MR. MARSHALL'S " STUDY OF HAMLET."

New Zealand Tablet, Volume III, Issue 150, 17 March 1876, Page 15

MR. MARSHALL'S " STUDY OF HAMLET."

H Mr. Ma.rsha.ll is eminently possessed of other qualifications besides that of love for the author whom he criticises. He has made •' Hamlet " his special study during the last f ourteen years, and indeed it contains abundant material for study. We know of no other flraina which contains so much except " Faust," including the second part, published after Goethe's death. Mr. Marshall has studied it in the library and on the stage, and has therefore enriched his own observations by comparing them with those of distinguished actors, particularly Fechter, Ernesto Rossi, Salvini, and Henry Irving. With regard to the latter we may remark by the way that he was certainly jaded at last, as Mr. Marshall thinks, by too long and frequent representation of the same character, and we would add that the pleasure to be derived from his acting was poignantly diminished by the wretched manner in which he was suppoi"ted during his two hundred nights' performance. An efficient cast is essential for the acting of Shakespeare' s plays, and no Garrick , Kcan, Kemble or Macready could make the drama of " Hamlet "

truly acceptable unless the King, the Queen, and Ophelia, at least, were acted in a manner worthy of their co operation. There is nothing that we know of original and new in Mr. Marshall's appreciation of " Hamlet's " character in the whole, though in his criticism of details he often exhibits special discrimination. Of course the most striking feature in the hero of the piece is irresolution — the necessity of accomplishing a momentous task without special promptness and determination to carry it into execution. The meditative man is rarely the best fitted for action. "Tomeit is evident," said Goethe, " that Shakespeare meant to represent the effects of a great action laid upon a soul unfit for the performance of it. In this view the whole piece seems to me to be composed. There is an oak tree planted in a costly jar, which should have borne only pleasant flowers in its bosom ; the roots expanding the jar is shivered." One view which the author takes of " Hamlet's " character is peculiar, at least in so far as his use of the word " humility "is concerned. "It seems to me," he says, " that the principal flaw in " Hamlet's " character is the want of humility, and consequently of faith. Ido »ot mean that humility which is the brightest jewel in the martyr's crown, that patient and cheerful submission to every provocation, that glorious self-abasement which our Saviour first taught and practised ; but rather that humility, which is the backbone of enthusiasm, which consists of a complete subordination of one's own prejudices, and desires, and will to some great purpose, and of a belief so thorough and unquestioning in the justice of that purpose as to render any hesitation in one's efforts to accomplish it impossible. Had Hamlet possessed this humility he would never have doubted for one moment that the ghost's charge of /engeance was to be fulfilled at any cost ; he would never have thought of the consequences to his body or to his soul, but would have openly slain Claudius, and would have stood before the people with the blood fresh on his hands, indifferent as to .their : judgment, and fearless of their punishment. Such humility does not always lend itself to the accomplishment of great or good ends ; the fanatic shares it with the enthusiast, the assassin with the liberator." (P, III.) This is certainly a new view to take of humility, but we are not sure but there is some truth in it. There must be a certain degree of humility and disinteredness in every one who subordinates himself to a great purpose.—' Tablet.'