but the player's art is one that perishes with him, and leaves no traces of itself, but in the faint descriptions of the pen or pencil. Yet how eagerly do we stop to look at the prints from Zoffany's pictures of Garrick and Weston! How much we are vexed, that so much of Colley Cibber's Life is taken up with the accounts of his own managership, and so little with those inimitable portraits which he has occasionally given of the actors of his time! How fortunate we think ourselves, when we can meet with any person who remembers the principal performers of the last age, and who can give us some distant idea of Garrick's nature, or of an Abington's grace! We are always indignant at Smollett, for having introduced a perverse caricature of the English Roscius, which staggers our faith in his faultless excellence while reading it. On the contrary, we are pleased to collect anecdotes of this celebrated actor, which show his power over the human heart, and enable us to measure his genius with that of others by its effects. I have heard, for instance, that once, when Garrick was acting Lear, the spectators in the front row of the pit, not being able to see him well in the kneeling scene, where he utters the curse, rose up, when those behind them, not willing to interrupt the scene by remonstrating, immediately rose up too, and in this manner, the whole pit rose up, without uttering a syllable, and so that you might hear a pin drop. At another time, the crown of straw which he wore in the same character fell off, or was discomposed, which would have produced a burst of laughter at any common actor to whom such an accident had happened; but such was the deep interest in the character, and such the power of rivetting the attention possessed by this actor, that not the slightest notice was taken of the circumstance, but the whole audience remained bathed in silent tears. The knowledge of circumstances like these, serves to keep alive the memory of past excellence, and to stimulate future efforts. It was thought that a work containing a detailed account of the Stage in our own times--a period not un

fruitful in theatrical genius-might not be wholly without its

use.

The volume here offered to the public, is a collection of Theatrical Criticisms which have appeared with little interruption, during the last four years, in different newspapers -The Morning Chronicle, The Champion, The Examiner, and lastly, The Times. How I came to be regularly transferred from one of these papers to the other, sometimes formally and sometimes without ceremony, till I was forced to quit the last-mentioned by want of health and leisure, would make rather an amusing story, but that I do not choose to tell "the secrets of the prison-house." I would, however, advise any one who has an ambition to write, and to write his best, in the periodical press, to get if possible "a situation" in The Times newspaper, the Editor of which is a man of business, and not of letters. He may write there as long and as good articles as he can, without being turned out for it—unless he should be too prolix on the subject of the Bourbons, and in that case he may set up an opposition paper on his own account-as

1

but too well."

one who loved not wisely

The first, and (as I think) the best articles in this series, appeared originally in The Morning Chronicle. They are those relating to Mr. Kean. I went to see him the first night of his appearing in Shylock. I remember it well. The boxes were empty, and the pit not half full: some quantity of barren spectators and idle renters were thinly scattered to make up a show." The whole presented a dreary, hopeless

1 Dr. Stoddart and The New Times; see a reference on p. 315 and footnote.

2 The Rev. A. G. L'Estrange says: "The belief of the time was, that Hazlitt received £1,500 from the management of Drury Lane for these articles. They made Kean's reputation and saved the theatre" (Life of M. R. Mitford, ii, 47 n.). The editor has not discovered any evidence of this alleged payment in the Drury Lane account books.

b

aspect. I was in considerable apprehension for the result. From the first scene in which Mr. Kean came on, my doubts were at an end. I had been told to give as favourable an account as I could: I gave a true one. I am not one of those who, when they see the sun breaking from behind a cloud, stop to ask others whether it is the moon. Mr. Kean's appearance was the first gleam of genius breaking athwart the gloom of the Stage, and the public have since gladly basked in its ray, in spite of actors, managers, and critics. I cannot say that my opinion has much changed since that time. Why should it? I had the same eyes to see with that I have now, the same ears to hear with, and the same understanding to judge with. Why then should I not form the same judgment? My opinions have been sometimes called singular; they are merely sincere. I say what I think: I think what I feel. I cannot help receiving certain impressions from things; and I have sufficient courage to declare (somewhat abruptly) what they are. This is the only singularity I am conscious of. I do not shut my eyes to extraordinary merit because I hate it, and refuse to open them till the clamours of others make me, and then affect to wonder extravagantly at what I have before affected hypocritically to despise. I do not make it a common practice, to think nothing of an actor or an author, because all the world have not pronounced in his favour, and after they have, to persist in condemning him, as a proof not of imbecility and illnature, but of independence of taste and spirit. Nor do I endeavour to communicate the infection of my own dullness, cowardice, and spleen to others, by chilling the coldness of their constitutions by the poisonous slime of vanity or interest, and setting up my own conscious inability or unwillingness to form an opinion on any one subject, as the height of candour and judgment.-I did not endeavour to persuade Mr. Perry' that Mr. Kean was an actor that would

1 James Perry (1756-1821)), editor of The Morning Chronicle. Miss Mitford writes to Sir W. Elford, Dec. 28, 1818: "I . . . well re

not last, merely because he had not lasted; nor that Miss Stephens knew nothing of singing, because she had a sweet voice. On the contrary, I did all I could to counteract the effect of these safe, not very sound, insinuations, and "screw the courage" of one principal organ of public opinion "to the sticking-place." I do not repent of having done so.

1

With respect to the spirit of partisanship in which the controversy1 respecting Mr. Kean's merits as an actor was carried on, there were two or three things remarkable. One set of persons, out of the excess of their unbounded admiration, furnished him with all sorts of excellences which he did not possess or pretend to, and covered his defects from

the wardrobe of their own fancies. persons,

With this class of

"Pritchard's genteel, and Garrick's six feet high!” 2

I never enlisted in this corps of Swiss bodyguards; I was even suspected of disloyalty and lèse-majesté, because I did not cry out "Quand même!" to all Mr. Kean's stretches of the prerogatives of genius, and was placed out of the pale of theatrical orthodoxy, for not subscribing implicitly to all the articles of belief imposed upon my senses and understanding. If you had not been to see the little man twenty times in Richard, and did not deny his being hoarse in the last act, or admire him for being so, you were looked on as a lukewarm devotee, or half an infidel. On the other hand, his

member the doleful visage with which Mr. Perry used to contemplate the long columns of criticism. He had not the slightest suspicion that he had a man of genius in his pay" (L'Estrange's Life of M. R. Mitford, ii, 47-48). See also Hazlitt's essay "On Patronage and Puffing" (Table Talk, p. 414).

1

Washington Irving wrote of Kean in 1815: "He is either very good or very bad—I think decidedly the latter" (Life and Letters, i, 284). And again later: “Kean is a strange compound of merits and defects" (ibid., i, 285).

2 Churchill, The Rosciad, 1. 852.

66

detractors constantly argued not from what he was but from what he was not. "He was not tall. He had not a fine voice. He did not play at Covent-Garden. He was not John Kemble." This was all you could get from them, and this they thought quite sufficient to prove that he was not any thing, because he was not something quite different from himself. They did not consider that an actor might have the eye of an eagle with the voice of a raven, a pigmy body,” and “ a fiery soul that o'er-informed its tenement ";1 that he might want grace and dignity, and yet have enough nature and passion in his breast to set up a whole corps of regular stagers. They did not inquire whether this was the case with respect to Mr. Kean, but took it for granted that it was not, for no other reason, than because the question had not been settled by the critics twenty or thirty years ago, and admitted by the town ever since, that is, before Mr. Kean was born. A royal infant may be described as "un haut et puissant prince, agé d'un jour," but a great and powerful actor cannot be known till he arrives at years of discretion, and he must be first a candidate for theatrical reputation before he can be a veteran. This is a truism, but it is one that our prejudices constantly make us not only forget, but frequently combat with all the spirit of martyrdom. I have (as it will be seen in the following pages) all along spoken freely of Mr. Kean's faults, or what I considered such, physical as well as intellectual; but the balance inclines decidedly to the favourable side, though not more I think than his merits exceed his defects. It was also the more necessary to dwell on the claims of an actor to public support, in proportion as they were original, and to the illiberal opposition they unhappily had to encounter. I endeavoured to prove (and with some success), that he was not "the very worst actor in the world." His Othello is what appears to me his master-piece. To those who have

1 Allusion to Dryden's Absalom and Achitophel, i, 156-8.

2 See the Fudge Family, edited by Thomas Brown, jun. [W. H.] Moore's Fudge Family in Paris, Letter II, note. [ED.]