AN ACTOR'S NOTES ON SHAKESPEARE.

No. 3.

'LOOK HERE, UPON THIS PICTURE, AND ON THIS.'

It has been suggested that the Notes on Shakespeare' which appeared in this Review in 1877 should be resumed, and I return to the subject with no little pleasure, though with a misgiving that these fragmentary essays do but scant justice to the matters of which they treat. It may, however, be interesting to the public to receive occasionally from an actor some explanation of the theories which he embodies in his own impersonations, or wishes to see incorporated in the unwritten constitution of his art. Not that it would be an altogether desirable practice for actors to take the public into their confidence with regard to everything they did or wanted to be done. That might excite the wrath of some of our friends, who, to the rest of our misdemeanours, would add that of trespassing on their preserves. But it will not be deemed presumptuous for an actor to offer his views on subjects connected with the study of Shakespeare, especially when they relate to the means of giving practical expression on the stage to the ideas of the poet. An instance of this occurs in the representation of Hamlet, and, as I am responsible for the controversy which it has excited, this is perhaps an appropriate time to make some remarks upon the point in question.

I have been frequently praised and often blamed for disregarding, in the scene between Hamlet and his mother, the usage which makes Hamlet point the contrast between his father and uncle before the bodily vision of the Queen by means of miniatures or of two fulllength portraits.

Now, with regard to usage, it is necessary to note how these two methods originated. The Towing passage from the Dramatic Miscellanies of Thomas Davies, 178 (vol. iii. p. 63), the friend and biographer of Garrick, and an actor of no mean judgment, affords some valuable information :

It has been the constant practice of the stage, ever since the 'Restoration, for Hamlet in this scene, to produce from his pocket 'two pictures in little of his father and uncle, not much bigger than 'two large coins or medallions. How the graceful attitude of a man 'could be given in a miniature, I cannot conceive. In the infancy of our stage we know that our theatres had no moving scenes; nor were 'they acquainted with them till Betterton brought some from Paris, '1662. In our author's time they made use of tapestry; and the 'figures in tapestry might be of service to the action of the player in 'the scene between Hamlet and the Queen. "But," says Downs, "Sir William Davenant taught the players the representation of 'Hamlet as he had seen it before the civil wars." But if the scantiness of decorations compelled the old actors to have recourse to 'miniature pictures, why should the playhouse continue the practice 'when it is no longer necessary, and when the scene might be shown 'to more advantage by two portraits, at length, in different panels of 'the Queen's closet? Dr. Armstrong long ago pointed out the supposed absurdity of these hand pictures.'

6

From this we have the authority of Davenant as to the custom in his day, and it is also plain that up to the time of Davies fulllength portraits had not been introduced.

Betterton was wont to take the medallions out of his pocket in this scene, and the actors who succeeded him invariably did the same thing until the oddity of the proceeding led some ingenious mind to suggest the propriety of hanging one of the miniatures round the Queen's neck. Now, even if the use of the medallions should date from the time of Shakespeare, I do not think it can be maintained that they are consistent with the plain meaning of the text. 'How the graceful attitude of a man could be given in a miniature I cannot conceive,' says Davies; and I imagine there is very little room for controversy on that score, assuming them to be only coin-like medallions of a head and bust.

So marked a divergence between tradition and the poet's words not unnaturally caused some later actors to adopt the large-sized portraits, and they were used by Mr. Macready with, I have been told, no particular effect. Nor is this a matter of surprise. For should Shakespeare have conceived that pictures should be presented, it is more than probable that they were left to the 'mind's eye' of the audience—not, I grant, by design, but of necessity arising from the then crudeness of stage effect. The words

A station like the herald Mercury

New lighted on a heaven-kissing hill—

show that the pictures are full-length figures, either material works

or painted by Hamlet with the brush of memory; and that they were the latter is far from improbable.

It may be reasonably urged that there is a striking evidence in the text itself, that this pourtrayal of the two brothers was a purely imaginative operation, for the phrase, 'Look you here—what follows' -(this expression is most significant), surely rather indicates a chain of argument which Hamlet is about to set forth, and to enforce by the most vivid illustrations which his perfervid mind could furnish, than that he is going to point out what is already before his mother's eyes.

The practical difficulties in the way of a literal conformity with the text offer complete justification for an actor's departure from it. It is not a question of violating the poet's ideal, but of choosing from amongst certain effects those which will create the most vivid impression.

If the pictures are to be in full view of the audience, they must be placed on the further wall of the chamber, and the actor in describing them must face them and so turn his back upon the spectators, whose attention will thus be distracted from Hamlet's words.

If they be placed at the side or on opposite sides, they can be but partially seen, and then not by the entire house.

It should never be forgotten that the stage has four walls, though the fourth is only theoretical, and I believe it to be in every sense advantageous that the audience should be left to imagine, if they like, either that the pictures are on this fourth wall, or that Hamlet is painting them from his imagination. Whichever view be adopted, the result then is that the mind is concentrated upon the impressive language of the poet, instead of being diverted from it by some mechanical device.

The notoriously hazardous character of stage portraits, especially in these realistic days, disposes me to contend that my method satisfies the requirements of the situation. Signor Salvini, one of the most accomplished of actors, on seeing my method, paid me the compliment of adopting it in preference to that which he had originally practised. I venture to think that this is one of those points of detail on which Shakespeare himself would have allowed a large discretion to the actor. No one had less scruple than he in departing from strict realism when it ceased to be effectual, and I think he would be surprised, were he to return to earth, by the reverence for his supposed intentions displayed by the distinguished dilettante manager-stage-manager-who in a comparatively recent revival of Hamlet gravely introduced into another part of the platform' (act i. sc. 5) what seemed to be the counterfeit presentment' of a crane-presumably to indicate the commercial genius of the Danes.

6

However, in many of these matters, we are enlightened neither by Shakespeare nor by sound tradition, and therefore when an actor has to exercise his own judgment as to the means of illustration at his command, it would be well for all who are genuinely interested in the drama to deal with his efforts in a sympathetic spirit, and not to treat them as if they were inexpiable offences against laws as immutable as those of the Medes and Persians.

HENRY IRVING.

LIBERTY IN GERMANY.

CONCLUSION.

THE year 1840 saw Germany perplexed and ill at ease. Danger was looming beyond the borders and discontent sat brooding within the gates. It was thought that France, the old enemy, was preparing to renew the struggle. What else, men asked, could France mean but a threat to Germany when the body of Napoleon was brought to Paris with military pomp and civic enthusiasm ?

The new King of Prussia, Frederick William the Fourth, now felt keenly enough that there might at no distant period be need for the patriotism of the people. He knew too how his father's perfidious tyranny, that is to say, his continual promises of liberty and perpetual practice of despotism, had gone far to estrange men's hearts. He feared that in long years of misgovernment the devotion that had in 1813 brought loyal soldiers to the struggle must inevitably have perished. A poet indeed now came to the rescue; and all Germany singing his brave verses 'Sie sollen ihn nicht haben, den freien deutschen Rhein' seemed to have forgotten the wrongs her masters had wrought on her and to think only of defending the beloved territory against the imaginary foe without.

But Frederick William the Fourth could not believe that the people had forgiven the injuries and the disappointment of five and twenty years, and determined while danger lasted to woo popularity in every possible way. Accordingly, he began his reign by various acts that pointed to pronounced liberalism. He removed the censorship on books over twenty sheets, and gave the obnoxious office of censor to well-known liberals. Further, he called a distinguished Liberal named Schön to his ministry, and invited the two brothers Grimm (who had been among the professors who had protested against the tyranny of Ernst August of Hanover) to the University of Berlin.

But in 1842 the danger was over. France had obviously no nostile intentions now. Germany was safe from all invaders. The mask could accordingly be thrown aside. Frederick William the Fourth could show himself in his true colours; he could show the people that he was the true son of his father, and the contemporary of the Sultan of Hanover.