“This subtlety of intelligence he develops in his wonderful rendering of _Richard_, as widely opposed a character to both or either of the others as could well be presented to us. For the physical nature of _Richard_ he has preferred Horace Walpole’s ‘Historic Doubts’ to Shakspeare’s delineation of the man, but in portraying him intellectually Edwin Forrest has simply depended on himself. He paints _Richard_ with strong and vigorous execution, as a crafty and cruel hypocrite, with a positively unequalled subtlety of touch, rendering his hypocrisy frank and pleasant to the outside observer and coloring it with a comedy of which he offers no example in _Othello_ and but a vague suspicion in _Hamlet_. His love-scene with _Lady Anne_ is a marvellous piece of acting, which excerpts from the character as a worthy pendant to the mad scene in _Lear_. It was probably much more easily, although more recently, perfected by him than the latter, inasmuch as the last named was the result of careful and minute study, while the former is simply an effort of pure cultured genius which is as positively real as stage simulation ever can be. But this difference in character of the three extends even to those points in which _Richard_ touches upon the two others. _Richard_ is a man of strong passion as well as _Othello_. He is a philosopher as well as _Hamlet_. But passion is suppressed in _Richard_ under the vest of his craft. It is addressed to other objects than _Othello_ yearns for. It is bold and crafty. _Othello_ is brave and honest. This is wonderfully discriminated by Mr. Forrest. The philosophy of _Hamlet_ is reflective and uncertain, colored by study and lunacy. That of _Richard_ is worldly and practical, subjected by him to his immediate ambition. Here Mr. Forrest, as an artist, is truly admirable. In _Hamlet_ his philosophy is impulsively given to the audience. In _Richard_ it is reasoned out and calculated with.