The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1875-09-08
ADJUSTMENTS.
THE RIVAL HAAfLETs.

little hour upop the stage and passed oblivion
fame and stll there is no universally accepted delni
tion Of the character Hundreds OF critics have at
tempted to 'pluck out the heart Of Us mystery" bat
have failed Il unlike Lear or Romeo,
or othello or Richard in respect TO which There
is little difference Of opinion All actors agree in the
renera conception OF these characters although they
may differ very widely in their performances But Ham
let battles his interpreters He Is mad he Is not mad
he alternately mad and sane His love for Ophela is
= ruling passion; his thirst for revenge him
10 forget her His indecision from weakness
OF will and il comes from sensitive
conscience Thus the critics disagree, and have
narveloUsly opposite theories from that Of Goethe
who compared the character to oak planted in a
vase; that OF Salvini who believes Hamlet TO be VII
min guilty Of beraying ophea; that Of the English
Of whom Fanny Kemble tells, who, when he
lrst saw the play, remarked that it was
very good play, but entirely too full
'fquotatQps Still the character OF Hamlet despite Of
All these diverging interpretations has truth
lure which Is nstinctively recognized Hamlet is
real man and his Inconsistencies are those OF the
luthor but of human nature itself Shake
Jpeare, think, never approached nature
more closely than in this character, in which
The elements UNNECESSARILY more complex
than in Lear otheo, any other Of the types in
which controlling passion expressed. 1t is our
quarrel Identity Hamlet is like of those
mighty mountain ranges which remain eternally the
Game though they 10 change their CONGREGATIONS
and TO upln peaks TO those who, journeyng upon
the distant plains, approach them by different paths.
present pleasant opportunity OF studying
Hamlet he presented by two Of the first of
day The rivalry Of Messrs. Sullivan and Daven-
port is not exciting was that OF Macready and
Forrest, nor is it interesting that OF
Is great enough nor little enough to excite
riot such as that Of Aston place forty years ago.
and the differences OF their styles are not sufficient to
provoke as warm discussion that which
auced by the Innovations of Fechter Actors cannot
change the substantial character Of Hamlet,
how great their ingenuity. The mountain remains the
mountain, view it as choose. Yet Booth and
Fechter represented two antpodal concep-
tions OF the character and each vastly the
superior and the inferior Of the other Mr. Sullivan
and Mr.. Davenport do present a contrast so bold
and yet there is enough difference in their presentations
TO make comparison interesting The folly OF their
partissns may be thrust out of the discussion
Shakespeare is the property OF the world and makes
difference TO the world whether Hamlet is played
by an Irshman or an American if it be played we'll
negro played it in London, and il Hottentot should
do Justice to the role he ought be welcomed upon
any civilized stage.
THE HAMLET OF BARRY SULLIVAN,
When Mr. Sullivan came TO this country fifteen years
ago Hamlet was his great character and the
which his critics quarreled Mr. Fechter had not then
dawned upon the American stage in a yellow wig like
the in fog owl in ivy BUSH and the arbi-
trary changes which Mr. Sullivan made in the readings
md the text commanded the attention Of the intelligent
public. At that time had Forrest Murdoch,
Davenport, and Booth just beginning his
brilliant career. In many respects Mr. Sullivan could
not compare with these tragedians He had not For
rests marvellous voice, his unequalled eoquence
nor Murdochs passion, Davenport's peculiar intel
lectual grace. But he original-not in his con-
ceptton of the character whole, but in
his treatment of its parts At that time
his principal innovations changes the text and
in the readings. He seemed delight in a reading
a word and, like Forrest was continually thrust
hlg these inventions discoveries upon the public
As the great American tragedian when he said that
life is "a poor player that struts and frets
ms hour upon the stage and then Is heard
NO more, would always put strong emphasis upon
'poor, if to distinguish the wretched stroller from
the great Edwin Forrest and when he said "Who
impress the forest 2' he would slap his breast
three times, as if to defy his critics. Mr. Sullivan
never neglects emphasize with undue force us
bed by the situation that particular passage, which,
without the slightest authority from any edition of
Shakespeare, he insists upon reading -when the
wind is souherly know hawk from bern. Pshaw 20
Either "handsaw 'thernshaw' is better than this
useless parade Of an imaginary restoration OF the
Shakespearian text What Mr. Sullivan's Hamlet was
then it is now, except that he has added
business to his verbal alterations of the
tragedy, and that his unquestioned have been
ripened and mellowed by experience and study. No
young play Hamlet well Shakespeare in his
maturity, conceived the young Prince Of Denmark and
hraas aJ into
and the actor like the poet have the years that
bring the philosophic mind"
Mr Sullivan is an intellectual actor and does little
without purpose. Even his forced readings are the
result of study He says, Hern Pshaw !" because he
thinks "handsaw" ridiculous and unmeanng and be-
cause he thinks natural that Hamlet should dismiss
the conversation with Rosencrantz and Gudensern by
an expression Of petulance and contempt AS
Shakespeare did not mako this expression strong
enough Mr. Sullivan supplies the deficiency
Fur some unknown u.s. but one
doubtless plain enough to him, he says "that the son
of dead father murdered f" instead Of dear father"
which is the accepted text. Why Hamlet should be
prompted TO revenge by the recollection that his father
is dead is incomprehensibe That he should be
prompted TO revenge by the recollection that his father
Mas murdered is natural enough There is
nothing cumulative in the recital Of these evils from
death to murdes, for murder sums up in the mind OF
Hamlet all that death could convey. We also easily
understand why Mr. Sullivan says, cor to take arms
against siege Of troubles and by opposing END themp
instead Of "a Of troubles" He thinks the meta
phor IS Mixed that you cannot arms against sea.
But this change, in opinion, makes The verse
prosac De Quincy has shown that the canons Of poetry
permit this daring license and that Shakespeare as a
poet strengthened the line when he introduced this
neaphorcal sea OF trouble, instead Of presenting the
image Of actual siege. Many excellent scholars.
however, support Mr. Sullivan IN this reading But
how he Justify the change Of the from ~ take
The ghosts word for thousand pound" TO an tue
ghosts word for all the in Denmarkgr Possibly
Mr. sullivan may have been mised by the argument
that pounds were not current IN Denmark but # he
follows this theory he will have to strike out the
priests, the manned rites Of Opheias funeral, the