infamous stage-player. Alas! I have lived a day too long.'

Turning to the modern world, and to England, we find it here the
popular belief that actors are by statute rogues, vagabonds, and
sturdy beggars. This, it is true, is founded on a misapprehension of
the effect of 39 Eliz. chap. 4, which only provides that common
players wandering abroad without authority to play, shall be taken to
be 'rogues and vagabonds;' a distinction which one would have thought
was capable of being perceived even by the blunted faculties of the
lay mind.[*]

[* Footnote: See note at end of Essay.]

But the fact that the popular belief rests upon a misreading of an Act
of Parliament three hundred years old does not affect the belief, but
only makes it exquisitely English, and as a consequence entirely
irrational.

Is there anything to be said in support of this once popular
prejudice?

It may, I think, be supported by two kinds of argument. One derived
from the nature of the case, the other from the testimony of actors
themselves.

A serious objection to an actor's calling is that from its nature it
admits of no other test of failure or success than the contemporary
opinion of the town. This in itself must go far to rob life of
dignity. A Milton may remain majestically indifferent to the
'barbarous noise' of 'owls and cuckoos, asses, apes, and dogs,' but