1 44 Philosophical Society of London, 



5tood, that when I speak of dramatic and oratorical pas- 

 sions, the vuiear acceptation of the term * theatrical' bears 

 no relation to either chl^s. This acceptation seems to imply 

 an idea of censure : but I am of opinion with Mr. Walker, 

 that it is a stale trick to depreciate what from mdolencc, 

 want of taste, or other incapacity, ourselves cannot attain; 

 so that, in many instances, calling a spirited and efficient 

 pronunciation and deHvery theatrical, is but an artful me- 

 thod of glossing over or excusing our own inability of 

 speaking witti becoming force and energy." 



For our own parts, we are inclined to think that those 

 persons who apply the term to whatever appears to them 

 forced, or out of character, have the same narrow notion of 

 acting with Partridge, at the representation of Hamlet. He 

 thought " the innocent-faced " man who performed Clau- 

 dius the best actor: " for (said he) Mr. Garrick does only 

 just as I or any body else would do in his situation : — but 

 the king for my money; he speaks all his words distinctly, 

 and half as loud again as t'other. All the ivorld may see he 

 is an actor." 



" If the man who addresses an assembly," continued 

 Mr. Wright, " imitate passion when he #hould only de- 

 scribe it, or describe when he should but narrate, borrowing 

 a phrase from the theatre, I would certainly call him * the 

 mere actor;' because his efforts and manner carry with 

 them the air of fiction. 



"Should the word 'theatrical' be employed to signify 

 ' a dissimulation of real sentiments, or the affectation of 

 adopting the opinions and language of another,' then may 

 the term be forcible and correct ; but I am inclined to be- 

 lieve that few who have employed it (any more than Mr. 

 Walpole, who had cause to remember applying it to Lord 

 Chatham,) have intended to convey by it other than a cen- 

 sure and reproach." It is certainly extremely inconsiderate, 

 if not ungenerous, to confound under one term the clumsy 

 caricature of an affected speaker, with the chaste delivery 

 and accurate delineation of nature, sought and so justly ad- 

 mired on the stage at the present day. 



Adhering, with some deviations and refinements, to the 

 system formerly promulgated by Aaron Hill, Mr. Wright 

 commented with considerable discrimination and success on 

 the various examples produced by him. These it would be 

 useless merely to enumerate ; and to do more would be in- 

 compatible with the bounds prescribed us : they occupied 

 the greater part of this and the succeeding lecture. We shall 

 content ourselves with quoting an additional observation on 



the 



