New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1883-06-24
THE WIDOW SHAKESPEARE.

AS result OF some researches Ht HAS lulcJ pcOh
making, Mr.. Moncure ID. Conway informs dumb
founded world that the Widow Shakespeare took to
herself a second husband Mr.. Conway does not
mention the second husbands name. but the omis
SION IS perhaps immaterial. since no matter what
that gentleman called himself in the specific, his
tory will be sure to discard the specific for the
generic, and speak OF him as he doubtless COM
monty spoken of by his contemporaries, simply as
the husband Of ShaEespcare's widow. 1t is never
pleasant for a man TO have his identity sighted In
favor of another mans identity. particularly when
the other man was his wife's first husband. But
the husband of Shakespearcs widow when he be-
came candidate for that position must have real
lied the fate that awaited him. Perhaps he was so
madly in love with her that the question of the
future of his identity never occurred to him. We
have heard of such reckless devotion.
After thinking the matter all over we are sure
every intelligent student of social science will be in
clined TO wish that Mr. Conway had kept the secret
of the marriage of Shakespeare widow locked up
IN his own BOSOM For while its disclosure. beyond
making n good personal for the newspapers.
serves no good purpose it certainly does serve one
or two evil ones. IL can be confidently counted
upon for instance, to cause revival of the tire
some controversy concerning the authorship OF
"the plays OF Shakespeare" Those who hold that
riage of his widow confirmation OF their theory
strong rs holy writ. "Do you suppose" they will
argue "that il Shakespeare had been marvellous
enough to create the unequal, the undying works
that are ascribed TO him. il il had been indeed true
that none but himself could be his parallel, and that
he was not for a day only but for all time. that
bis widow ever could have found il in her heart to
commit the colossal and prepOsterous anti-climax OF
marrying againi Think you that IL Shakespeare
was as consummate student Of human nature as
was the man that wrote the dramas bearing his
name his mastery over the one individual female
heart in which lie was most interested was so mad
eauate as to render possible husband OF Shake
bpeares widow n This line of reasoning may not
have the strength OF the Brooklyn Bridge cables.
but il IL strong enough TO return Shakespeare to the
forefront Of proftes discussion and thus to render
him wearinoss to the universal flesh.
And II this consideration did not seem of sufficient
account to Mr.. Conway to constram him to suppress
the husband of Shakespeares widow. he might at
least have been led do out of respect for poetic
Justice and the poetic proprieties The truth is not
ALWAYS 10 be spoken-not that il is to be vio-
lated but that il is sometimes to be left unrecoTded
Mankind has been under the impression that
shakespeare's widow remained widow. Why dis
turb that impression and thus furnish SANDER with
n new weapon with which to assault wOmankindf
of the woman that had loved and been
loved by Shakespeare was so inconstant as
to marry again. talk not of the abiding love of the
sex. The grand passion is grand humbug which
endurcs for a little and then yanishes away.
The husband of Shakespeare's widow Bah
frallty, fckeness, your name is woman" In some
snch terms the cynio will comment upon Mr.. Con-
ways discovery. and the result may be one OF those
social panics that occasionally devastate society.
lie who makes one fling at woman grow where two
filings grew before is 10 be hailed as true philan-
thropst. We regret to say that We can
not call Mr.. Conway philanthropist.
He chose to sacrifice womanklnd on the
altar of an uncommonly novel piece of news. We
admit that his was terrible temptation. but there
"a no reason, If he had taken good grip upon his
better self why no should not have resisted it.
Next winter when the debating societies of the
period renew their exercises and east about for
fresh provocations for Alternatives and negatives,
let them not forget the subject we now haven hand.
Who was the moro reprehensible, tho widow of
Shakespeare for marrying again, or NJ. d. Conway
for giving her awayi debate on that question:
with Jury of six ladies and six gentlemen to rem
der decision, could not fail to prove interesting.