The evening telegraph. [volume] (Philadelphia [Pa.]) 1864-1918, 1870-03-25
Eechfer.
The following communication to New rk
contamporarY ia not unint eras tin0.-

The following communication to New Y rk
contemporary is not uninteres ting
TO the Editors of the New York E1press:-It is
astonishing how widely the doctors seem to differ
with reference to Fechters case. A gentleman OF
this city who had written and published in weekly
journal au article comparing the two actors, Booth
and Fechter in their personatlons OF "Hamet," re-
ceved the following from friend in Philadelphia,
who is well known among the literary circles OF that
city as graceful writer and a fluent aud fOrcble
public speaker 1t is especially Interesting when
remember that the Quaker City critics, with ac
dramatic ability
gear Derf-I have seen Fechter In Hamlet and
AL my being burns with enthusiasm. You think me
cold and uninpassioned, yet rs | listened to that
man, all the good in me- OF thought or feeling,
seemed winged TO new enjoyment, higher than auy
yet attained ana was almost lost to Iuy surround
ings, he so spelled me with his genius. Talk OF
other actors! FOrsoOth! So far as my opinion
goes aud it's good to me at least it Is waste of
thought to compare them IL took a Shakespeare to
create, and it takes FeChier to comprehend the
creation. What difference, then. in genius? Why,
my dear fellow, others see IT. afar OFF, in glass,
darkly; but Fech'er fully entirely, face 20 facs.
He alone has caught the music OF che thought as we'll
as the melody OF dctiOn, and think he must know
the most exquisite joy when his own Imagination
holds converse with the ntelle It of that lstermnd
of the past which he alone can understand How
must his nature thrill with every line word! Since
his mere utterGnce gives great joy to cold
as l, what must the full comprehension be to him :?
Shakespeare to-day, to me, is really Shake,
speare, the genius or all Time, with might a2d
majesty only dreamed of vest rday, aud Feeher
his only Interpreter TO commod minds. why, Fech-
ter knows tnnately what some poor pedagogue has
taught the rest 10 read precisely, dramatically,
with knowledge OF commas and sthps is good, and
much TO be commended in actor, but to know
intutvely to catch nstincvely the true inient and
meaning, to tread with common steps the sane
path OF thought fnl OF the same joy,
and then, with natures own acknowledged
power, to demonstrate to lower minds the
glory and the beauty of that upper sphere, is so
marked and different thing that it must fash it's
light into the darkest judgment and leave no room
for doubt. How could you do so weak a thing as to
compare the mild rush-light of mans making with
the full glare of natures touch that waits genius
whose glory eevates, transforms, and cheers all
whom 1t shines? How could you, Derf say?
Yours, JOHN Ross c..
The statement that the Quaker City critic;
with one accord denied to Fechter the possess
sion of the least dramatic ability is certainly
very far from being correct. Most of them GER
tainly did conclude that he could not play
Hamlet as Shakespeare wrote the character,
but all or nearly agreed that as a melodramatic
actor he stands in the first rank. With regard
to the above opinion, which was obviously in
tended only for the private eye of "Derf" we
are inclined to imagine that the writer is one OF
those persons described by the dramatic critic OF
the New York Tribune who only visit the
theatres on extraordinary occasions, and who
thereby mistake the stage business that regular
playgoers knows Is as old as the hills for the
inspiration of genius.