Page 91 - Hamlet: The Cambridge Dover Wilson Shakespeare
P. 91

kxxiv              H A M L E T

                Lewis at Covent Garden each made a bid for his honours
                in  Hamlet;  but the  largest  measure  of them  (and  none
                too  great  at  that)  went  to  Henderson,  who  had  been
                acting the part at Bath and brought it to London* first to
                the  Haymarket  in  June, 1777, and  then,  promptly en-
                gaged  by R. B. Sheridan, to Drury  Lane in  September.
                Henderson,  like  Barry,  was  a  graceful  actor  with  a
                beautiful voice, and a very good speaker of verse.  In the
                scene with the  Ghost  he  differed  from  Garrick  in  en-
                deavouring to subdue his terror and to address the Ghost
                calmly and  firmly;  and at  Ophelia's  funeral  he  showed
                singular tenderness  and  regret.  But he  had little  great-
                ness,  and  Bannister,  junior,  who  sometimes  took  his
                place (he claimed to be the first to bring back the Graven
                diggers,  and  his  Hamlet  'was  always  done  twenty
                minutes  sooner than  anybody else'), had less. The  play
                —like the theatre in  general—had to wait for  due con-
                sideration till the  coming  of John  Philip  Kemble.
                   The  famous  portrait  by  Lawrence  would  alone  be
                enough to show that with Kemble comes a different  sort
                of Hamlet from the vivacious, 'enterprising'  Hamlet of
                Betterton or the bustling, histrionic Hamlet  of  Garrick.
                The  romantic  movement  is upon  the Theatre,  and  the
                keynote  of  the  character  is  now  an  almost  sepulchral
                melancholy. A fixed and sullen gloom was what  Hazlitt,
                writing of John Kemble's later appearances, accused him
                of, and probably his earlier rendering differed little from
                 his later. We  may believe, too, that he was stiff,  formal,
                 deficient  in  the  'yielding  flexibility'  of  Hamlet's  cha-
                 racter,  and  that,  more  even than  his  Coriolanus  or  his
                 Macbeth,  his  Hamlet,  with  its little  personal  oddities,
                 'particular emphases, pauses and other novelties,' showed
                 traces  of Kemble's intense intellectual study and  calcu-
                 lated art.  But  Scott thought  his  Hamlet  equal to  Gar-
                 rick's.  Lamb  praised  the  'playful  court-bred  spirit  in
                 which  he  condescended to the players'  (at his first per-
                 formance  in  London  he  left  out  the  'advice'  through
   86   87   88   89   90   91   92   93   94   95   96