has the packet; Francois, pretending to be the son of Huguet, is there on the same mission; De Beringhen enters the cell of Huguet, wrests the packet from him, and is in turn robbed of it by Francois. Another scene is made of the attempt of Baradas to influence Julie, De Mauprat being doomed to the axe; but the lovers, confronted, prefer death and their immortal love; Richelieu is led in, and, in his weakened state, reclines on a sofa; the general audience, with the King leads to the dramatic denoument; the packet restored, with proof of the conspiracy and danger to the state averted in the folly of the new counsellors, whom Richelieu exposes at every point. The Cardinal rules again.

Marston gives a notable description of the first night of "Richlieu," which is worth the reader's while to look up in full.

It was a great and eager audience that had surged about the doors for hours; it was lit up by expectation. How would the Cardinal come on was the common wonder. After noting the effectiveness of certain scenes, Marston says, that when the Cardinal shielded Julie with the ægis of the church the pit seemed to rock with enthusiasm, as it volleyed its admiration in voices of thunder.

The play ended: "Thus it was an audience dazzled, almost bewildered by the brilliancy of the achievement, that, on the instant fall of the curtain, burst into a roar of admiratlon that, wild, craving, unappeasable, pursued like a sea, the retreating actor, and swept him back to the front."

This was the impression left upon Coleman : "Of all his performances, I venture to think this was the greatest and most perfect creation. I have seen Forrest before him; I have seen all the great actors since; I have acted the part more frequently than any living man, but I have never yet seen anyone approach within measurable distance of Macready in this wonderful impersonation. His smile when Julie de Mauprat sat at his feet, irradiated his grim face with an angelic beauty. His business with the sword and the pen in two minutes took the auditor back two ages; one moment he was the mail-clad warrior fighting before Rochelle, smiting "the stalwart Englisher to the waist;" the next instant he was the feeble but mighty statesmen, wielding a weapon more potent than the sword of Charles Martel. The famous 'Never-say-fail' speech thrilled through one like a trumpet-call. His tenderness to his

orphan ward contrasted in strong relief to his scornful denunciation of the tratior Baradas, while his love of country dominated over all. In the last scene, when, awaking from his simulated trance, he leaped up, and dilating to preternatural proportions, he exclaimed, 'There, at my feet!' he realized a picture, once seen, never to be forgotten. When in this situation he glided down the stage, I protest, he always suggested to me the Divine Image grown gray and ghastly through the efflux of the ages and once more floating over the sea of Galilee."

Of one of the most striking scenes in "Richelieu" Lady Pollock writes: "The actor's passion rose to its noblest height as he stood looking down upon his foe, towering in his wrath; and while he threatened the offender with the curse of Rome, his attitude assumed a dignity which was that of an immense power; his voice then gave out peals of thunder.

It was

no wonder that his enemies shrank away in terror, and that he stood alone in a charmed circle."

CHAPTER X.

CHARACTERISTICS AND MERIT.

THE

characteristics of Macready as an actor and his comparative merit, may best be estimated from the testimony of the critical judgment of his contemporaries. The review of his performances by Lewes is very comprehensive.

"In Edmund Kean and Rachel we recognize types of genius; in Macready I see only a man of talent, but of talent so marked and individual that it approaches very near to genius; and indeed, in justification of those admirers who would claim for him the higher title, I may say that Tieck, whose opinion on such a matter will be received with great respect, told me that Macready seemed to him a better actor than either Kean or John Kemble; and he only saw Macready in the early part of his long and arduous career.

course, speak.

Of John Kemble I cannot, of And with respect to Kean, while claiming for him the indisputable superiority in the highest reaches of his art, I should

admit that he was inferior to Macready in that general flexibility of talent and in that range of intellectual sympathy which are necessary to the personation of many and various parts. In that sense Macready was the better actor. And he showed it in another striking difference. Kean created scarcely any new parts: with the exception of Bertram, Brutus and Sir Edward Mortimer, all his attempts with modern plays were more or less failures. He gave the stamp of his own great power to Shylock, Othello, Sir Giles Overreach, and Richard; but he could not infuse life into Virginius or Tell; nor would he, perhaps, have succeeded with Werner, Richelieu, Claude Melnotte, Ruy Gomez, and the fifty other parts which Macready created. It is worthy of note that Kean was greatest in the greatest parts, and seemed to require the wide range of Shaksperian passion for his arena; whereas Macready was greater in parts like Werner, Richelieu, Iago, or Virginius, and always fell short when representing the great Shaksperian hero.

"Macready had a voice powerful, extensive in compass, capable of delicate modulation in quiet passages (though with a tendency to scream in violent passages), and having tones