For the Register and Jouf nal, am M nLn nLflAltA n AI L,I,
{"newspaper_name": "Mobile register and journal.", "edition": "01", "page": "p2", "byline": ""}
{"character_count": 8840, "word_count": 1539, "ccnet_language_score": [0.9592999815940857], "ccnet_perplexity": [1149.4000244140625], "fasttext_language": ["en"]}


 Iaque stlonaby the most difficult in the whole range of the drama. For own part, we must confess, hat we experienced no little disappointment in wit messing Mir. Anderson's performance of the charac- Ter. Not that he did Rot show himself good actor, which he certainly but whe her his talents hl him for the representation of Shakespeare, we need fur- her aud more decisive evidence than his Hamlet has lfforded He looked the character well, and the first impression from his entrance and "still play ng," argued every thIng that had been led 10 ex Dect. But his reading fell in many passages, and many particulars. far behind the anticipation thus ex cited. He seemed to to conceive well, but often 10 execute inadequately tO the conception.

 In the irst place, we think his voice, as we heard t. part rtcuary m the opening scenesw not natural in it's moduations, and the consrant of an artificial lone robbe il of much of that variety and compass requisite express the nicer shades of grief and ger, commingled in the dialogue and magnificent soioquies of Hamlet. This IS common fault with actors. "A stage voice" what nine-tenhs of them seem to consider indispensable and iu the formation of this they seem have studied the music of lhe frog pond instead of those natural melodies of which the human lungs susceptible It is not what Shakespeare calls ''mouthing," but what to have been less known in his day, VIZ: throdtng, species of vocal expectoratinn il we may be allowed the expression, dsagreeable to the ear II is pugnant to nature This fault certainly less stikiag in Mr. Anderson than in many other actors of distinction we have seen and as he proceeded, the fine tones of his natural voice regaIned helr pressive nndancv the artificial and monnto- nous notes with winch he commenced. The first aallnnnv-

 70 that this too, too solid flesh would melt" ws thought very indiferenty done, if not carelesslv surred over. IL is the nobesl passage of the whole play, ininiable for the power of its language and the exquisite na'uralness and poetry of it's assocn tons. u is the key to Hamiei's grief It opens to the vista the profound depths of his melancholy and despair IL Is the first oupouring of his pen, up sorrows and emotions al the death of an honored fla ther and the ncestunus marriage of a mother hher- deeply loved. and like the ncipent and itul erup lions of volcano, giving awful augury of the direfn disasters that must follow quick apace. Yet we were surprised to find that from thls soliloquy of the finest passages wholly omitted in the recital

 :" ' i" Within month;

 Ere yet the salt of most uBrie hteous tears

 Hai left the flushing in her galled eyes,

 She married.-O most wicked speed 10 post

 With such dexterity 10 incestuous sheets" This powerful and expressive passage immediately precedes the concluding lnes and yet the whole of il was discarded, and the entire sooquy, by an els ion destructive at of its completeness harmony and expression, brought 10 an abrupt termination. We confess that this grated harshl, upon our ear. We missed an old friend and could not account for his absence.

 We are perfectly aware. that nearly all the stage editions of Shakespeare are in great degree, but "the cOnnteiiei presen,nent" of the originals and possibly, the omission of these lines among ihe iiDpudent liberties with which Garrick some other literary butchers have proaned the text of he Bard of Avon. But we thnk like Macready, educa- ted actor, as ae understand Mir. Anderson is, might venture 10 look further and deeper than the ihumbed pamphlets of the Green Room, and every instance where it can be done without manifest violation of modern decorum. restore he rejected gems to their vacant places This was of the striking merits of Cooper aiso and these resoratons io med ts the eye of the student of Shakespeare, of the rich est jewels m the dramatic diadem of that great tor Tor fhn1 tahn 1f which looks with delight at a woman's legs on pub lie stage, and is seized with a cold fit if they spoken of in drawing room, we have idea of courting II al the expense of single fine passage of Shakespeare.

 There another omission more usual than the one lusi noticed, but 10 our judgment equally con dennabe, and most injurious to the ha mony and full developement of the character of Hamlet. We refer to that part of the third of the third act where Hamlet entering the apartment of the king, despe- rately bent upon what had become the great purpose o hIs lie, finds the king on his knees al prayer. The remorseiul speech of the king, as well as Hamets hesitating soliloquy, in debate with him sell whether he will once, in the midst of his pray CTS, send th's murderer and cut purse of the realm 10 his last accouni or whether he will wait for more terrible revenge, 'til

 C" he is drunk, asleep or in his rage;

 Or in ths ncesuous pleasures of his he'd

 Al gaming, swearing, or about some act

 That has relish of salvation in II,

 that his soul may be damned and black

 As hell whereto it goes"

 -his withdrawal sheathing his sword-all this is omitted Yet of all the scenes in Hamlet il is the most terrible, and fl for the deepest scenic effect

 t IS m fact an indispensable par, of the dark and tempesuous back ground that frowns upon the pic lure, and without which it's supernatural and dread soemnites Can never, by any degree of good acting before or after this scene, he adequately expressed It s precisely the portion of the drama where begIn to perceive the terrible workings of mingled revenge and grlef upon naturally gentle, conscientious and foigi,ing mind, and recognize at the same time seme- thing of the indefnabe boundary that separates the natural from the assumed madness of the Prince Disgust and indignation at the wickedness and hv- pocrsy of the 'lecherous, ireacherous, murderous vilian," bending hs knees in prayer the mo- rDent that he is contrvng the destruction of mur- drred brothers son-mngle in the scene with the sympathy we almost fear to indulge m the terrible resolution which Hamlet adopts, await a more ft- ting season 10 avenge his fathers death. Why thls omission is so often made. unless from homage 10 the taste ol Dr. Johnson, we know not. The Doctnrs taste would have mutiated Shakespeare to degree thd, would have left little to be acted. Modern cri- ticsm recognizes in these passages the touches of Shakspeare's pencil. For great acting they are scarcely second to the dagger scene in Macbeth.

 But to return to Mir. Anderson: we think that he was often unequal m h's acting al times as much loo tame as he was at others too vehement and occason- ally orgetlul of the profound melancholy of Hamlet's character. While we cheeriuy accord him the rare merit of never once degeneraing into mounting and rant, we think that in the with his mother, wherein the two pictures made the occasion of his keen rebuke and expostulation there was too much violence-a violence indeed bordering in some respects upon coarseness. The slightest approach to this is a serious fault. From first to last though severe m his language, and as he himself expresses

 Il, "speakIng daggers' to his mother 'he uses none' His conduct and bearing to her gentle, cour- teous and princely The m 'st striking characteris indeed ia he nfit iti struggle between his indignation and his sorrow his anger at her conduct and his and sense of tilial duty. Tenderness of manner, and d more measured and self possessed soemnity than Mir. An derson used, should. we think, temper the heart rending language of this impressive scene. We we II know the difficulties of such an tanment, but Mir. Anderson's powers quite equal to it. One is constantly reminded in witnessing the representa- ton of Shakspeare's pays how often the force and pungency of his language tempt the to extrava- gance of tone and gesture.

 We have never yet any actor whose concep- lion Ot the ghost scenes seemed to us at all what Shakespeare intended to portray These scenes are invariably overacted, aud not less by Macreadv than by the deestabe Ofranters. Both of these always enacted pictures of extreme ter ror-an emotion which scarcely enters into the an- guage, and not at all into the desperate conduct and fearless charac of Hamlet Dread there may be- it is something more elevated than fear-awe-ovcr- supernatural and reverence, are the | feelings that the great master of human passions in tended to express, and this he has achieved with n power almost superhuman, m the sublime language | with which Hamlet holds converse with the spirit of his father

 Angels and ministers of grace defend us!" he exclaims, awe strken bat not alarmed

 nBe thou spirit Of health or goblin damned,

 Be thy intents picksd or charitable,

 Thou comest in such questionable shape

 That wiiispeak to thte."