1821. BARRY CORNWALL'S MIRANDOLA' 223 exactly to fill up a given space. He wished me to consult Sheil on it, which I did, and brought him back Sheil's decisive opinion that the dilemma did not admit of any better plan of extrication. Faute de mieux he went to work upon it, and, as they were struck off, scene by scene was subjected to criticism and alteration till the whole was completed. It was produced January 9th, 1821, for nine nights acted to overflowing houses, and Barry Cornwall received £300 from Warren for the copyright. But during the remaining seven nights of its run the wind was taken out of our sails by the appearance of Miss Wilson at Drury Lane as Mandane in 'Artaxerxes,' who became the attraction of the town for twenty nights from the report of George IV. having heard and praised the new vocalist. About this time I received from Mr. Atkins, the father of the young actress who had so won upon my favour in Scotland, a request that I would recommend his daughter to some respectable theatre on the expiration of her engagement with Mr. Ryder. I could answer for her kindly treatment nowhere so securely as at Bristol, and on my recommendation she with her family was received there, where she continued for two years her course of improvement. On her route through London she called with her father to thank me, and impressed on me more deeply the opinion I had formed of her innocence and amiability. My professional career was now no longer subject to the painful anxieties which each new attempt had formerly cost me. I was established as the leading tragedian; the principal character therefore in each play fell to me as a matter of course, and it was sufficient incentive to my best exertions. to maintain the place I had won. An alteration of Cibber's adaptation of 'King Richard III.' had been sent to me by Mr. Swift of the Crown Jewel Office, but varying so little from the work it professed to reform, that I was obliged to extend the restoration of Shakespeare's text, and it was submitted (March 12th, 1821) to the public ordeal. The experiment* was partially successful-only partially. To * From the Times, March 13th, 1821.-"At a period when Shakespeare is regarded almost with idolatry, any attempt to rescue the original text of his plays from the omissions and interpolations which successive ages have receive full justice, Shakespeare's 'Life and Death of King Richard III.' should be given in its perfect integrity, whereby alone scope could be afforded to the active play of Richard's versatility and unscrupulous persistency. But, at the time of which I write, our audiences were accustomed to the coarse jests and ad captandum speeches of Cibber, and would have condemned the omission of such uncharacteristic claptraps as "Off with his head! so much for Buckingham!" or such bombast as Hence, babbling dreams: you threaten here in vain. In deference to the taste of the times, the passages as well as similar ones were retained. At a later period, if the management of Covent Garden in 1837-9 had been continued, the play, with many others, would have been presented in its original purity.* It was in the early spring of this year an occurrence took place that was destined to darken the fortunes of this once accumulated, must at least be viewed with favour; with that feeling we witnessed last night the representation of his 'Life and Death of King Richard III.,' which was announced to be, with a few necessary deviations, the text of the author. How far this might have been deemed by the public an improvement on Cibber's alteration, which has so long maintained possession of the stage, we are unable to state, as the condition has not been complied with by a strict adherence either to the words of Shakespeare or to the order of his scenes. The performance of last night was merely another arrangement and certainly inferior in dramatic effect to that of Cibber. . . . The only scene of much value was that of the Council and the condemnation of Hastings. Macready was not so cool and indifferent as he should have been in his previous conversation with the Council, but the burst of anger on baring his arm was terrific. His Richard is a performance of great merit, and would be still more complete, if he always retained his self-command." ... *From the Morning Herald, March 13th, 1821.-"We shall restrict ourselves to noticing only the one principal scene now brought for the first time on the stage-that of the Council, in which Richard orders out Hastings for immediate death. It afforded the display of uncommon power. The artful vehemence with which the actor stunned the Council and the accused, the picturesque effect, and reality (if we may so express it) of illusion, with which he bared his arm, as the witness of his wrongs, and the masterly control with which he governed himself in the very whirlwind of declamation, produced upon the audience one of those electric effects, which are but rarely witnessed, and which it is delightful to share.” 1821. JOHN AND CHARLES KEMBLE. 225 flourishing theatre, to break up a company of actors and actresses that presented a phalanx of talent unequalled, perhaps, in the history of the stage, and ultimately to reduce this splendid property to a state of irredeemable insolvency. From the date of the O. P. riots the proprietors had to struggle against the building debt, which in adverse seasons pressed heavily upon them. By dint of extraordinary exertions, managerial tact, and an untiring spirit of enterprise, the greater part of this was now paid off; and there was every reason to believe that a few more years would see the property disencumbered. But, until that wished-for consummation, each partner was personally liable to the creditors; and as John Kemble from his age could not look forward to derive much profit from its successes, he was enduring a responsibility and incurring danger with no adequate prospect of compensation. He therefore, very discreetly, came from Lausanne, where he was residing, and by deed of gift made a transfer of his share, one-fourth, to his brother Charles, to whom it had always been expected he would bequeath it. Some newspapers made a scene of the transaction, ending with the brothers "falling into each other's arms;" but to John Kemble the surrender was virtually a release, whilst to Charles, who had no property to tempt a creditor's legal process, it might afford an opening to the management whereby he might gratify his ambition in acting characters to which he had hitherto vainly aspired. In comedy he was without a rival; in tragedy he was first-rate in second-rate parts, but never could be content with this position with the universal and liberal approbation awarded to his performance of Cassio and Macduff, repining at the cold reception given to him in Macbeth and Othello. It was on this occasion I met John Kemble at dinner at Fawcett's. Charles Kemble, Henry Harris, Vernon, the munificent donor of the gallery, and Baldwin, the breeches'-pocket representative for Totness, made up the party. John Kemble was interesting and amusing in his reminiscences of Dr. Johnson, and some other worthies of his early days. It was the last time I ever saw him. I am reminded of another dinner at which I met some memorable at the house of a man who this persons year, subsequently obtained a dreadful notoriety by the name of VOL. I. Wainwright. He was then an artist, a disciple and imitator of Fuseli, and a littérateur, living in handsome rooms in Great Marlborough Street, and supposed to possess some property. At his table were Hazlitt, Cary, the translator of DanteProcter, I think-and some other literary men. He was a contributor to Scott's London Magazine,' under the signature of Janus Weathercock. For some years after his disappearance from London, fearful suspicions were afloat concerning him on account of the mysterious deaths of his wife's uncle and his sister-in-law, whose life was heavily insured in many of the London offices. He had taken refuge on the Continent, where he underwent imprisonment for three months on a charge of having poison in his possession for which he could not give a satisfactory account. It was full twenty years after my brief acquaintance with him in London, that, in going over Newgate prison with my friend Dickens, I looked through an eyelet-hole in one of the cells where were four prisoners, and to my surprise and, I may say, horror, among them distinguished the features of this wretched Wainwright. Having pleaded guilty to the charge of forgery, he was sentenced to transportation and sent to New South Wales, with the suspicion of several murders very strong against him. He died there in one of the hospitals. There were some checks to the attractive course of this Covent Garden season, but it proved a very prosperous one at its close. In a mélange that was called Shakespeare's 'Tempest,' with songs interpolated by Reynolds among the mutilations and barbarous ingraftings of Dryden and Davenport, and sung by Miss Stephens and Miss M. Tree, I had to act, May 15th, 1821, the remnant that was left of the character of Prospero, but not for many nights. The tragic play of Damon and Pythias,' written originally by Banim, but so amended and added to by Sheil as to make it a joint production, was accepted by Mr. Harris, and acted May 28th with very great applause. The single well-known incident on which it is based did not give scope for the development of strong individual character, though there were in it scenes of thrilling interest. Charles Kemble acted Pythias remarkably well, and to myself, from the effect of the performance of Damon, the play gave additional popularity. It was dedicated to me by the authors, and I had 1821. CHARACTER OF HAMLET. 227 every reason to be satisfied with its production, but it did not unfortunately swell the treasury's receipts, and its run was in consequence limited to seven nights. And now came on one of the most searching of those trials in the player's life that test and stamp his qualifications as the personator of distinctive characters; that put to proof, in no ordinary degree, the accuracy of his perceptions, the correctness of his judgments, his penetration into the innermost depths of thought and feeling, and, withal, his powers of execution. Hamlet was announced for my benefit on the 8th of June, 1821. Upon this wonderful creation of Shakespeare, in which the language is so often a disguise for the passion beneath it, more has been written than probably on any other character, real or fictitious, within the whole range of literature. But are we indebted to the poet's numerous commentators for the unravelling what seems mysterious in it, and rendering clear what might be obscure in the text; or are we not, in the generality of his critics, made sensible of the vain ambition to obtain credit for critical sagacity, and to gain distinction by the association of their smaller names with the great one of the author? "Letting their little barks attendant sail, Pursue the triumph and partake the gale." Of most, with the exception of Coleridge, Tieck, Goethe, and Schlegel, I believe, this may be said. To illustrate and to interpret the poet's thought is the player's province, and conscientiously to labour to this end is the only ennobling and elevating duty which the practice of his art delegates to him. I have before observed that no actor possessed of moderate advantages of person, occasional animation, and some knowledge of stage business can entirely fail in the part of Hamlet; the interest of the story and the rapid succession of startling situations growing out of it compel the attention of the spectator, and irresistibly engage his sympathy. But to make the mind of Hamlet apparent, to render his seeming inconsistencies reconcilable and intelligible, is the artist's study; and a task to which the majority of players, content with the applause which a dexterous employment of stage trick is certain to obtain, rarely aspire. My meditations on the character continued to the close of my career, and I will defer |