3028 
 
 \ 
 
LIBRARY OF CONGRESS, 
 
 CIiapT./.L 3 (?o^ifght No 
 
 Sh<fl£JZ3L_. 
 
 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. 
 jj 
 
t^ ffflbltpm Society of (ttett ^gotrR 
 
 3ncor$orafeb (&ytit 20, 1885 
 
 £o ytromof e f 0e ft nouof e&0C emo sfuo^ of f 0e 
 TOorfts of H&m. JifMleBjjeare, ano f?e 
 
 In Executive Committee— June tsth t *f88$, 
 fiesolved, That in order that the papers printed under authority of this Society 
 may be of the highest character, and of value from all standpoints, the Society 
 does not stand pledged as responsible for the opinions expressed or conclusions 
 arrived at in the said papers, but considers itself only responsible in so far as it 
 certifies by its Imprimatur that it considers them as original contributions to 
 Shakespearean study, and as showing upon their face, care, labor and research, 
 
publications of Gbe Sbafcespeare Societg of 1ttew loth 
 
 ' mo. 12 
 
 IN RE SHAKESPEARE'S 
 
 "LEGAL ACQUIREMENTS" 
 
 Notes by an Unbeliever Therein 
 
 BY 
 
 WILLIAM C. DEVECMON, Esa, A. M. 
 
 Of the Maryland Bar 
 (A Member of the Shakespeare Society of New York) 
 
 NEW YORK 
 
 THE SHAKESPEARE PRESS 
 Printers to the Shakespeare Society of New York 
 
 LONDON : KEG AN PAUL, TRENCH, TRUBNER & CO., LTD. 
 
 .1899 
 
 
3f* v 
 
 
 
 ft // 
 
 ■i'br. 
 
 *0' C f 
 
 ^J 
 
 •5 
 
 42730 
 
 Copyright, 1899, 
 
 BY 
 WILLIAM C. DEVECMON. 
 
 All rights reserved. 
 
 TWO C /ED, 
 
 Of C0»fii 
 
 
 ^1899 
 
 %*," / 
 
 SE< . . n COPY, 
 
 
CONTENTS. 
 
 CHAPTER PAGE 
 
 I. Shakspeare not Necessarily a Lawyer because 
 
 He Used Legal Terminology, i 
 
 II. How Shakespeare Has Been Made a Lawyer, . 13 
 
 III. Some Later Converts to the Shakespeare-Law- 
 
 yer Doctrine, 24 
 
 IV. An English Queen's Counsel's Remarkable 
 
 Opinion, 27 
 
 V. Some of Shakespeare's Errors in Legal Ter- 
 minology, ' 32 
 
IN RE SHAKESPEARE'S LEGAL 
 ACQUIREMENTS. 
 
 I. 
 
 SHAKESPEARE NOT NECESSARILY A LAWYER BE- 
 CAUSE HE USED LEGAL TERMINOLOGY. 
 
 England is, and always has been, the true home 
 of the lawyer; and the Englishman takes as natu- 
 rally to a legal contest as the Irishman to a rough 
 and tumble fight, or the Frenchman to a duel. In 
 no country in the world have the bench and the bar 
 been held in so high esteem as in England. While 
 in all other parts of Europe the pulpit or the sword 
 afforded the only avenues of employment for a 
 gentleman, and the only means for social or politi- 
 cal advancement, in England ambition has always 
 found an ample arena in the legal forum. Prior to 
 the reign of Queen Anne, science, literature, and art 
 were lightly regarded, but the lawyer has always 
 been, in English estimation, second only to the 
 soldier.- (Bacon himself was esteemed by his con- 
 temporaries for his legal rather than his scientific 
 or literary attainments. Hooker's famous state- 
 ment that " law hath her seat in the bosom of God; 
 her voice is the harmony of the world," has ever 
 
2 m RE SHAKESPEARE'S 
 
 been applied literally by Englishmen to the Com- 
 mon Law. A love of law, a spirit of litigation, a 
 tenacious and pertinacious determination to main- 
 tain his legal rights at all hazards and at every cost 
 are characteristics of every trueborn Englishman. 
 Von Ihering, in his remarkable work, " The Strug- 
 gle for Law," to which I shall have occasion 
 hereafter to refer, says " We [on the Continent] 
 frequently see the typical figure of the traveling 
 Englishman who resists being duped by inn- 
 keepers and hackmen, with a manfulness which 
 would induce one to think he was defending the 
 law of Old England — who, in case of need, post- 
 pones his departure, remains days in the place, and 
 spends ten times the amount he refuses to pay. The 
 people laugh at him, and do not understand him. 
 It were better if they did understand him. For, in 
 the few shillings which the man here defends, Old 
 England lives." 
 
 The English love for law, and even for its intrica- 
 cies, subtleties, and fictions is visible in all English 
 history and literature. Blackstone's " Commenta- 
 ries" were written, not for professed students of law, 
 but as an advanced course of study for the English 
 gentleman. The fascination that courts and the 
 law had for Dickens is manifest throughout his 
 novels, while Dr. Johnson never ceased to regret 
 that he had not actively embraced the legal profes- 
 sion; but these are mere illustrations, and to mul- 
 tiply instances of this kind were tedious. This 
 English Characteristic is manifest in every age of 
 English life; it is pre-eminently so in the Eliza- 
 
LEGAL ACQUIREMENTS. % 
 
 bethan era. Then was witnessed the great struggle 
 between the Common Law and Chancery. The re- 
 cently enacted Statute of Uses was the occasion of 
 a great multitude of cases involving the title to real 
 estate. It was emphatically an age of litigation. 
 And the spirit of their race and times seized 
 strongly on the Shakespeare family. There was a 
 fortnightly court held at Stratford-on-Avon; and 
 though all its records have not been preserved, it 
 appears, from such as remain, that John Shakes- 
 peare, from his first settlement in that town about 
 1551 or 1552 down to 1600, was engaged either as 
 plaintiff or defendant in nearly fifty law-suits. Be- 
 sides he frequently served as juror, assessor of 
 fines, and as arbitrator. His son, the future poet, 
 was thus brought up in an atmosphere of litigation. 
 That the little provincial town of Stratford, having 
 at that time about 1800 inhabitants, with little or no 
 commerce or intercourse with the outside world, 
 was able to support a half dozen or more attorneys, 
 with a session of court every two weeks, shows a 
 most extraordinary amount of litigation. It may 
 well be imagined that the greater part of the male 
 population of Stratford was in constant attendance 
 at the sessions of the court; that the arguments of 
 the lawyers, the verdicts of the juries, and the judg- 
 ments of the court were in the long evenings re- 
 hashed over and over again by these worthies of 
 Stratford in the midst of their potations of home- 
 brewed ale, in the love of which they excelled no 
 less than in the love of litigation, there being at the 
 time about thirty alehouses in the town. 
 
4 IN RE SHAKESPEARE'S 
 
 John Shakespeare was a man of prominence and 
 importance in Stratford, for twenty years holding 
 office of one kind or another; and, as high bailiff, 
 he presided over the court. 
 
 From these circumstances it can readily be seen 
 how Shakespeare acquired his extensive knowledge 
 of legal expressions, and his love of litigation which 
 involved him in almost as many law-suits as his 
 father. It is noticeable that, while Shakespeare's 
 works abound with law-terms, they are devoid of 
 terms peculiarly applicable to Chancery practice or 
 to Chancery jurisprudence. The High Court of 
 Chancery s'at at London; the management of a suit 
 therein was expensive; and Shakespeare had no op- 
 portunity of attending its sessions. His father had 
 two suits in that court, but apparently they were 
 abandoned, he being the complainant in both cases. 
 
 Such being the surroundings of Shakespeare's 
 youth, in a bookless community, with a school 
 where " small Latin and less Greek," and no Eng- 
 lish at all, were taught, it might well be imagined 
 that a bright, intellectual boy would find the best 
 educational facilities were to be had by a faithful at- 
 tendance at the sessions of court. And when we 
 consider that Shakespeare's father was almost con- 
 stantly there, and when we further consider his own 
 evident fondness for the law, shown not only in his 
 use of legal expressions, but in his frequent resort 
 to the courts as litigant, his legal tastes and fond- 
 ness for legal terminology are accounted for. But 
 that he got this terminology wrong quite as often 
 as he got it right is apparent to any serious exami- 
 
LEGAL ACQUIREMENTS. 5 
 
 nation: certainly it is apparent to any lawyer not 
 tempted by an appetite for tours de force, or burning 
 to make a fellow-barrister out of the greatest of 
 dramatists ! 
 
 When he arrived in London and was thrown into 
 that brilliant society of lawyer-playwrights, he con- 
 tinued to breathe the same legal atmosphere in their 
 company at the taverns. Gifford, in his " Memoirs 
 of Ben Jonson," says, " Domestic entertainments 
 were, at that time, rare. The accommodations of 
 a private house were ill calculated for the purposes 
 of a social meeting, and taverns and ordinaries are 
 therefore almost the only places in which we hear 
 of such assemblies." The contemporary authority 
 as to these meetings of the lawyers at the taverns 
 is also ample. Dekker, in his " Gull's Hornbook " 
 (1609) says: "There is another ordinary at which 
 your London usurer, your stale bachelor, and your 
 thrifty attorneys do resort; the price, three-pence; 
 the rooms as full of company as a gaol. . . If they 
 chance to discourse, it is of nothing but statutes, 
 bonds, recognizances, audits, subsidies, rents, sure- 
 ties, enclosures, liveries, indictments, outlawries, 
 feoffments, judgments, commissions, bankrupts, 
 amercements, and of such horrible matter." 
 
 That the poets and actors of the period were deep 
 drinkers, and that " The Mermaid " and other 
 taverns and tippling houses were their customary 
 meeting places, are matters of common knowledge. 
 Chapman's " temperance " was noted as a quality 
 rarely met with in a poet. — Warton's " Hist. Eng. 
 Poetry," vol. iv., p. 276. 
 
6 W RE SHAKESPEARE'S 
 
 To meet there and exchange jest and witticism 
 in the midst of their " bumpers " was their ideal of 
 pleasure and good-fellowship. In Dekker's " A 
 Knight's Conjuring," 1607, a number of poets are 
 introduced together in the Elysian fields. " Be- 
 yond all these places there is a groave which stands 
 
 by itself like an iland This is called The 
 
 Groave of Bay-trees, and to this consort-room resort 
 none but the children of Phoebus, poets and musi- 
 tians." To this Company is admitted Chettle, 
 " sweating and blowing by reason of his fatnes, to 
 welcome whom, because he was of old acquaint- 
 ance, all rose up and fell presentlie on their knees 
 to drink a health to all lovers of Helicon." 
 
 What things have we seen 
 Done at the Mermaid! heard words that have been 
 So nimble, and so full of subtle flame, 
 As if that every one from whence they came 
 Had meant to put his whole wit in a jest, 
 And had resolved to live a fool the rest 
 Of his dull life. 
 
 — Francis Beaumont to Ben Jonson. 
 
 Souls of PoetS'dead and gone, 
 What Elysium have ye known, 
 Happy field or mossy cavern, 
 Choicer than the Mermaid Tavern ? 
 
 — Keats. 
 
 But members of the legal profession were quite 
 as frequent visitors to the taverns as the poets. 
 For this we have a vast body of contemporary tes- 
 timony. In Webster's " The Devil's Law Case," 
 Sanitonella, a lawyer, complains, 
 
LEGAL ACQUIREMENTS. 7 
 
 There's one thing too that has a vile abuse in it. 
 
 Pros. What's that ? 
 
 San. Marry, this,— that no proctor in term-time be tol- 
 erated to go to the tavern above six times i' the forenoon. 
 
 — Act V. scene 2. 
 
 This same play also furnishes evidence that it 
 was not merely the lawyers who were interested in 
 legal gossip. 
 
 San. Do you hear, officers ? 
 You must take special care that you let in 
 No brachygraphy-men [/. e. t stenographers] to take notes. 
 
 Off. No, Sir? 
 
 San. By no means : 
 We cannot have a cause of any fame 
 But you must have scurvy pamphlets and lewd ballads 
 Engendered of it presently. 
 
 —Act IV. scene 2. 
 
 Sidney Lee, in his life of " William Shakespeare/' 
 p. 32, n. 2, says, " Legal terminology abounded in 
 all plays and poems of the period," the truth of 
 which statement must be admitted by everyone at 
 all familiar with Elizabethan literature. The whole 
 population seems to have taken an interest in law 
 and litigation. " Every man in those days was to 
 a certain point his own lawyer; that is, he was well 
 versed in all the technical forms and procedure. 
 Therefore Counsel were brought into very close 
 relations with their somewhat exacting clients, by 
 whom they might be said to be chiefly instructed, 
 the solicitor or attorney being rather in the position 
 of an agent for the general conduct of cases " 
 
8 IN RE SHAKESPEARE'S 
 
 (Hubert Hall's " Society in the Elizabethan Age," 
 2d Edition, p. 141). 
 
 That Shakespeare uses legal expressions rather 
 more frequently than his contemporaries simply 
 proves that he entered into the spirit of his times 
 more fully than they. Wordsworth says of Milton 
 that " his soul was like a star, and dwelt apart"; 
 but Shakespeare was verily " the soul of his age," 
 as Ben Jonson aptly described him, and, being 
 its soul, he did not live apart from it, but in the very 
 centre and the midst of it! 
 
 John Webster was a contemporary of Shakes- 
 peare. His father was a merchant tailor, and he 
 himself is supposed to have followed that trade. 
 In his play above mentioned, " The Devil's Law 
 Case," occur more legal expressions (some of them 
 highly technical, and all correctly used), than are to 
 be found in any single one of Shakespeare's works. 
 Among other legalisms, the law in regard to 
 pre-contract (of which such capital is made by those 
 who ascribe to Shakespeare great legal knowledge) 
 is stated more fully than it is by Shakespeare, and 
 quite as accurately. Webster doubtless acquired 
 his knowledge of law in the same way in which I 
 believe Shakespeare acquired his — that is, he ab- 
 sorbed it from the legal atmosphere by which he 
 was surrounded. 
 
 •But, if the law was attractive to the poets, the 
 stage seems to have had an equal fascination for 
 the lawyers. Indeed, the ranks of the dramatists 
 were largely recruited from the Inns of Court. 
 
 There were contemporary with Shakespeare per- 
 
LEGAL ACQUIREMENTS. 9 
 
 haps between seventy-five and a hundred writers of 
 plays, and some of them were very prolific. 
 Thomas Heywood said he " had either an entire 
 hand or at least a main finger " in two hundred 
 and twenty plays. Many were the authors of but 
 one. A large percentage of the dramatic litera- 
 ture of the period has not survived to modern 
 times, and of most of the authors also only 
 their names remain. Of those who are known to 
 have had any trade, professional training, or occu- 
 pation, I believe it would be a conservative estimate 
 a say that twenty per cent, were in some way con- 
 nected with the study of law. 
 
 John Ford (1586- 1640) came of a family of law- 
 yers. His mother was a sister of Sir John Popham, 
 next to Coke the most famous lawyer of his age. 
 He became in turn Attorney-General and Lord 
 Chief Justice. Ford himself was a student in the 
 Middle Temple in 1602, while his cousin and name- 
 sake (to whom he dedicated " The Lover's Melan- 
 choly ") was a member of Gray's Inn. 
 
 John Marston (1575- 1634) was a student of the 
 law. His father, a lecturer at the Middle Temple 
 in 1592, by his will, proved in 1599, bequeaths "to 
 sd. son John my furniture &c. in my chambers in 
 The Middle Temple; my law books &c, to my sd. 
 son whom I had hoped would have profited by 
 them in the study of the law, but man proposeth 
 and God disposeth." — Introduction to Bullen's 
 " Marston," p. 13. 
 
 Francis Beaumont (1 584-1616) was a student in 
 the Inner Temple. His grandfather, John Beau- 
 
10 m RE SHAKESPEARE^ 
 
 mont, had been Master of the Rolls ; and his father, 
 Francis Beaumont, one of the Judges of the Court 
 of Common Pleas. 
 
 William Warner (i558?-i6o9) was " by his pro- 
 fession an atturnye at the Common Plese." He 
 was the author of " Albion's England," and of a 
 play called " Syrinx." In 1595 his translation of 
 Plautus' " Mensechmi " was published. Shakes- 
 peare is said to have taken his " Comedy of 
 Errors " from this play, and if he wrote it before 
 1595 (which seems probable) it is possible he may 
 have seen W r arner's translation in the manuscript. 
 (See Dr. Morgan's Introduction to vol. xxii. of 
 " The Bankside Shakespeare.") 
 
 Abraham Fraunce (15 -16 ) was a lawyer; had 
 been a student at Gray's Inn; and was recom- 
 mended by Henry, Earl of Pembroke, to Lord 
 Treasurer Burleigh in 1590 as a suitable person to 
 be Her Majesty's Solicitor in that Court. He was 
 the author of several dramatic pieces. 
 
 Thomas Middleton (i570?-i627) was a student 
 at Gray's Inn. 
 
 Thomas Lodge (1 558-1625) was a student at 
 Lincoln's Inn. Afterwards he became a physician. 
 
 Thomas Kyd (15 -1596) was trained for his pa- 
 ternal profession of a law scrivener. 
 
 The above facts, as well as those given below of 
 plays represented at the Inns of Court, may be 
 easily verified by reference to Ward's " History of 
 English Dramatic Literature," and to the well- 
 known " Biographia Dramatica." 
 
 Only those lawyer-dramatists have been men- 
 
LEGAL ACQUIREMENTS. II 
 
 tioned whose ages were such as to render it prob- 
 able that they came in contact with Shakespeare at 
 some of the well-known taverns which were the 
 common places of resort. Doubtless a fuller in- 
 vestigation than I have made would discover 
 others. 
 
 Plays and masques were frequently represented 
 at the different Inns of Court, sometimes in Latin, 
 and nearly always written expressly for the occa- 
 sion. The earliest English tragedy, " Ferrex and 
 Porrex," said to be " the first dramatic piece of any 
 consideration in the English Language," was acted 
 on January 18, 1562, by gentlemen of the Inner 
 Temple before the Queen. It was written by 
 Thomas Sackville, afterwards Lord Buckhurst, and 
 Thomas Norton, barristers. The latter subse- 
 quently became Counsel to the Stationers' Com- 
 pany. 
 
 In 1566 two plays by George Gascoigne of 
 Gray's Inn, " Jocasta " and " Supposes/' were 
 there represented. In the composition of the for- 
 mer he was assisted by Christopher Yelverton, who 
 afterwards arose to Judicial dignity. 
 
 " Tancred and Gismonda," under its original 
 title of " Gismonda of Salerne," was represented 
 before the Queen at the Inner Temple in 1568. 'It 
 was written by Cristopher Hatton and five other 
 gentlemen of the Inner Temple. 
 
 " The Misfortunes of Arthur " was acted before 
 the Queen in 1588. Eight members of the Society 
 of Gray's Inn co-operated in its composition; and 
 four other gentlemen of the Inn, one of whom was 
 
12 IN RE SHAKESPEARE'S 
 
 Francis Bacon, devised the dumb shows introduc- 
 ing the several acts. 
 
 Francis Bacon also contributed to " The Prince 
 of Purpoole," which was represented at Gray's Inn 
 in 1594. 
 
 In 1594 Shakespeare's " Comedy of Errors " was 
 represented at Gray's Inn; and, in 1601, his 
 "Twelfth Night" at the Inner Temple. (See 
 Appleton Morgan's Introduction to vol. xxii. of 
 " The Bankside Shakespeare.") 
 
 In 1612 a masque by George Chapman was pro- 
 duced by members of the Middle Temple and Lin- 
 coln's Inn; and one by Francis Beaumont by the 
 members of the Inner Temple and Gray's Inn in 
 1613. (See Morley's Introduction to "Jonson's 
 Masques," Carisbrooke Library, p. 23.) 
 
 The above, of course, is not a complete list of 
 such representations. " In those days . . . the 
 Inns of Court vied with each other in masques and 
 pageants as much as in the record of Chancellors 
 and Chief Justices " (Strachey's Introduction to 
 " Beaumont and Fletcher," Mermaid Series, p. 13). 
 
LEGAL ACQUIREMENTS. 13 
 
 II. 
 
 HOW SHAKESPEARE HAS BEEN MADE A LAWYER. 
 
 It was the custom in Shakespeare's time for 
 youth to leave school at fourteen or fifteen years 
 of age; and it cannot be supposed that William at- 
 tended school after reaching that age, in 1579. To 
 account for what he did from then until 1586 has 
 been a fruitful source of speculation for his biog- 
 raphers. There are traditions that he was appren- 
 ticed to a butcher, a glover, and nearly all the trades 
 followed at Stratford, but none that he was an at- 
 torney or an attorney's clerk. But his enthusiastic 
 biographers felt under the necessity of accounting 
 for these years when no scrap has been found to 
 throw any light upon his life except the memoranda 
 relative to the publication of the banns for his mar- 
 riage and the birth of his children, and as each new 
 biographer felt that he must add some new sugges- 
 tion in order to distinguish himself from his prede- 
 cessors, it was finally, in 1790, by Malone, supposed 
 that he might have been a clerk in an attorney's 
 office, thus killing two birds with one stone, and 
 accounting not only for the barren seven years, but 
 for the legal expressions to be found in his works. 
 This new idea was eagerly taken up, and in 1858, 
 Mr. T. Payne Collier sought the opinion of Lord 
 
14 IN RE SHAKESPEARE'S 
 
 Campbell, the eminent author of " The Lives of the 
 Chief Justices " and of " The Lives of the Lord 
 Chancellors," who replied, in part, as follows: 
 " Were an issue tried before me as Chief Justice at 
 the Warwick assizes whether William Shakespeare, 
 late of Stratford-upon-Avon, gentleman, ever was 
 a clerk in an attorney's office in Stratford-upon- 
 Avon aforesaid, I should hold that there is evidence 
 to go to the jury in support of the affirmative, but 
 I should add that the evidence is very far from 
 being conclusive, and I should tell the twelve gen- 
 tlemen in the box that it is a case entirely for their 
 decision — without venturing even to hint to them, 
 for their guidance, any opinion of my own. Should 
 they unanimously agree in a verdict either in the 
 affirmative or negative, I do not think that the 
 court, sitting in banco, could properly set it aside 
 and grant a new trial. " 
 
 The learned Lord Chancellor then proceeds to 
 give his views in detail, and though he says that 
 if the issue were tried before him he would not 
 venture even to hint to the jury an opinion of his 
 own, he has no such scruples when addressing Mr. 
 Collier or the readers of his published book; he 
 scorns the idea that the " gentle Shakespeare " 
 could have been engaged in killing calves or work- 
 ing in leather, and thinks it highly improbable that 
 he could have followed any meaner occupation than 
 that of an attorney's clerk, and adds " perhaps his 
 employer sent him up to the metropolis to conduct 
 suits before the Lord Chancellor or the superior 
 courts of common law at Westminster, according 
 
LEGAL ACQUIREMENTS. 15 
 
 to the ancient practice of country attorneys who 
 would not employ an agent to divide their fees." 
 
 The reasons given by Lord Campbell for the faith 
 that was in him, besides the legalisms in the plays, 
 are as follows: 
 
 " ' Envy does merit as its shade pursue;' 
 
 and rivals whom he surpassed, not only envied 
 Shakespeare, but grossly libeled him. Of this we 
 have an example in ' An Epistle to the Gentlemen 
 Students of the Two Universities, by Thomas 
 Nash,' prefixed to the first edition of Robert 
 Greene's ' Menaphon ' (which was subsequently 
 called ' Greene's Arcadia '), according to the title 
 page, published in 1589. The alleged libel on 
 Shakespeare is in the words following, viz.: 
 
 " * I will turn back to my first studies of delight, 
 and talk a little in friendship with a few of our triv- 
 ial translators. It is a common practice nowadays, 
 amongst a sort of shifting companions that run 
 through every art and thrive by none, to leave the 
 trade oi Noverint whereto they were born, and busy 
 themselves with the endeavors of art, that could 
 scarce Latinize their neck-verse if they should have 
 need; yet English Seneca, read by candle light, 
 yields many good sentences, as blood is a beggar, 
 and so forth ; and if you entreat him fair in a frosty 
 morning, he will afford you whole Hamlets; I 
 should say whole handfuls of tragical speeches. 
 But, O grief! Tempus edax rerum — what is it that 
 will last always? The sea exhaled by drops will in 
 continuance be dry; and Seneca, let blood, line by 
 
16 IN RE SHAKESPEARE'S 
 
 line and page by page, at length must needs die to 
 our stage/ " 
 
 The term " Noverint " was applied to lawyers 
 because in Elizabeth's time most legal documents 
 were in Latin, and began " Noverint universi per 
 presentes" 
 
 Lord Campbell continues: " In 1592 Greene fol- 
 lowed up the attack in his ' Groat's Worth of Wit/ 
 in the following language: ' There is an upstart 
 crow, beautified with our feathers, that with his 
 Tyger's heart wrapped in a player's hide, supposes 
 he is as well able to bombast out a blank verse as 
 the best of you; and being an absolute Johannes 
 Fac-totum, is in his own conceit the only Shakes- 
 scene in a country.' " 
 
 Upon these slender thread's Lord Campbell hangs 
 these conclusions: " Therefore, my dear Mr. Payne 
 Collier, in support of your opinion that Shakespeare 
 had been bred to the profession of the law in an at- 
 torney's office, I think you will 'be justified in say- 
 ing that the fact was asserted publicly in Shakes- 
 peare's lifetime by two contemporaries of Shakes- 
 peare, who were engaged in the same pursuits with 
 himself, who must have known him well, and who 
 were probably acquainted with the whole of his 
 career." 
 
 It seems to me impossible for a logical mind to 
 draw such a conclusion. There is no legitimate 
 connection between the two extracts by which it 
 can be asserted that they both refer to the same per- 
 son. Standing by itself, the quotation from Nash 
 cannot be made to refer to Shakespeare unless the 
 
LEGAL ACQULREMENTS. *7 
 
 reference to Hamlet has this effect; while Greene 
 does not refer to him as connected with the Law! 
 
 Nash was notorious for an envious and quarrel- 
 some disposition, and it is idle, and indeed against 
 the known facts, to suppose that Shakespeare was 
 the only dramatist who could excite his animosity. 
 His paper war with Dr. Harvey is one of the bit- 
 terest of which we have any record. Refer- 
 ring to this controversy, Sir John Harrington, a 
 contemporary poet, addressed the following verses 
 to Dr. Harvey: 
 
 The proverb says, who fights with dirty foes 
 Must needs be foiled, admit they win or lose: 
 Then think it does a Doctor's credit dash 
 To make himself antagonist to Nash. 
 
 Thomas Freeman's Epigrams, 1614, contains the 
 following: 
 
 OF THOMAS NASH. 
 
 Nash, had Lycambes on earth living been 
 The time thou wast, his death had been all one; 
 
 Had he but moved thy tartest Muse to spleen 
 Unto the fork he had as surely gone : 
 
 For why ? there lived not that man, I think, 
 Us'd better or more bitter gall in ink. 
 
 A MS. Epitaph runs thus: 
 
 Here lies Tom Nash, that notable railer, 
 That in his life ne'er paid Shoemaker or tailor. 
 
 In Dekker's " A Knight's Conjuring, Done in 
 Earnest, Discovered in Jest," alluded to above, the 
 
 •'•v- 
 
1 8 IN RE SHAKESPEARE'S 
 
 associate poets represented as consorting in the 
 Elysian fields are Peele, Greene, and Marlowe. 
 
 To this company — when it is proposed to enlarge 
 it by the addition of Nash, that poet is brought in 
 thus. " . . Whil'st Marlowe, Greene, and Peele 
 had gotten under the shades of a large vyne, laugh- 
 ing to see Nash (that was but newly come to their 
 colledge) still haunted with the sharpe and satyri- 
 call spirit that followed him here upon earth; for 
 Nash inveyed bitterly, as he was wont to do," etc. 
 Such evidences of Nash's bad temper, and the gen- 
 eral dislike in which he was held, might be multi- 
 plied. (See Dodsley's " Old Plays," vol. ix. p. 7.) 
 
 Now it is certain that Shakespeare was not " bom 
 to the trade of Noverint "; but the number of con- 
 temporary dramatists who are known to have been 
 connected with the legal profession by birth or edu- 
 cation is large as above shown, and any of them 
 might have excited Nash's envy. Indeed, his hand 
 seems to have been against every man, and every 
 man's hand against him. 
 
 Nor is the reference to " whole Hamlets " proof 
 of a reference to Shakespeare. The story of Ham- 
 let appears to have greatly interested the Eliza- 
 bethan age. Why, it is not so clear. Belleforest's 
 " translation " of Saxo Grammaticus' " Amleth " 
 was practically a new work. It was, as anybody 
 can see from comparing the two versions, about 
 six times as long.* And it added and padded and 
 involved the original story to an extraordinary 
 state of confusion. It was this Belleforest produc- 
 
 * See The Bankside Edition of Hamlet— Appendix A. 
 
LEGAL ACQULREMENTS. 19 
 
 tion (called Hamlet and not Amleth, because as 
 Dr. Morgan has pointed out,* Frenchmen as well 
 as Englishmen transposed their h's), written and 
 published about 1570, and translated into English, 
 which, if any, Shakespeare saw. Capell (in the 
 Introduction to the first volume of his edition of 
 Shakespeare, p. 52) says, " There can be no doubt 
 made by persons who are acquainted with these 
 things, that the translation is not much younger 
 than the French original." 
 
 Shakespeare's son Hamnet (in the Stratford doc- 
 uments published by Halliwell-Phillipps, spelt Am- 
 blet, Hamlet, and Hamnet) is by many supposed to 
 have been named for Hamlet; he was born in 1585, 
 certainly some years before the father could have 
 written a play on the subject. 
 
 Malone (Variorum, 182 1, vol. ii. p. 372), after 
 quoting the passage from Nash above referred to, 
 continues: " Not having seen the first edition of this 
 tract till a few years ago I formerly doubted 
 whether the foregoing passage referred to the trag- 
 edy of Hamlet; but the word Hamlets being printed 
 in the original copy in a different character from the 
 rest, I have no longer any doubt on the subject. 
 It is manifest from this passage that some play on 
 the story of Hamlet had been exhibited before the 
 year 1589; but I am inclined to think that it was 
 not Shakespeare's drama, but an elder performance, 
 on which with the aid of the old prose Historie of 
 Hamblei, his tragedy was formed. The great num- 
 
 * See " A Study in the Warwickshire Dialect," by Apple- 
 ton Morgan, etc. (the third edition), p. 41. 
 
20 IN RE SHAKESPEARE'S 
 
 ber of pieces which we know he formed on the per- 
 formance of preceding writers, renders it highly 
 probable that some others also of his dramas were 
 constructed on plays that are now lost. . . Nash 
 seems to point at some dramatic writer of that time 
 who had originally been a scrivener or attorney, 
 and instead of transcribing deeds and pleadings, 
 had chosen to imitate Seneca's plays, of which a 
 translation had been published many years before. 
 Shakespeare, however freely he may have borrowed 
 from Plutarch or Holinshed, does not appear to be 
 at all indebted to Seneca; and I therefore do not 
 believe he was the person in Nash's contemplation." 
 
 Finally, Shakespeare himself said that " Venus 
 and Adonis," which appeared in 1593, was the 
 " first heir of [his] invention," and it would seem 
 therefore that strong proof ought to be required 
 before assigning an earlier date to any of his plays. 
 
 Knight, referring to the same passage in Nash, 
 says: " Does this description apply to him [Shakes- 
 peare] ? Was he thriving by no art? In 1589 he 
 was established in life as a sharer in the Black- 
 friars' theater. Does the term ' whole Hamlets ' fix 
 the allusion on him? It appears to us only to show 
 that some tragedy called ' Hamlet/ it may be 
 Shakespeare's, was then in existence; and that it 
 was a play also at which Nash might sneer as 
 abounding in tragical speeches. But it does not 
 seem that there is any absolute connection between 
 the noverint and the ' Hamlet.' Suppose, for ex- 
 ample, that the ' Hamlet ' alluded to, was written by 
 Marlowe, who was educated at Cambridge, and 
 
LEGAL ACQUIREMENTS. 21 
 
 was certainly not a lawyer's clerk. The sentence 
 will read as well; the sarcasm upon the tragical 
 speeches of the ' Hamlet ' will be as pointed; the 
 shifting companion who has thriven by no art, and 
 has left the calling to which he was born, may study 
 English Seneca till he produces ' whole Hamlets, 
 I should say handfuls, of tragical speeches.' In the 
 same way Nash might have said whole Tambur- 
 laines of tragical speeches, without attempting to 
 infer that the author of ' Tamburlaine ' had left the 
 trade of Noverint. We believe that the allusion 
 was to Shakespeare's ' Hamlet,' but that the first 
 part of the sentence had no allusion to Shakes- 
 peare's occupation. The context of the passage ren- 
 ders the matter even clearer. Nash begins., ' I will 
 turn back to my first text of studies of delight, and 
 talk a little in friendship with a few of our trivial 
 translators.' Nash aspired to the reputation of a 
 scholar; and he directs his satire against those who 
 attempted the labors of scholarship without the re- 
 quisite qualifications. The trivial translators could 
 scarcely latinize their neck-verse — they could 
 scarcely repeat a verse of Scripture, which was the 
 ancient form of praying the benefit of clergy. 
 Seneca, however, might be read in English. We 
 have then to ask, Was ' Hamlet ' a translation or 
 an adaptation from Seneca? Did Shakespeare 
 ever attempt to found a play upon the model of 
 Seneca; to be a trivial translator of him; to trans- 
 fuse his sentences into dramatic composition? If 
 this imputation does not hold good against Shakes- 
 peare, the mention of ' Hamlet ' has no connection 
 
22 IT RE SHAKESPEARE'S 
 
 with the shifting companion who is thus talked of 
 as a trivial translator. Nash does not impute 
 these qualities to ' Hamlet/ but to those who busy 
 themselves with the endeavors of art in adapting 
 sentences from Seneca which should rival whole 
 * Hamlets ' in tragical speeches. And then he im- 
 mediately says, ' But, O grief! Tempus edax 
 rerum; — what is it that will last always? The sea 
 exhaled by drops will in continuance be dry; and 
 Seneca, let blood line by line and page by page, at 
 length must needs die to our stage/ " 
 
 Lord Campbell himself seems to realize that his 
 rea'ders will not agree with him in his belief that the 
 extract from Nash has any tendency to prove that 
 Shakespeare was ever connected with the law, for, 
 at the end of his book (p. 138), he protests, " I am 
 quite serious in what I have written about Nash and 
 Robert Greene having asserted the fact; but I by 
 no means think that on this ground alone it must 
 necessarily be taken for truth. Their statement 
 that he belonged to the profession of the law may 
 be as false as that he was a plagiarist from Seneca." 
 
 Lord Campbell, after giving the quotations above 
 referred to, proceeds to analyze the plays, and finds 
 legal expressions in all but fourteen of the thirty- 
 seven plays usually attributed to Shakespeare. 
 
 From the appearance of Lord Campbell's book 
 down to the present time, the work of collecting 
 these legalisms and writing ingenious essays to 
 prove that they exhibit a profound knowledge of the 
 law, has gone on with unremitting zeal, until the 
 conclusion has been reached that Shakespeare was 
 
LEGAL ACQUIREMENTS, 23 
 
 not a mere clerk, but was himself a profound law- 
 yer; and the laborious and learned German Shakes- 
 pearian, Karl Elze, thinks his hero must certainly 
 have been a practicing attorney, because he has 
 found two suits instituted for the recovery of small 
 sums of money, wherein Shakespeare was the 
 plaintiff, and in which no attorney's appearance is 
 entered, and that accordingly, Shakespeare must 
 have conducted them himself; while other scholars 
 have gone so far as to assert that no less a lawyer 
 than Francis Bacon could have written the plays. 
 
24 IN RE SHAKESPEARE'S 
 
 III. 
 
 SOME LATER CONVERTS TO THE SHAKESPEARE- 
 LAWYER DOCTRINE. 
 
 By far the ablest and most comprehensive con- 
 tribution to the subject of Shakespeare's legal ac- 
 quirements has been made by that eminent lawyer 
 and statesman, Senator Cushman K. Davis, whose 
 work of over three hundred pages was published in 
 1884, quickly went through two editions and is now 
 out of print. Senator Davis attaches no importance 
 to Nash's reference to "Noverint"; but bases his 
 argument entirely upon the internal evidence of the 
 plays and poems. In all he finds that law terms 
 have been used 312 times; but as he enumerates 
 each repeated use of the same word, and as nearly 
 all of them are used more than once, and many as 
 often as four or five times, the number of distinct 
 legal expressions is very much less. And there is 
 a strained effort to discover legalisms where the 
 average reader, even though he be a lawyer, would 
 least suspect them; and to swell the list many words 
 cited are not strictly legal words at all, e. g., 
 
 Having ever seen in the prenominate crimes, 
 The youth you breathe of, guilty, be assured. 
 
 — " Hamlet," Act II. scene 1. 
 
LEGAL ACQUIREMENTS. 25 
 
 Senator Davis' comment is : " Prenominate " is the 
 
 synonym of " aforesaid." 
 
 . . . See thou render this 
 Unto my cousin's hand, Doctor Bellario. 
 
 — " Merchant of Venice," Act III. scene 4. 
 
 Here " render " is 'forced into service because " ren- 
 dering and yielding as rent " is the phrase in leases. 
 
 Among other words given as illustrations of 
 legalisms are : bourn, edict, traitor, pardon, reprieve, 
 respite, writ, oath, bail, execution, outlawry, ver- 
 dict, jointure, dowry, attainder, distrained, inheri- 
 tance, warrant (" There's law and warrant, lady, for 
 my curse," " King John," Act II. scene 1), tene- 
 ment, last will and testament, etc. The frequent 
 use of such word's can have no tendency to* prove a 
 knowledge of law. 
 
 On the other hand, Senator Davis points out 
 numerous instances where legal terms are correctly 
 used with their strictly technical meanings; and he 
 bases a strong argument on the cumulative effect 
 of such repeated instances. Just how many of 
 these there are it is a matter of some difficulty to 
 say, as they are scattered through the book in the 
 midst of such words as are mentioned above, which 
 are not used in any legal or technical sense; but 
 I believe they do not number over twenty-five or 
 thirty. 
 
 He further argues that " Shakespeare has a law- 
 yer's conservatism. He respected the established 
 order of things. . . There is nowhere [in his works] 
 a hint of sympathy with personal rights as against 
 the sovereign, nor with parliament, then first as- 
 
26 IN RE SHAKESPEARE'S 
 
 suming its protective attitude toward the English 
 people. . . In all his works there is not one direct 
 word for liberty of speech, thought, religion — those 
 rights which in his age were the very seeds of time, 
 into which his eye of all men's could best look to 
 see which would grow and which would not." 
 
 To say that this spirit of " uncompromising 
 feudalism " indicates a legal training is to make an 
 assertion in the very teeth of history. Coke's spirit, 
 which resisted the prerogative, which upheld the 
 common law and chartered rights of the people, 
 which maintained the equality of all men in the eye 
 of the law, was and is typical of the lawyer. This 
 is the " conservatism " which education in the law 
 breeds in its devotees. All history proves it. That 
 Shakespeare had none of this conservatism, that in 
 " ' King John ' he ignored the Magna Charta, that 
 he ever and always shows a patrician contempt for 
 popular rights " — this proves, if it proves anything, 
 that he had not a legal training. 
 
 I believe an equal labor, an equally microscopic 
 examination of the dramas, an equally ingenious 
 application of all the references to medicine would 
 prove with as much certainty that their author was 
 a physician; but, so far as I am aware, none of the 
 numerous writers upon his medical knowledge has 
 as yet asserted that he either practiced or studied 
 the science of Galen, to whom he so often refers. 
 
 That his use of military expressions proves 
 Shakespeare to have been a soldier has been seri- 
 ously contended. (See W. J. Thoms's " Notelets 
 on Shakespeare," London, 1865.) 
 
LEGAL ACQUIREMENTS. 27 
 
 IV. 
 
 AN ENGLISH QUEEN S COUNSEL S REMARKABLE 
 
 OPINION. 
 
 But most wonderful pronouncement of all, Mr. 
 Edward James Castle, Q. C, in 1897 prints a book 
 — " Shakespeare, Bacon, Jonson, and Greene " — in 
 which he completely falls under the umbra of Lord 
 Campbell as to the value and significance of these 
 " legalisms " in the Plays. Mr. Castle divides 
 Shakespeare's dramas into legal and iion-legal plays, 
 discovering, or professing to discover, vast legal 
 lore in the former and ignorance of the law in the 
 latter. In his Introduction he states that his 
 studies upon the subject were not made with a view 
 to support a theory. But it would appear that, 
 when Mr. Castle came to write his book, his 
 " discovery " (to use his own word) warped his 
 judgment. 
 
 For even assuming that his theory is correct, 
 that some plays show knowledge and others igno- 
 rance of law; Mr. Castle's conclusion that the for- 
 mer must have been or even probably were the joint 
 production of Shakespeare and Bacon, or some 
 other lawyer, who worked together as Beaumont 
 and Fletcher did, is certainly a non sequitur. 
 Writers of all times, when treating of technical sub- 
 jects, have been wont to consult and take the advice 
 
28 IN RE SHAKESPEARE'S 
 
 oi men skilled in those subjects; the novelist who 
 introduces medical or legal subjects consults with 
 a physician or lawyer — sometimes he correctly uses 
 the knowledge he thus acquires, and sometimes he 
 does not. Or, without consulting a specialist, he 
 may have some familiarity with technical terms, and 
 may use them with accuracy or otherwise. 
 
 Mr. Castle's efforts to show real legal knowledge 
 in the plays are labored in the extreme. The first 
 instance he gives of legalisms fairly illustrates them 
 all, and my criticism upon it is fairly applicable to 
 them all. Shakespeare uses the word " color " as 
 meaning "apparent, not real," which is its significa- 
 tion when used as a law term. Mr. Castle devotes 
 five pages of his work to detailing the various 
 technical refinements drawn by the old lawyers in 
 regard to " giving color " in pleadings, and assumes 
 that, because " color " is used with its legal mean- 
 ing, it must have been a lawyer who so used it, and 
 that he knew all these technical refinements — an 
 unwarranted presumption even in the case of a pro- 
 fessional lawyer. Color, in its application to plead- 
 ing, was, I believe, abolished in England by the pro- 
 cedure act of 1852, and this may be some excuse for 
 Mr. Castle's admitted ignorance (p. 20) on the sub- 
 ject, but it is still in force in all states where the 
 common-law procedure is in vogue, and the average 
 lawyer, who knows little or nothing of the refine- 
 ments in its use mentioned by Mr. Castle, refers to 
 it familiarly in his everyday practice. But the use 
 of the word color was not confined to the science of 
 pleading; it was and still is used in other applica- 
 
LEGAL ACQUIREMENTS. *9 
 
 tions with practically the same meaning: as " color 
 of title," a title prima facie good, but for some rea- 
 son, not apparent on its face, not good in fact; and 
 " color of office," as where an act is done by an offi- 
 cer under pretense that it is within his authority, 
 when in truth it is not, it is said to be done under 
 color of office, colore officii. The use of the word 
 color in its legal sense of " apparent, not real " can- 
 not certainly indicate profound knowledge of law, 
 and it is simply absurd to assume that the mere use 
 Of a technical legal term by Shakespeare indicates 
 that he had a knowledge of all the hair-splitting 
 logic which the ancient doctors of the common law 
 used in applying legal doctrines and terms to par- 
 ticular cases. The " rule in Shelley's case " any 
 lawyer can define, but of its application in particular 
 cases every lawyer is doubtful; the average layman 
 is familiar with the phrase, but, according to Mr. 
 Castle's logic, if a lay writer uses it this fact indi- 
 cates that he is a profound lawyer and has a knowl- 
 edge of all the vast learning and ingenious logic 
 used in the application of the rule and embodied in 
 many volumes of reports and text-books. 
 
 Shakespeare, in common with his contemporaries 
 and in common with observant men for many cen- 
 turies previous to his time, knew that all terrestial 
 bodies are attracted toward the center of the earth, 
 and he several times refers to this fact; we must 
 therefore believe, if we follow Mr. Castle's mental 
 processes, that Shakespeare was familiar with the 
 law of gravitation and all its applications; that he 
 knew Newton's and Kepler's laws and all modern 
 
3° IN RE SHAKESPEARE'S 
 
 astronomy. Old Capulet calls Juliet's fine distinc- 
 tion between being proud of the County Pams and 
 being thankful for him — "chop logic." * I know of 
 no other term so apt and appropriate to apply to 
 Mr. Castle's book. 
 
 But if he was unfortunate in his efforts to dis- 
 cover legal knowledge in the " legal " plays, he be- 
 comes positively puerile when he undertakes to 
 prove lack of such knowledge in the " non-legal " 
 plays. After a careful search through the many 
 pages devoted to this part of his work I have failed 
 to discover a single instance given by him of any real 
 blunder in the use of legal terms. The following 
 quotations fairly illustrate his arguments here: 
 
 " ' Plead my successive title with your swords.' 
 
 " It is incongruous to speak of pleading with 
 swords. Grotius speaks of the antagonism be- 
 tween the law and arms; how in times of peace the 
 former, and in war the latter, prevail. Cedant arma 
 togce is the maxim for the first; Inter arma sileant 
 [sic] leges for the second. 
 
 " ' Successive title ' even shows more strongly 
 want of legal training. Malone indeed, interprets 
 it as meaning ' my title to the succession '; no doubt 
 this is its meaning, but successive title means one 
 title succeeding another, as successive waves, etc., 
 and might perhaps be used where independent titles 
 
 * " Romeo and Juliet," III. v. 150. The late Mr. S. S. Cox 
 once referred to the speech of a fellow-congressman as 
 s ' ehopstick logic," which is even more appropriate. 
 
LEGAL ACQUIREMENTS. 3 1 
 
 follow one another; a somewhat difficult thing to 
 conceive, as a title is continuous. 
 
 " ' But yet I'll make assurance doubly sure 
 And take a bond of fate.' 
 
 " It is impossible to see, even by way of meta- 
 phor, how killing Macduff is taking a bond of 
 fate. . . It is mere sound, not sense, and the word 
 is wrongly used. 
 
 " 4 Our high-placed Macbeth 
 Shall live the lease of nature, pay his breath 
 To time and mortal custom.' 
 
 " What mortal custom means it is difficult to say, 
 unless perhaps, customary or common mortality. 
 But it should be the lease from nature." 
 
 How utterly inane and childish such criticism is! 
 And yet Mr. Castle gives no better illustrations 
 than these to prove Shakespeare's ignorance of law 
 in what he calls the " non-legal " plays. 
 
 The reader will notice that most of the instances 
 hereinafter given of Shakespeare's mistakes in the 
 use of legal terms are taken from Mr. Castle's 
 " legal plays," to wit, " Hamlet," " Richard III.," 
 " Henry VIII.," and " 3 Henry VI.," etc. 
 
 K. 
 
3 2 IN RE SHAKESPEARE'S 
 
 V. 
 
 some of Shakespeare's errors in legal, 
 terminology. 
 
 For my part I see no profound knowledge of law 
 displayed in the plays. It would indeed be strange, 
 considering the surroundings of Shakespeare's 
 birth and education, if he did not make frequent use 
 of legal expressions. Could the universal genius, 
 who apparently like his own creation, Posthumus 
 Leonatus, had 
 
 14 All the learnings, that his time 
 Could make him the receiver of: which he took 
 As we do air," 
 
 have been brought up as it were within the four 
 walls of a court house, with the litigants, jurors, and 
 lawyers his daily companions, and have failed to 
 absorb, aye, drink in as he did the air, digest and 
 make -his own, a large fund of the legal lore of his 
 surroundings? On the contrary, for him not to 
 have done so would be a matter of infinite surprise. 
 To me it seems that it ought to be apparent to 
 any lawyer, who is not an enthusiast, that Shakes- 
 peare's knowledge of law was simply a knowledge 
 of legal expressions, with a fairly correct idea of 
 their application such as any bright man attending 
 court frequently and in daily companionship with 
 
LEGAL ACQUIREMENTS. 33 
 
 lawyers could not fail to acquire; and that of the 
 law itself he had no real knowledge, except such 
 little as he could pick up in the manner indicated. 
 Though the frequent use of legal terms, with 
 their proper technical meanings, has a cumulative 
 effect, and tends strongly to prove a legal training; 
 yet a very few errors in such use, if glaring and 
 gross, would absolutely nullify that effect and proof. 
 Without presuming to rival the learning and in- 
 genuity, the patience and labor bestowed by Lord 
 Campbell and Senator Davis, I have collected some 
 instances of inaccuracy in the use of law-terms 
 which I believe destroy the force of their reasoning. 
 
 Tell me what state, what dignity, what honor 
 Canst thou demise to any child of mine ? 
 
 — «' Richard III.," Act IV. scene 4. 
 
 Dignities and honors could not be demised. — 3 
 Comyn's Dig. Tit. Dignity (E), 2 Bl. Com. 36, 37. 
 
 Besides, to be demanded of a sponge ! What replication 
 Should be made by the son of a king ? 
 
 — " Hamlet," Act IV. scene 2. 
 
 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. The course of pleading is as 
 follows : The plaintiff makes his demand on the de- 
 fendant by a narratio or declaration; the defendant 
 replies by a plea ; and the plaintiff's reply to this plea 
 is called a replication. Certainly comment is here 
 unnecessary. Apparently Shakespeare determined 
 to make use of a legal expression even if he had to 
 
34 IN RE SHAKESPEARE'S 
 
 do violence to it, to commit an assault on it, as it 
 were, and lug it in by the ears. And the same may- 
 be said of some of the other instances hereafter 
 given. Shakespeare's was a learned and a pedantic 
 age, and while he could not rival his more plod- 
 ding contemporaries in their labored efforts to 
 weigh down their works with classical allusions, 
 none of them at all rivaled him in his knowledge of, 
 and his reference to, that great world around him — 
 all that he could see and hear. He knew the habits 
 of birds and insects, the properties of herbs and 
 flowers, and besides, soon had a grasp of all the 
 knowledge of that brilliant gathering of play- 
 wrights, his contemporaries and associates, among 
 whom were lawyers, physicians, divines, and nearly 
 all of whom were classical scholars. Like Leonatus 
 he took his " learnings " as we do air; he breathed 
 it in; he absorbed it; he did not get it out of books. 
 This is what Milton means when he contrasts Jon- 
 son's with Shakespeare's learning: 
 
 " Then to the well-trod stage anon, 
 If Jonson's learned sock be on, 
 Or sweetest Shakespeare, Fancy's child, 
 Warble his native woodnotes wild." 
 
 But legal expressions are highly technical, and 
 when Shakespeare attended those feasts of the law 
 in courts and in gatherings of attorneys, and car- 
 ried away scraps, it is not at all surprising that he 
 should occasionally commit an error when he used 
 them so frequently. And when, in a comparatively 
 few instances, his applications of law terms are so 
 highly technical and so correctly given as to sug- 
 
LEGAL ACQUIREMENTS. 35 
 
 gest a lawyer's touch, can we not readily believe 
 that here he took advice of some lawyer friend? 
 In the very nature of things he must have had many 
 such friends. 
 
 Till you compound whose right is worthiest 
 
 We, for the worthiest, will hold the right from both. 
 
 — " King John," Act II. scene i. 
 
 And we here deliver, 
 Subscribed by the consuls and patricians, 
 Together with the seal o' the senate, what 
 We have compounded on. 
 
 — " Coriolanus," Act V. scene 6. 
 
 Content you, gentlemen; I will compound this strife; 
 'Tis deeds must win the prize; and, he of both, 
 That can assure my daughter greatest dower 
 Shall have Bianca's love. 
 
 — " The Taming of the Shrew," Act II. scene i. 
 
 To compound (though cited as a legalism by 
 Senator Davis) is in all these cases used in the gen- 
 eral sense of to settle or determine; but, in a legal 
 sense, it is to settle in a particular manner, as where 
 a creditor agrees to receive part of his debt in satis- 
 faction of the whole ; or, in criminal law, where one 
 receives a consideration to refrain from prosecuting 
 a wrongdoer, as when one whose goods have been 
 stolen agrees not to prosecute the thief if the goods 
 are returned, which is called " compounding a fel- 
 ony," where the theft amounted to a felony. To- 
 day, in general literature, the word is used in pretty 
 much the same sense in which Shakespeare uses it 
 — perhaps this is due to the force of his great 
 example. 
 
36 IN RE SHAKESPEARE'S 
 
 For if a king c bid a man be a villain, he is bound by the 
 indenture of his oath to be one. 
 
 — " Pericles," Act I. scene 3. 
 
 Here the oath of allegiance is referred to. The 
 use of the word " indenture " is entirely out of 
 place. 
 
 " ' An indenture ' was a writing containing a con- 
 veyance, bargain, or contract . . . between two or 
 more parties, consisting of the same matter written 
 twice or oftener on the same sheet with a space 
 between, where, after execution, the parchment was 
 cut in a serrated or indented line, and a part 
 delivered to each of the parties." — Burrill's Law 
 Dictionary. 
 
 The word indenture has survived to modern 
 times, though actual indenting or cutting is never 
 done; but in Shakespeare's time it seems actual in- 
 denting was necessary to constitute an " inden- 
 ture " (5 Co., 21, Stile's Case), and it was so in 
 Maryland until 1794, when it was abolished by 
 chapter 57 of the Acts of that year. 
 
 An oath never (and ex vi termini not an oath of 
 allegiance, it being unilateral) had anything to do 
 do with an indenture or an indenture with an oath. 
 
 Gtend. Come, here's the map; shall we divide our 
 right 
 According to our threefold order ta'en ? 
 
 Mort. The archdeacon hath divided it 
 Into three limits very equally. 
 
 Hot. Me thinks my moiety, north from Burton here, 
 In quantityequals not one of yours. 
 
 — '• 1 Henry IV.," Act III. scene 1. 
 
LEGAL ACQUIREMENTS. 37 
 
 Moiety (L. Lat. mediatas) does not mean a third. 
 A half; one of two equal parts. — Co. Litt. 34 a, b. 
 
 It is to be noted, however, that some modern law- 
 yers and text-writers use the word moiety as inac- 
 curately as Shakespeare, as though it could mean 
 a third, or any part. 
 
 I do believe, 
 Induced by potent circumstances, that 
 You are my enemy, and make my challenge. 
 You shall not be my judge, 
 
 I do refuse you for my judge, and here 
 Before you all, appeal unto the pope. 
 
 — " Henry VIII.," Act II. scene 4. 
 
 To " challenge " is to object or except to those 
 who are returned to act as jurors, either individ- 
 ually or collectively as a body. The judge was not 
 subject to challenge. 
 
 In which our valiant Hamlet — 
 For so this side of our known world esteemed him — 
 Did slay this Fortinbras ; who by a sealed compact, 
 Well ratified by law and heraldry, 
 Did forfeit with his life. . . 
 
 — " Hamlet," Act I. scene 1. 
 
 Here " well ratified by " means " strictly in ac- 
 cordance with." As a legalism its use is out of 
 place. 
 
 " Ratification is where a person adopts a con- 
 tract or other transaction which is not binding on 
 him because entered into by an unauthorized agent. 
 Thus, if A enters into a contract on behalf of B, 
 without having B's authority to do so, B may either 
 
3 8 IN RE SHAKESPEARE'S 
 
 repudiate or adopt the contract; if he adopts it he 
 is said to ratify it, and it then takes effect as if it 
 had been originally made by his authority." — 
 Rapalje & Lawrence's Law Die. 
 
 Therefore our sometime sister, now our queen, 
 The imperial jointress to this warlike State. . . 
 
 — " Hamlet," Act I. scene 2. 
 
 " Jointress, a woman who has an estate settled 
 on her by her husband, to hold during her life if 
 she survive him." — Co. Litt. 46. 
 
 Jointure was one of the means used for barring 
 dower. It was an estate settled on the wife before 
 marriage, and in lieu of dower; if made after mar- 
 riage, upon the husband's death the widow could 
 either accept it or reject it and take her dower at 
 common law (2 Bl. Comm. 137). 
 
 Queen Gertrude could have neither a dower nor 
 a jointure in the kingdom of Denmark. 
 
 Boyet. So you grant pasture for me {offering to kiss her.] 
 Mar. Not so, gentle beast; 
 My lips no common are, though several they be. 
 
 — •' Love's Labor Lost," Act II. scene 1. 
 
 Shakespeare doubtless knew that one cannot at 
 the same time hold a thing in common and in sev- 
 eralty, and if so, he here sacrifices his knowledge 
 for a mere play on words, which I fancy a profes- 
 sional pride, if he had had any legal training, would 
 not have permitted him to do. 
 
 War. Why should you sigh, my lord? 
 King H. Not for myself, Lord Warwick, but my son, 
 Whom I unnaturally shall disinherit. 
 
LEGAL ACQUIREMENTS. 39 
 
 But be it as it may: I here entail 
 
 The crown to thee, and to thine heirs forever; 
 
 Conditionally that thou here take an oath 
 
 To cease this civil war, and, whilst I live, 
 
 To honor me as thy king and sovereign; 
 
 And neither by treason, nor hostility, 
 
 To seek to put me down and reign thyself. 
 
 — " 3 Henry VI.," Act I. scene i. 
 
 Senator Davis admits an inaccuracy here. I 
 quote his language (p. 199): " This is an attempt to 
 grant the crown, subject to a condition subsequent. 
 The use of the word entail here seems to be inac- 
 curate, for, though the use of the word heirs is 
 necessary to create a fee, so the word ' body ' or 
 some other words of procreation are necessary to 
 make it a fee tail. A gift to a man and his heirs, 
 male or female, is an estate in fee simple and not 
 in fee tail " (2 Bl. Comm., 114). 
 
 You three, Biron, Dumain, and Longaville, 
 Have sworn for three years' term to live with me, 
 My fellow scholars, and to keep those statutes 
 That are recorded in this schedule here. 
 Your oaths are passed, and now subscribe your names. 
 — " Love's Labor's Lost," Act I. scene 1. 
 
 The word " statutes " is here used to mean simply 
 articles of agreement. It has no such meaning in 
 law. A statute is an act of the legislature of a 
 country. " Statutes-merchant " and " statutes- 
 staple " were the names of certain securities for debt 
 in Shakespeare's time, and perhaps this gave him 
 the idea that any agreement might be called a 
 statute. 
 
40 IN RE SHAKESPEARE'S 
 
 Adr. Why, man, what is the matter? 
 Dro. S. I do not know the matter: he is 'rested on the 
 case. 
 
 — M The Comedy of Errors," Act IV. scene 2. 
 
 He was not arrested " on the case." Civil actions 
 at law are broadly divided into two classes: actions 
 ex contractu, growing out of breach of contract, 
 either express or implied, and actions ex delicto, for 
 the recovery for wrongs independent of contract. 
 The suit against Antipholus was of the former class, 
 being for the recovery of the price of goods pur- 
 chased from the jeweler; an action on the case is 
 one of the actions ex delicto. 
 
 Antipholus was actually placed under arrest 
 upon the simple statement of the jeweler to an offi- 
 cer that the former was indebted to him, without 
 writ, warrant, or any process whatever. 
 
 Sec. Mer. Therefore make present satisfaction, or I '11 
 Attach you by this officer. 
 
 Well, officer, arrest him at my suit, 
 
 Ang. Either consent to pay the sum for me, 
 Or I attach you by this officer. 
 Here is thy fee ; arrest him, officer. 
 
 — " The Comedy of Errors," Act IV. scene 1. 
 
 Justice must be administered in a very primitive 
 style, where one who claims that another is indebted 
 to him can call an officer and say, " Here, officer, 
 this man owes me money; arrest him." Lawyers 
 and courts would be unnecessary, and no one could 
 
LEGAL ACQUIREMENTS. 4 1 
 
 complain of the law's delay where such a summary 
 method of procedure was permitted. 
 
 Cant. For all the temporal lands, which men devout 
 By testament have given to the church, 
 Would they strip from us. 
 
 — " Henry V.," Act I. scene i. 
 
 The use of the word " testament." is here incor- 
 rect. A testator bequeaths personal property by a 
 " testament " ; he devises real estate by a " will." 
 
 Antony. Moreover he hath left you all his walks, 
 His private arbors, and his new planted orchards, 
 On this side Tiber, he hath left them you, 
 And to your heirs forever. 
 
 — " Julius Caesar," Act III. scene 2. 
 
 In regard to this passage Senator Davis says: 
 " It is to be remarked that Antony, in speaking of 
 the real estate left by Caesar to the Roman people, | 
 does not use the appropriate word ' devise.' 
 Shakespeare nowhere uses the word in connection 
 with a will. It was also unnecessary for Caesar's 
 will to have contained the expression ' to your heirs 
 forever ' in order to give the people a perpetual 
 estate in the reality." 
 
 Shylock. Go with me to a notary ; seal me there 
 Your single bond, and in a merry sport 
 If you repay me not on such a day, 
 In such a place, such sum or sums as are 
 Expressed in the condition, let the forfeit 
 Be nominated for an equal pound 
 Of your fair flesh, to be cut off and taken 
 In what part of your body it please th me. 
 
 — " Merchant of Venice," Act I. scene 3. 
 
42 IN RE SHAKESPEARE'S 
 
 It is hardly conceivable that any lawyer, or any- 
 one who had spent a considerable time in a law- 
 yer's office, in Shakespeare's age, could have been 
 guilty of the egregious error of calling a bond with 
 a collateral condition a " single bond." A single 
 bond, simplex obligatio, is a bond without a collateral 
 condition, but that described by Shylock is with 
 collateral condition. It is possible that a lawyer in 
 this age would be guilty of ignorance on this point; 
 but hardly in Elizabeth's age, and least of all a law- 
 yer in an inland town like Stratford. In our time, 
 the use of sealed instruments except in cases of con- 
 tracts in reference to real estate, contracts by cor- 
 porations, and bonds with collateral condition, has 
 largely ceased among merchants and business men 
 generally, though still in frequent use by lawyers. 
 This disuse of sealed instruments is, perhaps, 
 chiefly due to the extension of the lex mercatoria, 
 and the advantage of negotiability that pertains to 
 most unsealed instruments, and is also undoubtedly 
 largely due to the fact that almost all men can write 
 their names, and that not to be able to do so is con- 
 sidered a disgrace. Certain legal incidents, for his- 
 torical reasons, still attach to sealed instruments; 
 but, for practical business purposes, the private 
 seal is now a useless survival of the Middle Ages. 
 Its use has been abolished by statute in most of the 
 Western States. But in Shakespeare's time the 
 situation was entirely different. The seal was in 
 universal use. Indeed it is beyond dispute that 
 sometimes educated men belonging to the gentry, 
 instead of writing their names themselves, would 
 
LEGAL ACQUIREMENTS. 43 
 
 prefer to have them written by the draughtsman of 
 the instrument which they were to sign and would 
 themselves simply affix their seals, as being dis- 
 tinctive of their house or family; and tradesmen 
 who could write would merely make their marks, 
 they being generally distinctive of their trade or 
 calling. The probability is that in the small town 
 of Stratford, having little or no commerce with the 
 outside world, the use of the promissory note, bill of 
 exchange, or any unsealed instrument was entirely 
 unknown to its business people. Accordingly, it 
 must be assumed that the difference between a 
 single bond and a bond with a collateral condition 
 was thoroughly understood by every lawyer and 
 every lawyer's clerk in Stratford. 
 
 But in this play, Shakespeare not only mani- 
 fests his lack of knowledge of the technique of the 
 legal profession; he shows a profound ignorance of 
 law and of the fundamental principles of justice — 
 unless we assume that the trial scene disregards all 
 ideas of law, justice, and morality for mere dramatic 
 effect; but it has been repeatedly shown by many 
 writers that equal dramatic effect could have been 
 attained witheut such sacrifice. 
 
 Portia, as amicus curies, or referee, in " The 
 Merchant of Venice " makes five distinct rulings 
 which are bad in law, in logic, and in morals.* Shy- 
 
 *See "Shakespeare in Fact and in Criticism," Appleton 
 Morgan ; New York, Benjamin, 1888, p. 180. To make 
 these errors more apparent, Dr. Morgan imagines the case 
 of Shylock and Antonio, as decided by Portia, sent back 
 for a new trial before Portia, and finally as reversed, as 
 to every one of her rulings, by a full bench on appeal. 
 
44 IN RE SHAKESPEARE'S 
 
 lock sues for the penalty under his bond. Portia 
 decides that the contract is lawful, and that he has a 
 right to the penalty. Ex turpe causa non oritur 
 actio was a maxim of the Civil as well as the Com- 
 mon law. Shakespeare was himself apparently 
 familiar with it, for in " Henry VI.," Part II. Act 
 V. Scene i, he says: 
 
 " Who canst be bound by any solemn vow 
 To do a murderous deed, to rob a man," etc. 
 
 The action could no more have been sustained in 
 Venice than it could in England. Yet Portia 
 awards judgment. 
 
 " A pound of that same merchant's flesh is thine, 
 The court awards it, and the law doth give it." 
 
 But she adds: 
 
 " Tarry a little, there is something else. 
 The bond doth give thee here no jot of blood, 
 The words expressly are, a pound of flesh; 
 Then take thy bond, take thou thy pound of flesh, 
 But, in the cutting it, if thou dost shed 
 One drop of Christian blood, thy lands and goods 
 Are by the laws of Venice confiscate 
 Unto the State." 
 
 Well might Shylock exclaim " Is that the law? " 
 
 Whoever heard of flesh without blood? A fig 
 without seeds, a nut without a shell? 
 
 The court, having pronounced judgment and 
 awarded execution, tells Shylock that he must 
 himself execute the judgment. He might well have 
 answered, " I have come here for the court to give 
 me justice, not to take the law in my own hands. 
 
LEGAL ACQUIREMENTS. 45 
 
 I am not an officer of the court ; let the court's offi- 
 cers execute its judgment, and let them be respon- 
 sible for failure to do so properly. Even if the 
 court gave a judgment for so much money I should 
 perhaps render myself liable in an action for dam- 
 ages if I attempted to collect it myself. It would 
 be the business of the court, through its own offi- 
 cers, to collect my money, and it is the business 
 and duty of the court to deliver me my pound of 
 flesh. I have no right to take it myself, and no 
 court of justice can have the legal power or moral 
 right to make a suitor therein responsible for the 
 execution of its judgments. " 
 
 But the next ruling is more remarkable than the 
 former. Shylock says he will accept the tender of 
 thrice the bond; but Portia answers "Thou shall 
 have nothing but the penalty," and 
 
 " If thou tak'st more 
 Or less than a just pound, be it so much 
 As makes it light or heavy in the substance 
 Or the division of the twentieth part 
 Of one poor scruple, nay, if the scale do turn 
 But in the estimation of a hair, 
 Thou diest, and all thy goods are confiscate." 
 
 Can one imagine it being a criminal act for a 
 creditor to take less than the amount due him? 
 
 And, to cap the climax, this remarkable judge 
 then rules that Shylock has forfeited the principal 
 of his debt because he refused a tender. The 
 climax? No; that was still to come. The court 
 quickly resolves itself into one of criminal jurisdic- 
 tion, and the Jew's goods and life are declared for- 
 
46 IN RE SHAKESPEARE'S 
 
 feit: and for what? For having dared to make a 
 contract which that same court had a moment be- 
 fore declared valid and binding. And finally this 
 judge, who had given utterance to that eloquent 
 appeal for mercy, stands by while the Jew is re- 
 quired, on pain of forfeiture of his life, to abandon 
 the cherished religion of his fathers and his race, 
 and embrace the hated religion of the Christian — 
 an ingenuity of cruelty surpassing that of the 
 thumbscrew or the rack. And all this; the three 
 thousand ducats he had lent, all his property, and 
 all the property which he might afterward acquire 
 (for he was required to record in court a deed of 
 gift of all he died possessed), his religion, and even 
 his life — all forfeited because he had made a con- 
 tract which the court held was valid and could be 
 enforced. 
 
 And, by the way, this deed of gift is another 
 blunder in law. It is a fixed principle of the com- 
 mon law that a man cannot convey a thing which 
 he has not, though he afterward acquire it. Only 
 things in esse, having an actual or potential exist- 
 ence, were subjects capable of gift or grant 
 (Comyn's Dig. Tit: Grant (D)). 
 
 It has been suggested to the author of these 
 papers that this deed of gift might have been valid 
 as a gift causa mortis, or as a Will. But of course 
 no lawyer need be told that it has not a single ele- 
 ment necessary to the validity of a gift causa mortis, 
 either under the Civil or Common law. Cooper's 
 Justinian (ed. 1852), pp. 100, 476. 
 
 To be sure instruments in the form of deeds have 
 
LEGAL ACQUIREMENTS. 47 
 
 frequently been construed to be wills under the 
 Common Law. " There is nothing that requires 
 so little solemnity/' said Lord Hardwick (in Ross 
 vs. Ewen, 3 Atkins, 163), " as making a Will of per- 
 sonal property, for there is scarcely any writing 
 which will not be admitted as such." In Maryland 
 in 1883 a letter written by a decedent to his daugh- 
 ter was held to be a valid will of personalty 
 (Byers vs. Hoppe, 61 Md. 206). Indeed, any writ- 
 ing signed by the party making a disposition of 
 property to take effect after death, whether in the 
 form of a deed, or whatever its form, might or could 
 be construed to be a will. It would appear, how- 
 ever, that this was not so by the Civil law. By it 
 certain particular formalities were necessary in the 
 making of a will (Cooper's Justinian, Ed. 1852, p. 
 112, et seq.), and it is therefore improbable that a 
 paper executed as a deed of gift, could, under that 
 system, be adjudged to be a will. But Shylock's 
 deed of gift of " all he died possessed " would not 
 have been valid as a will of real estate which he 
 might acquire after the date of its execution, any 
 more than it would have been as a deed of gift as 
 to " after-acquired " property. Other reasons of a 
 technical nature might be given why this deed 
 could not have taken effect as a will either under 
 the Common law or the Civil law of Venice. But 
 they are unnecessary. The deed of gift which Shy- 
 lock was required to execute was not his voluntary 
 act, and it is a contradiction in terms to speak of 
 an involuntary act as a will or testament (which lat- 
 ter word is essentially identical in meaning with 
 
48 IN RE SHAKESPEARE'S 
 
 " will "). Testamentum ex eo appellatur, quod tes- 
 tatio mentis sit. 
 
 This deed of gift was required to be recorded 
 " here in the court." The recital of such an in- 
 strument (for a paper in the form of a deed always 
 shows the consideration or cause of its execution) 
 would show on its face that it was executed in pur- 
 suance of a decree of the court, and not by the vol- 
 untary act of the party. 
 
 The court which passed upon Shylock's case did 
 not observe the distinction of England between 
 courts of law and equity, but assumed to act as both 
 (indeed, it also assumed criminal jurisdiction). 
 Now, a court of equity originally acted wholly by 
 decrees in personam, and enforced its decrees in no 
 other way than by fine and imprisonment for dis- 
 obedience. Where, therefore, one obeys such a de- 
 cree, he cannot be said to act voluntarily. 
 
 Waiving, however, all fine distinctions, I con- 
 clude: If Shakespeare desired to show his knowl- 
 edge of law by indicating that a paper in the form 
 of a deed may be considered a will; the method 
 he uses to do so, of itself, shows gross ignorance of 
 the fundamental principles of the law. Assuming 
 that this was Shakespeare's intention, he — in effect 
 — makes the court order and decree Shylock to 
 execute a will, and file it in the court. If any court 
 ever had such power, this is, I believe, the only re- 
 corded instance of its exercise. But it is an 
 absurdity in terms. Assuming, however, that the 
 court had the power, its exercise would be futile, 
 for, if the deed which Shylock executed was in fact 
 
LEGAL ACQUIREMENTS. 49 
 
 a will, he could immediately afterwards have re- 
 voked it and made a new and last Will and Testa- 
 ment, thereby defeating the object of Portia's de- 
 cree — a thing which could not be within the pur- 
 view of the dramatic action of the Play. Portia's 
 object was to compel Shylock to execute a paper 
 which would have the finality of a judicial action. 
 It is the last will that counts, just as in the case of 
 deeds, it is the first. 
 
 Of course, if Shylock died intestate, Jessica 
 would inherit or succeed to his property, provided 
 he did not afterwards remarry, and have other chil- 
 dren; in which case she would only .have taken her 
 pro rata share. But what would happen in case of 
 intestacy is not under discussion. The question is, 
 was the paper valid either as a will or as a deed? 
 The result is that Portia's effort to vest Jessica 
 (who had married a Christian) with Shylock's 
 estate, real and personal, was as abortive and as 
 ridiculous as any or all of her judicial pronounce- 
 ments. Lawyers who, like my Lord Campbell and 
 Senator Davis, desire to swear Shakespeare in as a 
 lawyer learned in the law had best omit con- 
 sideration of " The Merchant of Venice." 
 
 I cannot close my reference to the law of this 
 play better than by quoting again from Von Iher- 
 ing: 
 
 " The truth remains truth, even when the indi- 
 vidual defends it only from the narrow point of view 
 of his personal interests. It is hatred and revenge 
 that takes Shylock before the Court to cut his 
 pound of flesh out of Antonio's body; but the words 
 
5° IN RE SHAKESPEARE'S 
 
 which the poet puts into his mouth are as true in it 
 as in any other. It is the language which the 
 wounded feeling of legal right will speak, in all 
 times and in all places; the power, the firmness of 
 the conviction, that law must remain Law, the lofty- 
 feeling and pathos of a man who is conscious that, 
 in what he claims, there is a question not only of 
 his person but of The Law. ' The pound of flesh/ 
 Shakespeare makes him say: 
 
 " * The pound of flesh which I demand of him, 
 Is dearly bought, is mine, and I will have it; 
 If you deny me, fie upon your law; 
 There is no force in the decrees of Venice. 
 
 . . . I crave the law. 
 
 « . . I stay here upon my bond.' 
 
 <« < 
 
 I crave the law.' In these four words, the 
 poet has described the relation of the law, in the 
 subjective, to law in the objective sense of the term: 
 and the meaning of ' The Struggle for Law/ in a 
 manner better than any philosopher of the law 
 could have done it. These four words change Shy- 
 lock's claim into a question of the Law of Venice. 
 To what mighty, giant dimensions does not the 
 weak man grow, when he speaks these words! It 
 is no longer the Jew demanding his pound of flesh; 
 it is the Law of Venice itself, knocking at the door 
 of justice; for his Rights and the Law of Venice 
 are one and the same; they must stand or fall 
 together." 
 
 We feel little pity for Shylock, but our sense of 
 reverence for the law is shocked — the majesty of 
 the Law is degraded. 
 
LEGAL ACQUIREMENTS. 5 1 
 
 Thus I believe I have shown, though in a very 
 brief and imperfect way, that Shakespeare had no 
 knowledge of the technique of law, and no just ap- 
 preciation of those fundamental principles of jus- 
 tice which are the basis of all law. Though he 
 excelled all other men who have ever lived in 
 knowledge of, and in ability to portray, human 
 nature in all its aspects, his ideas of human rights 
 were narrow and bigoted. 
 
 It has been said that Englishmen for generations 
 took their religion from Milton, and their history 
 from Shakespeare; but for their law they have 
 looked and must look to an entirely different class 
 of men. 
 
 THE END. 
 
PUBLICATIONS AND PAPERS 
 
 OF 
 
 Gbe Sbaftespeave Society of IRew |?ork 
 
 ■ iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiimiiimiimiilimiiii 
 
 L Ecclesiastical Law in Hamlet : The Burial of Ophelia 
 
 R. S. Guernsey, Esq. i6mo. 
 
 Ill* Shakespeare and Alleged Spanish Prototypes 
 
 Albert R. Frey, Esq. i6mo. 
 
 V.-VI. Time in the Play of Hamlet 
 
 Edward P. Vining, A. M. i6mo. 
 
 Once Used Words in Shakespeare 
 
 James D. Butler, LL. D. i6mo. 
 
 The First Shakespeare Society 
 
 J. O. Halliwell-Phillipps, LL. D., F. R. S. 
 
 VII. Digesta Shakespeareana 
 
 Being a list of books, reviews, and magazine articles on 
 Shakespearean subjects (exclusive of editions), from 1623 
 to January 1, 1898. Dates, authors, and publishers. 
 
 VIIL A Plea for a Reference Canon of the Plays 
 
 Alvey A. Adee, A. M. i6mo. 
 
 IX* Caliban. A Drama. By Ernest Renan 
 
 Translated by E. Vickery. Introduction by Willis 
 Vickery, A. M. i2mo, Bankside style. 
 
 The Bankside Shakespeare 
 
 The Tragedies, Histories, and Comedies first printed in 
 quarto. Quarto and folio texts paralleled in facsimile and 
 lines numbered and collated line by line. Twenty vol- 
 umes, de luxe, i2mo. Edited by Appleton Morgan, LL. D. 
 
 The Bankside Supplement 
 
 The Comedy of Errors* Edited by Appleton Morgan, LL. D. 
 
 X. A Study in the Warwickshire Dialect 
 
 With Glossary. Appleton Morgan, LL. D. 
 
 XI. A New Study of Shakespeare's Othello 
 
 Welker Given, Esq. 
 
 XII. In re Shakespeare's Legal Acquirements 
 
 Notes by an unbeliever therein. 
 
 By William C. Devecmon, Esq., A. M. 
 
 THE SHAKESPEARE PRESS of New York City 
 
 Printers to the New York Shakespeare Society 
 
 P. O. Box 555 Westfield, Union County, New Jersey 
 
S & Bl lb99