Art and Literary Criticism, 93 judgment on the same play will each in his own place give his opinion. Some will praise, others condemn, the author's work; some will admire, others disparage, the actors' efforts ; but Mrs Kendal has surely somewhat overdrawn the delinquencies of dramatic critics in her address at the Social Science Congress in 1884. "I do not think," she then said, "that the Press of the present day does all that it might do for the true welfare of the drama. Existing critics generally rush into extremes, and either overpraise or too cruelly condemn. The public, as a matter of course, turn to the newspapers for information, but how can any judgment be formed when either indis- criminate praise or unqualified abuse is given to almost every new piece and to the actors who interpret it." The " falsehood of extremes " is then, according to Mrs Kendal, the besetting sin of the critic. Though the fault is not, surely, so general as the lady's words would indicate, there is, without doubt, room for improvement in the critical notices of the drama. It may, too, be urged that the critic can do his duty and express his honest convic- tions without giving pain to those he criticises. While it is true that all public performers are open to the fullest and freest criticism, it does not follow that such criticism need be, or, indeed, should be, expressed in a manner which would be considered offensive if delivered viva voce. It would be well if critics always observed the valuable rule of giving the reasons for their praise or blame. No critic can, in fact, ever hope to successfully guide public opinion who fails to do this, and, however diverse may be the criticisms which appear in various newspapers, if this course is adopted, the publiq may at least form a proper estimate of the value to be attached to the expressions of opinion of the critic. What has just been said applies mainly to musical and theatrical notices. Art and literary criticism call for the
