1905.] on Dramatic Thoughts : Retrospective — Anticipative. 67 



ence. It is for this reason, that the actor is to be estimated, like the 

 painter and the poet, not for his representation of the common 

 occurrences of the world, not for his discernment of the familiarities 

 of life, but for his idea of images never submitted to the observation 

 of the senses. Imagination is always more esteemed than humour ; 

 humour surprises and wins, but it never elevates ; imagination 

 surprises, wins and elevates too ; it transports us through every region 

 of thought and of feeling, and teaches us that we have something 

 within us more than mortal." 



On the other hand, the distinguished writer freely admits that 

 mediocrity is more easily attained in tragedy than in comedy, and for 

 my own part, I feel sure that the name of many an unworthy 

 bombastic actor of tragedy is unjustly remembered long after the 

 fame of even peerless comedians only exists, and how lamely, in 

 the imperfect annals of tradition or in the records of the rare student 

 of the stage. How few, for instance, are acquainted with the 

 splendid skill of such players as Thomas King, William Lewis, John 

 Bannister, Robert William Elliston — and many another of equal 

 talent — certainly, of their epoch, among the most accomplished actors 

 in the history of the English theatre. King, who was the first Sir 

 Peter Teazle, was also the closest friend Garrick ever made of a 

 comrade, and was on the London stage for the amazing period of 

 more than half a century. Charles Lamb said his acting left a taste 

 on the palate — sharp and sweet like a quince. Lewis possessed the 

 most unceasing activity and rapidity both in speech and motion ; his 

 animal spirits were unrivalled and he carried sunshine about with 

 him ; he bounded like a greyhound and chattered like a jay ; yet he 

 began his career as a tragedian, so must, indeed, have known his 

 business. It was said of him that he played on the very top of his 

 profession like a plume. It was to the delightful and versatile 

 Bannister — when as a stage-aspirant he sought the great actor's 

 advice — to whom Garrick said he might humbug the public in 

 tragedy, but begged him not to try to do so in comedy, for that was 

 a serious thing. Of Elliston, Leigh Hunt went so far as to express 

 the opinion, on account of his extraordinary versatility — considering 

 also the perfection of many of his performances — that he was the finest 

 actor of that day. In spite of such praise their names seem to be 

 written only on the sand. Indeed, I share Colley Gibber's regret 

 that " the momentary beauties flowing from harmonious elocution 

 cannot, like those of poetry, be their own record ; that the animated 

 graces of the player can live no longer than the instant breath and 

 motion that presents them, or at best can but faintly glimmer through 

 the memory of a few surviving spectators." Equally eminent and 

 more modern writers have used their pens in the admission that the 

 death of an author is of little moment, for his books survive him, but 

 that when a fine actor passes it matters much, as he leaves a void 

 which must be filled up. All true : but, although his work is neither 



F 2 



