ONE of the oldest problems of the rationale of criticism is that of accounting for differences of opinion on the part of the critics. ERNEST NEWMAN.
A critic is a tub that must stand on its own bottom.
For his readers' sake a critic must have the arrogance to put himself in the position of the leading authority from which there can be no appeal . . . . The reader of dramatic criticism must feel that his mentor is in no possible doubt whatever. JAMES AGATE.
I would never attempt now—whatever fond dreams I have permitted myself on the matter in the past—to write what might be called a positive book on criticism . . . . A constructive theory of criticism is impossible at present; but much good work can be done along purely destructive lines. Instead of blindly and blandly repeating the blunders in our own work—as we all do—of the Hanslisks, the Davisons, the Scudos, the Chorleys, and all the rest of them, would it not be advisable to try to find out why these critics went so completely wrong in spite of the fact that they imagined