Editorial.

In the late issue of the Stratford-upon-Avon Herald, there is reported a sermon, delivered in Trinity Church, by the vicar Dr. Arbuthnot, in which the reverend gentleman said:

"I do not reply to any newspaper criticism, for one reason, because I have not read it and do not wish to read it; and for another because I believe anonymous attacks are best borne in silence. But, lest any of those who worship here and have as much right as I have to express their opinion upon and to bear their part in the work doing here, are needlessly alarmed by unfounded reports of what is projected, I would remind them that the work is not only in the hands of those who are probably the most eminent architects in England, but also that a committee, composed of the more prominent inhabitants of the parish, are carefully watching its progress. The Mayor and churchwardens, besides others who are well known for their artistic taste, are serving on this committee, and I think they may safely be trusted to keep a check, if it is necessary, the architects, and any one else who may cherish revolutionary ideas. I do not, then, think any of you require reassuring on this point."

on

This is well as far as it goes. But it is, on the whole, we think, to be regretted that the vicar does not read the newspapers. For if their criticism be unjust it can hurt nobody, while the end to be gained is worth keeping in view. All concerned with this "restoration" should understand that what the world wants is not the "views," nor yet the best efforts of "the most eminent architects in England," who doubtless could build a temple a thousand times statelier, and a thousand times more splendid than Trinity Church, Stratford. What the world wants is a reasonable assurance that things will be left as they were as nearly as possible-in Shakespeare's day. If there is any foundation for the rumors that have, from time to time, reached us, there has been some reason to fear that "the most eminent architects in England," no less than the "committee of the most prominent inhabitants," have not only not looked at

the matter with this view, but have not been beyond even 66 newspaper criticism" on the matter.

Elsewhere, in the same sermon, the vicar is reported as having said:

"First of all we have to remember for whom we decorate and beautify this church. It is not for Shakespeare. Nobody need accuse me of want of reverence for the poet's memory, or want of care for his last resting-place. But, though I do not object to this church being commonly called Shakespeare's church, nor to receive gifts for it in honor of his immortal memory, still, our primary object in promoting its beautification is that it is God's house."

Nobody doubts these propositions; but, however worthy or pious the motive, it is to be doubted if it could justify a reconstruction, however tending to "beautification," of the church which is Shakespeare's only monument built with hands, and whence his remains are not to be removed-under protest of the citizens to Westminster Abbey, or to any other pile. If Shakespeare's mortal remains are to be left in this church, let us also leave the church there.

In one of the earliest issues of this magazine (Vol. I., p. 314), was printed an argument, urging that "it is not a privilege, or a license, but a peerless duty to open, repave and conserve the grave and sepulchre," that it was no less "a pious than a patriotic" obligation upon Englishmen to open Shakespeare's grave, "and do whatever modern science can to preserve whatever mortal is found therein, where every passing day leaves less visible to venerate." But if this is not to be done, let us at least leave the walls and the roof that shelter that grave and sepulchre alone!

In our August issue we mentioned a complaint, made by this same Vicar of Stratford, at a meeting of the Trustees of the Birthplace, that the residents of Stratford itself were singularly indifferent as to what is the town's greatest claim to attention. It is curious to find the reverend gentleman now crying out against criticism of the methods of "restoration," pursued on the church, because the "eminent architects" who are restoring" that church are watched by a committee of those same 66 'indifferent" residents.

66

No. LXXI.

NOVEMBER, 1889.

VOL. VI.

PRINCE HAMLET'S OUTING.

HAMLET, under the arrest of the "fell sergeant, Death," thus charges Horatio :

We are not in possession of that report of the story of Hamlet which his chosen confidant declares that he can "truly deliver" to the "unknowing world ;" and, as if in default of it, a seemingly interminable succession of expositors have mounted the platform to report upon Hamlet and his cause. Yet from the number who continue to "absent themselves from felicity"—or from other tasks-to tell Hamlet's story, it may reasonably be inferred that the class which Shakespeare dubbed "the unsatisfied" still exists.

Two recent additions to this vast and ever-accumulating Hamlet literature have encouraged me to offer the following suggections concerning one point in the character of Hamlet, as they have strengthened my belief that the subject possesses the fascination of a yet unsettled controversy, and that any honest attempt to add to our understanding of this greatest of dramas is even now neither superfluous nor impertinent.

To avoid any misapprehension, let me say at the start that I have no new theory of Hamlet, warranted, like some patent nostrum, to cure all previous difficulties; I simply desire to call attention to one thought which a recent study of the play has suggested.

Hamlet is not merely a typical character, the man of thought laboring to rise to emergencies which demand the man of action he is the thinker exhibited to us during a transitional period, which comes in some shape or other to almost all deep