osition of
importance on the stage. It does not seem necessary, indeed, that the
training for any career should be prescribed or systematic. Some men
get their training one way and some another. A school of acting may be
of the greatest benefit to A, while B will not profit by it. Some
actors are ruined by stock companies; others are improved by them. The
geniuses in this interpretative art as in all the other interpretative
and creative arts, seem to rise above obstructions, and to make
themselves felt, whatever difficulties are put in their way.

Some great actors, like some great musicians and authors, create out
of their fulness. They cannot explain; they do not need to study;
they create by instinct. Others, like Beethoven and Olive Fremstad,
work and rework their material in the closet until it approaches
perfection, when they expose it. To say that there are bad actors
following in the footsteps of both these types of geniuses is to be
axiomatic and trite. It would be a foregone conclusion. Just as there
are musicians who write as easily as Mozart but who have nothing to
say, so there are other musicians who write and rewrite, work and
rework, study and restudy, and yet what they finally offer the public
has not the quality or the force or the inspiration of a common
gutter-ballad.

It has also been urged in print that as naturalness is the goal of the
actor he should never have to strive for it. The names of Frank
Reicher and John Drew are often mentioned as those of men who "play
themselves" on the stage. A most difficult thing to do! Also an
unfortunate choice of names. Each of these artists has undergone a
long and arduous apprenticeship in order to achieve the natural method
which has given him eminence in his career. Indeed, of all the
qualities of the actor this is the least easy to acquire.

Actors are often condemned because they are not versatile. Versatility
is undoubtedly an admirable quality in an actor, valuable, especially
to his manager, but hardly an essential one. An artist is not
required to do more than one thing well. Vladimir de Pachmann
specializes in Chopin playing, but Arthur Symons once wrote that "he
is the greatest living pianist, because he can play certain things
better than any other pianist can play anything." Should we not allot
similar approval to the actor or actress who makes a fine effect in
one part or in one kind of part? I should not call Ellen Terry a
versatile actress