The San Francisco call., 1909-12-26


raneously Thus. when Shakespeare
loved we have Two Gentlemen of
Verona" Romeo and Juliet" and the
sonnets. When he ragged in jealousy he
gave US "Othello" and Antony and
Cleopatra" When he felt the futility
of effort we have Brutus and Lear.
If critical. Iago. Tender, Antonio and
the other ladies. A good, hearty hui
NOR. Falstaff and Sir Toby Belch.
Moods, virtues and vices all have their
expression.
Now. what has Mr.. Harris proved?
Simply that Shakespeare was the
truest type of <'poet man." He was
spiritual and of varied moods; physic-
ally rather frail; sensuous and careless;
he loved luxury at the expense Of
others; truly a genuine type OF poet.
Would II be difficult to deduce an
exactly opposite result from what Mr..
Harris has done? Indeed, 1T would
seem to be an easy thing to do.
First, Shakespeare wrote for play
house. He had to give what his au-
diences wanted. If similarity of ex-
preston or duplication of sentiment
OccuIE, may II not DC DcCaucO ~ PA~oSSN
the people? Then. too, has any one
character a monopoly on any one emo
tion or any set of emotions? II Ham
let is slow to action because of his freil
nature and he hesitates to murder the
king, must he be therefore disguised
Romeo, because Romeo, out OF love Tor
Juliet, hesitates TO slay upon the word
her cousin Tybalt? II Jacques moral
ICES in the forest, is he the same man az
Macbeth. who soiiloquizes on the inev-
liability of fate?
Indeed. so often does Mr.. Harris wan
der far adeld in his efforts that IL one
wished TO following his precedent IL
would not be a heavy task TO arrive at
most surprising results. For instance
might IL not be shown that Shake
speare was very fond of livestock Tor
he has Juliet say;
"Gallop apaee. ye merry steeds.
And then the grave digger observes;
your dull ass will not mend his
pace with beating"
Hence the corollary: Juliet and the
grave digger are one and the same
person; argal, Shakespeare
1t used TO be an am isement 10
couple biblical texts to warrant extraor-
dinarv. Thus: Judas hanged him
self co thou and do likewise" Really,
much OF Mr.. Harris deduction is of
similar order Of logic.
Shakespeare the intellectual ocean
whose waves touched every shore OF
thought" must have described himselr
perforce from time TO time, even
though unconsciously; and yet again
he may have avoided purposely all at
tempts of personal revelation as far
as possible. The true self of sensi-
tive soul is very shy and seldom hashes
itself into public gaze; so Shakespeare
may have hidden back of his writings.
and no one may know the true heart
which is concealed within the works.
It is all conjecture, all speculation.
Three hundred years is long time ago,
too far TO establish an intimate friend
ship or 10 go calling. How is IL pos
sible TO look back through the sphinx
like vista Of the past and to sense the
myriad influences OF Shakespeare's en-
vironment? How is II possible to un-
5 derstand innumerable effects upon his
personality by his immediate friends,
friends whose peculiarities may have
been reflected and embodied again and
again by Shakespeare in his pleys2
How may we know the demands in de-
tail OF the theater for which the plays
were written. May not much of his
play writing have been done hurriedly
and under order from some stage man.
ager, powerful nobleman, or, indeed
written to At the style or attribute of
certain actors? Nay, is il not possible
that much Interpolation was done by
the players themselves or suggested by
some wight. wag or wit in the audi
ence?
No. there is nothing conclusive in
Mr.. Harris labors. What he has done
is to stimulate closer study OF Shake
speare's wonder world OF words. To
have added a worthy volume to the
many already inspired by Shakespeare
works is well worth doing, and that
Mr.. Harris has done. He has pointed
the way for intellectual rambling and
enjoyment His work is well done
well written, and will undoubtedly be
of permanent interest.