422 Mr. Henry Irving [Feb. 1, 



Here, then, we get some idea of that which constitutes a work of 

 art as a work of " fine " art — intelligence on the part of the artist. 

 Whereas the object of art generally and broadly is to imitate, to 

 conform to a model, the object of fine art is to compose or select 

 intelligently, to exercise that selective faculty which the Professor 

 goes on to show is a higher function of nature as well as of man. 

 And thus far it cannot be denied that acting, which certainly requires 

 intelligence, still remains in the category of the Arts as thus limited. 



But there is a fuller limitation set forth by M. Taine. It is not 

 enough that the work imitate nature faithfully, and that the imitation 

 be selective for particular purposes, and intelligent. It must not 

 be content with faithfulness as to detail — it must grasp essential 

 character. " In Nature," he says, " essential character is simply 

 dominant ; it is the aim of art to render it predominant. It moulds 

 real objects, but it does not mould them completely. . . . Man is 

 sensible of this deficiency, and to remove it he has invented art." 



Surely this truth in Acting needs no defence! Nay, in the prac- 

 tice of the art it has at times grown to be an evil ; for exaggeration 

 of a type of good or evil — of passion — of emotion of any kind, has 

 to be purposely avoided by judicious players, who realise that the 

 expression of emotion must be complex, though it be dominated by 

 one phase. Shakespeare, speaking in Hamlet's voice, himself pointed 

 out the evil : — " In the very torrent, tempest, and, as I may say, 

 whirlwind of passion you must acquire and beget a temperance that 

 may give it smoothness." And thus far acting keeps well within the 

 bounds of art as fixed. 



But there is a still further limitation, for M. Taine, in leaving 

 t work *-t art to consider the artist, says: — "There is one gift 

 indispensable to all artists. ... If it is wanting in them, thoy are 

 nothing but copyists and mechanics. In confronting objects the 

 artist mu»t experience original sensation; the character of objects 

 strikes him powerfully, and the result must be a strong, deep, personal 

 impression." 



" Look," says Polonius of the player, " look whether he has not 

 turned his colour, and has tears in's eyes." Surely that which was 

 taken by Shakespeare as typical of the poor Player of Wittenberg 

 may be allowed to the cultured schools of England, of France, and 

 of Germany. 



Thus far we find applicable to acting the principles of art laid 

 down by two philosophic critics — one a poet of the eighteenth cen- 

 tury, imbued with all the culture and wisdom of classic lore, the 

 translator of Homer, the familiar of the works of Plato and Aristotle ; 

 and the other the exponent of the modern scientific school of 

 philosophy, a professor par excellence of the plastic arts. We find 

 that what is essential to poetry, to music, to sculpture, to painting, 

 is also essential to acting. Where, then, is the proof that acting is 

 not one of the sister arts? What is there in it that disqualifies it 

 from holding a place amongst them ? To assert such a thing is to 



