able myself to discern any difference between these two characters. They
are, I think, the only characters Shakespeare has not cared to
individualise. Whichever of the two, however, Mr. Forbes acted, he acted
it well. Only one point in Mr. Alexander's performance seemed to me open
to question, that was his kneeling during the whole of Polonius's speech.
For this I see no necessity at all, and it makes the scene look less
natural than it should--gives it, I mean, too formal an air. However,
the performance was most spirited and gave great pleasure to every one.
Mr. Alexander is an artist from whom much will be expected, and I have no
doubt he will give us much that is fine and noble. He seems to have all
the qualifications for a good actor.

There is just one other character I should like to notice. The First
Player seemed to me to act far too well. He should act very badly. The
First Player, besides his position in the dramatic evolution of the
tragedy, is Shakespeare's caricature of the ranting actor of his day,
just as the passage he recites is Shakespeare's own parody on the dull
plays of some of his rivals. The whole point of Hamlet's advice to the
players seems to me to be lost unless the Player himself has been guilty
of the fault which Hamlet reprehends, unless he has sawn the air with his
hand, mouthed his lines, torn his passion to tatters, and out-Heroded
Herod. The very sensibility which Hamlet notices in the actor, such as
his real tears and the like, is not the quality of a good artist. The
part should be played after the manner of a provincial tragedian. It is
meant to be a satire, and to play it well is to play it badly. The
scenery and costumes were excellent with the exception of the King's
dress, which was coarse in colour and tawdry in effect. And the Player
Queen should have come in boy's attire to Elsinore.

However, last Saturday night was not a night for criticism. The theatre