KEAN'S SIR GILES OVERREACH.

IF this performance were to be criticised in detaiLit would be diffi- cult to point out a single passage in which the actor fails to do full

justice to the part : on the contrary, it would be easy to mention several in which he does it more than justice. The character, in- deed, is one that owes much to an able performer, and is nothing in the hands of a feeble one. Though strongly conceived, it is in-

adequately executed;—the outline is vigorous, but the filling. up is imperfect. Compared with !ago, or Richard, or Shylock, or any

Shakspearian character of that class, it is like a black chalk draw- ing by the side of a painting of SPAGNOLET ;—it wants substance, completeness, and reality. When performed by KEAN, one is sur- prised to find how far the representation transcends all previous conceptions ; and not, as frequently happens in the case of SHAKSPE ARE, disappointed to see how far previous conceptions have surpassed the representation.

The character of Sir Giles Overreach is rather described than developed. He is said by others, and he gives himself out to be a

breaker of gnaws human and divine ; but the deeds that have

raised him to the bad eminence he holds in man's estimation are on record, not in progress. Wellborn and the rest of the long line of his victims are ruined before the action commences ; and we only learn that their ruin was his work, and only hear him boast of his ability to ruin others. But in the case of Richard,. Tato, Macbeth and others, villany is at work before your eyes ; and the very action of the drama itself consists of its machinations. What Sir Giles describes himself as capable of—what others give him credit for, the villains of SHAKSPEARE are actually seen to perpe- trate. Their deeds of guilt are planned and done before your eyes ; you are privy to the course of their evil thoughts, and have as it were a window by which to look into their breasts ; you need neither self-avowal nor the testimony of others to avouch the bad passions of hearts whose movements have been all exposed to your view. To the representative of Sir Giles, therefore, it is a task of more than ordinary difficulty to make the enormity of his wickedness duly felt by the audience ; since what is understood on evidence or confession works much less efficaciously on the feel- ings " quam gum ipse sibi tradit spectator." In description, however, the wickedness of Sir Giles is of a more appalling nature than even that of Richard—because it is domestic wickedness, and comes home more to men's businesses and bosoms ; and because it is not relieved by any lofty ambition, by the pomp and circumstance of war, or by the chivalrous valour, which, had he not been the worst of criminals, would, in spite of his hunch, have made Crookback the greatest of heroes. Were we to seek for images by which to illustrate the portentous villany of this rural Richard, we might bethink us of HOMER' s Fury stalk- ing abroad with her feet on the earth and her head above the, clouds ;—or of MILTON'S arch-fiend blotting creation with his presence, and preparing to spring over the wall of Paradise ;— or of the bird of night sailing along and spreading dismay among the trembling generations of the green-wood ;—or of the swollen spider with his crab-like claws hooking the heedless and the va-

grant into his dormitory.

" He frights men out of their estates;

. . . no man dares reprove him."

People wonder how the earth can bear so horrid a monster ; and even the soldier who had stood undaunted the clang and clatter of many a charging squadron is " all bathed in a cold sweat " to hear his devilish practices avowed.

Whether an impression of this horrific kind is capable of being conveyed at all, may be questioned ; KEAN'S Sir Giles Overreach, at least, does not so appal you. The audience are in the unhappy predicament of norlieing able to feel any occasion for the terror which Lord Lovell and the rest express. The actor's voice and countenance have nothing of the portentous or terrific—nothing that entitles him to be regarded as the bugbear of the whole shire ; and when he discloses his meditated plans of aggrandise- ment, you do not cast a suspicious glance downwards—" This should be the Devil, yet where be his hoofs ? "

To give consistency and even probability to the drama, it was requisite that Sir Giles should be 41 man ever ready to back his villany with violence—and equally willing to meet his enemy in the field as to encounter him at law.* His immeasurable atrocities could be triumphant only if supported by an unconquerable ferocity, before which the stoutest hearts should quail with a sense of infe- riority not to be overcome. Alike insensible to pity and to fear, the fury of his victims driven to desperation must move him no more than the idle wind stirs Olympus. A power to do, is therefore * An actor's study of this part might he greatly assisted by a perusal of the first volume of Caleb Williams. Burnabas Tyrrel—the most striking and faithful copy of life that has been taken since Fismirco wrote—is the true son of Sir Giles Overreach, though his ruling passion be different and, being much more fully and minutely drawn than his predecessor, would be a great kelp towards forming a clear conception of Sir Giles.

ascribed to him equal to his spirit to dare ; and strength and courage are lavished on him in equal proportions.

. . . "-Does there live a man, • Of that large list I have encountered with, Can truly say I e'er gave inch of ground • Not purchased with his blood that did oppose me ?"

When KEAN utters • these wordS, they are heard with incredu- lous ears. • He has not the bearing of a redoubted swordsman. When opposed to the comparatively Herculean representative of Richmond or Wellborn, one is painfully sensible of the inequa- lity of the combatants. It is not merely that the stature of the actor is dirninutive, • for from the days of Tydeus downwards, the mightiest 'minds have oftenest lodged in little bodie-S. ; but the gestures, voice, look and air of KEAN, though he is not incapable of spirts and flashes of gallantry, are anything but formidable. When he throws himself into an attitude of offence before Wellborn, it is the fencer whose idea is suggested, not the ruthless duellist, who will break in upon his antagonist, and seal his villany in the heart's blood of his victim. The performance of KEAN therefore in Ibis part, however consummate in detail, is in the general effect deficient in truth and power, inasmuch as it rants the properties which alone could give the character probability,—viz. a terror- striking voice and look, the external indications of a dare-devil disposition, and the demonstration, of enormous physical power. The Sir Giles Overreach of KESHILE failed from the stateliness and nobility of demeanour, which that actor could not on any oc- casion sufficiently divest himself of. " He reminded us," says Sir WALTER SCOTT, " of a dignified country gentleman= an old courtier of the Queen's,' rather than of an extortioner and opc pressor, with impudence enough to glory in his baseness. HIS might say what ill he would of himself, the audience would not believe him." 'With regard to the Sir Giles Overreach of KEAN, the audience are not indisposed to believe him capable of con- ceiving villany ; , their incredulity respects his power to carry it through. , The persoh fully qualified by nature to represent Sir Giles Over, reach, such as imagination paints him, should have huge limbs, clumsily put together, hut evincing gigantic strength ; an uncouth but solemn and magisterial gait ; a voice stern and grating like -Hell's .gates, but Capable of sinking at times into a sycophantic assuasiveness' of tone, indicative of a close and treacherous heart ; a lowering and meditative brow ; a countenance sullen, proud, and dark, breaking into occasional flashes of scorn, for innocence and virtue ; and it fierce gray eye, like that of Louis XI., as described by SCOTT, gleaming from under its grizzled and shaggy penthouse, like the first glance of the dagger-as it leaves its sheath. If these be the true characteristics of Sir Giles, YOUNG pos- sesses some of the natural advantages in which KEAN is defective. He has a severity of aspect, an imperious power of voice, and an eye, which, though small, is keeh and stern, and better adapted to express latent ferocity than the large, full, serious eye of the rival- actor, which is more fitted for a lover-like-Contemplation. But more than this, YOUNG has that in his voice and bearing that would be feared—an intrepidity of accent, betokening self-confi- dence and conscious superiority. His stature and figure, too; ap- proach more nearly to Irliat is wanted; though as for gait, no- thing can be better than KEAN'S, who moves just like a man that would choose to walk the last mile of a morning's ride, " to keep him from being pursy."

But if we gained in some respects by the substitution of YOUNG,

we should lose infinitely more in others. Besides that his Sir Giles would be liable to the objection made to KErirnLE's—for YOUNG, though a good /ago, is not par excellence formed to per- sonate a villain—what would become of those passages in which KEAN is so pre-eminent ?—of the mixture of scorn and self-con- gratulation which he throws into his voice and look, when talking of the " Lord," and revelling in the idea of his " right honourable daughter;"—of the ill-assumed obsequiousness with which he welcomes his intended noble son-in-law, and the pseudo tender ness of his address to Wellborn—" My nephew !"—of the reckless, Satanic disregard of what may become of the tools of his villany when he has no longer a use for them—" let him hang or damn, I care not ;"—of the agitation with which he interrogates the lady- " Did you see my daughter

And the Lord, her husband ? Are they in your house ? If they are, discover . . ."

and finally, of the alternate triumph and consternation—the hatred, scorn, defiance, and phrensy, which distinguish the last scenes, and constitute it a memorable triumph of theatrical genius ?

There is an actor, SANDFORD by name, described in CIBBER'S "Apology for a Life," that strikes us as combining, in a remark- able manner, every requisite to be looked for in the representative of Sir Giles.

" He had an uncouth stateliness in 'his motion, a harsh and sullen pride of speech, a meditating brow, a stern aspect, occasionally changing into an almost ludicrous triumph over all goodness and virtue ; from thence falling into the most assuasive gentleness and soothing candour of a designing heart . . . Poor Sandford was not the stage-villain by choice, but from necessity ; for having a low crooked person, such bodily defects were too strong for great or amiable characters . . And so un- usual had it been to see Sandford an innocent man in a play, that when- ever he was so, the spectators would hardly give him credit in so gross an improbability. it happened that once in a new play Sandford had to perform the part of an honest statesman. The pit, after they had sat three or four acts in a quiet expectation that the well-dissembled honesty of Sandford would soon bring about sonic surprising distress or -con- fusion,---finding no such matter, but that Sandford was really an honest

man to the end,—fairly damned the play, as though the author had im- posed on them an incredible absurdity."

We cannot conclude this notice without thanking MEADOWS for his Marra ; of which it would not be extravagant to say that it is worthy of KEAN'S Sir Giles. The humorous energy with which he conjures Wellborn, to hang or drown himself—" take some course for your reputation,"—and the dogged, resentful look which, after the beating given him by Sir Giles, he exchanges for his former cringing aspect, are particularly praiseworthy. His cheeks, however, instead of being, according to Sir Giles's description, " of buttermilk," are swart and grimy, as is also his poll. We have no doubt that MASSINGER contemplated a thin, bilious face, with a puritanical look, and dirty flaxen locks hanging down straight and stiff like a pound of candles. But there has been always a propensity to invest rogues and bravos with black locks and grimy faces. CHARLES the Second, who was himself black, brown, and swarthy, is said on one occasion, observing the grim looks of the murderers in Macbeth, to have asked the people in his box—`.! Pray, what is the reason that we never see a rogue in a play, but, oddsfish they always clap on him a black perriwig, when it is well known the greatest rogue in England wears a fair one." His Majesty was supposed to allude either to TITUS OATES, or some one of his ex-ministers.