ADDRESS
TO THE STUDENTS
OF THE UNIVERSITY OF HARVARD
30TH MARCH 1885
I. THE OCCASION.
I am deeply sensible of the compliment that has been paid, not so much
to me personally as to the calling I represent, by the invitation to
deliver an address to the students of this University. As an actor,
and especially as an English actor, it is a great pleasure to speak
for my art in one of the chief centres of American culture; for in
inviting me here to-day you intended, I believe, to recognize the
drama as an educational influence, to show a genuine interest in the
stage as a factor in life which must be accepted and not ignored by
intelligent people. I have thought that the best use I can make of the
privilege you have conferred upon me is to offer you, as well as I
am able, something like a practical exposition of my art; for it
may chance—who knows?—that some of you may at some future time be
disposed to adopt it as a vocation. Not that I wish to be regarded
as a tempter who has come among you to seduce you from your present
studies by artful pictures of the fascinations of the footlights. But
I naturally supposed that you would like me to choose, as the theme of
my address, the subject in which I am most interested, and to which
my life has been devoted; and that if any students here should ever
determine to become actors, they could not be much the worse for
the information and counsel I could gather for them from a tolerably
extensive experience. This subject will, I trust, be welcome to all of
you who are interested in the stage as an institution which appeals
to the sober-minded and intelligent; for I take it that you have no
lingering prejudice against the theatre, or else I should not be
here. Nor are you disposed, like certain good people, to object to the
theatre simply as a name. These sticklers for principle would never
enter a playhouse for worlds; and I have heard that in a famous city
of Massachusetts, not a hundred miles from here, there are persons to
whom the theatre is unknown, but who have no objection to see a play
in a building which is called a museum, especially if the vestibule
leading to the theatre should be decorated with sound moral principles
in the shape of statues, pictures, and stuffed objects in glass cases.
When I began to think about my subject for the purpose of this
address, I was rather staggered by its vastness. It is really a matter
for a course of lectures; but as President Eliot has not proposed that
I should occupy a chair of dramatic literature in this University,
and as time and opportunity are limited, I can only undertake to put
before you, in the simplest way, a few leading ideas about dramatic
art which may be worthy of reflection. And in doing this I have the
great satisfaction of appearing in a model theatre, before a model
audience, and of being the only actor in my own play. Moreover, I am
stimulated by the atmosphere of the Greek drama, for I know that on
this stage you have enacted a Greek play with remarkable success. So,
after all, it is not a body of mere tyros that I am addressing, but
actors who have worn the sock and buskin, and declaimed the speeches
which delighted audiences two thousand years ago.
Now, this address, like discourses in a more solemn place, falls
naturally into divisions. I propose to speak first of the Art of
Acting; secondly, of its Requirements and Practice; and lastly of its
Rewards. And, at the outset, let me say that I want you to judge the
stage at its best. I do not intend to suggest that only the plays
of Shakespeare are tolerable in the theatre to people of taste
and intelligence. The drama has many forms—tragedy, comedy,
historical-pastoral, pastoral-comical—and all are good when their aim
is honestly artistic.
II. THE ART OF ACTING.
Now, what is the art of acting? I speak of it in its highest sense, as
the art to which Roscius, Betterton, and Garrick owed their fame. It
is the art of embodying the poet's creations, of giving them flesh and
blood, of making the figures which appeal to your mind's eye in the
printed drama live before you on the stage. "To fathom the depths of
character, to trace its latent motives, to feel its finest quiverings
of emotion, to comprehend the thoughts that are hidden under words,
and thus possess one's-self of the actual mind of the individual
man"—such was Macready's definition of the player's art; and to this
we may add the testimony of Talma. He describes tragic acting as "the
union of grandeur without pomp and nature without triviality." It
demands, he says, the endowment of high sensibility and intelligence.
"The actor who possesses this double gift adopts a course of study
peculiar to himself. In the first place, by repeated exercises, he
enters deeply into the emotions, and his speech acquires the accent
proper to the situation of the personage he has to represent. This
done, he goes to the theatre not only to give theatrical effect to his
studies, but also to yield himself to the spontaneous flashes of his
sensibility and all the emotions which it involuntarily produces in
him. What does he then do? In order that his inspirations may not be
lost, his memory, in the silence of repose, recalls the accent of
his voice, the expression of his features, his action—in a word, the
spontaneous workings of his mind, which he had suffered to have
free course, and, in effect, everything which in the moments of
his exaltation contributed to the effects he had produced. His
intelligence then passes all these means in review, connecting
them and fixing them in his memory to re-employ them at pleasure in
succeeding representations. These impressions are often so evanescent
that on retiring behind the scenes he must repeat to himself what
he had been playing rather than what he had to play. By this kind of
labor the intelligence accumulates and preserves all the creations of
sensibility. It is by this means that at the end of twenty years (it
requires at least this length of time) a person destined to display
fine talent may at length present to the public a series of characters
acted almost to perfection."
You will readily understand from this that to the actor the well-worn
maxim that art is long and life is short has a constant significance.
The older we grow the more acutely alive we are to the difficulties of
our craft. I cannot give you a better illustration of this fact than a
story which is told of Macready. A friend of mine, once a dear friend
of his, was with him when he played Hamlet for the last time. The
curtain had fallen, and the great actor was sadly thinking that the
part he loved so much would never be his again. And as he took off his
velvet mantle and laid it aside, he muttered almost unconsciously
the words of Horatio, "Good-night, sweet Prince;" then turning to his
friend, "Ah," said he, "I am just beginning to realize the sweetness,
the tenderness, the gentleness of this dear Hamlet!" Believe me, the
true artist never lingers fondly upon what he has done. He is ever
thinking of what remains undone: ever striving toward an ideal it may
never be his fortune to attain.
We are sometimes told that to read the best dramatic poetry is more
educating than to see it acted. I do not think this theory is very
widely held, for it is in conflict with the dramatic instinct, which
everybody possesses in a greater or less degree. You never met a
playwright who could conceive himself willing—even if endowed with
the highest literary gifts—to prefer a reading to a playgoing
public. He thinks his work deserving of all the rewards of print and
publisher, but he will be much more elated if it should appeal to the
world in the theatre as a skilful representation of human passions.
In one of her letters George Eliot says: "In opposition to most people
who love to read Shakespeare, I like to see his plays acted better
than any others; his great tragedies thrill me, let them be acted
how they may." All this is so simple and intelligible, that it seems
scarcely worth while to argue that in proportion to the readiness with
which the reader of Shakespeare imagines the attributes of the various
characters, and is interested in their personality, he will, as a
rule, be eager to see their tragedy or comedy in action. He will then
find that very much which he could not imagine with any definiteness
presents new images every moment—the eloquence of look and gesture,
the by-play, the inexhaustible significance of the human voice. There
are people who fancy they have more music in their souls than was ever
translated into harmony by Beethoven or Mozart. There are others who
think they could paint pictures, write poetry—in short, do anything,
if they only made the effort. To them what is accomplished by the
practised actor seems easy and simple. But as it needs the skill of
the musician to draw the full volume of eloquence from the written
score, so it needs the skill of the dramatic artist to develop the
subtle harmonies of the poetic play. In fact, to do and not to
dream, is the mainspring of success in life. The actor's art is to
act, and the true acting of any character is one of the most difficult
accomplishments. I challenge the acute student to ponder over Hamlet's
renunciation of Ophelia—one of the most complex scenes in all the
drama—and say that he has learned more from his meditations than he
could be taught by players whose intelligence is equal to his own. To
present the man thinking aloud is the most difficult achievement of
our art. Here the actor who has no real grip of the character, but
simply recites the speeches with a certain grace and intelligence,
will be untrue. The more intent he is upon the words, and the less
on the ideas that dictated them, the more likely he is to lay himself
open to the charge of mechanical interpretation. It is perfectly
possible to express to an audience all the involutions of thought,
the speculation, doubt, wavering, which reveal the meditative but
irresolute mind. As the varying shades of fancy pass and repass the
mirror of the face, they may yield more material to the studious
playgoer than he is likely to get by a diligent poring over the
text. In short, as we understand the people around us much better by
personal intercourse than by all the revelations of written words—for
words, as Tennyson says, "half reveal and half conceal the soul
within," so the drama has, on the whole, infinitely more suggestions
when it is well acted than when it is interpreted by the unaided
judgment of the student. It has been said that acting is an unworthy
occupation because it represents feigned emotions, but this censure
would apply with equal force to poet or novelist. Do not imagine that
I am claiming for the actor sole and undivided authority. He should
himself be a student, and it is his business to put into practice
the best ideas he can gather from the general current of thought with
regard to the highest dramatic literature. But it is he who gives body
to those ideas—fire, force, and sensibility, without which they would
remain for most people mere airy abstractions.
It is often supposed that great actors trust to the inspiration of the
moment. Nothing can be more erroneous. There will, of course, be such
moments, when an actor at a white heat illumines some passage with
a flash of imagination (and this mental condition, by the way, is
impossible to the student sitting in his arm-chair); but the great
actor's surprises are generally well weighed, studied, and balanced.
We know that Edmund Kean constantly practised before a mirror effects
which startled his audience by their apparent spontaneity. It is the
accumulation of such effects which enables an actor, after many years,
to present many great characters with remarkable completeness.
I do not want to overstate the case, or to appeal to anything that is
not within common experience, so I can confidently ask you whether a
scene in a great play has not been at some time vividly impressed on
your minds by the delivery of a single line, or even of one forcible
word. Has not this made the passage far more real and human to you
than all the thought you have devoted to it? An accomplished critic
has said that Shakespeare himself might have been surprised had he
heard the "Fool, fool, fool!" of Edmund Kean. And though all actors
are not Keans, they have in varying degree this power of making a
dramatic character step out of the page, and come nearer to our hearts
and our understandings.
After all, the best and most convincing exposition of the whole art
of acting is given by Shakespeare himself: "To hold, as 'twere, the
mirror up to nature, to show virtue her own feature, scorn her own
image, and the very age and body of the time his form and pressure."
Thus the poet recognized the actor's art as a most potent ally in the
representation of human life. He believed that to hold the mirror up
to nature was one of the worthiest functions in the sphere of labor,
and actors are content to point to his definition of their work as the
charter of their privileges.
III. PRACTICE OF THE ART.
The practice of the art of acting is a subject difficult to treat with
the necessary brevity. Beginners are naturally anxious to know what
course they should pursue. In common with other actors, I receive
letters from young people many of whom are very earnest in their
ambition to adopt the dramatic calling, but not sufficiently alive to
the fact that success does not depend on a few lessons in declamation.
When I was a boy I had a habit which I think would be useful to all
young students. Before going to see a play of Shakespeare's I used to
form—in a very juvenile way—a theory as to the working out of the
whole drama, so as to correct my conceptions by those of the actors;
and though I was, as a rule, absurdly wrong, there can be no doubt
that any method of independent study is of enormous importance, not
only to youngsters, but also to students of a larger growth.
Without it the mind is apt to take its stamp from the first forcible
impression it receives, and to fall into a servile dependence upon
traditions, which, robbed of the spirit that created them, are apt
to be purely mischievous. What was natural to the creator is often
unnatural and lifeless in the imitator. No two people form the same
conceptions of character, and therefore it is always advantageous to
see an independent and courageous exposition of an original ideal.
There can be no objection to the kind of training that imparts a
knowledge of manners and customs, and the teaching which pertains to
simple deportment on the stage is necessary and most useful; but you
cannot possibly be taught any tradition of character, for that has no
permanence. Nothing is more fleeting than any traditional method of
impersonation. You may learn where a particular personage used to
stand on the stage, or down which trap the ghost of Hamlet's father
vanished; but the soul of interpretation is lost, and it is this soul
which the actor has to re-create for himself. It is not mere attitude
or tone that has to be studied; you must be moved by the impulse of
being; you must impersonate and not recite.
There has always been a controversy as to the province of naturalism
in dramatic art. In England it has been too much the custom, I
believe, while demanding naturalism in comedy, to expect a false
inflation in tragedy. But there is no reason why an actor should
be less natural in tragic than in lighter moods. Passions vary in
expression according to moulds of character and manners, but their
reality should not be lost even when they are expressed in the heroic
forms of the drama. A very simple test is a reference to the records
of old actors. What was it in their performances that chiefly
impressed their contemporaries? Very rarely the measured recitation of
this or that speech, but very often a simple exclamation that deeply
moved their auditors, because it was a gleam of nature in the midst
of declamation. The "Prithee, undo this button!" of Garrick, was
remembered when many stately utterances were forgotten. In our day the
contrast between artificial declamation and the accents of nature is
less marked, because its delivery is more uniformly simple, and an
actor who lapses from a natural into a false tone is sure to find
that his hold upon his audience is proportionately weakened. But the
revolution which Garrick accomplished may be imagined from the story
told by Boswell. Dr. Johnson was discussing plays and players with
Mrs. Siddons, and he said: "Garrick, madam, was no declaimer; there
was not one of his own scene-shifters who could not have spoken 'To be
or not to be' better than he did; yet he was the only actor I ever saw
whom I could call a master, both in tragedy and comedy, though I
liked him best in comedy. A true conception of character and natural
expression of it were his distinguished excellences."
To be natural on the stage is most difficult, and yet a grain of
nature is worth a bushel of artifice. But you may say—what is nature?
I quoted just now Shakespeare's definition of the actor's art. After
the exhortation to hold the mirror up to nature, he adds the pregnant
warning: "This overdone or come tardy off, though it make the
unskilful laugh, cannot but make the judicious grieve, the censure of
which one must in your allowance o'erweigh a whole theatre of others."
Nature may be overdone by triviality in conditions that demand
exaltation; for instance, Hamlet's first address to the Ghost lifts
his disposition to an altitude far beyond the ordinary reaches of our
souls, and his manner of speech should be adapted to this sentiment.
But such exaltation of utterance is wholly out of place in the purely
colloquial scene with the Gravedigger. When Macbeth says, "Go, bid thy
mistress, when my drink is ready, she strike upon the bell," he would
not use the tone of
"Pity, like a naked new-born babe,
Striding the blast, or Heaven's cherubim, horsed
Upon the sightless couriers of the air,
Shall blow the horrid deed in every eye,
That tears shall drown the wind."
Like the practised orator, the actor rises and descends with his
sentiment, and cannot always be in a fine phrenzy. This variety
is especially necessary in Shakespeare, whose work is essentially
different from the classic drama, because it presents every mood of
mind and form of speech, commonplace or exalted, as character and
situation dictate: whereas in such a play as Addison's Cato,
everybody is consistently eloquent about everything.
There are many causes for the growth of naturalism in dramatic art,
and amongst them we should remember the improvement in the mechanism
of the stage. For instance, there has been a remarkable development in
stage-lighting. In old pictures you will observe the actors constantly
standing in a line, because the oil-lamps of those days gave such an
indifferent illumination that everybody tried to get into what was
called the focus—the "blaze of publicity" furnished by the "float" or
footlights. The importance of this is illustrated by an amusing story
of Edmund Kean, who one night played Othello with more than his
usual intensity. An admirer who met him in the street next day was
loud in his congratulations: "I really thought you would have choked
Iago, Mr. Kean—you seemed so tremendously in earnest." "In earnest!"
said the tragedian, "I should think so! Hang the fellow, he was trying
to keep me out of the focus."
I do not recommend actors to allow their feelings to carry them
away like this; but it is necessary to warn you against the theory
expounded with brilliant ingenuity by Diderot, that the actor never
feels. When Macready played Virginius, after burying his beloved
daughter, he confessed that his real experience gave a new force to
his acting in the most pathetic situations of the play. Are we to
suppose that this was a delusion, or that the sensibility of the man
was a genuine aid to the actor? Bannister said of John Kemble that he
was never pathetic because he had no children. Talma says that when
deeply moved he found himself making a rapid and fugitive observation
on the alternation of his voice, and on a certain spasmodic vibration
which it contracted in tears. Has not the actor who can thus make
his feelings a part of his art an advantage over the actor who never
feels, but who makes his observations solely from the feelings of
others? It is necessary to this art that the mind should have, as it
were, a double consciousness, in which all the emotions proper to the
occasion may have full swing, while the actor is all the time on the
alert for every detail of his method. It may be that his playing will
be more spirited one night than another. But the actor who combines
the electric force of a strong personality with a mastery of the
resources of his art must have a greater power over his audiences
than the passionless actor who gives a most artistic simulation of the
emotions he never experiences.
Now, in the practice of acting, a most important point is the study
of elocution; and in elocution one great difficulty is the use of
sufficient force to be generally heard without being unnaturally loud,
and without acquiring a stilted delivery. The advice of the old actors
was that you should always pitch your voice so as to be heard by the
back row of the gallery—no easy task to accomplish without offending
the ears of the front of the orchestra. And I should tell you that
this exaggeration applies to everything on the stage. To appear to be
natural, you must in reality be much broader than nature. To act on
the stage as one really would in a room, would be ineffective and
colorless. I never knew an actor who brought the art of elocution to
greater perfection than the late Charles Mathews, whose utterance on
the stage appeared so natural that one was surprised to find when near
him that he was really speaking in a very loud key. There is a great
actor in your own country to whose elocution one always listens with
the utmost enjoyment—I mean Edwin Booth. He has inherited this gift,
I believe, from his famous father, of whom I have heard it said, that
he always insisted on a thorough use of the "instruments"—by which he
meant the teeth—in the formation of words.
An imperfect elocution is apt to degenerate into a monotonous
uniformity of tone. Some wholesome advice on this point we find in the
Life of Betterton.
"This stiff uniformity of voice is not only displeasing to the ear,
but disappoints the effect of the discourse on the hearers; first, by
an equal way of speaking, when the pronunciation has everywhere, in
every word and every syllable, the same sound, it must inevitably
render all parts of speech equal, and so put them on a very unjust
level. So that the power of the reasoning part, the lustre and
ornament of the figures, the heart, warmth, and vigor of the
passionate part being expressed all in the same tone, is flat and
insipid, and lost in a supine, or at least unmusical pronunciation. So
that, in short, that which ought to strike and stir up the affections,
because it is spoken all alike, without any distinction or variety,
moves them not at all."
Now, on the question of pronunciation there is something to be said,
which, I think, in ordinary teaching is not sufficiently considered.
Pronunciation on the stage should be simple and unaffected, but not
always fashioned rigidly according to a dictionary standard. No less
an authority than Cicero points out that pronunciation must vary
widely according to the emotions to be expressed; that it may be
broken or cut, with a varying or direct sound, and that it serves for
the actor the purpose of color to the painter, from which to draw his
variations. Take the simplest illustration, the formal pronunciation
of "A-h" is "Ah," of "O-h" "Oh;" but you cannot stereotype the
expression of emotion like this. These exclamations are words of one
syllable, but the speaker who is sounding the gamut of human feeling
will not be restricted in his pronunciation by the dictionary rule.
It is said of Edmund Kean that he never spoke such ejaculations,
but always sighed or groaned them. Fancy an actor saying thus, "My
Desdemona! Oh, [)o]h, [)o]h!" Words are intended to express feelings
and ideas, not to bind them in rigid fetters. The accents of pleasure
are different from the accents of pain, and if a feeling is more
accurately expressed, as in nature, by a variation of sound not
provided for by the laws of pronunciation, then such imperfect laws
must be disregarded and nature vindicated. The word should be the echo
of the sense.
The force of an actor depends, of course, upon his physique; and it is
necessary, therefore, that a good deal of attention should be given to
bodily training. Everything that develops suppleness, elasticity, and
grace—that most subtle charm—should be carefully cultivated, and
in this regard your admirable gymnasium is worth volumes of advice.
Sometimes there is a tendency to train the body at the expense of
the mind, and the young actor with striking physical advantages
must beware of regarding this fortunate endowment as his entire
stock-in-trade. That way folly lies, and the result may be too dearly
purchased by the fame of a photographer's window. It is clear that
the physique of actors must vary; there can be no military standard
of proportions on the stage. Some great actors have had to struggle
against physical disabilities of a serious nature. Betterton had an
unprepossessing face; so had Le Kain. John Kemble was troubled with
a weak, asthmatic voice, and yet by his dignity, and the force of
his personality, he was able to achieve the greatest effects. In some
cases a super-abundant physique has incapacitated actors from playing
many parts. The combination in one frame of all the gifts of mind and
all the advantages in person is very rare on the stage; but talent
will conquer many natural defects when it is sustained by energy and
perseverance.
With regard to gesture, Shakespeare's advice is all-embracing. "Suit
the action to the word, the word to the action, with this special
observance that you over-step not the modesty of nature." And here
comes the consideration of a very material part of the actor's
business—by-play. This is of the very essence of true art. It is more
than anything else significant of the extent to which the actor has
identified himself with the character he represents. Recall the scenes
between Iago and Othello, and consider how the whole interest of the
situation depends on the skill with which the gradual effect of the
poisonous suspicion instilled into the Moor's mind is depicted in look
and tone, slight of themselves, but all contributing to the intensity
of the situation. One of the greatest tests of an actor is his
capacity for listening. By-play must be unobtrusive; the student
should remember that the most minute expression attracts attention:
that nothing is lost, that by-play is as mischievous when it is
injudicious as it is effective when rightly conceived, and that while
trifles make perfection, perfection is no trifle. This lesson was
enjoined on me when I was a very young man by that remarkable actress,
Charlotte Cushman. I remember that when she played Meg Merrilies I
was cast for Henry Bertram, on the principle, seemingly, that an actor
with no singing voice is admirably fitted for a singing part. It was
my duty to give Meg Merrilies a piece of money, and I did it after the
traditional fashion by handing her a large purse full of coin of the
realm, in the shape of broken crockery, which was generally used in
financial transactions on the stage, because when the virtuous maiden
rejected with scorn the advances of the lordly libertine, and threw
his pernicious bribe upon the ground, the clatter of the broken
crockery suggested fabulous wealth. But after the play Miss Cushman,
in the course of some kindly advice, said to me: "Instead of giving me
that purse don't you think it would have been much more natural if
you had taken a number of coins from your pocket, and given me the
smallest? That is the way one gives alms to a beggar, and it would
have added to the realism of the scene." I have never forgotten that
lesson, for simple as it was, it contained many elements of dramatic
truth. It is most important that an actor should learn that he is
a figure in a picture, and that the least exaggeration destroys the
harmony of the composition. All the members of the company should
work towards a common end, with the nicest subordination of their
individuality to the general purpose. Without this method a play when
acted is at best a disjointed and incoherent piece of work, instead
of being a harmonious whole like the fine performance of an orchestral
symphony. The root of the matter is that the actor must before all
things form a definite conception of what he wishes to convey. It is
better to be wrong and be consistent, than to be right, yet hesitating
and uncertain. This is why great actors are sometimes very bad or very
good. They will do the wrong thing with a courage and thoroughness
which makes the error all the more striking; although when they are
right they may often be superb. It is necessary that the actor should
learn to think before he speaks; a practice which, I believe, is very
useful off the stage. Let him remember, first, that every sentence
expresses a new thought and, therefore, frequently demands a change
of intonation; secondly, that the thought precedes the word. Of course
there are passages in which thought and language are borne along by
the streams of emotion and completely intermingled. But more often
it will be found that the most natural, the most seemingly accidental
effects are obtained when the working of the mind is seen before the
tongue gives it words.
You will see that the limits of an actor's studies are very wide. To
master the technicalities of his craft, to familiarize his mind
with the structure, rhythm, and the soul of poetry, to be constantly
cultivating his perceptions of life around him and of all the
arts—painting, music, sculpture—for the actor who is devoted to
his profession is susceptible to every harmony of color, sound, and
form—to do this is to labor in a large field of industry. But all
your training, bodily and mental, is subservient to the two great
principles in tragedy and comedy—passion and geniality. Geniality
in comedy is one of the rarest gifts. Think of the rich unction of
Falstaff, the mercurial fancy of Mercutio, the witty vivacity and
manly humor of Benedick—think of the qualities, natural and acquired,
that are needed for the complete portrayal of such characters, and you
will understand how difficult it is for a comedian to rise to such
a sphere. In tragedy, passion or intensity sweeps all before it, and
when I say passion, I mean the passion of pathos as well as wrath
or revenge. These are the supreme elements of the actor's art,
which cannot be taught by any system, however just, and to which all
education is but tributary.
Now all that can be said of the necessity of a close regard for nature
in acting applies with equal or greater force to the presentation of
plays. You want, above all things, to have a truthful picture which
shall appeal to the eye without distracting the imagination from the
purpose of the drama. It is a mistake to suppose that this enterprise
is comparatively new to the stage. Since Shakespeare's time there has
been a steady progress in this direction. Even in the poet's day every
conceivable property was forced into requisition, and his own sense
of shortcomings in this respect is shown in Henry V. when he
exclaims:—
"Where—O for pity!—we shall much disgrace
With four or five most vile and ragged foils
The name of Agincourt."
There have always been critics who regarded care and elaboration in
the mounting of plays as destructive of the real spirit of the actor's
art. Betterton had to meet this reproach when he introduced scenery in
lieu of linsey-woolsey curtains; but he replied, sensibly enough, that
his scenery was better than the tapestry with hideous figures worked
upon it which had so long distracted the senses of play-goers. He
might have asked his critics whether they wished to see Ophelia played
by a boy of sixteen, as in the time of Shakespeare, instead of a
beautiful and gifted woman. Garrick did his utmost to improve the
mechanical arts of the stage— so much so, indeed, that he paid his
scene-painter, Loutherbourg, £500 a year, a pretty considerable sum
in those days—though in Garrick's time the importance of realism in
costume was not sufficiently appreciated to prevent him from playing
Macbeth in a bagwig. To-day we are employing all our resources to
heighten the picturesque effects of the drama, and we are still told
that this is a gross error. It may be admitted that nothing is more
objectionable than certain kinds of realism, which are simply vulgar;
but harmony of color and grace of outline have a legitimate sphere in
the theatre, and the method which uses them as adjuncts may claim to
be "as wholesome as sweet, and by very much more handsome than fine."
For the abuse of scenic decoration, the overloading of the stage with
ornament, the subordination of the play to a pageant, I have nothing
to say. That is all foreign to the artistic purpose which should
dominate dramatic work. Nor do I think that servility to archæology on
the stage is an unmixed good. Correctness of costume is admirable
and necessary up to a certain point, but when it ceases to be "as
wholesome as sweet," it should, I think, be sacrificed. You perceive
that the nicest discretion is needed in the use of the materials
which are nowadays at the disposal of the manager. Music, painting,
architecture, the endless variations of costume, have all to be
employed with a strict regard to the production of an artistic
whole, in which no element shall be unduly obtrusive. We are open to
microscopic criticism at every point. When Much Ado about Nothing
was produced at the Lyceum, I received a letter complaining of the
gross violation of accuracy in a scene which was called a cedar-walk.
"Cedars!" said my correspondent,—"why, cedars were not introduced
into Messina for fifty years after the date of Shakespeare's story!"
Well, this was a tremendous indictment, but unfortunately the
cedar-walk had been painted. Absolute realism on the stage is not
always desirable, any more than the photographic reproduction of
Nature can claim to rank with the highest art.
IV. THE REWARDS OF THE ART.
To what position in the world of intelligence does the actor's art
entitle him, and what is his contribution to the general sum of
instruction? We are often told that the art is ephemeral; that it
creates nothing; that when the actor's personality is withdrawn from
the public eye he leaves no trace behind. Granted that his art creates
nothing; but does it not often restore? It is true that he leaves
nothing like the canvas of the painter and the marble of the sculptor,
but has he done nought to increase the general stock of ideas? The
astronomer and naturalist create nothing, but they contribute much to
the enlightenment of the world. I am taking the highest standard of
my art, for I maintain that in judging any calling you should consider
its noblest and not its most ignoble products. All the work that is
done on the stage cannot stand upon the same level, any more than all
the work that is done in literature. You do not demand that your poets
and novelists shall all be of the same calibre. An immense amount of
good writing does no more than increase the gayety of mankind; but
when Johnson said that the gayety of nations was eclipsed by the death
of Garrick, he did not mean that a mere barren amusement had lost one
of its professors. When Sir Joshua Reynolds painted Mrs. Siddons as
the Tragic Muse, and said he had achieved immortality by putting his
name on the hem of her garment, he meant something more than a pretty
compliment, for her name can never die. To give genuine and wholesome
entertainment is a very large function of the stage, and without that
entertainment very many lives would lose a stimulus of the highest
value. If recreation of every legitimate kind is invaluable to the
worker, especially so is the recreation of the drama, which brightens
his faculties, enlarges his vision of the picturesque, and by taking
him for a time out of this work-a-day world, braces his sensibilities
for the labors of life. The art which does this may surely claim to
exercise more than a fleeting influence upon the world's intelligence.
But in its highest developments it does more; it acts as a constant
medium for the diffusion of great ideas, and by throwing new lights
upon the best dramatic literature, it largely helps the growth
of education. It is not too much to say that the interpreters of
Shakespeare on the stage have had much to do with the widespread
appreciation of his works. Some of the most thoughtful students of
the poet have recognized their indebtedness to actors, while for
multitudes the stage has performed the office of discovery. Thousands
who flock to-day to see a representation of Shakespeare, which is the
product of much reverent study of the poet, are not content to regard
it as a mere scenic exhibition. Without it Shakespeare might have been
for many of them a sealed book; but many more have been impelled
by the vivid realism of the stage to renew studies which other
occupations or lack of leisure have arrested. Am I presumptuous, then,
in asserting that the stage is not only an instrument of amusement,
but a very active agent in the spread of knowledge and taste? Some
forms of stage work, you may say, are not particularly elevating.
True; and there are countless fictions coming daily from the hands
of printer and publisher which nobody is the better for reading. You
cannot have a fixed standard of value in my art; and though there
are masses of people who will prefer an unintelligent exhibition to
a really artistic production, that is no reason for decrying the
theatre, in which all the arts blend with the knowledge of history,
manners, and customs of all people, and scenes of all climes, to
afford a varied entertainment to the most exacting intellect. I have
no sympathy with people who are constantly anxious to define the
actor's position, for, as a rule, they are not animated by a desire to
promote his interests. "'Tis in ourselves that we are thus and thus;"
and whatever actors deserve, socially or artistically, they are sure
to receive as their right. I found the other day in a well-circulated
little volume a suggestion that the actor was a degraded being because
he has a closely-shaven face. This is, indeed, humiliating, and I
wonder how it strikes the Roman Catholic clergy. However, there are
actors who do not shave closely, and though, alas! I am not one of
them, I wish them joy of the spiritual grace which I cannot claim.
It is admittedly unfortunate for the stage that it has a certain
equivocal element, which, in the eyes of some judges, is sufficient
for its condemnation. The art is open to all, and it has to bear the
sins of many. You may open your newspaper, and see a paragraph headed
"Assault by an Actress." Some poor creature is dignified by that title
who has not the slightest claim to it. You look into a shop-window and
see photographs of certain people who are indiscriminately described
as actors and actresses though their business has no pretence to be
art of any kind.
I was told in Baltimore of a man in that city who was so diverted by
the performance of Tyrone Powar, the popular Irish comedian, that he
laughed uproariously till the audience was convulsed with merriment at
the spectacle. As soon as he could speak, he called out, "Do be quiet,
Mr. Showman; do'ee hold your tongue, or I shall die of laughter!" This
idea that the actor is a showman still lingers; but no one with any
real appreciation of the best elements of the drama applies this
vulgar standard to a great body of artists. The fierce light of
publicity that beats upon us makes us liable, from time to time, to
dissertations upon our public and private lives, our manners, our
morals, and our money. Our whims and caprices are discanted on with
apparent earnestness of truth, and seeming sincerity of conviction.
There is always some lively controversy concerning the influence of
the stage. The battle between old methods and new in art is waged
everywhere. If an actor were to take to heart everything that is
written and said about him, his life would be an intolerable burden.
And one piece of advice I should give to young actors is this: Do not
be too sensitive; receive praise or censure with modesty and patience.
Good honest criticism is, of course, most advantageous to an actor;
but he should save himself from the indiscriminate reading of a
multitude of comments, which may only confuse instead of stimulating.
And here let me say to young actors in all earnestness: Beware of the
loungers of our calling, the camp followers who hang on the skirts of
the army, and who inveigle the young into habits that degrade their
character, and paralyze their ambition. Let your ambition be ever
precious to you, and, next to your good name, the jewel of your souls.
I care nothing for the actor who is not always anxious to rise to
the highest position in his particular walk; but this ideal cannot be
cherished by the young man who is induced to fritter away his time and
his mind in thoughtless company.
But in the midst of all this turmoil about the stage, one fact stands
out clearly: the dramatic art is steadily growing in credit with the
educated classes. It is drawing more recruits from those classes. The
enthusiasm for our calling has never reached a higher pitch. There is
quite an extraordinary number of ladies who want to become actresses,
and the cardinal difficulty in the way is not the social deterioration
which some people think they would incur, but simply their inability
to act. Men of education who become actors do not find that their
education is useless. If they have the necessary aptitude—the inborn
instinct for the stage—all their mental training will be of great
value to them. It is true that there must always be grades in the
theatre, that an educated man who is an indifferent actor can never
expect to reach the front rank. If he do no more than figure in the
army at Bosworth Field, or look imposing in a doorway; if he never
play any but the smallest parts; if in these respects he be no
better than men who could not pass an examination in any branch of
knowledge—he has no more reason to complain than the highly-educated
man who longs to write poetry, and possesses every qualification—save
the poetic faculty. There are people who seem to think that only
irresistible genius justifies any one in adopting the stage as a
vocation. They make it an argument against the profession that many
enter it from a low sphere of life, without any particular fitness for
acting, but simply to earn a livelihood by doing the subordinate and
mechanical work which is necessary in every theatre. And so men and
women of refinement—especially women—are warned that they must do
themselves injury by passing through the rank and file during their
term of probation in the actors' craft. Now, I need not remind you
that on the stage everybody cannot be great, any more than students
of music can all become great musicians; but very many will do sound
artistic work which is of great value. As for any question of conduct,
Heaven forbid that I should be dogmatic; but it does not seem to me
logical that while genius is its own law in the pursuit of a noble
art, all inferior merit or ambition is to be deterred from the same
path by appalling pictures of its temptations.
If our art is worth anything at all, it is worth the honest,
conscientious self-devotion of men and women who, while they may not
achieve fame, may have the satisfaction of being workers in a calling
which does credit to many degrees of talent. We do not claim to be
any better than our fellows in other walks of life. We do not ask
the jester in journalism whether his quips and epigrams are always
dictated by the loftiest morality; nor do we insist on knowing that
the odor of sanctity surrounds the private lives of lawyers and
military men before we send our sons into law and the army. It
is impossible to point out any vocation which is not attended by
temptations that prove fatal to many; but you have simply to consider
whether a profession has in itself any title to honor, and then—if
you are confident of your capacity—to enter it with a resolve to do
all that energy and perseverance can accomplish. The immortal part of
the stage is its nobler part. Ignoble accidents and interludes come
and go, but this lasts on forever. It lives, like the human soul,
in the body of humanity—associated with much that is inferior, and
hampered by many hindrances; but it never sinks into nothingness, and
never fails to find new and noble work in creations of permanent and
memorable excellence. And I would say, as a last word, to the young
men in this assembly who may at any time resolve to enter the dramatic
profession, that they ought always to fix their minds upon the highest
examples; that in studying acting they should beware of prejudiced
comparisons between this method and that, but learn as much as
possible from all; that they should remember that art is as varied as
nature, and as little suited to the shackles of a school; and, above
all, that they should never forget that excellence in any art is
attained only by arduous labor, unswerving purpose, and unfailing
discipline. This discipline is, perhaps, the most difficult of all
tests, for it involves the subordination of the actor's personality in
every work which is designed to be a complete and harmonious picture.
Dramatic art nowadays is more coherent, systematic, and comprehensive
than it has sometimes been. And to the student who proposes to fill
the place in this system to which his individuality and experience
entitle him, and to do his duty faithfully and well, ever striving
after greater excellence, and never yielding to the indolence that is
often born of popularity—to him I say, with every confidence, that
he will choose a career in which, if it does not lead him to fame,
he will be sustained by the honorable exercise of some of the best
faculties of the human mind.
And now I can only thank you for the patience with which you have
listened while, in a slight and imperfect way, I have dwelt with some
of the most important of the actor's responsibilities, I have been an
actor for nearly thirty years, and what I have told you is the fruit
of my experience, and of an earnest and conscientious belief that the
calling to which I am proud to belong is worthy of the sympathy and
support of all intelligent people.
