Part Two - Shakespeare as a Lawyer

One is, of course, thankful that Mr. Collins has appreciated the fact that Shakespeare must have had a sound [381] legal training, but I may be forgiven if I do not attach quite so much importance to his pronouncements on this branch of the subject as to those of Malone, Lord Campbell, Judge Holmes, Mr. Castle, K.C., Lord Penzance, Mr. Grant White, and other lawyers, who have expressed their opinion on the matter of Shakespeare’s legal acquirements. I cannot attach much weight to the judgment of a critic who sees the trained lawyer’s hand in Titus Andronicus because he finds there such expressions as "affy in thy uprightness," "true nobility warrants these words," "Suum cuique is our Roman justice," "The Prince in justice seizeth but his own,"* "rob my sweet sons of their fee," "purchase us thy lasting friends," "let me be their bail," "the end upon them should be executed," "do execution on my flesh and blood," "do shameful execution on herself," "and make a mutual closure of our house," "the extent of egal justice,"** "a precedent and lively warrant," and "will doom her death."*** It seems to me ridiculous to contend that such very ordinary expressions as these show the hand of the trained lawyer. But Mr. Collins is labouring to prove that this monstrous play is the work of Shakespeare, whereas that Titus Andronicus is not Shakespeare’s is (pace Mr. Collins) "as certain as anything connected with him can be." Mr. Collins, however, has not, I believe, served an apprenticeship to the law, and, therefore, can hardly be taken as an authority where legal matters are concerned. Here I much prefer the judgment of Mr. Castle, K.C., a trained and experienced lawyer, who writes of Titus: "Whatever reason there is for thinking that it was not the work of Shakespeare, there is still greater reason for thinking it could not be the work of any lawyer, especially of one who has shown such accurate knowledge [382] as we find in Shakespeare’s other plays. The whole play is not only offensively written, but it outrages every feeling and idea that a lawyer would possess. It tramples upon all his notions of right and wrong, justice and injustice; it seems not to have an idea that no society could exist without some approach to law and a legal procedure, in fact, it seems to do everything that a lawyer would not do, and leave undone everything that he would. It does not read like a serious play, but a sort of a travesty that seems more like the work of one who had studied ‘Jack the Giant Killer,’ rather than the law books of the time, such as they were, or had gained his knowledge in the Courts....Any one has only to see how differently the arrest and trial of a prisoner is treated in Measure for Measure or in Henry the Fifth, where the three conspirators are arrested in due form, and then compare these plays with the stuff given in Titus Andronicus, to at once see that the former plays show a knowledge of law and legal procedure, whilst the latter is the work of one who is remarkably ignorant of both." But, as Mr. Castle adds, "the fact that Shakespeare was the author of Titus Andronicus has been so much doubted [I would say so completely disproved] that it is not perhaps advisable to waste further time upon it . . . but it may be remarked that if Titus Andronicus is Shakespeare’s work, I think it effectually disposes of the suggestion that Shakespeare learned his law when a boy at Stratford, because this must be his earliest play, and it is the one that most conspicuously displays his ignorance of law, and want of legal training."

Mr. Collins, one may remark, occupies rather a peculiar place in Shakespearean criticism. Some of us have long looked upon it as axiomatic that Shakespeare was not only the representative of the highest culture of his time, but also that he had an extensive acquaintance with the ancient classics, not merely through translations but as a [383] result of study of the original authors—in fact, that Jonson’s "small Latin and less Greek," if meant to be taken seriously, can only be applicable to Shakspere of Stratford and not to Shakespeare. This, we were convinced, sufficiently appeared from a perusal of "the works themselves." Now Mr. Collins, with much industry and ability, and no small learning, has presented us with a full and detailed demonstration of this part of our case. We naturally welcome this contribution to the argument, and are grateful for it. Mr. Collins, however, has nothing but contempt, reiterated usque ad nauseam, for those who pray in aid his essay on "Shakespeare as a Classical Scholar" in support of the contention that Shakspere could not possibly have been the author of the Plays and Poems. He thinks it the most natural thing in the world that the Stratford rustic should have acquired all this learning by a supposed attendance for five years or so at the Stratford Free School. He unhesitatingly throws over the positive evidence of tradition which speaks with remarkable unanimity of an unlearned Shakespeare; he attaches no value to the equally cogent negative evidence which is clamant in the fact that none of the ancient witnesses had ever heard of quick-witted industrious Shakspere acquiring knowledge of the classics at the Grammar School; and he makes an attempt to explain away Jonson’s description, which is so strongly contradictory of his theory. He next proceeds to add his opinion to that of Lord Campbell, Lord Penzance, Judge Holmes, Judge Webb, Mr. Castle, K.C., and other distinguished lawyers, who have pointed out with such force and ability, and, it must be added, with such authority, that Shakespeare had a very extensive and very accurate knowledge of the law, yet again he thinks that this may be explained quite naturally, and without any difficulty, by the entirely gratuitous assumption that Shakspere was an attorney’s clerk at Stratford, and supplemented the [384] knowledge so acquired by "strolling in leisure hours into the Courts," and frequenting the society of lawyers! As to the general culture of this miraculous young provincial, Mr. Collins thinks it "highly probable" that the extraordinary poem of Venus and Adonis "was composed at Stratford before he came up to London, as early perhaps as 1585’’!**** It is not at all surprising that a commentator who can hold such theories as these should bespatter his pages with contemptuous epithets expressive of his superior scorn of the "absurdity" and "ignorance" of all those who venture to disagree with him, which nevertheless does not in any way affect their opinion that the "absurdity" is altogether on the side of this very petulant critic.†

Here it may, perhaps, be worth while to quote again [385] from Lord Penzance’s book as to the suggestion that Shakspere had somehow or other managed "to acquire a perfect familiarity with legal principles, and an accurate and ready use of the technical terms and phrases, not only of the conveyancer’s office, but of the pleader’s chambers and the courts at Westminster." This, as Lord Penzance points out, would require "nothing short of employment in some career involving constant contact with legal questions and general legal work." But "in what portion of Shakespeare’s career would it be possible to point out that time could be found for the interposition of a legal employment in the chambers or offices of practicing lawyers? . . . It is beyond doubt that at an early period he was called upon to abandon his attendance at school and assist his father, and was soon after, at the age of sixteen, bound apprentice to a trade. While under the obligation of this bond he could not have pursued any other employment. Then he leaves Stratford and comes to London. He has to provide himself with the means of a livelihood, and this he did in some capacity at the theatre. No one doubts that. The holding of horses is scouted by many, and perhaps with justice, as being unlikely and certainly unproved;†† but whatever the nature of his employment was at the theatre, there is hardly room for the belief that it could have been other than continuous, for his progress there was so rapid. Ere long he had been taken into the company as an actor, and was soon spoken of as a ‘Johannes Factotum.’ His rapid accumulation of wealth speaks volumes for the constancy and activity of his services. One fails to see when there could be a break in the current of his life at this period of it, giving room or opportunity for legal or indeed any other employment. ‘In 1589,’ says Knight, ‘we have undeniable evidence that he had not only a [386] casual engagement, was not only a salaried servant, as many players were, but was a shareholder in the company of the Queen’s players with other shareholders below him on the list.’ This (1589) would be within two years of his arrival in London, which is placed by White and Halliwell-Phillipps about the year 1587. The difficulty in supposing that, starting with a state of ignorance in 1587, when he is supposed to have come to London, he was induced to enter upon a course of most extended study and mental culture, is almost insuperable. Still it was physically possible, provided always that he could have had access to the needful books. But this legal training seems to me to stand on a different footing. It is not only unaccountable and incredible, but it is actually negatived by the known facts of his career." Lord Penzance then refers to the fact that "by 1592 (according to the best authority, Mr. Grant White) several of the plays had been written. The Comedy of Errors in 1589, Love’s Labour’s Lost in 1589, Two Gentlemen of Verona in 1589 or 1590,"††† and so forth, and then asks, "with this catalogue of dramatic work on hand . . . was it possible that he could have taken a leading part in the management and conduct of two theatres, and, if Mr. Phillipps is to be relied upon, taken his share in the performances of the provincial tours of his company—and at the same time devoted himself to the study of the law in all its branches so efficiently as to make himself complete master of its principles and practice, and saturate his mind with all its most technical terms?"†††† [387]

I have cited this passage from Lord Penzance’s book because it lay before me, and I had already quoted from it on the matter of Shakespeare’s legal knowledge; but other writers have still better set forth the insuperable difficulties, as they seem to me, which beset the idea that Shakspere might have found time in some unknown period of early life, amid multifarious other occupations, for the study of classics, literature, and law, to say nothing of languages and a few other matters. Lord Penzance further asks his readers: "Did you ever meet with or hear of an instance in which a young man in this country gave himself up to legal studies and engaged in legal employments, which is the only way of becoming familiar with the technicalities of practice, unless with the view of practicing in that profession? I do not believe that it would be easy, or indeed possible, to produce an instance in which the law has been seriously studied in all its branches, except as a qualification for practice in the legal profession." It may, of course, be said that some men study law sufficiently to enable them to pass the examination necessary for the call to the Bar, in order to qualify themselves for an appointment, or because they think that as barristers they will be better fitted to act as magistrates, and without any intention of "practicing"; but obviously these considerations detract nothing from the weight of Lord Penzance’s criticism as applied to the case of William Shakspere of Stratford.

Let us now consider a work by another lawyer of undoubted competence and long experience, E. T. Castle, K.C., to which I have already alluded. Mr. Castle appropriately puts upon his title-page the words of the Archbishop of Canterbury in Henry V (Act I, Scene 1):

but, seeing that a general knowledge of legal terms may [388] be acquired from books (always supposing that serious and prolonged study be devoted to them), this writer, though impressed with "the vast range of legal subjects known to, or affected to be known by, the writer of these [Shakespeare’s] works," lays even greater stress on "the familiarity with the habits and thoughts of counsel learned in the law," which, he thinks, "is the peculiar characteristic of the legal plays." In his opinion the constant occurrence in the works of Shakespeare of legal expressions, remarkable though it is as showing that the man who made use of them must have had a legal training, is less valuable as a test than "the more subtle evidence which points to the life and habits of a lawyer which may not happen to be clothed in legal language." Speaking of Malone and Lord Campbell, he writes: "Both these authors, I think, have taken too narrow a view of the subject, and have therefore failed to recognise the evidence of the social and professional life of an English barrister, which is to be found by those who look for it."

The point to which Mr. Castle directs our attention is an important one, and ought not to be overlooked. The argument, therefore, stands thus: Not only does Shakespeare’s knowledge of law and constant and accurate use of legal terms compel us to assume that he must have had a sound legal training, but also there is unmistakable evidence in the Plays of familiarity with the habits and thoughts of counsel and members of the Inns of Court, indicating that the writer was leading "the social and professional life of an English barrister."

It would take too long were I to attempt to give a statement of the evidence upon which this conclusion rests. I can only refer the reader to Mr. Castle’s book, and other works dealing with the subject.‡ [389]

We have, therefore, a number of lawyers, some of great eminence, others of great experience and known competence, Lord Campbell, Lord Penzance, Judge Holmes, Judge Webb, Mr. Castle, K.C., and many others, who are convinced, after careful consideration of the Plays and Poems, that Shakespeare must have studied law in a regular and systematic manner, and it is to be observed that this opinion is by no means confined to the unorthodox, but is shared by, besides Lord Campbell, devout Stratfordians such as Malone, Grant White, Gerald Massey, Mr. Collins, and others of the faithful. What says Mr. Sidney Lee? After dismissing "the theory that Field found work in Vautrollier’s printing-office for Shakespeare on his arrival in London" as "fanciful,"‡‡ he adds, very truly, that "no more can be said for the attempt to prove that he obtained employment as a lawyer’s clerk," and then proceeds as follows: "In view of his general [390] quickness of apprehension, Shakespeare’s accurate use of legal terms, which deserves all the attention that has been paid to it, may be attributable in part to his observation of the many legal processes in which his father was involved, and in part to early intercourse with members of the Inns of Court." (p. 30).

This, then, is how it strikes the layman’s mind, in Mr. Lee’s case at all events. To Lord Campbell Shakespeare displays "a deep and technical knowledge of law," and a familiarity with "some of the most abstruse proceedings in English jurisprudence." Lord Penzance, in view of the legal knowledge displayed, considers that "he must have received the regular legal education which men ordinarily receive who desire and intend to practice the law as a profession," (p. 157). Mr. Lee, however, knows better. For him there is no difficulty whatever. It is simplicity itself. John Shakspere of Stratford was involved in "legal processes"; he was, for instance, summoned for "not keeping the gutters clean," and for having a muck-heap in front of his house; he had actions brought against him, generally for debt (in placito debiti occurs again and again in Mr. Halliwell-Phillipps’s list of these proceedings); he was involved, with others, in a chancery suit respecting an estate, and so forth. Some of these were before his son William was born, others while he was living a busy life in London, actor, manager, and, of course, turning out plays at the rate of three or four a year,—but what of that? Such a man as Shakspere had only to bestow his "observation" on these "processes," and have a few talks with members of the Inns of Court (Southampton and Bacon, for instance, both of Gray’s Inn), and the rest would follow as a matter of course. In this way a young man of genius could easily "pick up" an accurate and comprehensive knowledge of law and legal principles! One’s only fear is that in such case he might, perchance, have talked of getting "judgment from a jury," and of property in [391] animals ferae naturae—deer, for example, when not in a forest, or park, or other place impaled, or have confounded "beasts of the forest "with" beasts of the chase"! However, such is the stuff which passes among some Stratfordians—to do them justice, not all—as rational criticism.

But there is yet another argument advanced in explanation of Shakespeare’s incessant use of legal terms. "Legal terminology abounded in all plays and poems of the period" (Lee, p. 30, n. 3.) The statement is characteristically hyperbolical. "All plays and poems of the period"! If Mr. Lee had said that many lay writers of the period, including poets and dramatists, were much more given to the use of "legal terminology" than such writers are at the present day, his assertion would have been within the bounds of truth and reason. We must admit that this use of legal jargon is frequently found in lay writers, poets, and others of the Elizabethan period— in sonnets, for example, where it seems to us intolerable. That is true, and by all means let due weight be given to the fact. Our contention, however, is that Shakespeare uses this legal terminology not only with a persistency but with an accuracy, and with a knowledge of the subject—that he displays a familiarity not only with legal terms and legal principles but with the life and habits of lawyers, judges, and members of the Inns of Court, which cannot be paralleled in the writings of any layman of the times.

Here we are once more confronted by His Honour Judge Willis, one of the few lawyers who think that Shakespeare’s knowledge of law might have been picked up without any legal training. Having summoned up the spirit of Jonson as a witness at his imaginary trial, he makes his imaginary counsel put this question: "Did you, or do you know anybody, who was not a lawyer, have as great a knowledge of law as is displayed in this Folio volume?" To which the astral body of Ben makes [392] answer, "Oh yes, many. It has been quite common for Divines, who to my knowledge have never been in any lawyer’s office, to draw some of their happiest illustrations from legal proceedings. Why, there is my friend Thomas Adams. I know he has not been in a lawyer’s office, because I heard him one Sunday morning in his discourse ‘nonsuit the devil,’ a thing a lawyer would never do." Here Mr. Willis is really rather too hard on his profession. I feel sure the late Lord Cairns, or the present Lord Halsbury, nay, even Judge Willis himself, would nonsuit his Satanic Majesty without hesitation, and there is, really, just as much evidence to show that Thomas Adams was an attorney’s clerk as there is to show that either Shakspere or Shakespeare was the professional colleague of Uriah Heap or Sampson Brass. However, this, of course, is Mr. Willis’s little joke, and he is very welcome to it. Let us see what more he has to tell us of Thomas Adams. "In the same sermon he asked every one of the congregation whether God had acknowledged a fine to him. That’s pretty technical, I think, and accurate. You ‘suffer’ a recovery, and you ‘acknowledge’ a fine.‡‡‡ I heard him one morning when he had not cleared a matter up quite to his satisfaction, say he must have a writ ad melius inquirendum; and on another occasion he said that when God cites men to judgment there will be no return to the writ non est inventus. Preaching at St. Paul’s Cross [I am sure Ben would have said "Paul’s Cross"!] March 7th, 1612, to eight thousand people, he said, ‘If no plummets except of unreasonable weight can set the wheels of the lawyers’ tongues a-going, and then if a golden addition can make the hammer strike to our pleasure; if they keep their ears and mouths shut, till their purses be full, and will not [393] understand a cause till they feel it; then, to speak in their own language, Noverint universi, be it known to all men by these presents, that these are thieves; though I could wish that, Noverint ipsi, they would know it themselves and reform this deformity.’ On another occasion Thomas Adams said, ‘The inheritance is ours already, not in re but in spe. Our common law distinguisheth between two manner of freeholds; a freehold indeed, where a man hath made his entry upon lands and is therefore really seised; a freehold in law, where a man hath a right to possession, but hath not made his actual entry.’ I heard him exclaim, ‘Do not complain, Esau: Volenti non fit injuria’"‡‡‡‡

Now my first comment is this. Here we have, it is true, a "divine" making use of certain legal terms, showing that he has probably looked into some law books, and perhaps been thrown into legal company. But let the intelligent and unprejudiced reader go through the Plays and Poems of Shakespeare, and "read, mark, learn, and inwardly digest" the persistence, the accuracy, with which he makes use of legal terms and legal allusions, in season and out of season, not only by citing legal terms and maxims, but by subtle references,—let him mark further, if he has sufficient knowledge of law to appreciate it, the familiarity shown by Shakespeare with legal proceedings, and, as Lord Campbell puts it, "some of the most abstruse proceedings in English jurisprudence," and then say if he thinks these expressions, culled from the sermons of Thomas Adams, furnish anything like a parallel case to that which we have been considering. This legal terminology used by the preacher certainly does not prove that he had had a regular legal training, they are, however, examples of that "omnivorous learning and recondite reading" for which, as Dr. Grosart has told us (Dict. of National Biography), he was famous, and "the spoils" whereof he [394] constantly "lays under contribution." And this alone would be almost sufficient for our case, even although he had made use of much more recondite "legal terminology." For what time and opportunity had the young man from Stratford for "omnivorous learning and recondite reading"? But there is more than this to be said. How came it that Thomas Adams was so fond of displaying his familiarity with certain legal terms? The answer is that he was "observant chaplain" to Sir Henry Montague, Lord Chief Justice of England, and had dedicated to him a work on the "Spiritual Prerogatives" of the Church. That Thomas Adams, a man of omnivorous learning and recondite reading, observant chaplain to the Lord Chief Justice, thrown much among lawyers, and constantly preaching to them, should have affected the use of legal terminology in his sermons is not very remarkable. The only thing which, as it seems to me, can be inferred from the analogy is that Shakespeare also was a man "of omnivorous learning and recondite reading."

_________

* Mr. Collins appears to think "seizeth" must imply a reference to the legal "seisin"! back

** Mr. Collins substitutes "legal" for "egal," but this may be a printer's error. back

*** Studies in Shakespeare, p. 118. Original italics. back

**** In another place Mr. Collins, following Mr. Lee, who follows Dr. Gosse, has said that Venus and Adonis is plainly modelled on Lodge's Scilla's Metamorphosis, which was not published till 1589. "Mr. Collins has not even taken the trouble to reconcile his assertions-and this in an essay in which he imputes to his gainsayers perversity, paradox, sophistry, and illegitimate criticism." (Did Shakespeare write "Titus Andronicus"?, by J. M. Robertson, p. 22.) back

† Mr. Collins's words really deserve to be quoted in extenso in order that we may see what is not considered "fantastic" or "absurd" or "fanatical" by ardent Stratfordian critics. "We quite agree with Mr. Castle that Shakespeare's legal knowledge is not what could have been picked up in an attorney's office, but could only have been learned by an actual attendance at the Courts, at a pleader's chambers, and on circuit, or by associating intimately with members of the Bench and Bar." Good. Now for the explanation. "Perhaps the simplest solution of the problem is to accept the hypothesis that in early life he was in an attorney's office, that he there contracted a love for the law which never left him; that as a young man in London he continued to study or dabble in it for his amusement, to stroll in leisure hours into the Courts, and to frequent the society of lawyers. On no other supposition [!] is it possible to explain the attraction which the law evidently had for him, and his minute and undeviating accuracy in a subject where no layman, who has indulged in such copious and ostentatious display of legal technicalities, has ever yet succeeded in keeping himself from tripping." Yes, indeed, a mighty "simple" explanation, and a mighty simpleton must he be who can accept it. I once heard the story of a man who could speak seven languages. "And the odd thing was he learnt them all from a drummer in a marching regiment." "My God, how he must have marched!" was the reply. back

†† It is, however, a very ancient tradition and accepted by most Shakespearean biographers. There is, certainly, nothing improbable in it. back

††† These dates, of course, are questioned by those who, like Mr. J. M. Robertson, believe that Venus and Adonis was really and truly the "first heir" of the poet's "invention," but they will find it difficult to uphold their contention that Shakespeare wrote no plays before that date. The date of Love's Labour's Lost is generally put at about 1591-2, of The Two Gentlemen at 1590-92. Mr. Gollancz dates the composition of the Dream at about 1592, and of Romeo and Juliet at 1591. back

†††† The Bacon-Shakespeare Controversy, p. 89. back

‡ There is much interesting matter in Mr. Castle's book, but I fear few have accepted the curious conclusion at which he has arrived, viz. that Shakspere and Bacon collaborated in what he calls "the Legal Plays," Bacon supplying the player with the law. Mr. Castle seems to have been misled by the very mistaken notion that everybody-"even Baconians"-admit that the Sonnets and "the two Poems" were written by Shakespeare, i.e. by Shakspere; whereas, of course, those who do not believe in the Stratfordian authorship insist most strongly on the impossibility of these poems having been written by the Stratford player. Mr. Castle, finding that "law is to be found equally in the two Poems as it is in the Sonnets or Plays," is driven to assume a combined authorship of these also. It is his opinion that some of the plays, which he classes as "non-legal," "show not only absence of law, but ignorance of it." In these, of course, Bacon had no hand. Among such are Titus Andronicus, Macbeth, and Othello. As to Titus, I entirely agree with him, but it is not a Shakespearean play at all. As to the others, his argument seems to me unconvincing. Mr. Castle fares badly at the hands of Mr. Churton Collins. "Nothing could be more absurd" (p. 211), "Palpably absurd" (p. 213). I will not argue whether or not the epithets may be deserved, but Mr. Collins is about as well qualified to instruct Mr. Castle in law, as he affects to do, as I am to instruct a Senior Wrangler in the Differential Calculus. back

‡‡ Shakspere has been made a printer, as well as a schoolmaster, attorney's clerk, etc. etc. See Blade's Shakespeare and Typography. The author quoting the Winter's Tale, II, 3, asks: "Is it conceivable that a sentence of four lines containing five distinct typographical words, three of which are especially technical, could have proceeded from the brains of one not intimately acquainted with typography?" (p. 42). back

‡‡‡ Technical knowledge concerning the terminology of "fines" seems to us now something rather remarkable, but to the men of Adams's day these expressions were natural enough, since "fines" were in constant use for the conveyance of land; consequently every educated man would know that "you 'acknowledge' a fine," just as every educated man to-day knows that you "deliver" a deed. back

‡‡‡‡ The Shake-speare-Bacon Controversy, by William Willis, p. 53 et seq. back