Comedians, paradoxical as it may seem, may be too natural.  It was the case with a late actor.  Nothing could be more earnest or true than the manner of Mr. Emery; this told excellently in his Tyke, and characters of a tragic cast.  But when he carried the same rigid exclusiveness of attention to the stage business, and wilful blindness and oblivion of everything before the curtain into his comedy, it produced a harsh and dissonant effect.  He was out of keeping with the rest of the Personae Dramatis.  There was as little link between him and them as betwixt himself and the audience.  He was a third estate, dry, repulsive, and unsocial to all.  Individually considered, his execution was masterly.  But comedy is not this unbending thing; for this reason, that the same degree of credibility is not required of it as to serious scenes.  The degrees of credibility demanded to the two things may be illustrated by the different sort of truth which we expect when a man tells us a mournful or a merry story.  If we suspect the former of falsehood in any one tittle, we reject it altogether.  Our tears refuse to flow at a suspected imposition.  But the teller of a mirthful tale has latitude allowed him.  We are content with less than absolute truth.  ’Tis the same with dramatic illusion.  We confess we love in comedy to see an audience naturalised behind the scenes, taken in into the interest of the drama, welcomed as by-standers however.  There is something ungracious in a comic actor holding himself aloof from all participation or concern with those who are come to be diverted by him.  Macbeth must see the dagger, and no ear but his own be told of it; but an old fool in farce may think he sees something, and by conscious words and looks express it, as plainly as he can speak, to pit, box, and gallery.  When an impertinent in tragedy, an Osric, for instance, breaks in upon the serious passions of the scene, we approve of the contempt with which he is treated.  But when the pleasant impertinent of comedy, in a piece purely meant to give delight, and raise mirth out of whimsical perplexities, worries the studious man with taking up his leisure, or making his house his home, the same sort of contempt expressed (however natural) would destroy the balance of delight in the spectators.  To make the intrusion comic, the actor who plays the annoyed man must a little desert nature; he must, in short, be thinking of the audience, and express only so much dissatisfaction and peevishness as is consistent with the pleasure of comedy.  In other words, his perplexity must seem half put on.  If he repel the intruder with the sober set face of a man in earnest, and more especially if he deliver his expostulations in a tone which in the world must necessarily provoke a duel; his real-life manner will destroy the whimsical and purely dramatic existence of the other character (which to render it comic demands an antagonist comicality on the part of the character opposed to it), and convert what was meant for mirth, rather than belief, into a downright piece of impertinence indeed, which would raise no diversion in us, but rather stir pain, to see inflicted in earnest upon any unworthy person.  A very judicious actor (in most of his parts) seems to have fallen into an error of this sort in his playing with Mr. Wrench in the farce of Free and Easy.