COMMUNICATIONS
AN ANSWER TO A CRITIC.
To THE MACCABAEAN :
When I essayed to criticise the works of the late Mr. Goldfaden (in the May number of THE MACCABAEAN) I did it with a certain amount of trepidation and fear as to the subsequent result of this bold act. In my vision's eye I could already behold the thick, black cloud, which, originating in some far-away corner of the literary firmament, is growing ever larger, augmenting fresh, strength and gaining in intensity until, with the force of a veritable tornado or a cloudburst, it will swoop down upon me and utterly overwhelm and annihilate my poor insignificant self with its great bulk; to tell the truth I felt like father Abraham when discovered by his astonished father Terah in his sanctuary wielding the stout destructive axe over the exquisitely-carved form of a particularly favorite idol. The feeling, it must be confessed, is not a very pleasant one.
But, “Save me, :O God, from my friends and I will protect myself against my enemies” was the prayer of the wise man, and the shade of Goldfaden has indeed very good reason to-iterate this request. For I had rather expected that the individual who will venture into the lists of this discussion will come well provided with good arguments, will adduce reasons and facts, will attempt to show us the art which is to be found in the productions of our author, prove or attempt to prove that his dramas do indeed. possess the dramatic virtues, are well constructed, neatly written, that the plots are carefully developed and with a serious artistic care as to their actual possibility and faithfulness to real tangible life, that his heroes act like all other ordinary human beings as we are accustomed to see human rational beings act under the various moods and circumstances and as our knowledge of the time, surroundings and conditions would lead our imagination to conceive their actions, or that he was actuated, if not by the purest artistic ideals, at least by a sincere desire for accuracy. and not to offend against the fundamental prin- <iples of literary decency, ihat his verses to
possess the metre rhythm, polish and mellowness which poetry should possess in order to be deserving öf the name, that it is free from obscenity, cynical allusions and does not attempt to arouse, and cater to, the beastly undercurrent which it is best that it should remain submerged and invisible, in short, all that even a moderately decent writer, whose prime object is not the market that his wares will find and the exploitation—and incidentally also the fostering—of ignorance and credulity, but instead I am treated to the strange sight of the writer in his no doubt well-meant defense practically acquiescing to all I have said, admitting all the shortcomings and con- curring with all my strictures and yet adding an accusation, that of obscenity, which has never even occurred to me to bring against him. The writer of the article says that because “they (the people) could appreciate only the common, the simple and the obscene” he had to supply them with it and supply them he did with a never-failing, never-be- grudging hand! Shades of our Father! What an admission! It is totally unnecessary to climb its steep and dizzy mountain of abstract idealism, there is no need to ‘plunge. into the vast depths of abstract theories as to the drama and its aims and purposes, but I shall confine myself to a sane, sensible consideration of the case from the standpoint of every-day and hackneyed de- cencey and practical, and not idealogical, morality and till prove the fallacy of the argument.
A conscientious vendor of material commodities will refuse to sell inferior or imitatory wares if he is but aware of their inferiority and unreliability; he will not attempt to foist his spurious imitation upon the unsuspecting purchaser who reposes his trust in his honesty, and here we behold the vendor of spiritual wares which are "foolishly" supposed to serve as an educator as well as a piritual uplift for the people serving his trusting patrons with "the common, the simple and the obscene" and contributes thereby to their sinking still lower into the mire of ignorance and folly. The writer admits that "he did not educate them, but, like all compromisers, was himself swept from his moorings and instead of leading to an appreciation of better