Cromwell were meant ironically; he was not appointed PoetLaureate to a Court which he had reviled and insulted; he accepted neither place nor pension; nor did he write paltry sonnets upon the "Royal fortitude" of the House of Stuart, by which, however, they really lost something.'

MR. KEAN'S LEON.

[Drury Lane] July 2, 1815.

3

We went to see Mr. Kean in Leon,2 at Drury-Lane, and, on the whole, liked him less in it than we formerly liked Mr. Kemble in the same part. This preference, however, relates chiefly to personal considerations. In the first scenes of the play, Mr. Kemble's face and figure had a nobleness in them, which formed a contrast to the assumed character of the idiot, and thus carried off the disgusting effect of the part. Mr. Kean both acted and looked it too well. [To borrow an expression from the delicacy of the Irish bar, his representation of it became exceedingly tawdry, or, in common English, indecent.] At the same time, we must do justice

In the last edition of the works of a modern Poet, there is a Sonnet to the King, complimenting him on "his royal fortitude" [and (somewhat prematurely) on the triumphs resulting from it]. The story of The Female Vagrant, which very beautifully and affectingly describes the miseries brought on the lower classes by war, in bearing which the said "royal fortitude" is so nobly exercised, is very properly struck out of the collection.[ORIGINAL NOTE.] The reference is to Wordsworth's Sonnet, dated November, 1813, which refers to the King's "regal fortitude," and is printed in Wordsworth's Poems, 1815, on page 258 of the second volume. The Female Vagrant will be found in the first volume of that edition, pp. 85-90, but with the stanzas alluded to omitted. It now forms a portion of the poem entitled Guilt and Sorrow. 2 In Fletcher's Rule a Wife and Have a Wife, revived on June 20. 3 Kemble played it at Drury Lane, November 5, 1788, and again when revived May 14, 1799.

2

to the admirable comic talents displayed by Mr. Kean on this occasion. We never saw or heard looks or tones more appropriate and ludicrous. The house was in a roar. His alarm on being first introduced to his mistress, his profession of being "very loving," his shame after first saluting the lady, and his chuckling half-triumph on the repetition of the ceremony, were complete acting. Above all, we admired the careless self-complacent idiotcy with which he marched in, carrying his wife's fan, and holding up her hand. It was the triumph of folly. Even Mr. Liston, with all his inimitable graces in that way, could not have bettered it. In the serious part of the character he appeared to us less perfect. There was not repose enough, not enough of dignity. Leon, we apprehend, ought to be the man of spirit, but still more the gentleman. He has to stand in general upon the defensive, upon his own rights, upon his own ground, and need not bluster, or look fierce. We will mention one instance in particular. Where he tells the Duke to leave the house, which we think he should do with perfect coolness and confidence, he pointed with his finger to the door, "There, there," with the same significant inveteracy of manner, as where, in Iago, he points to the dead body of Othello. The other parts of the play were well supported. Mrs. Glover deserves great praise for her Estifania. Mr. Bartley showed both judgment and humour in the Copper Captain; and yet we were not satisfied with his performance.

4

6

["The reason why, I cannot tell

But I don't like you, Doctor Fell."7

This is the worst of all possible arguments for us to use as critics; and it would not be mending the matter much to

1 Rule a Wife, I, v.

3 Ibid., II, iv.

5 Rule a Wife, III, V.

2 Ibid., II, iii.

4 The Duke of Medina.

6 Michael Perez.

7 Thomas Brown's retort to the Dean of Christ Church.

"3

say that] there is a thinness in his voice, and a plumpness in his person, neither of which is to our taste. His laughing when he finds that Cacafogo had been cheated by Estifania,' was perfectly well done; but there was an effeminacy in his voice which took away from the hearty effect which Bannister 2 used to give to this scene. Knight, in the Old Woman, was excellent. His reiteration of "What?" in answer to the Copper Captain's questions, had the startling effect produced by letting off a pistol close at one's ears. It evidently proceeded from a person blest with "double deafness" of body and mind. The morality of this excellent comedy is very indifferent; and having been prompted by the observations of some persons of fashion near us, we got into a train of agreeable reflections on the progressive refinement of this our age and country, which it was our intention to have communicated to our readers, but that we dropt them in the lobbies! 1

4

THE TEMPEST.

[Covent Garden] July 23, 1815.

As we returned some evenings ago from seeing The Tempest at Covent-Garden, we almost came to the resolution of never going to another representation of a play of Shakespeare's as long as we lived; and we certainly did come to this determination, that we never would go by choice. To call it a representation, is indeed an abuse of language: it is travesty, caricature, any thing you please but a representation. Even those daubs of pictures, formerly exhibited under the title of the Shakespeare Gallery, had a less evident 1 Rule a Wife, v, ii. 2 Drury Lane, May 14, 1799.

3 Rule a Wife, III, iv.

6

4 The average receipts of the 102 nights when Kean played in the season 1814-15 was £358 18s. 1d.

5 July 10.

6 See p. II, ante, and note.

tendency to disturb and distort all the previous notions we had imbibed from reading Shakespeare. In the first place, it was thought fit and necessary, in order to gratify the sound sense, the steady, sober judgment, and natural unsophisticated feelings of Englishmen a hundred years ago, to modernize the original play, and to disfigure its simple and beautiful structure, by loading it with the commonplace, clap-trap sentiments, artificial contrasts of situations and character, and all the heavy tinsel and affected formality which Dryden had borrowed from the French school. And be it observed, further, that these same anomalous, unmeaning, vulgar, and ridiculous additions, are all that take in the present farcical representation of The Tempest. The beautiful, the exquisitely beautiful descriptions in Shakespeare, the still more refined, and more affecting sentiments, are not only not applauded as they ought to be (what fine murmur of applause should do them justice?)—they are not understood, nor are they even heard. The lips of the actors are seen to move, but the sounds they utter exciting no corresponding emotions in the breast, are no more distinguished than the repetition of so many cabalistical words. The ears of the audience are not prepared to drink in the music of the poet; or grant that they were, the bitterness of disappointment would only succeed to the stupor of indifference.

2

Shakespeare has given to Prospero, Ariel, and the other characters in this play, language such as wizards and spirits, the "gay creatures of the element," " might want to express their thoughts and purposes, and this language is here put into the mouth of Messrs. Young, Abbott, and Emery, and of Misses Matthews, Bristow, and Booth." "Tis much." Mr. Young is in general what is called a respectable actor.

'Kemble's version of The Tempest was adapted from that prepared by Davenant and Dryden in 1667.

2 MILTON, Comus, l. 299.

3 Mr. Abbott was Prince Ferdinand; Miss Bristow, Miranda; and Miss S. Booth, Dorinda—a sister of Miranda in Kemble's “travesty.”

Now, as this is a phrase which does not seem to be very clearly understood by those who most frequently use it, we shall take this opportunity to define it. A respectable actor then, is one who seldom gratifies, and who seldom offends us; who never disappoints us, because we do not expect any thing from him, and who takes care never to rouse our dormant admiration by any unlooked-for strokes of excellence. In short, an actor of this class (not to speak it profanely) is a mere machine, who walks and speaks his part; who, having a tolerable voice, face, and figure, reposes entirely and with a prepossessing self-complacency on these natural advantages: who never risks a failure, because he never makes an effort; who keeps on the safe side of custom and decorum, without attempting improper liberties with his art; and who has not genius or spirit enough to do either well or ill. A respectable actor is on the stage, much what a pretty woman is in private life, who trusts to her outward attractions, and does not commit her taste or understanding, by hazardous attempts to shine in conversation. So we have generals, who leave every thing to be done by their men; patriots, whose reputation depends on their estates; and authors, who live on the stock of ideas they have in common with their readers.

Such is the best account we can give of the class of actors to which Mr. Young belongs, and of which he forms a principal ornament. As long as he contents himself to play indifferent characters, we shall say nothing: but whenever he plays Shakespeare, we must be excused if we take unequal revenge for the martyrdom which our feelings suffer. His Prospero was good for nothing; and consequently, was indescribably bad. It was grave without solemnity, stately without dignity, pompous without being impressive, and totally destitute of the wild, mysterious, preternatural character of the original. Prospero, as depicted by Mr. Young, did not appear the potent wizard brooding in gloomy abstraction over the secrets of his art, and around whom spirits and airy