his works having been given to the stage—­thought it prudent to comply with the public demand, and, though with evident reluctance, presented himself before the foot-lights, to be inspected by his admirers and to receive their congratulations.  He yielded to a tyranny he was quite justified in resisting.  Other authors, though whether or not from unwillingness to appear can hardly be affirmed, have forborne to attend the first representation of their plays, and the audience have been compelled to be content with the announcement—­“Mr. ——­ is absent from London.”  Sometimes particulars are supplied, and happy Mr. ——­ is stated to be “probably, at that precise moment, enjoying his cigar upon the esplanade at Brighton,” it being added, that “intelligence of the triumphant reception of his new play shall be forthwith despatched to him by means of the electric telegraph.”

If the name of the English author who first bowed over the foot-lights cannot now be ascertained, a dramatist perfectly willing to adopt that course can nevertheless be mentioned.  To Talfourd the representation of his dramatic works was always a source of intense delight.  He would travel almost any distance to see one of his plays upon the boards.  Macready has left some curious particulars touching the first production of “Ion”:  “Was called for very enthusiastically by the audience, and cheered on my appearance most heartily....  Miss Ellen Tree was afterwards called forward.  Talfourd came into my room and heartily shook hands with me and thanked me.  He said something about Mr. Wallack, the stage-manager, wishing him to go on the stage as they were calling; but it would not be right.  I said:  ’On no account in the world.’ He shortly left me, and, as I heard, was made to go forward to the front of his box and receive the enthusiastic tribute of the house’s grateful delight.”  How happy he must have been!  In 1838, concerning the first night of Sheridan Knowles’s play of “Woman’s Wit,” Macready writes:  “Acted Walsingham in a very crude, nervous, unsatisfactory way.  Avoided a call by going before the curtain to give out the play; there was very great enthusiasm.  Led on Knowles in obedience to the call of the audience.”  But Knowles was not an author only, he was an actor also—­he had trod the boards as his own Master Walter, and in other parts, although he was not included in the cast of “Woman’s Wit.”  No doubt, from Macready’s point of view, this distinguished his case clearly from that of Talfourd’s.

After the calling on of authors came the calling on of scene-painters.  But of late, with the help of much salutary criticism on the subject, a disposition has arisen to check this very preposterous method of acknowledging the merits of a worthy class, who should be satisfied with learning from the wings or the back of the stage the admiration excited by their achievements, and should consider themselves in such wise as sufficiently rewarded.  If they are to appear between their scenes and the public, why not also the costumiers and the gas-fitters, and the numberless other contributors to theatrical success and glory?  Indeed, as a rule, the applause, calls, and encores of the theatre are honours to be conferred on singers and actors only, are their rightful and peculiar property, and should hardly be diverted from them or shared with others, upon any pretence whatever.