“We were sadly in need of an attraction at this time, and so, when W. E. Sheridan arrived, from Philadelphia, which city pointed to him with much just pride, we engaged him at a nominal salary, and immediately he soared into popularity, being acclaimed one of the most versatile actors who had ever visited the Coast. Three times his engagement was extended, for the people of San Francisco were loath to let him depart. His _Othello_ was a scholarly performance; ’A New Way to Pay Old Debts’ increased his popularity, as did also ’The Fool’s Revenge,’ ’The Lyons Mail,’ and _Shylock_. He was essentially a virile actor, forceful and with a magnetic voice that was music in the ear. And I have seen many a _Louis the Eleventh_, but he was the greatest of them all, not even excepting that wonderful genius, Sir Henry Irving. Success found him greatly astonished, for when he left Philadelphia he was practically unknown to any but his townspeople, and now when his name was heralded abroad, the East listened with a certain curiosity. As we played to crowded houses and the applause floated to his dressing-room, he could scarcely credit this sudden fame which had fallen upon him. More than once Sheridan turned to me and said: ’I’ve found it all out now when it is too late.’” * * * * * Belasco’s estimate of Sheridan is interesting and it should be preserved--because it _is_ Belasco’s: the opinion of the foremost stage manager of his time, about any actor, should be of interest. It would, however, be far more instructive and valuable if the _reasons_ for it were also given: but in a long experience I have found few commentators on acting who give reasons for their declared opinions. _Why_ Sheridan should have felt that he had “found it all out when it was too late” passes my understanding,--because, in 1880, he was in the very prime of life, forty years of age; contrary to Belasco’s impression, he was well known throughout our country, and, moreover, he continued to be abundantly successful for more than six years after his initial appearance in San Francisco. He was a sterling actor and richly deserved success. I knew him and liked him much. He took up “King Louis XI.” because of the immense impression created by Irving’s revival of that play at the London Lyceum, March 9, 1878, and he gave an effective and admirable performance in it. Nevertheless, he was not, in my judgment, even for a moment rightly comparable in the part with Irving,--because nowhere in his embodiment of _Louis_ did he reveal even an approximate of the wonderful personality, the indomitable intellect, the inerrant apprehension of subtle traits of complex character, or the faculty of identification, the grim menace, the baleful power, the grisly humor, or the exquisite felicity of expressive art with which Irving displayed his ideal of that human monster of cruelty and guile. Such acting as that