CONCERNING HAMLET—HIS AGE AND SANITY.

Auckland Star, Volume XXXIII, Issue 43, 20 February 1902, Page 2

CONCERNING HAMLET—HIS AGE AND SANITY.

MR BARRETT'S THEORIES.

Kvrybody knows that Mr Wi'.son Barret; has original views with regard to

"Hamlet." Kveryone knows that these views have caused an angry controoversy amongs:. iho critics and amongst playgoers, but few (in Auckland at all events) are acquainted with the precise nature of the innovations so lavishly p.aised and so sturdily belaboured, or of the reasons Mr Barrett had for adopting them. The writer called yesterday on Mr Barrett and asked a few leading questions thereon, and a very brief and condensed resume of Mr Barrett's ajiswers is now given.

"When I determined to produce "Hamlet," I determined to be unfettered by tradition. I made patient studies of the commentators for months, only to find hopeless irreconcilable disagreements everywhere. Then 1 determined to read the play as if it were by a new author, to rid my mind of all theories and doctrines, tv start fresh in fact."

The first thing to strike me was that I Hamlet was not 32, as usuaJly played, not i a middle aged man that is, but a youth I who had not yet actually achieved his! majority. For this here are my reasons: j First: Shakespeare constantly speaks of him as ' i. he young lord Hamlet." ani whenever Shakespeare emphasises youth like this, he means very young—"the young Orlando," for example, or "young Romeo." Second: Had Hamlet been of age when his father died he would certainly have been pronounced king by succession. Even if the kingdom went by choice of the subjects, Hamlet would still have had the throne had he been of age, for does not Ophelia clearly show him the most popular, most loved man in all Denmark; the most likely man to be chosen then, but for his youth. Again, Hamlet is the contemporary of Laertes, and Laertes is certainly not 32. Would any father think it necessary to impart such precepts as Polonius does to his son, were he of that mature age? But they are most suitable to a lad of 20 just beginning life. If Laertes then is 20, Ophelia, his younger sister, would be, say. about 17. Now, how would a brother of 20 warn a girl of 17 against a lover almost twice her age? Surely he would not speak of his youth? Yet, this is what Laertes does:

'For Hamlet and the trifling of his favour, Hold it a fashion and a toy in blood, A violet in the youth of priny nature.

Does a man so describe the love of a man of 32. Polonius' also says:

"For Lord Hamlet, Believe so much in him that he is young.'

Then agtiin, if Hamlet were thirty two, the age of his mother ■would be 50 at loast. and in this case could one Imagine her inspiring a sensual passion !n Claudius, and returning; it guiltily? At 40 the this ia possible. At 50 it is revolting. Th«» lines in the gravedigg-er's part, which would seem to set the acre of TTnmlet at 32, have been interpolated, Mr Barrett claims, to meet the views of actors who could not look the part at 20.

Mr Barrett strongly combats the notion that Hamlet was mad, and quotes plentifully from the tet In support of his argument. For example:

"To put an antic disposition on."

"That I essentially am not in madness, Kut mad. in craft.

"Lay not that flattering unction to your That* rot your trespass but my madness speaks.

Mr Barrett likewise has made alterations in the acts, and these he will Justfy by arguments which space will not permit us to further follow But it will be seen from the above instances Silt such changes as Mr Barrett makes -re the result of thought, not whim and ?w "his case1' for their defence is at east a strong one. Doubtless they will provoke profitable intellectual exerc lS e and discussion.