rrors, as, mentioning one play for
another, falsely representing the parts, &c., to the misinformation of
the town, and the great detriment of the said theatre." And the
_Public Advertiser_ of January 1st, 1765, contains a notice: "To
prevent any mistake in future in advertising the plays and
entertainments of Drury Lane Theatre, the managers think it proper to
declare that the playbills are inserted by their direction in this
paper only." It is clear that the science of advertising was but dimly
understood at this date. Even the shopkeepers then paid for the
privilege of exhibiting bills in their windows, whereas now they
require to be rewarded for all exertions of this kind, by, at any
rate, free admissions to the entertainments advertised, if not by a
specific payment of money. The exact date when the managers began to
pay instead of receive on the score of their advertisements, is hardly
to be ascertained. Genest, in his laborious "History of the Stage,"
says obscurely of the year 1745: "At this time the plays were
advertised at three shillings and sixpence each night or advertisement
in the _General Advertiser_." It may be that the adverse systems went
on together for some time. The managers may have paid certain journals
for the regular insertion of advertisements, and received payment from
less favoured or less influential newspapers for theatrical news or
information.

One of Charles Lamb's most pleasant papers arose from "the casual
sight of an old playbill which I picked up the other day; I know not
by what chance it was preserved so long." It was but two-and-thirty
years old, however, and presented the cast of parts in "Twelfth Night"
at Old Drury Lane Theatre, destroyed by fire in 1809. Lamb's delight
in the stage needs not to be again referred to. "There is something
very touching in these old remembrances," he writes. "They make us
think how we once used to read a playbill, not as now, peradventure
singling out a favourite performer and casting a negligent eye over
the rest; but spelling out every name down to the very mutes and
servants of the scene; when it was a matter of no small moment to us
whether Whitfield or Packer took the part of Fabian; when Benson, and
Burton, and Phillimore--names of small account--had an importance
beyond what we can be content to attribute now to the time's best
actors." The fond industry with which a youthful devotee of the
theatre studies the playbills could hardly be mo