1880.] on Musical Criticism. 439 



Bliortly afterwards, and not only in their own land, but far away, 

 where only the press conld carry their fame. 



English critics were not ill-natured, but, on the contrary, like the 

 non-])rofessional, were much too lenient. One writer hmgcd for 

 synonyms for the word "charming," so often did ho use it, and 

 another prided himself on being able to write an entire column 

 without connuitting himself to any opinion whatsoever. But critics 

 should not speak like the connoisseur in Goldsmith, who said that a 

 picture was good, but would have been better had tlie painter taken 

 more pains. The critic, at all hazards, should speak decidedly. If 

 artists thought themselves ill-used they could appeal to the supreme 

 tribunal, the public. The public could, and shouhl, applaud in spite 

 of what they read in the newsjjapers if they thought there was unjust 

 treatment. 



Mr. Hueffer concluded by saying that there had been a great rise 

 in musical taste of late in this country, caused, perhaps, by the efforts 

 of conscientious writers who treated musical matters in the press. To 

 improve matters further, and eradicate evils which still existed, lay 

 with the public. They must study earnestly, and insist that those 

 who spoke to them in print should speak competently and con- 

 scientiously. In that case English musical criticism would soon be 

 what political criticism in English journals now was — the first in the 

 world. 



[P. H] 



