the playwright and of the actors. The question has been well put by H. N. MacCracken who considers that:

“ The function of drama is precisely that contained in the literal meaning of the word, doing. Doing in the technical dramatic sense means impersonation, and from the earliest times actors have spoken of doing' parts or roles. The function of the

dramatic critic is, then, primarily , to consider how successful in the rendition is the public performance of a play. The critic as

a reporter of dramatic news should furnish an outline of the program

and note whatever of news value attaches to the per

formance. His prime question should be, however, — was the

John Oxenford, a dramatic critic on the London Times, used to boast that he never wrote a word in the Thunderer that could do professional damage to an actor, or take the bread out of the mouth of an actress

Bohemian Days in Fleet Street, p. 84.

The author of Bohemian Days in Fleet Street speaks of Joseph Knight as “ a sort of pluralist in dramatico- critical benefices, representing at one time

three or four daily and weekly publications.” — p. 91. 142 T. H. Uzzell, “ A Diagnosis of Dramatic Criticism ,” The Unpopular Re view, July -September, 1915, 14 : 96 – 109.

143 J. Rankin Towse, New York Evening Post, July 2