The Wheeling daily register. [volume] (Wheeling, W. Va.) 1864-1878, 1878-04-24

Z duN blAk1 y SN'S
was not warrior nor statesman; ne
welded no civil sceptre and made no
changes in the map Of political domain,
no mark upon the history of his nation
in the time in which he lived. The pages
of what we call history are burdened
with recital of bloody deeds, OF battles
lost and won, of the deposlng
of this monarch and the supre'
macy OF that But what one
is there of the potentstes whose
deeds emblazon the centuries that are
past who has so clear title to and so
strong q hold upon the love and yeners'
tion OF cultivated men to-day as has the
modest playwright whose birth we cele-
brste2 What festivals are held in honor
of Alexander the Grest2 what IN remem-
brance of julius C3yar2 who cares TO re-
bember with rejoicing the birthday oil
Napoleon Bonapsrte2 Perhaps, II the
dsy of Homer's birth could be ascer-
tsined, scholars would select that day tor
especial tribute TO his immortal song; and
perchance the work of julius C@3ar's
pen might entltle him 10 mention when
lovers of Latin literature assembled to
praise the genius OF Virgil or OF Horace;
but the heroes Of the sword must,
in the solemn verdict OF pos
terity, give place and precedence
to the heroes OF the pen. To have touched
the great heart of humsnity-unchauged
from age TO age-to have given voice 10
its emotions and translated into melodi-
Gus utterance the full sweep and the
tenderest shade of its passion this 1t ls
to merit fame, and this it is that renders
Shakespeare famous today.
at the conclusion of the address, Scene
II. Act IL. of Romeo and Juliet was
rendered by Mr.. d. l.. Hubbard rs
Romeo, Mr.. j. d. Dubois, BenU0tIo, Mr.
f. l.. Hoge, Msrcutio, Mr.. b. Davenport,
Nurse, and MIR. 4. &. Dalzell, Peter.
Then followed portions Of Scenes II and
III of Hamlet, with Mr. r. &. Daizell as
| Rosencrantz. Mr.. w. +. Peterson, GRtd.
enstern, Mr.. j. D. Culbertson, Hamlet,
MIR. +. j. Hearne, King and Mr.. Daven-
port, PoLonius after which Mr.. Harry Nj.
Russell delivered an essay on
RosENCRANTz AND GUILDENsTERN.
King: Thanks, Rosencrantz, and gentle
| Guildenstern.
queen: : Thanks, GuildenStern, and gentle
| kosencrantZ.
HAMLET, ACT II, Sc z.
1t was long source of wonder to me
that he who should undertake to write OF
these two personsges should have two to
write of. Why did Shakespeare leave US
Rosen erantz and Guldensternf W my
not simply RosenCrantz, or, II there be
fsncilul preference between two such
harsh names, why not simply Guilden.
stern? They take little part in the ac-
tion of the play. One could easily have
done all that both are made TO do.
Though often upon the stage they rise
into notice only in three scenes, and what
they do and say in those could be omit
ted without injury to the completeness ol
the plot. But are they, in reality, tWoI
| Are they not rather 3 dual person,
divided unit2 Their solitary characters
is clearly drawn. Its traits are defined
with distnctness. It's individuality Is
perfect. But it is only one char
acter. The two move through
the play together, act in con-
cert their ungracious part and their lden-
tity forever appears with them, and Is
carefully preserved from first to last.
When one speaks the other echoes his
utterances When one is addressed. the
other replies. What the one begins TO
say, the other often finishes. In their
yerv introduction to the audience, the
thanks of the king and queen are given
them with emphatic impartislity;
EfnO-Thanks, Rosencrantz, and gentle
Oaeen-Thanks, Gildenstern, and gentle
RoSencrantZ.
In the third act, when GiLdenStern says:
"The Queen, your mother, in most
great stllction of spirit, hath
sent me to you" and Ham
let welcomes him with such witherlng
extravaganza of courtesy, RoSencrantz
takes up the thread OF the message, with,
Then thus she says" &c. Thus they
are one throughout the play, and hnslly
they together make their fatal journey
to England, ard expiste their united VII
lainy in their double death. Why, then
should this single characters have two
persons to represent it2 sought long
and diligently for the answer to this
question. knew that our great drama
tic master did nothing without q pur.
pose; that while he scattered his rich
stores with lavish hand, he was not
wssteful. | rememb bered De QuinCeys
faith Ia the hidden force Of the mysteri.
GUS knocking at the door in Macbeth,
and was sure that the problem of tlIs
one-in- two was capable OF being solved.
AS thought over it, the question took
to itself al Importance which 1t had not
At first. The character which before |
had deemed of little importance, seemed
TO present the key TO some Of the secrets
OF Hsmlet's mind. l tried to conceive
of Hamlet rs he would have been with
out them, but l telt that he WAS no
longer, in all respects, the Hamlet with
whom | was familiar. tried 10 elm
inaLe them from the play, but the result
was an almost equs. sense Ot incomplete
ness
Hamlet is not the persOnIhcston Of
single quality. 1t Is mistake TO con-
ceive e him simply rs Revetg' IN the
semblauCe of man, using hln as her
servant, conforming all his actions 10 her
ever driving him onward st her passion
ate will. Inc error is q common one,
and even so acute critic as Goethe has
subscribed TO 1t. If Hsmlet's words and
| resolutions are alone attended 10, It ls
easy to imagine that revenge is the msiC-
/ spring Of 81 his scllous, but his deeds
| continually contradict him. Unlike
Richard, Manfred or Richeheu, Ham
! let Is one whom We can own
~ one of ourselves, whom We
can love and praise aud blame,
with whose feelings We Csn symps,hlze.
We can weep for his sorrows, e4ul. Y to
INN, hate with him. The secret OF
his charm is diversity. Revenge, indeed,
Is uppermost IN bis character, ~ the Plv-.
upon which the play turns, bu! II does
not exc,UIe other passions. His emotions
are SIS various rs our own, and
they drive him in as many
different directions IS any Of Us
are driven. II this be borne mind, his
-, -