The New Orleans crescent. [volume] (New Orleans, La.) 1866-1869, 1868-01-05
EDWIN BOOTH AND sHAKsPEARE.

just closed, speaks equally well for the TRACE
dian and for his public. The event is worthy
of more than casual note. This brilliant
actor, although yet short of middle age, has
already, in the estimation of many critics,
achieved pre-eminence in the histrionic inter
probation of the Shakspearean drama Let
us concede this, waving for the present what
ever rival claims to the position may be adj
vanced by the admirers OF Mr. Forrest on be-
half Of the latter; and we can well imagine
how much greater, in the eyes of Mr. Booth
himself, the honor Of the concession would
be if Macready were still on the stage and if
kean were not falling into approximation. It
may almost be said, indeed, that iIr. Booth
in the relation in which we are now consider
ing him, is without professional contempora-
ries. Hence, were we disposed to be spiteful
as well as critical, we might observe, not i'm
plausibly, that be is pre-eminent as a Shak-
spearean actor as Robinson Crusoe was mon
arch Of his desert island, simply from being
alone. And the truth is that the field of COM
| partisan, with respect to living actors, is so
Limited in this case as to compel intelligent
and honest criticism to seek exclusively
IN the Shakspearean drama for critic
rion of Mr.. Booths status as a his.
trionic interpreter of that drama.
| AT this point let us examine for moment
the transcendental notion, which has come
into vogue in some critical circles, that there
is, in the ability to comprehend and visibly
and aubibly interpret Shakespeare, all equiva-
lence to the genius of Shakespeare. Such an
assumption is something worse than absurd.
Its absurdity borders on impiety. logical
extension of the same principle would de-
mand that the artist who paints truthfully
landscape, and the geographer who draws a
correct map of the earth, should be regarded
as equal to the Almighty author of the origi-
nails of those representations. Most unques-
tionably the power to comprehend and enact
Shakespeare implies genius, and great genius
but not Shakspeare's genius. An actor who
excels In the Shakspearean drama is simply
the greatest of Shakspearean actors, nothing
more. 1t is impossible that he should, upon
that plane of development, be able to reach
footing of equality with the author
whose creations he studies and represents.
For genius is always greater than its works.
Shakespeare never revealed and embodied |
nature as wisely as he knew. Nature being |
the standard by which to measure achieve
ment in both cases, it is obvious that the
actor who finds his model in Shakespeare, and |
therefore one remove from nature, can never
come up with the great dramatist who found
his model in nature, standing face to face with
her, and reading her features by the light
that never was on shore or stream, the
inspiration and the poets dream.
The intellectual capacity of the popular ac-
tors of the day may be tested like that Of
the popular novelists of the day, by the intel
lectual stature of the characters which they
succeed best in delineating Dickens occu-
pies, intellectually, much lower level than
Bulver Lytton, because the least successful
descriptions of the former, and the most
successful descriptions of the latter, are. those
which refer to the possession and the display
of intellectual gifts and accomplishments.
Judged by this test, Mr.. Booths position is
upon the highest plane of histIionic effort
We viii not say that it is upon the highest
plane of histrionic achievement, because.
thus far, his ambition has run ahead of his
success, which, if notable, has been some
what irregular and in many respects unas-
sured. The most finished, powerful, and
altogether admirable of his Shakspearean per-
is Shylock. But this character.
though fearfully intense in feeling, is more
meager with respect to play of intellect than
nearly any other which Shakespeare
has invested with tragic interest The
intellectual gulf between Shylock and Ham
let is almost infinite and we must
say, in candor, that the disparity be-
tween Mr.. Booths personation of the one
and bis personation of the other is almost
His Hamlet, to be sure, is
marked by some exquisite passages of
scholarly Interpretation, of judicious reading
and impressive action. But, taken as a
whole, 1t may be described as a succession Of
spasms alternating with intervals of syncope
We fail to see in its toh ensemble either the
artistic symmetry or the tragic continuity of
his Sbylock
Mr.. Booths conception of Hamlet seems
TO be the traditional one. 1t originated with
certain English critics, who fancied that they
saw in Hamlet young student timid, weak,
md supersensitive by nature, but half-crazed
with the mystical lore Of German university,
md therefore only too ready to put an
= antlc disposition" on, and to proceed, by
series Of laundering and fantastic devices, to
revenge his fathers death. And this idea
vas re-echoed from Germany in the remark
II Goethe that Shakespeare intended to ex-
nbit in Hamlet ga great act laid upon a soul
which was not tempered strongly enough for :
he act; noble and pure nature, without the
Necessary strength of a hero" If by the
strength of hero is meant the spirit and
orce which are needed for action, then there
'ould scarcely be Judgment more prepos-
erously wrong than this.
There is not in all the creations of Shaks-
'eare more robust and resolute nature than
Hamlet. The notion that he was timid is