p . 359.
has to contend is the tie of personal friendship .” The dramatic critic, he maintains, “ should avoid knowing actors and actresses, dramatic authors and theatricalmanagers. He should be chary
of accepting what may be termed ' professional' hospitality. He should have a prior engagement when asked to celebrate ' any thing in the customary fashion ' by anybody. He should train
himself to hate chicken ,' to loathe champagne'. ” While sup pers became the rule at a certain class of entertainment the best critics avoided the feasts, — “ the moment it was felt that the
suppers were intended for favours to be paid , those invited to the banquets absented themselves en masse.” Subsequently , he
waives aside all suggestion of the relations between critic and manager as being necessarily harmful to dramatic criticism and says, “ So long as the scholar is linked with the gentleman there is no fear of corruption ," and that since two persons have to be
squared in matters of this kind, — the dramatic critic and the editor, - between the two the freedom of the press is fairly pro
tected .131 The temptation of the critic is strong and the anxiety of both
playwright and players is understandable , - William Archer says that producing a play and waiting for the opinion of the critics is comparable to the sensation of a felon waiting for the verdict . A play that is condemned remains condemned , while a work of
art or of literature " remains to give the lie to an unjust judg ment.” It is this that leads Archer to say that “ there are in the literary world few more responsible positions than that of the dramatic critic of an influential daily paper.” 132 The actor in particular knows that his “ labour is forever lost if it miss instant recognition .” But this very instant recognition is fraught with danger since “ the mistaken kindness of his friends by indis criminate praise robs the player of his best encouragement to strive to a high mark , win definite appreciation for himself , and
honour for his calling.” 133
These differences of opinion between critics and actors did not 131 The Modern Adam , or How Things are Done, pp. 163, 166 - 167, 216 – 217 . 132 “ The Duties of Dramatic Critics ,” Nineteenth Century, February , 1885, 17 : 249– 262.
133 Henry Morley , The Journal of a London Playgoer, p . 7.
