But the climax of his performance of Hamlet was in the clofet fcene. In this he difplayed every excellence. of the actor; justness of attitude and action, expression of countenance, and propriety of emphafis. But what is of more importance and independent of all thefe, he appeared to feel the paffion he represented, and inspired it in others. His comparison of the portraits of his father and his uncle was the most impreffive part of his performance : "Look here upon that picture and on this, * "New lighted on an heaven-kiffing hill; "Where every God did feem to fet his feal "To give the world affurance of a man. "This was your husband. Look you now what follows! The fpectators were melted into tenderness. His eye fpoke his thoughts more powerfully than his tongue. The rapture with which he kiffed the picture of his father enchanted the feelings of the audience. " His fcene with the grave-diggers was well performed. He was arch, correct, pathetic, and natural. This praise includes every excellence. OF Of his fencing scene I have a too imperfect knowledge of the art to be able to judge. But by the graceful ease and apparent dexterity with which he performed it, the amateurs feem to think that he is a proficient in the science. There is however, much room for deception. As a stage. fencer he is, perhaps, without an equal. Upon the whole, his performance of Hamlet was fuch as to do honour to his talents and his name. He often furpaffed expectation, and seldom disappointed it. He is, however, too fond of treading the boards. He fometimes causes a languor in the scene, by "fretting and strutting an hour upon the ftage." He appears to imagine that an actor ought to be the fame time in performing an action, as a real hero. A little more activity in this play and Douglas would be an improvement. His attitudes and motion, likewife, though eafy and majestic, are too regular. In the dignified scenes of Tancred, Douglas, and Hamlet, his attitudes was nearly the fame. Whenever he wishes to exprefs grief or agitation, the fame motion of his head is fure to follow. We are fometimes reminded of his dancing-master. This fault, however, is not remarkable till he has been feen more than once, and may be easily corrected. In Achmet all his attractions were united; while he was refined and polifhed, he was pathetic and natural. The scene with Irene, which has been cenfured by the London critics, was the best part of his performance. His expref fion fion of love was much fuperior to his efforts in Tancred. His pronunciation, however, of "Thou fum of every worth! thou heaven of sweetness!" was too vehement. The reft of this fcene was faultlefs. To this praise his expreffion of the following speech was likewife entitled : "O thou haft rous'd a thought on which revenge "If yet thou hover'ft o'er thy once lov'd clime, "I may pursue the juft intent, and dare "Or nobly to revenge or bravely die!" The fcenes with his mother were well executed. If in Douglas and Tancred he failed in the expreflion of tendernefs, he cannot be charged with this defect in Barbaroffa. He stole from nature and made the theft his own. In the fcenes of horror and agitation, he never fuffered the attention to cool, but hurried the paffions of his audience along with him. Expectation was wound up to the highest pitch, and every mind trembled with hope, anxiety, and fear, till the fall of Barbaroffa. This is a higher panegyric than it is in the power of criticifm to give. Some thing may be afcribed to the merits of the play, but all the power of imagery, verfification, Y or invention, are are weak, unless aided by the genius of the actor. If the tears of an audience be moved by distress, the actor must have pictured that diftrefs with pathos and feeling. Thousands have read Barbaroffa with indif. ference, but few have feen Mafter Better perform Selim without emotion. His performance of Romeo I have not feen. In Richard it was not Gloucester who trod the ftage, but Mafter Betty. On his performance of Frederic I have no remarks to add to those of which the public have been long in poffeffion. In my next paper, in a general estimate of Master Betty's powers as an actor, I fhall add fome other curfory remarks upon the plays I have already mentioned. I have only to lament the inadequacy of my talents to `the fubject. The remarks I have already made must be rather recommended by their candour than their ability. A theatrical criticifm cannot be expected to delight by elegance of language. The words, delivery, expreffion, pronunciation, attitude, and action, continually recur. A literary criticifm may be read by all with pleafure, for all have an opportunity ofcon fidering its justice; but a theatrical critique must be, to many of its readers, infipid and obfcure. Gateshea 2. No. No. 39. I SIR, To the Author of the Saunterer. fhall now proceed to give my general eftimate of the character of Mafter Betty, not only as it will enable me to exemplify fome of my former observations, but as it will perhaps give more pleasure to your readers than a more particular criticism. To nature Mafter Betty is much indebted ;-his form is elegant, his eye expreffive, and his voice melodious. Perhaps his countenance is too florid and voluptuous. To the gifts of nature he has added the ornaments of art. His action and elocution have been improved by continualpractice and inftruction. Upon the ftage he can feldom be detected in an awkward attitude, or a falfe pronuncia. tion. Every fentence is uttered with tuneful harmony, and every motion performed with grace and majesty.. His tranfition from one paffion to another, however rapid: or abrupt, is eafy and dignified. Tears fucceed to fmiles, and madnefs to forrow, without fuffering the fpectators to feel languor or disappointment. It cannot be denied, however, that his performance is too artificial and refined. He fometimes appears not to Y 2 feel |