Mr. Stubbs, it should be mentioned, considered himself a profound reader of Shakspeare, and believed he had discovered many hitherto concealed beauties in the wonderful productions of that writer. He prided himself, too, upon the critical acumen and philosophical penetration with which he had elicited various qualities intended by the poet to belong to his characters; and he had often said if he had been an actor he should have established quite a new method of playing several of them. He was now about to become an actor, and he resolved, in his very first essay, to introduce one of his novelties, or new readings. What this was, will be best explained in the following conversation, which took place between himself and Mr. McCrab upon the subject.
"Depend upon it, my dear McCrab," said Stubbs, taking down a volume of Shakspeare from his shelves, "depend upon it, I am borne out in my opinion, novel as it is, by the text of the immortal author himself; and I shall stuff the character when I play it. I maintain Hamlet ought to be"——"A Falstaff in little, I suppose," interrupted McCrab. "No," rejoined Stubbs, "he should not be exactly corpulent—but rather embonpoint, as the saying is—sleek—plumpish—in good condition as it were."
"You talk of the text of Shakspeare as your authority," replied McCrab,—"I will appeal to the text too—and I will take the description of Hamlet by Ophelia, after her interview with him. What is her language?
'Oh what a noble mind is here o'erthrown!
The expectancy and rose of the fair state:
The glass of fashion and the mould of form,
The observed of all observers.'
This eulogium paints in distinct colours what should be the personation of Hamlet on the stage. It demands, not a little fellow, five feet five, by three feet four, as you will be, if you stuff the character as you call it, but rather what Hamlet himself describes his father to have been,
'A combination, and a form indeed.
Where every god did seem to set his seal,