an Winkle_ should be transformed
into a temperance lecture, but he is entirely satisfied with the
preposterous manner in which the clever but inartistic SHAKESPEARE has
thought fit to end his two meritorious tragedies, _Hamlet_ and
_Othello_. Now no one at all familiar with either of these two popular
plays can fail to perceive the gross faults of construction which
characterize them both.

To be sure, if we accept the theory of "HAMLET'S" insanity, we can
account for the preposterous idiocy of his conduct. But from the
greatest to the worst of our interpreters of "HAMLET,"--from BOOTH to
FECHTER,--there is no modern actor who believes in the real insanity of
the melancholy Dane. The fault of his folly, therefore, lies with the
dramatist, and not the actor.

What does "HAMLET" do when he decides--on the unsworn statement of an
irresponsible GHOST--that his father has been murdered by the GHOST'S
brother? We all know that he devotes himself to the duties of a private
detective; that he drives his sweetheart crazy by using very improper
language to her, and by coolly denying that he had ever had any serious
intentions toward her. Then he gets up the worst specimen of private
theatricals that even a royal drawing-room ever witnessed,--a
performance so hopelessly stupid as to actually make the KING and his
consort seriously ill. Next he insults his mother, and, under the weak
pretext of killing rats, wantonly makes a hole in her best tapestry. And
finally, after having killed the young man who was to have been his
brother-in-law, he stabs his own uncle and calmly watches the dying
agonies of his mother, who has succumbed to an indiscreet indulgence in
adulterated whiskey. His death is the only redeeming incident in his
career,--only he should have died in the first, instead of the fifth
act.

The real "HAMLET"--if there ever was such a person--would have shown the
traditional thrift and enterprise of his race by a very different course
of conduct. After the interview with the GHOST he would have had a
private audience with the KING, and there would have ensued a scene
somewhat like the following one. Of course he would not have talked in
blank verse. The world has never properly condemned the outrageous cheek
with which SHAKESPEARE has attempted to make us believe that blank verse
was ever the ordinary speech of sensible men.

HAMLET.--"I have a little business to settle with your majesty."

KING.--"Well! out with it;