"HAMLETS " OF THE PAST.

Dominion, Volume 5, Issue 1350, 30 January 1912, Page 9

"HAMLETS " OF THE PAST.

SIR HENRY IRVING AS THE DANE. A "HAMLET" NEVER DREAMED OF." With H. B. Irving playing "Hamlet" in our midst, it is interesting to recall other performances of this famous role, and, incidentally, to narrate tho memorable occasion on which tho Into distinguished father of tho present exponent made his fiTst appearance as the melancholy Dane. Tho rccountal will, too, enable Wellington playgoers to make a comparison between tho performances ox tho father and the son, or rather to perceive; how closely the eon has assimilated the performance of the father, a performance, bo it remarked, that ho never saw. 1 A glance at the stage history of "Hamlet is sufficient to show us (wrote Charles. Hiatt in 1899) • why nearly every recent English actor of serious ambition has essayed a - part which, sneaking from tho theatrical point-of view, is scarcoly tho most efiectivo of the great creations of Shakespeare. Wo know the players of tlie past only by tradition, and ' tradition speaks more certainly.and mote clearly of their impersonations of Hamlet than of any other ■ part. The actor of to-day who plays Hamlet therefore challenges comparison with the immortals, «ji-d if he achieves a considerable degree of success, ho considers, not unnaturally, that ho has graduated in the highest branch of his, art, and is forthwith entitled to his diploma. It was Richard Btvrbagc, "a paragon of good acting," who plaved Hamlet on the first pro'duotion .of the tragedy; but even his success in the character was eclipsed by that of Bctterton, whose'interpretation, according to I'epys, was "the best-part man ever acted." If conteinliorary criticisms are not altogether miseading, Garrick's Hamlet was little inferior to • Betterton's, though in its own day it "had a rival in what Hazlitt describes a3 "tho sweet, tine graceful, tho Rpntlemanlv Hamlet" of John Philip Kemblo, Then there was the fine interpretation of Charles Jlayno Young, which held the stage for a quarter of a century. To tho merits of Edmund Koan's Hamlet we have also the testimony of Hazlitt, who, though lie protests against the actor's lapses into violence and even virulence, declares that at least one part of 1 his performance was '"the finest commentary ever made on Shakespeare." According to G. H. Lewes, Macready's Hamlet was "bad. due allowance being made for tho intelligence it " displayed." Qn the other hand,'as we have, already seen, this critic considered Feehtcr's rendering one of the very best ho had ever witnessed. Tho night of October 21, 187-1, may fairly bo described as the ordeal of Henry Irving. He was deliberately putting his fato to the touch: it Was a question whether he would "gain or lose it all." His experiment with Hamlet at _ Manchester was doubtless a trying, one," but, compared with the experiment at the Lyceum, it was positively trivial. Nobody could blame a young provincial player for failing where many fine actoTS of ivido experience had only partially suee*e<led. At that time he could afford to fail: but failure after the triumph of Mathias, of Charles I, of Richelieu, would have been sheer disaster. Ho therefore approacfed his task fearfully weighted with responsibility, terribly alivo to the consequences of defeat. Excitement among playgoers gradually reached a white heat. Early in the afternoon a dense crowd had assembled at tho Lyceum pit door. The chances of the new exponent of ITamlct became the talk of the town, and it seemed ns if there were Irvingites and anti-Irvingites even before the curtain roso. The revival, as a whole, interested the audience" scarcely at all. Tho east was by no - means of a sensational character; no attempt was made to mount the play with exceptional magnificence or originality. Soma' of tho scenery was, indeed, already familiar to Lyceum playgoers, the churchyard scene •which ha<l done duty in "Eugene. Aram" being usnl as the background for the burhil of Ophelia. The vast "audiVnee'"liair come to see Irving-'s' Hamlet, and their whole attention was concentrated upon

The cordial welcome, which he .received jrhen first he' came on the stago must have convinced him that the tribunal'to ■which he appealed would err. it it erred lit all, on tho side of generosity. In costume and make-up the plaver'studiously avoided anything which should be ostentatiously.impressive, and yet nobody could doubt for an instant that he was'indeed tho Prince of Denmark. "We seo before ■us," wrote one critic, "a man and a prince, in thick robed silk, and a jacket, or patelot, edged with far; a tall, imposing figure, so well dressed that nothing detracts the eyo from \tho wonderful face; ft costume rich and, simple, and relieved alone by a heavy chain of gold; but, above all and beyond all, a troubled, wearied face, displaying the first effects of moral poison. Tho black, disordered hair is carelessly tossed about tho forehead, but theiixed and wrapt attention of the whole house is directed to the eyes of Hamlet: the eyes which denote the trouble—which tell of the distracted mind. Here are 'tho ■windy suspiration of forced breath,' 'tho fruitful river in the .eye,' the 'dejected haviour of the visage.'" During the first two acts Irving must have endured acute mental agony. They passed without applause, leave alono enthusiasm. It was, to use the simile of Jt. Angus tin Filon, "Irving's Marengo; up to the third aet the. battle seemed lost. . . . The third act produced a complete change. From the scene with the players Sd the description of the imaginary porlite the craning was a continual triumph. Tho public had before them a Hamlet they had never dreamed of; all the Hamlets that had ever appeared upon the stage seemed to have been assimilated by an original and powerful temperament, and blended harmoniously into one." Tho curtain fell to such music of cheers as must havo banished from the player's mind all .those torriblo doubts' of his capacity to achieve success in the highest branch of his art which assailed him on that memorable night. The infinitely various field of the Shakespearean drama was at last, open- to him. .The first and most' imnortant quality of Irvirig's Hamlet was the original reflection by which it was distinguished; it •was evident tliat, line by line, word bv be had thought out tho character of the Sweet Princo with the most loving care, the most tender sympathy. What he Jacked in beauty of appearance and elocutionary grace he made up in slieei intcllcctitfil povw. He sjX)!ce, as it wore, from brain to brain, and it was therefore more easy to forgive him the eccentricity of his gait and the occasionally jarring timl pining quality of his voice. Even moro than Edwin Booth-he-discarded deliberate point-making: 'he did not at any moment have recourse to a coup de theatre. Ho formed o. definite conception of the character, and did' nothing for the Bake of momentary applause which was inconsistent with that conception. His Hamlet was before all things natural. Ho allowed us a prince who was sc-lf-contem-plative. and ill-disros'vl to tragic enterprise. Learned beyond his years, he was by no means a nmdy and precocious nrcftaphysician. Essentially loving and affoctionnfo. iv» was a man, and not a more wavering crpiture of weak, and undecided purpose. TTis sense of justice was too keen to allow him to sit down quietly while a,n infamous crime was uniMmisnfd. So soon as his va.'.'ue instinct that h? Bhould avenge tho death of his father had beftn steeled to. determination by sup-T----natu.ral command, he set to work'in grim &a.rrcst to perform a mission which was entirely rnpupn-nnt to his kindly temperament. Tlvchkli he loved Or/no!in more than forty thousand brothers, he was strong enough to saarili'-'i his nation to his duty; but there was that in his nal">o which Drovcntod. him from moving sv/iftly to vengeance. The fell clutch of circunififcances bad not made him mad, but it had'driven him into the mysterious borderland .between sanity and madn'vs. It was to be expected that ail audience eh/wild show sr>nm hes'tnncy in accepting a Hamlet in which traditional points wore dolilir'.ratel.v left. out. . As soon, however, as the spectators realised what. Irving was endeavouring to achieve, they treated him to lavish encouragement. "Slowly n.-rnl reluctantly," says Jir. Joseph Knight, "it [the audience] came under tho spell of the conception, and at_thc close of the third spell of the conception, and at the does of the third act it was rivctod in. a way smch as we rend of in records of past performances, but scareely. 'so far as English acting is concerned, can recall." His triumnh in tho play-sceno was nneqitivoeal. When the King and Queen have (sken their places. Hamlet appears by no Bkhds pr&oocupied. Ho watches Claudjne

intently, but in such a way as to pass unnoticed. At length tho conscieneostrickeu King starts from his chair, and Hamlet, leaping from tlio ground, darm to U'.o royal place, and falls into it with a hysterical gcmim of triumph., 'i'he thins was finely conceived and executed, and it produced an intense effect upon the audicnce. In the scene in the Queen's chamber Irving played with infinite pathos. 110 discarded tho customary material counterfeit presentments, aiid brought home to his mother tho contrast between his father and Claudius by means of imagiiuv tive pictures. In. this daring innovation he has sinca been followed by Salvini. At tho conclusion of the scene, according to Oxenford, "the audienco were worn out by tho absorbing power of the actor. .Mr. Irving had, indeed, sufficient strength and entliu='ia.s.m for the churchyard scene and : tho fencing sc-ems but the audicnce found it welbnigh impossible to stretch their necks ..and concentrate their attention any longer. Howeyer, nothing daunted, Mr. Irving went oh, unflagging and resistless. His fencing and his expert murder of the King will bo added to the-innumerable other excellencies of his Hamlet." And then Oxenford concludes his criticismswith this definite ami sweeping statement: "In a word, no such actor and no such performance have l>een seen in our time."