The sun. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1833-1916, 1915-06-13
MORGAN MI ON NEW SHAKESPEARAN FINDS
Nothing Homogeneous, He Holds, in His
Being a Master or His Specu-
lating i'm Tithes

among Englishmen. who cannot rel
ish the fact that all these priceless
things that have lain unsupported
right under their noses for 900 years
should be unearthed by an American
from far off Nebraska in partibus in
fidelibus-the United States.
o course DR.. Wallace knew per-
fectly well that the moment he limited
at the treasures that were lying
in these public records every busy
body in England would hustle up and
announc them and appropriate the
honor Of discovering them and that
very little Of the fame OF their dis
covery would remain to him. And so
indeed 1t has been
And even in the United States,
except that NcU Shdkespedridnd
printed them in full. | have seen
scarcely any mention of them. Even
my good old friend of more than
thirty years. DR.. Brander Matthews.
in his most recent work on Shake
speare a year or so ago entirely ig-
nores DR.. Wallace and his marvellous
finds.
But, great al these services are,
this statement Of them does not in
clude what is perhaps the greatest
service DR.. Wallace has done to Eng
lish Shakespearians and to London.
He has distinctly located the site OF
the Globe Theatre. Up to his time the
London Shakespearians were content
to know that the Globe Theatre stood
on the Surrey shore, somewhere
within the area occupied by the
brewery establishment OF Barclay 4
Perkins. the successors Of DR.. john
sons Thrale.
But DR.. Wallace has demonstrated
from the records that the exact site
OF the Globe Theatre was a plot of
ground the greatest length OF which
was 200 feet. bounded on the north
by an pen space then known as the
Park and on the south by a street
called Maiden lane, and or the east by
lands then Of william Sellars and OF
John Knowles (Which two parcels
were later divided by a lane. now in
cluded in said brewery property. OF
course this was a blow between the
eyes to English Shakespearian WISE
acres.
s after much cogitation n con-
claye the London Shakespearians
mustered courage to that
DR.. Wallace did not know what he
was talking about. was unfamiliar
with English methods Of keeping pub
lie records, that he meant well. of
course, but that he was far too super
serviceahle and oficious; that the site
Of the Globe Theatre was nowhere
near where DR.. Wallace said it was.
hut was-in short. don't you know
jus. across the street,
And SO they went 70 a dead wall
just across the street from the point
selected by DR.. Wallace and erected a
tablet, and. as Macaulay says. There
it stands unto this day to witness II
I lie!'
You will find a diagram OF this
site as fixed by DR.. Wallace on page
1875 Of Volume VIII. Ncir Shakcspedr-
lana. and all that can I'VE think err
~ronsously) be said against il on page 9
Of Volume IN.
All this. of course. is intensely in
tcresting 10 everybody who has paid
any attention to the question or
Shakespearc's personality. but il
leaves unanswered a question which
/ have been asking myself continually
for many years. That is: How can
we account for Shakespeare's actually
living in London in lodgings hired or
an obscure wigmakcr and in the SUBJ
urhs Of London at that, a long way
from the centre of the city and its
theatres and palaces. in 1912?
AT hat time. according to all tina
we have been told for 800 years, he
had retired To New Place in Stratford-
on-Avon. and was supplying the Globe
Theatre with new plays at the rate Of
three a year. H. was certainly a rich
man as riches were then counted, and
he could not have been in two places
at once. yet there seems to he no pos
sibility of discrediting either one of
these wholly contradictory accounts.
There were, we know, a number OF
William Shakespeares at tina time
living, but the dramatist of that name
Is the only one who interests us, and
apparently there were two of him.
The whole question seems to be mex
tricably confused, and yet. while |
accept the same Shakespeare that
everybody else does, | cannot stand
FOR saying that because he was Shake
speare cr ri tcrmini he did not collect
his dues, buy. sell, lease lands. sue for
his rights. defend himself against
creditors, eat. drink and rag his
We men iolks Tor eNtravaeance juSr
Ike other men.
The only way I have been able to
account for the seeming discrepancy
betwee the two accounts is by sug-
gesting hat Mistress Shakespeare and
her two daughters. Susanna and
judith, were running things with a
hig hand and spending Sh~akespeare's
income so freely that he himself was
bllge TO live as economically as he
could somewhere in the purlieus of
London, trying to save at the spigot.
while his family spent at the bung-
hole.
You will probably recall that
Stratford gossip had it that New Place
was kept up at a rate of fl 900 a year,
which was the equivalent OF at least
$4,000 Of our money at the present
time. DR.. Halliwell Phillips reckons
1t rs equal to t25 600 instead Of $25, coo.
hut there is no question that the lat
ter is a conservative estimate II is
little wonder that Shakespeare COM
planned of extravaganza.
MY suggestion is Of course only
theoretical. II would account for the
possibility of the two S~hakcspearcs be-
ing one ana the same person. but we
have no data nm which o., nfTi,,, {, ,y q,