NOTES AND COMMENTS 



Concerning Criticism 



The other day the writer was reading Brander Matthews' "Fasci- 

 nating Life of Moliere." Matthews drives home with convincing force 

 the magnitude of Moliere's contribution to French Hterature, because 

 of the justice and piquancy of his constructive criticism of French 

 manners and customs of the seventeenth century. Yet Moliere un- 

 questionably suffered from the enmity of those whose customs he 

 attacked, and to such an extent that Matthews drew the conclusion 

 that: 



"Any attack on the exaggeration and excrescence of a movement 

 cannot fail to have the appearance of an assault on the movement 

 itself, since contemporary opinion is rarely able to disentagle the essen- 

 tial from the nonessential." 



Does this not hold true of any criticism of conservation? Surely 

 it is possible to distinguish a mere disagreement with specific policies 

 and lack of loyalty to the splendid movement itself. If so, should 

 criticism be encouraged or discouraged? Then, too, there is the per- 

 sonal element. Cannot a criticism of methods be made without in- 

 volving the unpleasantness of creating needlessly a host of personal 

 enemies ? What set me to thinking along these lines was the statement 

 of a friend of mine. A young forest student, with commendable zeal, 

 had written a rather interesting criticism of a current Forest Service 

 publication. At my suggestion, he showed his review to this friend of 

 mine, who advised the student strongly against publishing it under his 

 signature, for fear he would be "queered" with the Forest Service, 

 because he, so youthful a forester, dared to criticise one of its publica- 

 tions. I asked a member of the Forest Service whether such a thing 

 could be true; whether, if a young fellow published critical review, it 

 would injure his standing with members of the Forest Service. To my 

 gratification, the official replied vehemently that the fellows that com- 

 posed the organization were all of a far different type. He took the 

 position that a fairly written review, however critical, would not hurt 

 the young forester's standing; that it would be judged on its merits, 

 and if criticism was warranted the review would be accepted without 

 rancor. It seems to me that such a viewpoint is so logical, so reason- 

 able, and so essential to a proper development of forestry in the United 

 354 



