TO SIT IN THE BOXES?
271
laughing in the epilogue?” As to the epilogue, it is spoken to get rid of the idea of the tragedy altogether, and to ward off the fury of the pit, who may be bent on its damnation. The greatest incongruity you can hit upon is, therefore, the most proper for this purpose. But I deny that the hero of a tragedy, or the principal character in it, is ever pitched upon to deliver the prologue. It is always, by prescription, some walking shadow, some poor player, who cannot even spoil a part of any consequence. Is there not Mr. Claremont always at hand for this purpose, whom the late king pronounced three times to be “a bad actor”[1]? What is there in common between that accustomed wave of the hand and the cocked hat under
- ↑ Mr. Munden and Mr. Claremont
— — —went one Sunday to Windsor to see the king. They passed with other spectators once or twice: at last, his late majesty distinguished Munden in the crowd and called him to him. After treating him with much cordial familiarity, the king said, “And, pray, who is that with you?” Munden, with many congées, and contortions of face, replied, “An please your majesty, it’s Mr. Claremont— — —of the Theatre Royal Drury Lane.” “Oh! yes,” said the king, “I know him well—a bad actor, a bad actor, a bad actor!” Why kings should repeat what they say three times is odd: their saying it once is quite enough. I have always liked Mr. Claremont— — —’s face since I heard this anecdote, and perhaps the telling it may have the same effect on other people.
