The San Francisco call., 1909-12-26

This is a personally conducted tour
wherein Mr.. Harris introduces us to
creations of Shakespeare's genius. but
which the author points out TO US is
not at all the case. but that each char
acter is simply Shakespeare himself
masquerading in different frames with
differently regulated lighting and color
effects. 1t must be admitted that Mr..
Harris has worked out a very inge-
nious theory. but how far it is conclu-
sive is not wholly apparent
There is nothing new in declaring
that an author puts much Of himself in
his writing. and. surely. as Shake
speare matured. it is but to be ex-
pected that the product of his life
should reveal itself in many ways by
the dialogue. sentiment or soliloauies
Of his plays and poems, but that part
OF life which a man learns by expert
. ence, observation or expedience may
often be no part whatever of the indi-
vldual himself The world is full of
people who. through the buffets and
rewards Of fortune, have been shaped
ell awry from the original tempera-
conceived them. Hence we have
cynics, misers and spendthrifts, and
each speaking from his mouth what is
denied by his heart. Yet II each one
were to write a play or a story IL is
but 20 be expected that each would put
into his work what he has observed or
experienced, coupled indeed with part
OF his own individual self,
How, then, are we TO separate the
rfc ~ ID hzv
: classification so as to reveal where the
limit Is drawn from the man as he
appears TO himself and the man as he
- appears TO those about himg This
question Mr.. Harris has solved most
satisfactorily TO himself and 10 some
others by a close study in comparing
the lines, wording. philosophy and SEN
timent in many parts OF Shakespeare s
works. and thereby endeavoring 70
draw a true deduction Of exactly what
manner Of man, in his heartTof hearts
Shakespeare really was
Hamlet is the basic principle. Wher-
ever in any of the plays there occurs
q line or thought such as Hamlet
might have uttered there does Mr.
Harris fall upon ii at once and, having
captured 1t, he labels II Shakespeare. "
Romeo is Hamlet in love. Jacques is
Hamlet a little older, with his melan-
choly more intensified in greenness and
yellOwness. Macbeth is Hamlet married
10 q wife who is ever AZ his elbow with
an invigorating dose Of nervine.
So il goes right along the line. An
tonic, Duke Nincentio, Posthumus
Prospero. Orsino. Then, having drawn
from the graceful characters what
seems 10 Harris a very strong analogy
he chooses q set OF most dissimilaT
prots gonists to prove by converse that
his theory is correct Thus, in the
I
Henry V. Henry VI and even Richard
III. wherever one Of these men of ac-
-tion pauses 70 express a thought OF
kindness, inTospection or mercy
Aha says Mr.. Harris, Hello, Shakes
peare. You can't disguise yourself
/, from me"'
Now. then, In the course of running
+ down one Shakespeare in this manner.
we are shown that he was a weak,
hesitating fellow, who was seldom
stirred 10 energy unless abnormally
moved; he abhorred the sight Of blood;
he was most Indifferent 70 the worth
Of money; he was a violent lover for
loves sake; he was abandoned TO the
Eense OF beauty: he delighted in con-
templating the human body. he had 8
wonderful imagination; he hated
misers. for acquisitiveness was no part
of him, hence he never drew a miser in
any OF his plays; he was gentle. pas
sionate, yet impulsive; at times he had
q capacity for sunny gayery and de-
light IN life: he avoided fights and
sbrawls; he had an unusual perception
OF humor; at times was very Jealous
and had a most unfortunate habit OF
pleading his love by proxy; and. added
70 this, he was greatly troubled with
insomnia
Ny. Harris, having nailed down his
theory good and tight. then clinches II
By q chronological comparison Of the
events Of Shakespeare's life and the
motions and passions that he evolves
through his work written contempt.