Mr. William C. Devecmon of the Maryland bar has written an extremely interesting book^* to establish the proposition that Shakespeare was not trained to the law. His arguments are strong and well expressed. But he is not so successful in the attempt in his last chapter to set forth "Some of Shakespeare’s Errors in Legal Terminology." We propose to examine briefly his allegations as to this matter. The instances he cites of supposed inaccuracy are as follows:

Upon this passage Mr. Devecmon comments, "Dignities and honors could not be demised;" and be cites Comyn and Blackstone.

We answer. 1. If we interpret the word "demise" in its technical sense, the queen, who asks the question implying the negative, speaks correctly. King Richard cannot so "demise" them.

2. But if Shakespeare, after his wonted manner, uses the word in something like its root sense (send down or away, transfer, transmit), like "endow" two lines later (in the sense of equip, furnish), again we say the phraseology is accurate enough. In neither word does he imply a technically legal process.

3. If it be a mistake, is it not a very natural one in the mouth of the queen not learned in the law? It may impart verisimilitude.

Says Devecmon, "A very few days, or, at most, weeks, of practical training in a lawyer’s office, would have sufficed to teach Shakespeare that this is an incorrect use of the word ‘replication.’" He adds, that, in the technical language of the law in pleadings, a "replication" is the "plaintiff’s reply" to the defendant’s "plea."

Answer. 1. This is not "in the course of pleading." Shakespeare uses "replication" precisely as Chaucer had done more than two hundred years before in his Knight’s Tale (line 1846, Gilman’s edition) in the sense of "reply"—

My wyl is this, for plat conclusioun
Withouten any replicacioun.

It is found in the same sense in the Lover’s Complaint (Passionate Pilgrim, 1609) and Love’s Labor’s Lost, IV, ii, 16. In Julius Caesar (I, i, 44-46, Sprague’s edition) we read,

Have you not made an universal shout
That Tiber trembled underneath her banks,
To hear the replication of your sounds?

Here it is manifestly in the sense of "echo," "repetition," or "reverberation."

2. Hamlet, speaking nearly six centuries before the play was composed, can hardly be thinking of the pleadings in Elizabethan courts. He never saw the inside of any "Chitty on Pleadings."

Shakespeare, then, put no mistake in his mouth; but, if he had done so, it would have proved nothing against Shakespeare’s knowledge of the law.

Says our critic, "Here the oath of allegiance is referred to. The use of the word ‘indenture’ is entirely out of place."

Answer. 1. This passage is conceded by all the best Shakespearean scholars, or nearly all of them, to be by some other pen than Shakespeare’s. His part of Pericles, if he had any hand in its composition, does not begin till we reach Act III.

2. If Shakespeare’s, it is reasonable to explain the word as metaphorical, as it surely is in King John—

Upon thy cheek lay I this zealous kiss
As seal to this indenture of my love. —II, i, 20.

In Hamlet (V, i, 104, Sprague’s edition), and in I Henry IV, (II, iv, 44; III, i, 80, 139, 257), "indenture" is used in its strict legal sense, showing that Shakespeare was fully aware of its technical signification.

3. The last scene in Pericles takes place in the Temple of Diana at Ephesus. Is it not preposterous to expect a lord of Antioch in that play, some hundreds of years B. C., to use with scrupulous precision the law phraseology of Shakespeare’s age?

"Some modem lawyers and text-writers," remarks Devecmon, "use the word ‘moiety’ as inaccurately as Shakespeare, as though it could mean a third or any part."

Answer. 1. "Moiety" here refers to a third part. It seems to have been rarely if ever restricted to the mathematical half.

2. Eight times in Shakespeare (e. g. in Hamlet, I, i, 90, Sprague’s edition) the word is used as the equivalent of "portion." It is the French moitié from Lat. medietas, and, like Lat. medius and Eng. mid, does not necessarily imply division in the exact middle. "Half" was also vaguely used by the old writers for "side" or "Part," as we now often use the word "quarter." Thus Chaucer has, "On fourë halvës of the house about." Miller’s Tale, Gilman’s edition line 3481.

The freshman could quote good authority for his translation of the first sentence in Caesar’s Commentaries, "All Gaul is quartered into three halves!" Says Moberly, "The word ‘moiety,’ like ‘halb’ or ‘half,’ originally means only a part; as desshalb and similar German words show."

"To challenge," declares our critic, "is to object to those who are returned to act as jurors. The judge was not subject to challenge."

Answer. 1. To "challenge" in Shakespeare is found at least eighteen times in the sense of to "claim as of right." Very likely therefore it is so used here. It would suit the context perfectly.

2. This court is ecclesiastical rather than secular, an extraordinary tribunal, proceeding by canon rather than by common law. The two cardinals, Wolsey and Campeius, are at once judge and jury. If the queen has in mind the usages of law trials, the word "challenge" is nevertheless felicitous.

3. But if not so, this Spanish-born Katherine, who is laboring under tremendous excitement, and who is not versed in hair-splitting legal distinctions, may be excused for using the word without technical accuracy. It may well mark her extreme agitation.

Quoting from Rapalje & Lawrence’s Law Dic., Devecmon says, "‘Ratification’ is where [sic] a person adopts a contract or other transaction which is not binding on him because entered into by an unauthorized agent." In this passage, says Devecmon, "well ratified by" means "strictly in accordance with." He adds, "As a legalism its use is out of place."

Answer. 1. The burden of proof that "well ratified by" is "out of place" is on the critic. King Hamlet, probably by his ambassador, made a compact with Fortinbras, King of Norway. Before this compact could become binding, it had to be "ratified" by King Hamlet. What evidence have we that it was not so "ratified?" If, then, the word is to have its technical sense, it is in all probability correct.

2. But if it is not to bear its technical meaning, what valid objection can be offered to its use? Shakespeare is much given to employing words in their radical sense. ("Ratified," from Lat. ratus, fixed, and fac to make, fi- to be made, is equivalent to confirmed). In the sense of "confirm, sanction, or make valid," he uses it at least seven times (e. g. Macbeth, III, vi, 33, Sprague’s edition; Tempest, V, i, 8, Sprague’s edition). Skelton has it to the same effect in his Colin Clout (1520), Levins in his Manipulus Vocabulortim (1570), Bacon in his Political Fables (1605). Why should not Shakespeare in the passage quoted from Hamlet?

3. Horatio, the Dane, six centuries before, could hardly be expected to be familiar with the legal terminology of Littleton, Coke, and Selden.

________

* In Re Shakespeare's "Legal Acquirements." Notes by an unbeliever therein. By William M. Devecmon, Esq., A.M., of the Maryland Bar. The Shakespeare Press, New York. back