DRAMATIC CRITICS CRITICISED.

Evening Star, Issue 3789, 16 April 1875, Page 3

DRAMATIC CRITICS CRITICISED.

To the Editor,

Sib,— ln the criticism which appears in this morning’s ‘ Guardian,’ Mr J, B. Steele receives a favorable notice for Richard Annesley, a part played by Mr Power; Mr Power receives praise for the part of “ a mock lord,’* not in the drama at all, and Mr Roscoe receives severe castigation for his representation of Lord Altham, which character is pourtrayed by Mr Steele in the prologue. The parts rendered by Mr Roscoe in the piece were “ the parson of Coinbrook ” and “ M‘Carthy,” a planter. This style of theatrical criticism is unbearable, and merely tends to bring into ridicule the paper in which they appear.—l am, &c., Faibplat. Dunedin, April 16. To the Editor. Sib,—The proprietors of many public journals regard theatrical criticism ox very little importance ; and, entertaining this opinion, pay very little attention to the persons or to the manner in which these articles are written. In many newspapers the reporter’s task is performed by a single individual, or, at most, two, who unhesitatingly undertake the criticism of works on all subjects: science, art, history, poetry, the drama, &o. It is ready amusing to read some of these criticisms. To-day Jones, the solitary hack, Is drawing some actor over the coals, next week he will pick holes in the history of man during the pre-Adamite ages, should such a work be issued from the Press — there is a mystery in such things. But it is not the first time that slashing criticisms have apE eared in leading journals, the writer of which as only seen so much of the play as would suffice for a quotation or two. The criticism may appear to display a considerable amount of learning on the part of its author, but this only to those who know nothing of the subject; to others the critic’s ignorance will be apparent, consequently the character of the journal in which his criticism appears will suffer. I have, had <many criticisms passed on my acting—in one morning paper I nave been excellent, and in the other below mediocrity. For this variety of opinion there must be some cause: either the critic is ignorant of his business, or his criticism is dictated by some unworthy motive. True criticism there cannot be unless the critic is possessed of all the qualities necessary for that superior discernment of which he pretends to be capable, and he must be wholly uninfluenced by any other motive than the desire to express an unbiassed opinion upon the actor be criticises ; when he steps aside from this in however small a degree, he abuses the power of which he is possessed. It is immaterial whether he praise or censure, if his criticism be not the expression of a wholly unbiassed opinion ; an unfavorable one may be expressed in such a manner that even the most fastidious may fail to take offence. But when the ontio pours out the full venom of his sting, regardless of everything but to make the actor feel ms power, he is guilty of an abuse which, in its torn, cannot be too severely censured. Personal criticism is only another expression for unmitigated impertinence, and the slatings (I believe that is the word) threatened and afterwards written by the critic and his cronies over their whiskey, upon plays never witnessed by them, and actors against whom they have a grudge, are beneath notice; and the man who can so lower himself in his own estimation as to be guilty of so doing, and the proprietors and editors of journals who are aware of this and continue to employ such men, are alike even unworthy of contempt.—l am, &0., I. F. Keogh, Dunedin, April 16.