1826.] The Theatre—Its Literature, and General Arrangement. 47 
himself; of the musician, the machinist, the scene-painter, the tailor, and the 
actor. He is not “ poet,” but, as the bill of the Italian opera forcibly expresses 
it, poet to the theatre.” Pizarro, Tom and Jerry, and Giovanni in London, 
brought as much money perhaps as The Rivals, The School for Scandal, and 
John Bull:—this is bad example, and worse encouragement. ' 
Then if all this—as far as regards convenience, and reasonable guarantee of 
suecess—is not very inviting to the person who questions whether or not he 
shall commence dramatic author, that which has to follow, in the way of profit, 
willedo very little indeed to redeem it. As pasteboard plays are easily manufac- 
tured (and do not last very long) there are of course a vast number of them pro- 
duced. The effect of this is, that the people who do see a few plays still, have 
long since given up reading them; the copyright of a comedy, prospering on 
the third night, is scarcely worth, in the market, thirty pounds. Those who 
doubt this, let them not trust to any of the sales for “two hundred pounds,” 
and'so forth, made by authors who live up two pair of stairs, and so forth; but 
let them take a play, a farce, likely to do well, on the third night, to a (solvent) 
bookseller, and ask him what he will give for it. 
And it will not do to imagine that pecuniary advantage will be overlooked in the 
present day, even where more fame is to be gotten by forgetting it than writing 
for the theatre is likely to produce. It is unpleasant to be personal ; but where 
trash will do, there is no great satisfaction to decent persons in having to deal 
with the whims.and jealousies of overpaid actors and actresses; or honour in 
“succeeding” by the side of the authors of Harlequin Scavenger, and The Eel 
Basket Emptied. If there were no other channel open to publicity, men might 
wave the consideration of the money: but there are fifty paths open, in which 
the credit of success is greater than it can bein the theatre; the success itself 
more certain, the choice of means less limited, and the gain ten times superior ; 
and to these necessarily therefore, or some one or other of them, the great pre- 
ponderance of genius will resort. 
That the secret of our weakness in dramatic literature does lie mainly here— 
in the indifference of men of talent to the pursuit, rather than in their incapa- 
city—seems so clear, that to offer any argument upon it would be superfluous. 
Because it is a little too much to suppose that the very weakest of the literary 
people about town (and which is there, among the farce writers of the present 
day, who ever produced any thing besides his farces—or, at least, any thing 
that was readable?)—that these scissars and wafer people—for they are literally 
no more—should be the on/y capable dramatists in existence! When we talk 
of “incapacity” for dramatic writing in the present day, it should be 
recollected, that scarcely any man of reputation who has tried the stage has 
failed to succeed ; however, not contented with the extent, or results of his 
success, he may have abandoned it afterwards. Fazio produced considerable 
_ sums of money (to the theatres); but Milman did not write for the theatre 
again. Maturin’s Bertram, as an acting tragedy, was uncommonly successfull; 
but Maturin got more money by writing novels, than by writing plays. 
Coleridge’s tragedy, again, was fortunate; but Coleridge was not tempted to 
become a confirmed dramatic writer. And, for the gabble about Scott, and 
Byron, it is too felicitous! Byron never wrote a tragedy, the subject of which 
did not put it out of all question as to representation on the stage; and this, too, 
when: his “ Corsair” style—if he would have used it in romanee—would have 
beaten all the world. And Scott—sheets only cut out of his books, and 
stuck by brainless idiots upon prompters’ “ plots,’ make dramas which’ fill 
theatres for whole seasons together, and even continue to attract after their 
novelty is over; and yet the very paste-pot villains who perform this barba- 
rous work, will call themselves authors—talk of the possession of a “ particular 
faculty,” and tell you that “ Scott,” or “ Byron,” “ could not write a play!” 
The fact is, that novel writing, romances, memoirs, history, almost every 
_ description of literary labour is better paid, looking to the uncertainty which 
_ always amust.attend it, than writing for the theatre. And the first step towatds — 
_ giving:a’ chance of improvement to the state of dramatic composition must 
