[Footnote A:  “To Anybody—­Please to fill up these blanks.”]

Lamb, if he did not find tongues in trees, books in the running brooks, and sermons in stones, found good in everything.  The soul of goodness in things evil was visible to him.  He had thought, felt, and suffered so much, that, as Leigh Hunt says, he literally had intolerance for nothing.  Though he could see but little religion in many professing Christians, he nevertheless saw that the motley players, “made up of mimic laughter and tears, passing from the extremes of joy or woe at the prompter’s call,” were not so godless and impious as the world believed them to be.

Writing to Bernard Barton in the spring of 1826, Lamb says, speaking of his literary projects,—­“A little thing without name will also be printed on the Religion of the Actors, but it is out of your way; so I recommend you, with true author’s hypocrisy, to skip it.”  I wonder if “good B.B.” read the article, and, if he did, how he liked it.  Quaker though he was, he could not but have been pleased with it.  Should you like to read the “Religion of the Actors,” reader?  You will not find it in any edition of Charles Lamb’s writings.  Here it is.

THE RELIGION OF ACTORS.

“The world has hitherto so little troubled its head with the points of doctrine held by a community which contributes in other ways so largely to its amusement, that, before the late mischance of a celebrated tragic actor, it scarce condescended to look into the practice of any individual player, much less to inquire into the hidden and abscondite springs of his actions.  Indeed, it is with some violence to the imagination that we conceive of an actor as belonging to the relations of private life, so closely do we identify these persons in our mind with the characters which they assume upon the stage.  How oddly does it sound, when we are told that the late Miss Pope, for instance,—­that is to say, in our notion of her, Mrs. Candor,—­was a good daughter, an affectionate sister, and exemplary in all the parts of domestic life!  With still greater difficulty can we carry our notions to church, and conceive of Liston kneeling upon a hassock, or Munden uttering a pious ejaculation, ‘making mouths at the invisible event.’  But the times are fast improving; and if the process of sanctity begun under the happy auspices of the present licenser go on to its completion, it will be as necessary for a comedian to give an account of his faith as of his conduct.  Fawcett must study the five points; and Dicky Suett, if he were alive, would have had to rub up his catechism.  Already the effects of it begin to appear.  A celebrated performer has thought fit to oblige the world with a confession of his faith,—­or, Br——­’s ‘Religio Dramatici.’  This gentleman, in his laudable attempt to shift from his person the obloquy of Judaism, with the forwardness of a new convert, in trying to prove too much, has, in the opinion of many, proved too little.  A simple