TALKING of criticism and the press, the press and the stage, one
evening, Irving expressed some views in regard to the influence
and relations of the newspaper and the theatre which are full of
suggestiveness and point.
“Journalism and the stage,” he said, “have always been more or less
in sympathy with each other. As they have progressed this sympathy
may be said to have grown into an alliance in the best interests of
civilization. As exponents of the highest thought of the greatest
writers, as educationists of the most comprehensive character, the
press and the stage are, I think, two of the most powerful institutions
for good in our times, and represent the greatest possibilities in the
future.
“It is interesting to contemplate how closely they are associated,
these two institutions, artistically and commercially. The
advertisements of the theatres represent a large revenue to the
newspapers; the employment of writers and reporters in chronicling
and commenting upon the work of the theatres represents, on the other
hand, an important outlay for the newspapers. The press is telling the
story of the theatre from day to day; and, while it extends an earnest
and honest sympathy to dramatic art in its highest aspirations of
excellence, I hope the time will come when the criticism of the work
of the stage will be considered one of the most serious features that
belong to the general and varied compositions of a newspaper.
“In the past we, in England, at all events, look upon but two men as
critics in the most complete sense,—men who, by thought and study,
feeling and knowledge, had the power to sympathize with the intention
of the artist, to enter into the motives of the actor himself,
criticising his conceptions according to his interpretation of that
which he desires to express. These two writers were Lamb and Hazlett.
But nowadays we have thousands of critics. Every newspaper in Great
Britain has its critic. Even the trade-journals, and some of the
professedly religious journals, have their critics, and some of them
speak with an emphasis and an authority on the most abstruse principles
of art which neither Lamb nor Hazlett would have dreamed of assuming. I
don’t know how this contrasts with America; but I am sure that when the
conductors of the great journals of the two worlds are fully convinced
of the deep interest and the friendly interest the people are taking
in the stage they will give increasing importance to the dramatic
departments of their papers.”
“You are going to a journalistic breakfast or supper one day this
week,” I said. “Is that your idea of the sort of speech you will
make to them?” I asked, for he expressed his opinions with more than
ordinary firmness, seeing that the topic was comparatively new.
“Well, I thought of saying something,” he replied, walking all the time
about his room. “Do you think the relations of the stage and the press
a good subject?”
“Excellent,” I said; “a text worthy of an essay in ‘The Fortnightly’ or
the ‘Edinburgh Review.’”