New-York tribune., 1882-08-13


woula faint the husband with diShonor "; anu
x,,r th.sa nil the facts and this the conciu-
siop frotn them his position could be easily mann
| tained But il is not the man who IN tins case IL
| tainted with dshonor; rather the woman ""on
n woman of twcnty-six (who is as old then us ever
she isl goes asray with hoy of eighteen, the less
that is said about her honor the better. And II VIC
look forward fIom this point to the end Oh hei
married life we find that the facts are all agalhsU
| Anne Hathaway. For she rests under the sil'hV
condemnation of the two men who, II they A""
held her in high regard must have shown it-hoi
father and her husband Tho former passed her
| by without mention in his WILL not leaving hc' .n0
slightest token of his love. even little KEEPSAKE
although be remembered all his other children; ;
and the latter upon the like occasion ala "o'Se
| He a man OF largo property for person Ill MS
condition of life left the mother OF his chii"'e"
nothing but his sec0ud-bcst bed hu' '"c nv
fact that Of all his possessions lac leit heI Only '
slight legacy is not the most important one il 'o
! consideration of tins question; lor DEUS "'io
! nichiy valued then The really Significant lact III
REGARD tc Shakespearcs treatment oil Ills VIC OH 'hS
! occasion is that in his viii, which is long one
and Is flied with a1octonate rememDTahces or
| r.nLc,s and nieces and friends, his wfe's name
does not appear at all, except IN an lnterllnealon
As it was first drawn, although with minute par
| y.
leaving her even the bed on which she probably
slept was an after-thought. 1t has been already
remarked that we might put up with second
best bed but what shall be done with second
best thoughts2" Moreover it is to be sald,-and
Mr. Hawell-P Phillips, with his characteristic
candOr is the first to say it,-that Shakespeare ala
not leave his wife any rights IN the home IN whlch
she lived His will gave her nc right to remain IN
their fine residence. New Place. 1t would seem
that. short of outspCken condemnation. there
could not be graver reproach than Anne Hathaway
received not only from her father but from the
distinguished man whom when she was mature
woman she had captured and led astray in hls
boyhOod
To return to the course Of ShakespeaTes early
years:-Alr Haliwell-Phillipps accepts the old
traditions as to the young poets very humble life
on and for a while after bis arrival in London. lie
accepts even the story that Shakespeare began by
holding horses at the cOOr of the theatre. Aud 1t
must be confessed that he sstains his opinion with
a very fair show of probability. For the evidence
we must refer the reader TO MS book. And accord
ing TO HIM the embryo dTamatsts next step was to
he a promptcrs assistant or eall-boy III bulbages
Theatre. William Shakespeare at twenty-one or
twenty-five years of age as a cail-boy were IA sight
for gods and men TO wonder ut.
After this point of his life is reached the course
of the memoir outlines of lie Is the mere record
of the successive production Of his plays, and their
| rapldly-attained popularity with their writer's
equally rapid requirement Of property, and his ap-
| pearance-always as plaIntiil-in suits for money
| due hun: sometimes tor very small sums. He was
plainly sharp if not a hard, man in money
matters.
Among the traditions which Mr.. Halliwell-
Phillips accepts IL that which makes the yOnne
Earl of Southampton Shakespeare's beneiac:or IN
the amount of Il 900. when the latter wished to
buy New Place in Stratford, although he thinks
that the amount was probably exaggerated by re-
port; as well he may; for Il 900 iii Shakespeare's
early life woud be quite equal to $4,000 at this
day in America; and besides New Placc-the house
being then very dIlapidated and tic grounds neg
lected cost Shakespeare but e6O equal to 80, 900
here and now. Perhaps II cipher was added to
| southampon's friendly and noble gift. Certainly,
as our author remarks, shakespeare could not then
have made the purchase without some such assist
| ance.
! In regard to certain of Shakcspeares plays as to
| which there has been much discussion among the
| critics, and very panstaking and thorough nvest-
| CATION, Mr.. Halwell-Phlllipps takes q novel and
very simple position. lie accepts the Three Parts of
King Henry the Sixth they appear il the folio OF
| 1923 as Shakespeare's original ana unalded compO-
sitions. and regards d" The Contention of the Two
Houses
Tragedy of the Duke of York ;" merely surrept-
uous and garbled versions of the Second and InHd
Parts of the play plays III question: This view is
directly opposed those held by most of the critics
of acknowledged position, and particularly TO that
elaborately set forth by Mr. Grant White IN bis
Essay en- the Authorship of liemy the Sixth"
That view is that the old plays which Mr. llalIl-
WE'LL Phillips looks upon surTeptitIOus and
garbled versions of Shakespearc's productions
written by MarlOwe, Shakespeare, Greene and
| Peele together and that Shakespeare alerward
rewrOte them. Mr. Observation-Disclosures theory IN
regard to these plays is not likely TO be generally
accepted. But similar judgment as to Titus
Andronicus" seems likely to prevail. This play is
not only the poorest of all those which bear Shake
speare name; but 1t is hideous, revolving.
indeed disgusting that until recently it has been
supposed that 1t written by some very inferior
| playwright or touched by Shakespeare only here
and there to MAKE II tOerable to the audiences OF
even that day. and that thus 1t caIye TO be included
among his works. But of late opinion has been
changing in respect, not indeed 10 It's merits, but
It's authorship MIR. Ilalliwel-Phillipps regards il
as ShakespeaIes work; his first original tragedy;
and that opinion, with slight modification. is now
held we believe, by other critics OF reputation in
England in America and IN Germany.
The generally held opinion that Shakespeare's
Sonnets are personal in motive and more or less
antobiocraphical, in support OF which books of
much ingenuity and no little interest have been
written Mr. HallIweIl-Philiipps rejects absolutely
and without And it must be admitted
that he makes good in favCT of his theory
that they are merely fancifu COMPOSITIONS. He
says well in regard to the confessional character
which they must have if they are personal and
autobOgraphIcal, that it is not at all likely that
any decent man, much less Shakespeare would 20
about writing stories of his private life, and OF his
loves, in the form of sonnets which he circulated