The George Greenwood Collection

The George Greenwood

Collection by Sir George Greenwood, M.P. TABLE OF CONTENTS Preface Edited by Mark Andre Alexander Shakespeare’s Law and Latin Shakespeare’s Law Ben Jonson and Shakespeare The Stratford Bust and the Droeshout Engraving

Appendixes © Copyright 2012 by Mark Andre Alexander Shakespeare’s Knowledge of Law: A Published by Mark Andre Alexander P.O. Box 5286, Auburn, CA 95604-5286 Journey through the History of the Argument by Mark Andre Alexander (2011) First Edition Originally published by 1858 to 1925. Shakespeare a Lawyer by William Rushton (1858) Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data George Granville Greenwood, 1850-1928 Shakespeare’s Legal Acquirements by Lord The George Greenwood Collection / by George Campbell (1859) Granville Greenwood et al Ecclesiastical Law in Hamlet by R.S. p. cm. – Guernsey (1885) An Amazon.Com Kindle eBook Version 5_2 About the Editor/Author Formatted for iPad and other tablets.

MarkAndreAlexander.Com

2 The George Greenwood Collection

Preface Shakespearean Subjects and on the protection of Animals. Writing in the Sunday Times, 4th November In 1962, Sir George's daughter, Elsie 1928, Atticus says of him: Greenwood, wrote down memories of her He was an eager and an enthusiastic father in the Shakespearean Authorship soul. I have scarcely ever seen a face Review. [The editor.] which reflected so much goodness of * * * * * * * heart and eagerness of temperament. Sir George Greenwood (1850-1928) With his gleaming eyes, palpable eagerness and incessant enthusiasm By Elsie Greenwood were written in his face, his gestures GEORGE GRANVILLE GREENWOOD, and his acts. Three things mainly was the second son of John Greenwood, interested him in life: his Liberal Q.C., for many years Solicitor to the principles, his pity for animals, and Treasury. He was sent to Eton and was in his enthusiasm in the constant the “select” for the Newcastle scholarship. controversy over the authorship of Going up to Trinity College, Cambridge, as the Shakespeare plays. a foundation scholar, he took his degree with What was most delightful in him was a first class in the classical tripos in 1873. that keen, incessant, eager as was his Having been called to the Bar by the Middle advocacy of these three causes, he Temple in 1876, he joined the Western always put them forward with a Circuit. He married in 1878 Laura, daughter persuasive gentleness that demanded of Dr. Cumberbatch and had one soil and and obtained immediate attention. three daughters. And then in the midst of all these He contested Peterborough in 1876 and pursuits and of his life generally, ill Central Hull in 1900. In 1906 he won health came upon him in the shape of Peterborough for the Liberals and held it till chronic rheumatism. He had to walk December, 1915, when forced by with the assistance of a stick, and rheumatism to retire. He was knighted in had reluctantly to abandon his 1916. Parliamentary career. His country, My father was an ardent supporter of all never in my experience, produced a measures for the protection of animals, and more characteristic and a nobler was on the Council of the Royal Society for spirit. the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, and To live with my father was truly a liberal was President of many similar societies. education in more than one sense; he, While he was in Parliament his consistent however, wore his learning lightly, and it vigilance and practical knowledge were of was delightful at meals to hear him break great service. out in a stanza from Shelley or Byron, or a He was one of the doughtiest fighters in the quotation from a Greek or Latin poet. He controversy over the authorship of the took with the greatest good-humour an Shakespeare plays and published many amount of chaff from his daughters that books on the subject. He was a frequent and would have shocked many a Victorian valued correspondent of The Times, both on parent. He had a very keen sense of humour and would amuse us by singing some absurd

3 The George Greenwood Collection old Victorian songs whose “perfect inanity afterwards and found him lying over his proved their insanity.” One of these songs writing table, half way through a letter on “Up in a Balloon” had a particularly catchy animal welfare. So he died as he would have air and I often found myself in after years wished, “in harness,” aged 78. singing or humming the chorus. A favourite * * * * * * * song was “Juanita” by Mrs. Norton, the great friend of Palmerston, and it is still one On November 6, 1922, Sir George of my “haunts.” But when he sang “The Greenwood, former Member of Parliament, Eton Boating Song” he looked ten years met with J. Thomas Looney, the author of younger and one could see he was back in Shakespeare Identified, and Colonel B. R. those happy memories of boyhood. Ward, father of B. M. Ward, the first biographer of Edward De Vere with The He used when an M.P. to entertain us and Seventeenth Earl of Oxford. The meeting his friends by amusing little personal was historic, for on that date these men anecdotes of life in Parliament. I found it founded the Shakespeare Fellowship to great fun being the daughter of an M.P., it ascertain the truth of the authorship of the got one past the red ropes, so to speak, and it Shakespeare poems and plays. Lt.-Colonel was most interesting meeting all the leading M. W. Douglas wrote about those days in political figures at the Downing Street The Shakespeare Fellowship News-Letter. Garden Parties and At Homes, to say [The editor.] nothing of being “presented” to King Edward VII and his lovely Queen * * * * * * * Alexandra. PRAETERITA My father's attitude to us and ours to him By Lt.-Colonel M. W. DOUGLAS, C.S.I., was more that of all elder brother than a C.I.E. parent, and. what was so delightful about him was the way in which he adopted the In recalling the beginnings of the wildest of our sagas, often about people not Shakespeare Fellowship, three distinguished personally known to him, as indeed in some men come to mind. Sir George Greenwood, cases they were not even known to us! He first President, and author of the gaily accepted with the greatest good Shakespeare Problem Restated and other humour the many and odd nicknames that volumes (1908-1925), in which he we bestowed upon him. But it was my two confounded the orthodox, and convinced the younger sisters who evolved the nickname interested and impartial, that the “Stratford that remained to the end and was known to rustic” was not “Shakespeare.” J. T. Looney, all our relations and friends. It was a name who, convinced by Greenwood, employed that as my mother said was very suitable as deductive reasoning, confirmed by “Grimeo” sounded so Shakespearean, and so unanswerable evidence, to identify the Poet we called him to the end of his days. in Edward de Vere, Earl of Oxford. Colonel Ward's intellectual powers covered a varied When ill health due to lameness caused by range: he had also a wide circle of friends. rheumatism made him retire front In 1922 he read Shakespeare Identified by J. Parliamentary life he still came down to T. Looney, and Sous Le Masque de William breakfast, and on the last day he went into Shakespeare by Professor Le Franc. He his library afterwards to write letters. When found the case proved for Oxford as the I peeped in he was still writing so I went main author, in some collaboration with his away. My mother looked in shortly son-in-law, Lord Derby. The quest was

4 The George Greenwood Collection worth the toil, and Colonel Ward called a open mind as to the author. When accepting meeting on the 6th November, 1922, over office, he “hoped to be entering a period of which Sir George Greenwood presided. construction,” and we may reasonably Colonel Ward explained the results of his assume that the case for Oxford, as researches, and the need for collective presented in Shakespeare Identified and action. Sir George stated that, since his Eton Colonel Ward's Mr. W. H., impressed him. and Cambridge days, his works on Bacon and Oxford were doubtless among his Shakespeare had been destructive, but he “many pens,” and one or other was “the hoped he had now entered on a period of Master mind.” He considered that Shakspere construction. It was agreed that the Folio of Stratford under certain conditions was the work of “many pens and a Master (collaboration?) might have written plays, mind”; that Ben Jonson wrote the preface but never a sonnet. His name was in use as a signed by Heminge and Condell. pseudonym; he acted as agent for the It was resolved that the Shakespeare anonymous authors, and put their plays on Fellowship be founded to ascertain the truth, the stage. They became, or some of them, and unite in one brotherhood all those who Shakespearean plays. When, in 1928, Sir were dissatisfied with Stratford orthodoxy, George Greenwood died, Colonel Ward and who desired to see the principles of preferred to remain as Secretary and scientific historical criticism applied to the Treasurer, and I was elected President. problem of Shakespearean authorship. A * * * * * * * vote of thanks to Colonel Ward, the founder, was passed. The President was Sir George Greenwood, K.C.; Vice-Presidents: the Hon. Sir G. Cockburn, K.C.M.G., M.D.; Mr. W. T. Smedley (Baconians); Mr. L. T. Maxse (Editor National Review: Independent); Professor Abel Le Franc; Mr. J. T. Looney. Colonel B. R. Ward, C.M.G., was Hon. Secretary and Treasurer. The Executive Committee were Sir George Greenwood, Mr. Francis Clarke, Colonel M. W. Douglas, C.S.I., C.I.E. The Executive Committee set to work to enlist members, develop research, and contribute articles to the Hackney Spectator. Although the work moved round Oxford clues, Sir George, with the valuable support of Colonel Ward, took the greatest interest in our research, in which his wide knowledge as scholar and lawyer and wonderful grasp of detail were always at our service. He belonged to the Baconian Society, but was not a Baconian. He preferred to remain a critic, and to retain an

5 The George Greenwood Collection

Shakespeare’s Law and Messrs. Watts & Co., of Johnson’s Court, Fleet Street. (See the issues of that journal Latin for January and February, 1916.) How I Was “Exposed” by Mr. In the second of these two articles Mr. Robertson thought fit to write as follows: J.M. Robertson, M.P. “Since Mr. Greenwood will not be taught, he must just be exposed” (my italics); and he by Sir George Greenwood, M.P. thereupon proceeded, as he fondly imagined, to visit me with the threatened “exposure.”

Now, when a man, in the pages of a public Edited by Mark Andre Alexander journal, announces that he is going to Preface by Elsie Greenwood and M. W. “expose” another, it is needless to say that Douglas he makes use of an expression perhaps as offensive as it is possible for him to employ outside the law of libel. Nevertheless, if he “It is not a confident brow, nor the throng of can make good his threat, if he can succeed words that come with such more than impudent in convicting the subject of that threat of sauciness from you, can thrust me from a level fraud, or gross ignorance, or false pretences, consideration.” —Shakespeare or whatever it may be that he has undertaken “Oh, valiant man, with sword drawn and cock’d to “expose,” the individual aimed at must trigger. even put up with it as best he may. Now, tell me, don’t you cut a pretty figure?” — When, however, it turns out that the threat of Byron “exposure” is based upon ignorance, then he Introductory that makes it stands convicted of sheer IN the summer of 1908 Mr. John Lane insolence, if not of something worse. published on my behalf a book called The In the present case I have shown that Mr. Shakespeare Problem Restated. Five years Robertson’s threat to “expose” me is simply afterwards—viz., in 1913—there appeared a based upon ignorance. work called The Baconian Heresy, from the I replied to Mr. Robertson’s articles, through pen of Mr. J. M. Robertson, M.P. (Herbert the courtesy of the Editor, in the Literary Jenkins, Ltd.), wherein I found that my Guide of March and April, 1916, and I had book—which, by the way, did not advocate purposed to reprint all four articles the Baconian theory—was made the subject verbatim; but I was informed that Mr. of a violent attack, embellished with all that Robertson objected to the publication by me elegant vocabulary which is so familiar to of his articles, with further comments those who are acquainted with Mr. thereon, unless I consented to join with them Robertson’s peculiar style of controversy. In a sur-rejoinder which was sent for my a subsequent work, Is There a Shakespeare perusal, and which contained, inter alia, a Problem? (John Lane, 1916), I took up the scandalous, but, doubtless, unintentional, main points of that attack, and, as I venture false statement concerning myself. This I to think, answered them with some success. naturally declined to do, though I should Whereupon Mr. J. M. Robertson once more have had no objection to publish the rest of assailed me, with even greater bitterness, in the document with comments of my own. I two articles published in the Literary Guide, will now, therefore, state Mr. Robertson’s a monthly journal printed and published by

6 The George Greenwood Collection accusations seriatim, as far as possible in his time when the world is convulsed by the own language, and will deal with them very most terrible war that it has ever known. faithfully. [I do not doubt that I had the legal But, as in real war, so it is in the case of this right to publish Mr. Robertson’s articles, ridiculous travesty of it. We all recognize together with mine in reply, whether he that war is monstrous, insensate, insane; yet objected or not; but, in the circumstances, I we recognize further that the action of “the thought it best not to do so.] Huns” made it impossible for us to keep out But my main object in now publishing this of it. And such, too, as I opine, was my case paper is to consider Mr. Robertson in two in view of Mr. Robertson’s grand aspects. Two familiar questions concerning “offensive.” I venture to say, also, that such Shakespeare have been again much mooted an aggressive attack was quite uncalled for. of late: (1) What was the extent of his legal The late Lord Chief Justice Cockburn used knowledge as evidenced by his works? and to admonish counsel at the Bar that they (2) What was the extent of his classical should fight “with the rapier of the gentleman, and not with the dagger of the knowledge so evidenced? assassin.” Well, Mr. Andrew Lang assailed Now, I have no intention of making another me “with the rapier of the gentleman,” and examination of these questions at the present his written attack was none the less time with the view of arriving, if possible, at effective—indeed, was all the more effective definite conclusions with regard to them. To because it was always couched in terms of do that would require a volume of very perfect courtesy; and so far was it from considerable length, upon which I have no leading to anything like acrimonious desire to embark. But, as Mr. Robertson has controversy that it resulted in a pleasant undertaken to instruct the public both as to correspondence between us, and I still Shakespeare’s law and Shakespeare’s preserve a letter, which he was so kind as to classical knowledge, I propose to consider write to me in the train, on his way to what qualifications he appears to possess for Scotland, shortly before his lamented death. such a task. In so doing I shall have the It would, of course, be unreasonable to opportunity of examining and replying to expect anything of this sort from my present many charges which he has brought against assailant. He is not so constituted. His me. I will commence, therefore, with the controversial manners really have not that consideration of Mr. Robertson as an repose which stamps the caste of Vere de exponent of law, after which I will ask my Vere. readers to form an estimate of his authority on the “classical” question; and, lastly, I will I am not now writing, however, merely to deal with such accusations as still remain answer a personal attack. I should be quite content to leave the personalities to die a unanswered. natural death. But Mr. Robertson is well I will only add, to bring these prefatory known not only as a distinguished politician, remarks to a conclusion, that a personal but also as a strong controversialist and a controversy such as this is hateful to me. writer of great ability (more particularly on Moreover, I am acutely conscious of the such subjects as economics, and absurdity involved in the fact that two Rationalism, and the history of Free presumably reasonable beings should be at Thought); and I fear many readers have been daggers-drawn and fighting à outrance over led by his authority into serious errors with such questions as Shakespeare’s knowledge regard to Shakespeare and his works. What of law and of classics—more especially at a some of these errors are I endeavour to

7 The George Greenwood Collection demonstrate in the following pages, and I well-known style of controversy. would ask the reader kindly to take note that They will be reminded, I fancy, of a my arguments in the present brochure are much-quoted line of Juvenal about quite independent of the question of the “the Gracchi complaining of Shakespearean authorship. They are sedition”! addressed to the “orthodox” and the Controversy is to Mr. Robertson as “unorthodox” alike. the breath of his nostrils. He is to the Mr. Robertson threatens to “go for” me manner born. But I fear he is not too again in a second edition of The Baconian tolerant of an opponent who Heresy, but as, possibly, I “may not be here” distinctly refuses to “turn the other when that new edition makes its appearance, cheek.” He would, doubtless, I think it best to adopt the motto of dear old describe me after the manner of the David Harum—viz.: “Do to the other fellow French showman: “Cet animal est what he wants to do to you—and do it très méchant; quand on l’attaque il first”! se défend”! Hence, no doubt, his genial sarcasm concerning my

physical breakdown, and consequent CHAPTER I “pathologica1” lapses—a style of MR. ROBERTSON AS EXPONENT OF writing, concerning an opponent in LAW literary controversy, which “I envy not in any moods.” IN the Literary Guide for March, 1916, replying to Mr. M. Robertson’s articles, I And when Mr. Robertson talks at wrote as follows: large about my “cloud of invective,” I can only trust (if it be not too much In his book on The Baconian Heresy to hope) that some readers of the (1913) Mr. J. M. Robertson made a Guide may be induced to turn to my violent attack upon me, in his most book, whereupon they will see how approved style; and if argument much—and how little—truth there is could be killed by epithets, and in this imputation. Yet Mr. assertion were equivalent to Robertson ought to know what demonstration, I should certainly be “invective” is, if any man does! in a bad way. But that attack was, in my opinion, as to certain parts Mr. Robertson tells us that he has thereof, extremely unfair, and in my dealt with two questions, which he recently published Is There a considers the main evidential Shakespeare Problem? I essayed to questions with reference to the answer it as vigorously and simple thesis with which alone I am effectually as my poor powers concerned—viz. (I state them in my enabled me. Mr. Robertson now, own terms): (1) Do the works of making use of the Literary Guide as “Shakespeare” show accurate and the medium for another attack, exceptional legal knowledge such as affects a superior tone, and we cannot suppose the player to have somewhat loftily animadverts upon possessed, and (2) do they exhibit an “the spirit” in which I write. I do not amount of classical knowledge and think this will carry much weight learning, such, also, as the player with those who are familiar with his could not be supposed to possess?

8 The George Greenwood Collection

Now, as outspokenness seems to be Bacon’s time to take all knowledge the mot d’ordre in this edifying for one’s province. controversy, I will express my own And now, if Mr. Robertson shall opinion with the most entire retort that I also am not qualified to frankness. I fear it may not please pronounce on Shakespeare’s law and Mr. Robertson, but, as it is my Shakespeare’s scholarship, I will, honest and settled conviction, I see certainly, raise no complaint on that no reason to suppress it. In my ground. As to law, I subscribe to the opinion, then, Mr. Robertson is not words which I heard spoken in the adequately equipped to discuss these House of Commons the other day by particular questions, for the simple a learned King’s Counsel, who said reason that he is neither a lawyer nor that the more he studied it the less he a classical scholar. It is not the felt he knew. It is only those who are slightest disparagement to Mr. ignorant of it who think it can be Robertson to say this. He was not acquired with facility—”picked up,” condemned, as some of us were, to perhaps, in some local Court of learn Latin and Greek, and, I fear, Justice! But I would just ask this little else, between the ages of nine question: How can a layman possibly and twenty-three; he had not to seek decide as to Shakespeare’s scholarships rather “for gain” than knowledge of something whereof he “for glory”; he had not to slave for is himself ignorant? A lawyer may, an “Honour Degree.” Neither had he of course, go wrong; but he does, at to read for some years in legal least, speak with some knowledge of chambers, to pass an examination for his subject. A layman’s judgment, as admittance to the Bar; to go Circuit it seems to me, can be of little or no and Sessions; to “keep leets and law use. Mr. Robertson is, as we know, days”; to attend County Courts, and as he tells us, very contemptuous Magistrates’ Courts, and “High” of authority; but, for my part, I think Courts, and to go through all the the opinion of lawyers such as drudgery and discipline of a Malone, Rushton, Lord Campbell, practising barrister. Instead of this, Lord Penzance, Judge Webb, Mr. he was equipping himself, and most Castle, and a few others whom I efficiently, in other branches of might name, may, possibly, be of knowledge, and for other walks of more value upon this point even than life; gaining all that experience and Mr. Robertson’s. learning and information which have enabled him to reach a distinguished For the rest, I leave my arguments to speak position in the literary world. I for themselves. But, as I have already would think twice and thrice, before mentioned, [Introductory, p. v.] Mr. engaging in controversy with Mr. Robertson says he has “exposed” me. Let us Robertson on a question of now see, therefore, how the “exposure” is Economics, or of Rationalist (or effected. In The Shakespeare Problem “Humanist”) literature or history, or, Restated (1908), commenting upon Lord indeed, on many other questions. But Campbell’s remark that a layman who ne sutor supra crepidam. It is even undertakes to write about law is sure to more difficult today than it was in betray by some untechnical observation that he is not of the profession, I cited, by way of

9 The George Greenwood Collection illustration in a footnote, some words of Mr. not Bacon a lawyer? What ignorance, then, Robertson’s viz., “Let us formulate all the on my part to say that no lawyer would tests...first putting a few necessary caveats.” speak of “putting” a caveat! I did not quote this as an error on Mr. Mr. Robertson, therefore, apparently Robertson’s part, but merely as a remark supposes that what Bacon wrote three revealing that he was not a lawyer. “No hundred years ago somehow invalidates my lawyer,” I wrote (p. 372 note), “would speak statement as to what is the use and practice of putting a caveat.” Now this is undeniably of lawyers of today! I think he will enjoy a true. No lawyer of the present time, or monopoly of that quaint idea. [Webster, in indeed of any time, so far as I know, would The Devil’s Law Case, makes one of his so speak, simply because the legal characters say: “I must put in a strong expression is to “enter a caveat.” If the lay caveat.” Webster was not a lawyer, but I reader cares to refer to the “Probate” or have little doubt that other lawyers of that “Admiralty” Rules, or to the Annual day might use the expression “put in a Practice, or the Encyclopaedia of the Laws caveat,” as Bacon did. But in all the of England, or any text-book dealing with examples given in The Oxford Dictionary of the subject, he will find that this is the term the legal use of the word “caveat,” including used universally and without exception for three of the seventeenth century, the term the process of lodging a “caveat.” And even used is the technically correct one—viz., to if a lawyer should speak, in slipshod “enter a caveat.”] fashion, of “putting in” a caveat, which I do not think any lawyer of today would do, he And such is the basis upon the strength of certainly would not talk of “putting” a which this courteous gentleman, with his caveat, as Mr. Robertson does. Again, I say, exquisite urbanity, thinks he is entitled to I merely cited this remark, not as an error, tell his readers that he has “exposed” me! but as one of those very small things which Well, happily, I am not called upon to so often reveal the fact that a writer is not perform that function in Mr. Robertson’s “of the craft,” as Lord Campbell says. case, for the simple reason that he is always unconsciously and ingenuously performing But, unfortunately, my indexer—for I had it for himself, proprio motu, as I shall not time to compile the index myself— abundantly demonstrate in the course of this wrote, with regard to this little matter: inquiry. “Robertson, J. M., betrays his ignorance of law.” This appears to have rankled in Mr. In the year 1859 Lord Campbell, who was, Robertson’s mind. He makes reference to it first, Lord Chief Justice of the Queen’s in his book, The Baconian Heresy (p. 175), Bench, and afterwards Lord Chancellor, and I fear he has brooded over it ever since. published a small book, with the title At last, however, he has made a discovery Shakespeare’s Legal Acquirements, in which shall put me to shame. “Since Mr. which he maintained that Shakespeare must Greenwood will not be taught,” he writes, have possessed a very exceptional and “he must just be exposed.” [Lit. Guide, accurate knowledge of law. This idea was February, 1916. My italics.] Now mark how not a new one, for Malone, himself a lawyer it is done. and one of the most acute and learned of Shakespearean critics, had, many years Mr. Robertson has discovered that Bacon before, expressed the opinion that writes in the Advancement of Learning: “St. Shakespeare’s “knowledge of legal terms is Paul gives a caveat,” and “Caesar’s not merely such as might be acquired by the counsellor put in the same caveat.” And was

10 The George Greenwood Collection casual observation of even his all-- been paid to it.” [A Life of William comprehending mind; it has the appearance Shakespeare. Illustrated Library Edition of technical skill.” (1809), p. 30, citing Lord Campbell, Now, in The Shakespeare Problem Restated Shakespeare’s Legal Acquirements.] (ch. xiii) I made frequent reference to Lord There thus appeared to be a consensus of Campbell’s book. Mr. Robertson is kind “orthodox” opinion on this matter, and my enough to say that I did so without reading purpose, when I wrote my first book, was, it. “Mr. Greenwood,” he writes, “has again accepting such “orthodox” opinion for the and again relied on sheer ‘authority’ as such sake of argument, to see to what conclusion for main points in his case. He did so with it would lead us with regard to the author of Lord Campbell, whose arguments and the plays and poems of Shakespeare. All this evidence on the ‘law’ theory he had not I have explained fully in my last book, [See read” (original italics)... “As to law he Is There a Shakespeare Problem? p. 4 et quoted at second hand the ostensible seq.] but Mr. Robertson sees fit to ignore conclusions of Lord Campbell, without what I there wrote in this connection. He has noting his inconsistent reservations, and now, of course, given another shake to the above all without even reading his argument kaleidoscope of Shakespearean criticism, and his evidence.” and asserts that all these authorities were in It is characteristic of Mr. Robertson to make error, and that the works of Shakespeare such statements as these, but they are quite show the author not to have been possessed untrue. I had, “as it happens”—to use a of any special legal knowledge whatsoever. phrase of Mr. Robertson’s to be referred to Moreover, Sir Sidney Lee has now changed presently—read Lord Campbell’s book—not his tone, and tells us Lord Campbell has a large task, for it is a very short one; and if “greatly exaggerated Shakespeare’s legal Mr. Robertson had read my Vindicators of knowledge.” [A Life of William Shakespeare and, since he refers to it more Shakespeare, New Edition, 1915, p. 43.] than once, I presume he had read it—he This being so, it would, no doubt, be well must have known that I had done so, for in that the whole matter should be examined that work I subject it to a somewhat anew by a competent lawyer, and perhaps prolonged examination (see pp. 80-91). It is some day this may be done. I made no quite true, however, that I did not make any attempt in my last book to undertake that attempt to criticize Lord Campbell’s work, which would have demanded more arguments in The Shakespeare Problem time than I was able to give to it, and would Restated, and I have given my reasons for have added many pages to a volume which, not doing so. When I published that book, it even as it is, sins, I fear, in the matter of appeared to be an article of the “orthodox” length. I, therefore, wrote (Is There a Shakespearean faith that the poet was Shakespeare Problem? p. 102) that, in view possessed of an unusual knowledge of law. of the difficulty of finding “a legal arbitrator Malone, Steevens, Ritson, Lord Campbell, to whom this question can be submitted with Rushton, the Cowden Clarkes, Grant White, confidence the safest course will be to Mr. Castle, K.C., Professor Churton Collins, consider the ‘Shakespeare Problem’ quite and many others of the “orthodox,” had apart from this vexed question of testified to the truth of this opinion; and Shakespeare’s legal knowledge,” which I, even Sir Sidney Lee himself had written of accordingly, proceeded to do. I further “Shakespeare’s accurate use of legal terms, admitted that I should, certainly, not care to which deserves all the attention that has rest the theory that Shakespeare had the

11 The George Greenwood Collection amount of legal knowledge which Lord with their own issue after death, or revert to Campbell ascribes to him simply on the the donor or his heirs if such issue should “evidential passages” which he has fail. But this was soon found to give rise to presented to us, while at the same time an intolerable state of things, wherefore deprecating the very large measure of scorn recourse was had to these collusive actions, and contumely which Mr. Robertson has whereby a tenant in tail was enabled to heaped upon the inferences which that regain his right to alienate his land, either by learned Judge drew from them. Whereupon “levying” a fine, or “suffering” a recovery, Mr. Robertson writes, more suo, that the or sometimes, it may be, doing both. The legal case has hopelessly broken down, and judges, in fact, drove the proverbial “our time has been wasted by a forensic coach-and-six through the Statute De Donis mystification.” That, of course, is quite in Conditionalibus. [In Mr. Arthur Underhill’s the Robertsonian style, but it is not article on “Law,” in Shakespeare’s England necessary to criticize the statement further, which has been published since the above since I am not now arguing the question of was in print, this appears, by an unfortunate Shakespeare’s legal knowledge. I rather oversight, as “de bonis conditionalibus” propose to set before the reader certain (vol. i, p. 404). For Mr. Underhill’s opinion passages from Mr. Robertson’s work which concerning Shakespeare’s law, see note at demonstrate how little qualified he is to the end of this chapter.] pronounce any opinion worth having upon Now, a “fine” was a very complicated form that question. I beg the reader’s attention to of procedure, and those who wish to read the following: more about it are respectfully referred to Lord Campbell, in his book already referred Kerr’s Blackstone, vol. ii, p. 350 (1862), to (p. 35), makes mention of Shakespeare’s where the various steps in the collusive use of the technical legal expressions “fine” action are set forth at length. What I would and “recovery.” Now, as every lawyer impress upon the lay reader is that the name knows, although these terms are frequently “fine,” as here used, is merely the translation coupled together by Shakespeare and other of the Latin finis, and has nothing whatever writers of his time, “fine” and “recovery” to do with a money payment. The action was were very distinct forms of procedure. Both, intended to put an end to all disputes however, were forms of collusive action, concerning the land and, as we are informed and both were habitually made use of, with by an ancient record of Parliament, 18 the sanction of the Courts of Law (it was the Edward I, “finis sic vocatur eo quod finis et Court of Common Pleas which had consummatio omnium placitorum esse exclusive jurisdiction in all “real actions”), debet.” [See Stephen’s Comm. 8th edition, i, in order to evade the awkward consequences 564. Kerr’s Blackstone (1862), vol. ii, p. of the Statute of Westminster the Second, 351.] passed in the reign of Edward I, and better So too we read in the Statute 27 Edward I, c. known as the Statute De Donis. i (1292): “Quia, fines in curia nostra levati By that Statute it was enacted that land finem litibus debent imponere et imponunt et given to a man and the heirs of his body— ideo fines vocantur.” I need say no more i.e., for an estate in “fee tail”—should about it than that by a Statute of Henry VIII always descend according to the will of the a “fine” levied by a tenant in tail acted as an donor; in other words, that those to whom immediate bar to his issue. the land was given should have no power to alienate it, so that it should always remain

12 The George Greenwood Collection

A “recovery” was, as already stated, a fine, for a fine will bar the heir in tail, but different form of procedure, and he who not (by its own operation or otherwise than wishes to inform himself concerning it may by non-claim) him that is in the remainder or be referred to the late Mr. Joshua Williams’s reversion; but a recovery will bar them all.” well-known work on the Law of Real It is not necessary to consider here the Property, where he will find a brief and somewhat different effects produced by a edifying description of the process of “fine” and “recovery” respectively with “vouching to warranty,” [Cf. Hamlet’s regard to the barring of claims, whether of reference to “double vouchers.”] and of issue, remaindermen, reversioners, or “imparling the common vouchee.” The outsiders. It was, I apprehend, very seldom following quotation supplies an explanation that both processes were resorted to in of the name “recovery”:—”The judges, in respect of the same property; but certainly, if construing the Statute (De Donis), had this were done, it would “make assurance admitted a principle which afterwards gave a doubly sure.” handle to overturn it altogether. It was held that if the tenant in tail disposed of the land, I need only add that “fines” and but left assets, or lands of equal value, to his “recoveries,” besides being used to bar issue, the issue were bound to abide by his estates tail, and to bar dower, and to convey alienation of the entailed lands but the estates to married women, were extensively principle of recompense in value was employed for the ordinary purpose of afterwards extended so as to bar the issue conveyance, and were regarded as the from asserting their rights to the entailed strongest possible forms of assurance. lands, if a mere judgment had been given After this little legal excursus, which is, entitling them to recover from some other perhaps, not without some interest, I will person lands of equal value instead.” By this revert to the passage in the Merry Wives of process “not only were the issue (of the Windsor cited by Lord Campbell and tenant in tail) barred of their right, but the commented upon by Mr. Robertson. In the donor, who had made the grant, and to Fourth Act (Se. ii, 219) Mrs. Ford says to whom the lands were to revert on failure of Mrs. Page: “What think you? May we, with issue, had his reversion barred at the same the warrant of womanhood, and the witness time. So also all estates which the donor of a good conscience, pursue him with any might have given to other persons, expectant further revenge?” on the decease of the tenant in tail without issue (and which estates...are called To which Mrs. Page replies: “The spirit of remainders expectant on the estate tail), wantonness is, sure, seared out of him if the were equally barred. The demandant, in devil have him not in fee-simple, with fine whose favour judgment was given, became and recovery, he will never, I think, in the possessed of an estate in fee simple in the way of waste, attempt us again.” lands; for in a recovery the lands were The meaning of Mrs. Page’s remark, as I always claimed in fee simple, and the understand it, is this: Falstaff has had such a demandant, being a friend of the tenant in lesson that unless he has been made the tail, of course disposed of the estate in fee devil’s absolute property by the very simple according to his wishes.” strongest of assurances—unless the devil With regard to “recoveries,” Sheppard’s owns him “in fee-simple,” secured both by Touchstone says (p. 41): “This kind of “fine” and “recovery”—he will never make assurance is in some respects better than a an attempt upon us again. [Mrs. Ford here

13 The George Greenwood Collection interpolates the words “in the way of waste,” Now, when I read this passage in Mr. perhaps with a sous-entendu, and an allusion Robertson’s book, I supposed that he to the legal doctrine of “waste”; but the intended to parallel Shakespeare’s use of the words are somewhat obscure.] term “recovery,” as in the passage referred Now, Lord Campbell cited this passage, not to by him in the Merry Wives, by that word because the mere employment by as it appears in the dialogue cited from Shakespeare of the terms “fine and Greene. And I was not singular in that idea, recovery” in any way advanced the for a reviewer in The Nation (November 13, proposition that he had an unusual 1915), wrote, with reference to Mr. knowledge of law, but because it appeared Robertson’s comments on the legal to show that he had “the recondite terms of vocabulary in the Shakespeare plays: the law” so constantly running in his head “When Mr. Robertson avows the belief that that he actually puts them into a lady’s any intelligent man could pick up this mouth à propos of nothing, as it were, vocabulary, as it were, in the streets, he making her “pour them out in a confidential delivers himself into the enemy’s hand. tête-à-tête with another lady.” When he quotes from Greene a passage But Mr. Robertson tells us that for all the about the I recovery of a debt as a parallel to legal terms and allusions to be found in Shakespeare’s reference to a ‘fine and Shakespeare he can produce parallels from recovery,’ he puts himself on a level with contemporary dramatists who had had no the index-maker who wrote on ‘Mill on legal training, just as striking and just as Liberty and ditto on the Floss.’” evidential of knowledge of law. In this In reply to this, Mr. Robertson wrote (The particular instance, therefore, he produces Nation, January 1, 1916), that it was “sheer (p. 41) the following “piece of dialogue hallucination” on the part of the reviewer. between wooer and lady in one of Greene’s The occurrence of the word “recovery” in stories”—viz., The Card of Fancy. the passage cited by him from Greene was, “Yet Madame (quoth he) when the debt is it seems, a mere coincidence. He only cited confest there remaineth some hope of that passage “as showing ‘another lady’ recovery [My italics.] ...The debt being due, talking in the legal vein which Campbell he shall by constraint of law and his own declared to be proof of the author’s ‘legal confession (maugre his face) be forced to acquirements’ when put in a woman’s make restitution.” dialogue by Shakespeare.” “Truth, Garydonius (quoth she), if he Now, in the first place, Lord Campbell did commence his action in a right case, and the not say that the words put by Shakespeare plea he puts in prove not imperfect. But yet into the mouth of Mrs. Page are “proof of take this by the way, it is hard for that the author’s legal acquirements.” He merely plaintiff to recover his costs where the adduced them as evidentiary of the fact that defendant, being judge, sets down the “Shakespeare’s head was full of the recondite terms of the law.” But the sentence.” misfortune in connection with Mr. Whereupon Mr. Robertson asks (p. 41): Robertson’s explanation is that the first part “Shall we pronounce that Greene wrote as of his quotation from Greene is not spoken he did because ‘his head was full of the by a lady, but by a man, and is, therefore, recondite terms of the law’?” quite irrelevant to his argument as he now puts it.

14 The George Greenwood Collection

What, then, as to the lady’s part of the technical legal term “recovery,” and dialogue? What “recondite terms of the law” sarcastically says that he, therefore, “is does it contain? Well, we have “action,” doubtless to be credited” with “the same “case,” “plea,” “plaintiff,” “costs,” deep knowledge,” for whatever knowledge “defendant,” “judge,” and “sentence.” So is to be ascribed to Shakespeare when he Mr. Robertson imagines that these are makes use of the term “recovery” must, of “recondite terms of the law,” fittingly course, be ascribed to Nashe also when he paralleled with such highly technical terms makes use of the same term. I may here as “fine” and “recovery”! Is it possible that again remark in passing that Lord Campbell he is ignorant of the fact that these terms does not infer “deep knowledge” on used by his “lady” are quite ordinary Shakespeare’s part from his use of the terms commonplace terms of everyday life, the “fine and recovery,” but only that he was occurrence of which in any woman’s mouth, “familiar with some of the most abstruse gentle or simple, is indicative of no “legal proceedings in English jurisprudence.” Let acquirements” whatsoever? us see, however, what it is that Nashe really But perhaps Mr. Robertson would say that says. The passage is to be found in a prose he quoted the man’s part of the dialogue piece called “Nashe’s Lenten Stuffe” (1599), merely because it led up to the answering containing a description of the town of Great words of the lady. If so, I reply that this Yarmouth, “with a new Play never played makes his case even weaker, if that be before, of the praise of the Red Herring.” possible, than it was before, because it is not Here be writes of Great Yarmouth that it is at all surprising that a lady should make use “out of an hill or heape of sande, reared and of these ordinary terms concerning an action enforced from the sea most miraculously, at law if the male party to the dialogue and by the singular pollicy and incessant introduces the subject, and so leads up to inestimable expence of the Inhabitantes, so them. The point in Mrs. Page’s case is that firmly piled and vampiered against the the legal terms are uttered by her fumish waves battry, or suying the least spontaneously, and, indeed, not a little action of recoverie, that it is more conjecturall of the twaine, the land with a inappropriately. writ of Ejectione firma, wil get the But let us turn to another instance of Mr. upperhande of the ocean, than the ocean one Robertson’s application of his method of crowes skip prevaile against the Continent.” parallelism. At p. 46 of his book, The [I quote from Grosart’s Edition of Nashe’s Baconian Heresy, he writes as follows: Prose Works (1883-84), vol. v, p. 201. In “‘Fine and recovery’ occurs again in the Charles Hindley’s Edition (Old Book Comedy of Errors (ii, 2); and this time we Collectors’ Miscellany), vol. i, p. 7, we read, are told [by Lord Campbell] that the puns instead of “a writ of Ejectione firma,” “the extracted from the terms ‘show the author to writ of an Ejectio firma.”] be very familiar with some of the most Now, here there can be no possibility of abstruse proceedings in English evasion. Here it is plain that Mr. Robertson jurisprudence.’ The same deep knowledge is supposes that the “recovery” alluded to by doubtless to be credited to Nashe, who Nashe is the same as that of which writes of ‘suing the least action of recovery’ Shakespeare makes mention in the and ‘a writ of Ejectione firma.’” expression “fine and recovery.” But, Mr. Robertson, therefore, cites Nashe as unfortunately, it is not so. Nashe tells us that employing, in the passage referred to, the at Great Yarmouth there is no chance of the

15 The George Greenwood Collection sea “suing the least action of recovery” technical legal term, as used by against the land, where the allusion Shakespeare, Mr. Robertson, in order to obviously is, not to “suffering a recovery,” show what ‘a common figure’ the term is ‘in but to the ordinary action for the recovery of the drama of Shakespeare’s day,’ cites two land! It is more probable, Nashe says, that passages where the word is used in its the land will “prevail over the ocean” with a ordinary meaning of a payment of money, as writ of Ejectione firma or of Ejectio firma, in the case of a premium on a lease.” whichever be the true reading. How Mr. What was Mr. Robertson’s reply to that? It Robertson can imagine that this allusion to was all my mistake. I was “merely repeating the writ in question in any way helps his the blunder of a previous legal critic”—a case I am at a loss to conceive. But the point blunder which he had already “exposed”! is, that he evidently was ignorant of the For, says Mr. Robertson, “the use of ‘fine’ meaning of the term “recovery” as used by was not put by me (in the passages cited) as Shakespeare in the passage to which Lord the equivalent of the phrase ‘fine and Campbell refers. recovery’” (The Nation, January 22, 1916). But let us continue the quotation: Here, then, is another “exposure”! Well, let “‘Fine,’ as it happens,” writes Mr. us quietly examine it. “‘Fine,’ as it Robertson, “is a common figure in the happens,” writes Mr. Robertson, à propos of drama of Shakespeare’s day. Bellafront, in the expression “fine and recovery,” “is a Dekker’s Honest Whore (Part II, iv, 1), common figure in the drama of speaks of Shakespeare’s day,” and he thereupon an easy fine proceeds to give us some examples. Now, it For which methought, I leased away my is clear that these examples are irrelevant unless they are examples of the word used in soul. the same technical sense as that in which From Mall, in Porter’s Two Angry Women of Shakespeare uses it. The natural inference, Abington (iii, 2) we have: therefore—and I am entirely convinced the Francis, my love’s lease I do let to thee true inference—is that the examples of the Date of my life and time: what say’st word “fine” taken by him from Dekker and thou to me? Porter were meant as examples of the word The ent’ring, fine, or income thou must as it is used by Shakespeare. “Oh dear no,” pay.” cries Mr. Robertson, when confronted with this absurd blunder, “the use of ‘fine’ was And Mr. Robertson adds: “There is nothing not put by me as the equivalent of the phrase more technical in the Comedy of Errors”! ‘fine and recovery’”—where we note in (My italics.) passing that he evidently supposes that “fine Upon this I wrote (The Nation, January 8, and recovery” are one and the same thing, 1916): “Now, no lawyer needs to be told for how otherwise could the word “fine” be that the word ‘fine,’ as used in the “equivalent to the phrase ‘fine and expression ‘fine and recovery,’ means an recovery’”? obsolete method of transferring land by We are reduced to this, then. Mr. Robertson means of a fictitious action. It was finis et quotes instances of the use of the word consummatio omnium, placitorum, (18 Edw. “fine,” by Dekker and Porter, not in its I.), and has nothing whatever to do with a technical legal sense, but in its ordinary money payment. Yet, as parallel with this sense of a money payment, and observes

16 The George Greenwood Collection that, “as it happens,” the word in this sense recovery” with fine in an “absolutely is a common figure in the drama of different” sense (as he now tells us), he asks Shakespeare’s day”! Well, who denies it? I us to believe that the word in its ordinary do not know why Mr. Robertson should sense of a money payment is “as much speak of it as a “figure”; but if he merely evidence for legal knowledge or training” as means, as he now says he does, that the the word in its technical legal sense! word “fine,” in its ordinary sense of a Now, it would, in my judgment, be absurd to money payment, is of common occurrence put forward the mere use of the expression in the drama of Shakespeare’s day, he “fine and recovery” as “evidence for legal speaks undoubted truth, though what knowledge or training”; but the word “fine,” importance he attaches to it, and why he so used, is, certainly, a highly technical should think it necessary to inform us of this term, whereas in the sense in which it is well-known fact, I am at a loss to conceive. employed by Dekker and Porter, in the But then, unfortunately, he adds: “There is passages cited, it is not a technical term at nothing more technical in the ‘Comedy of all. Mr. Robertson, therefore, has here Errors’”! What on earth is the meaning of paralleled a “legal phrase” with a word that? “Fine,” as used by Shakespeare in the which is not only “absolutely different” expression “fine and recovery,” is certainly (except, indeed, in sound and spelling), but a highly technical term. But “fine” in the which is not even a technical term, or, ordinary sense of a money payment is not a indeed, an expression peculiar to the law! technical term at all. What, then, is the But such are Mr. Robertson’s parallelisms. meaning of Mr. Robertson’s amazing Having no knowledge of law, he cannot assertion? discriminate between a really technical legal I think the answer is a very simple one. Mr. expression, such as might, possibly, be Robertson’s attempted explanation is “gross evidentiary of the “legal acquirements” of as a mountain, open, palpable.” But if he the writer, and a phrase which, though it was ignorant of the real meaning of the may have some legal flavour about it, is yet technical legal terms “fine” and “recovery,” but a commonplace every-day expression, it was not unnatural that he should imagine from which no such inference can be he could “parallel” the use of the word drawn—such, for instance, as those he cites “fine” in the Comedy of Errors by the from Greene, Porter, and Dekker. examples which he has so ingenuously taken Here is yet another citation from the latter from Dekker and Porter. Et voilà tout! to use dramatist. Mr. Robertson asks us (p. 41): his own expression. Here is another “exposure” indeed! “What, again, shall we say of the passage in Dekker’s Honest Whore (Pt. Mr. Robertson writes in the Literary Guide, 1, iv, 1), in which Hippolito points to the when confronted with his citation of the portrait of Infelice as word “fine,” as though it were a parallel to the word as used by Shakespeare in the The copy of that obligation expression “fine and recovery”: “Again and Where my soul’s bound in heavy again I have ‘paralleled’ legal phrases with penalties; absolutely different ones. The point is that and Bellafront replies the one set is as much evidence for legal knowledge or training as the other.” So that, She’s dead, you told me; she’ll let having paralleled “fine” as in “fine and fall her suit.”

17 The George Greenwood Collection

And thereupon Mr. Robertson asks: “Must that, so far from relying upon Lord Dekker, too, be a lawyer?” And gravely Campbell to substantiate the hypothesis in adds: “The reader has already begun, question, I was “quite free to own that I perhaps, to realize that lawyership [He should not care to rest the theory that means, I suppose, any exceptional Shakespeare had the amount of legal knowledge of law on Shakespeare’s part.] is knowledge which Lord Campbell ascribes to out of the question!” He is annoyed with me him, simply on the evidential passages because I exclaim upon this: “Di Magni, that which he has presented to us.” [Is There a our time should be wasted by such solemn Shakespeare Problem? p. 53.] nonsense!” But what can one say as to such This being so, I certainly did not think it absurdities? For the above quotation from worth while to discuss these “evidential Dekker contains absolutely nothing to passages” seriatim, though I selected four or suggest that Dekker had any technical legal five for examination, not so much for their knowledge whatsoever. own sakes as in order to present for the Such, I repeat, are Mr. Robertson’s reader’s consideration Mr. Robertson’s supposed legal parallelisms. They impress criticism thereon. One of these was the those who merely turn over his pages by passage quoted by Lord Campbell from The their multitude, and those who are ignorant Merry Wives, where Ford says his love is of law by their assumption of learning. But “Like a fair house built upon another man’s attacks in massed formation are singularly ground; so that I have lost my edifice by ineffective when the masses are made up of mistaking the place where I erected it.” such sorry soldiers as Falstaff’s “tattered Upon this Lord Campbell comments that it prodigals” when he was thought to have “shows in Shakespeare a knowledge of the “unloaded all the gibbets and pressed the law of real property not generally dead bodies.” In other words, the mere possessed.” Mr. Robertson is very multiplication of supposed parallels which contemptuous of this. “It might suffice to have no real cogency or application is an answer,” he writes, “that such knowledge is entirely futile proceeding. today possessed by millions of laymen.” [p. Mr. Robertson repeatedly alleges that Lord 40.] Commenting upon this, I made the Campbell is my “chief witness,” or “main admission that Lord Campbell’s proposition authority,” in support of the case for “certainly sounds somewhat ridiculous.” [Is Shakespeare’s exceptional knowledge of law There a Shakespeare Problem? p. 54.] Mr. and legal terms. The allegation, however, Robertson now quotes these words (Literary has no foundation in fact. As I have already Guide, January, 1916, p. 10) as a stated, it was not my purpose, when, in “confession” on my part, and adds that I 1908, I published The Shakespeare Problem proceed “to try to extenuate the absurdity.” Restated, to formulate anew a case for Now, what I really did was to show that, Shakespeare’s legal knowledge. I found that though the proposition in question perhaps the existence of such knowledge was, so far “sounds somewhat ridiculous,” yet, in truth, as I could see, an accepted article of the when examined it proves not to be “orthodox” Shakespearean faith, and I based ridiculous at all. “Millions of laymen” know a certain superstructure of argument upon the law on this matter, says Mr. Robertson. that fact. But Mr. Robertson having But do they? Ask any ordinary layman this repudiated that article of faith altogether, question: If A builds a house on B’s land, and having rejected the legalist theory in honestly believing it to be his own land, and toto, I wrote, in 1916, as above mentioned, B lies by and says nothing, and then, when

18 The George Greenwood Collection

A has spent his money and built the house, knowledge of Elizabethan literature. “Let claims it as his property, to whom, in these the lawyer be answered in legal form. In circumstances, does the house belong? I Dekker’s Shoemaker’s Holiday, published in fancy the ordinary layman, and perhaps 1597, Hodge says (v, 2): ‘The law’s on our some lawyers, will find some little difficulty side; he that sows on another man’s ground in answering the question. As I have shown, forfeits his harvest.’ Hodge is a foreman [Op. cit. pp, 54, 55.] to understand the law shoemaker. Was Dekker an attorney’s clerk, on this matter one has to go back to or was Hodge talking in character and Justinian’s Institutes, and the comments of saying what any shoemaker might? Or was the learned thereon; and as Lord Campbell it a lawyer who penned in Heywood’s truly says: [Shakespeare’s Legal English Traveller (iv, 1) the lines: Acquirements, p. 34.] “The unlearned would Was not the money suppose that if, by mistake, a man builds a Due to the usurer, took upon his ground fine house on the land of another, when he That proved well built upon? discovers his error he will be permitted to remove all the materials of the structure, and We are no fools That knew not what we particularly the marble pillars and carved did.” [Baconian Heresy, p. 40.] chimney-pieces with which he has adorned Observe the “parallels”! I think it may be it; but Shakespeare knew better.” Agreeably truly said that “millions of laymen know” with this, I find that an American lawyer, that if I sow on another man’s ground— referring to the above quotation from The without any agreement with him, of Merry Wives, writes in Case and course—I forfeit my harvest. Even the Comment—described as “The Lawyer’s “shoemaker” could hardly have thought Magazine”—for August, 1914, that “This otherwise. But Mr. Robertson thinks this is a principle of law is not apt to be known by parallel case to the man who knows the law laymen.” [The writer is the Hon. John H. to the effect that if he, quite honestly, builds Light, Attorney General for Connecticut. a. house on another man’s land, and is Mr. Light actually adds that “there are very allowed by that other to complete it, the few lawyers who really understand the true house becomes the property of the owner of spirit and science of the law as well as the soil! Shakespeare.” What a target for Mr. Robertson’s scorn!] But Mr. Robertson says As to the passage cited from Heywood, how that all this is mere “absurdity”! Can we it is supposed to be a parallel at all, or what “believe that the Judge is serious?” he asks. its relevancy is supposed to be, entirely Well, I must leave it to the reader to judge passes my comprehension. whether this indicates superior knowledge I am not now arguing whether or not the on Mr. Robertson’s part, or inferior passage quoted by Lord Campbell from The ignorance. Merry Wives has any importance with But this learned critic, who has apparently reference to the question of Shakespeare’s been gifted by nature with that knowledge of knowledge of law, but I do confidently law which Lord Campbell confessed it had submit that Mr. Robertson’s supposed taken him such long labour to acquire, does “parallels” are absolutely futile. Whether not stop here. He will refute any inference that is so or not the reader can judge for which an uncritical reader might be disposed himself. to draw from Lord Campbell’s quotation by I have dwelt at some length on this parallel passages evolved from his great particular example of Mr. Robertson’s

19 The George Greenwood Collection criticism of Lord Campbell’s book, because then, refer only to the knowledge of the his comment in the Literary Guide upon common law with regard to “wardship”? But what I wrote concerning it seems intended to how can he conceive that such knowledge leave the impression upon the reader’s mind was “common to the multitude” in that I admitted the alleged “absurdity” and Shakespeare’s time? I must leave it to the then proceeded to “try to extenuate it.” This, reader to form his own opinion as to this the reader will see, is far from being the remarkable passage. case. I will now refer to one more example With regard, however, to Lord Campbell’s of Mr. Robertson’s easy way of dealing with footnote, I think the answer is that the King Lord Campbell’s “absurdities,” and will then of France had the power of ennobling leave this part of the subject, since it would Helena, and expressed his intention of so be quite unprofitable to follow it further, and doing, so that Bertram, his ward, would not would, moreover, require far more time and have been “disparaged” by a mésalliance. space than I am at present prepared to give to it. If thou canst like this creature as a maid, I can create the rest; virtue and she At page 63 of The Baconian Heresy I find Is her own dower; honour and wealth this curious passage: “Lord Campbell gives from me. three pages to the proposition that the bare plot of All’s Well, as regards the legal And Bertram subsequently admits, position of Bertram, is proof ‘that who so ennobled Shakespeare had an accurate knowledge of Is as ‘t were born so. the law of England respecting...tenure in chivalry’ and ‘wardship of minors.’ The Whereupon the King says to him: wardship of Bertram, we are told, Take her by the hand, ‘Shakespeare drew from his own knowledge And tell her she is thine: to whom I of the common law of England, which was promise in full force in the reign of Elizabeth.’ That A counterpoise, if not to thy estate, is to say, the alleged knowledge must have A balance more complete. been common to the multitude [my italics], since there is not a word of technicalities in Lord Campbell had, probably, overlooked the play. And after all, we learn, in a the above passages. footnote, that ‘according to Littleton it is Mr. Robertson, who is so contemptuous of doubtful whether Bertram might not have “authority,” even on a matter of law in refused to marry Helena on the ground that which his own want of knowledge is so she was not of noble descent.’” exceedingly obvious, nevertheless has made Now, what is the meaning of Mr. frequent appeals to the authority of a certain Robertson’s assertion that the “alleged Mr. Devecmon, of the Maryland Bar, who in knowledge (i.e., the ‘knowledge of the 1899 published a book in which he made an common law of England’) must have been attempt to convict Shakespeare of “bad law” common to the multitude”? “The common in various passages cited by him. [See his law,” it is scarcely necessary to say, is a Did Shakespeare Write “Titus Andronicus”? technical term, and Mr. Robertson can p. 54, and The Baconian Heresy where hardly suppose that the knowledge of the indexed. At p. 175, note, Mr. Robertson common law, which it requires many years, speaks of Deveemon as his “ally.”] I have and perhaps a lifetime, of study to acquire, shown that this attempt fails so signally as to was “common to the multitude”! Does he, suggest grave doubts with regard to the

20 The George Greenwood Collection quality of the author’s own legal England (Vol. ii, p. 334, Art. “Bond,” 1906). attainments, [The Shakespeare Problem Again, a bond “is an instrument under seal Restated, p. 396 et seq.] and I have no whereby the party from whom the security is intention of repeating here my survey of the taken obliges himself to pay a certain sum of cases cited by him. I will, however, make money to another at a day specified. If this brief allusion to two of them. be all, the bond is called a single one Commenting on the words of Shylock, “Go (simplex obligatio), but there is generally a with me to a notary; seal me there your condition added that if the obligor does, or single bond” (Merchant of Venice, i, 3), this abstains from doing, some particular act, the critic writes: “It is hardly conceivable that obligation shall be void, or else shall remain any lawyer, or anyone who had spent a in full force, and the sum mentioned in the considerable time in a lawyer’s office in obligatory part of the bond is in the nature of Shakespeare’s age, could have been guilty a penal sum (or penalty), and is usually of the egregious error of calling a bond with fixed at much more than is sufficient to a collateral condition a ‘single bond.’ A cover any possible damage arising from the single bond, simplex obligatio, is a bond breach of the condition.” [Stephen’s Comm., without a collateral condition, but that 11th Ed. (1890), Vol. ii, p. 117.] described by Shylock is with collateral A well-known example of a conditional condition.” bond is a common recognizance, in which Notwithstanding this confident the obligor binds himself to pay a certain pronouncement, I venture to think that the sum of money to his Majesty the King, the “error” is not Shakespeare’s, but Mr. “condition” of the recognizance being that if Devecmon’s, though other critics have he is of good behaviour for a certain time the bond becomes void, and no money has shared it with him. to be paid. [In practice, however, this In the first place, those distinguished recognizance is not reduced to writing, the Shakespearean scholars, the Cambridge acknowledgment being made in open Court, Editors (Messrs. W. G. Clark and Aldis and a note of it being taken by the officer of Wright), tell us that the expression a “single the Court. It is otherwise with a bond” may be properly used of a bond recognizance of bail, where he who tenders without sureties. [So, too, Mr. Israel himself as bail for the accused Gollancz says a “single bond,” as here used acknowledges himself to owe to his Majesty by Shakepeare, probably means “a bond the King the sum fixed for bail. The with your own signature without the names document then proceeds as follows: “The of sureties.” Temple Shakespeare, Merchant condition of the within-written recognizance of Venice, Glossary, p. 124.] But I do not is such that whereas the said A. B. was this rely upon this, as I propose to show that day charged before us, the Justices within Antonio’s bond was not a “conditional” mentioned for that, etc….if therefore the bond, as that expression is understood by said A. B. will appear at the next Court, lawyers. etc….and there surrender himself, “Bonds have usually a condition annexed to etc….then the said recognizance to be void, them to the effect that on the person bound or else to stand in full force and virtue.”] paying so much money, or doing some Now let us try to apply these legal specified act, the bond shall be void. A bond definitions and examples to Antonio’s bond. without a condition is called a single bond.” Antonio bound himself to pay to Shylock a So says the Encyclopedia of the Laws of certain sum of money “on such a day, in

21 The George Greenwood Collection such a place. [Merchant of Venice, 1, 3, So that the “obligation” was not to allow the 147.] And what was the “condition” upon pound of flesh to be cut away; the the performance of which the bond was to “obligation” was to pay the money, subject become void? There was no such condition. to the “forfeiture,” or penalty, named, which Antonio binds himself absolutely to pay this was to be enforced, if the Jew so pleased, certain sum at a certain place on a certain upon the obligor’s failure to pay as agreed. day. True there was a penalty attached if he It is as if A. binds himself to pay to B. £100 failed to do so. In that case he was to forfeit on January 1, at the Royal Exchange, subject a pound of flesh. But that was not a to the penalty, on failure so to do, of “condition” upon the performance of which handing over his motor-car to B. But this, I the bond was to become void. On the apprehend, is not what the law calls a bond contrary, it was a penalty pure and simple, “with collateral condition.” It is a “single dependent for its effect upon the existence bond” with a penalty attached in the case of of the bond. It is true also that Shylock non-payment, and when Shylock speaks of speaks of “such sum or sums as are “the condition” it is clear that he must be expressed in the condition”; but that is not taken to mean the bargain, or this particular sufficient to make the bond a “conditional” term of the bargain; [Mr. Robertson is, one if, upon examination, it is found that therefore, wholly in error when he writes of there is no legal “condition” attached to it. “the theorem that if A. lends money on Moreover, I shall show presently whence it condition of being allowed to cut off half of was that Shakespeare took this word a newly-killed pig belonging to B.,” etc. (p. “condition,” which here means nothing more 60). That would not be a “condition,” but a than a term of the agreement between the penalty in case of B.’s failure to repay the parties. Of course, if it could be said that money.] indeed, that this is so, and that Antonio entered into an obligation to allow Shakespeare had not in view a “condition” Shylock to cut off a pound of his flesh, “on in the technical sense, is made manifest by a such a day in such a place,” the “condition” reference to the original Italian from which of the bond being that if he paid a certain the story is taken. Here we read: “E perchè sum of money at a fixed date, then the bond gli mancavano dieci mila ducati, andò a un should become void, in that case the bond Giudeo a Mestri, e accattogli con questi patti would be a “conditional” one. But we have e condizioni, che s’egli non glie l’avesse only to refer to the passage cited in the renduti dal detto di a San Giovanni di Merchant of Venice to see that this was not giugno prossimo a venire, che ’l Giudeo gli so, for, I repeat, Antonio bound himself to potesse levare una libra di carne d’addosso pay the money at a fixed time and place, di qualunque luogo e’ volesse”—i.e., “As he without condition or qualification, and, says wanted still ten thousand ducats, he applied Shylock, if he did not do so: to a Jew at Mestri, and borrowed them on let the forfeit (i.e., the penalty) these terms and conditions, that if they were Be nominated for an equal pound not repaid on the feast of St. John in the next month of June, the Jew might take a pound Of your fair flesh. of flesh from any part of his body he And, further on, he asks: pleased.” This clearly shows whence the If he should break his day, what should I dramatist took the word “condition,” which gain he puts into Shylock’s mouth, and that its By the exaction of the forfeiture? meaning is only such as I have endeavoured to explain above. It is from not observing

22 The George Greenwood Collection this that the critics have been misled into authority of the Pope, the real judge), a term charging Shakespeare with “bad law,” which in strict legal usage is properly because he calls Antonio’s obligation a applicable only to a juror. I further “single bond,” which in reality it was. commented on the curious idea that a There is, of course, no reason why a bond dramatist cannot be a lawyer unless he should not be drawn in the form above set makes his ladies and laymen speak in the forth. If it be objected that such a form of language that a trained lawyer would bond is not in accordance with our English employ. practice, my answer is that in all this story But a correspondent, learned in Shakespeare merely follows Ser Giovanni’s ecclesiastical law, has pointed out to me that Pecorone (Day IV, Novel I), as I have there is much more to be said. The question shown at length in Is There a Shakespeare of Katherine’s divorce was, of course, not Problem? (p. 90 et seq.), and it appears to tried in one of the Temporal Courts, but in me futile to attempt to base upon this an Ecclesiastical Court; and here an comedy any argument as to the dramatist’s objection might be taken by the defendant knowledge of law or the want of it. on the ground that the judge was a “suspect” Take another of Mr. Devecmon’s cases—a person (iudex potest ut suspectus recusari), very interesting and instructive one, as it if he were akin to the plaintiff seems to me. Queen Katherine, in Henry (consuanguineus illius qui litteras impetravit), or if he had previously acted as VIII (Act II, Sc. IV), says to Wolsey: counsel in the case (in eodem negotio I do believe, advocati officio functus), or if he were an Induced by potent circumstances, that enemy of the defendant, or for some other You are my enemy, and make my just cause. challenge, Katherine, therefore, acted strictly within You shall not be my judge, etc. her rights in challenging Wolsey Whereupon, says the learned Mr. (“challenge” here standing for “recusare”) Devecmon—and Mr. Robertson, of course, because she believed him her enemy. But in blindly follows his “ally”—”To ‘challenge’ excepting to, or “challenging,” the judge as is to object or except to those who are suspectus the defendant was bound to state returned to act as jurors, either individually his reasons before him (coram eodem), and or collectively as a body. The judge was not then the judge and the defendant each chose subject to challenge.” This, therefore, is an arbiter, which two select a third, and another instance of “bad law” on these three decide the validity of the Shakespeare’s part. objection, the verdict of the majority Now, here I thought it was sufficient to prevailing. reply that the word “challenge” was Wolsey denies the accusation, tells the constantly used in the sense of “objection”; Queen to put such notions away from her, and that, even though the poet might have and will not admit the objection. This was had the legal significance in his mind, it provided for in the Canon Law: quod si certainly does not argue the absence of legal iustam recusationis causam noluit admittere training on his part that Katherine should delegatus...a tali gravamine licite potuit ad apply, by a very natural analogy, to one of nostram audientiam appellare. Agreeably the two Cardinals who were to act as judges with this Katherine makes her appeal: in her case (but subject to the supreme

23 The George Greenwood Collection

I do refuse you for my judge, and here, Henry VIII really raises an inference to the Before you all, appeal unto the Pope very contrary effect. [I must express my To bring my whole cause ‘fore his obligation to Mr. Cuthbert Atchley, of holiness, Clifton, for calling my attention to the And to be judged by him. Canon Law in this matter, and providing me Katherine, it seems, follows the correct with many references.] procedure throughout, except that, perhaps, Sir Sidney Lee, in his new edition of A Life the more regular course would have been to of Shakespeare, [p. 43 note, and p. 655.] let her proctors act for her in making her refers us to Mr. Charles Allen’s Notes on the challenge and raising her appeal. Bacon-Shakespeare Question (Boston, “The word ‘recusare’,” writes my 1900), as showing “the true state of the correspondent, “means to ‘challenge’ or case” with regard to the question of object to, or lodge a protest against, in legal Shakespeare’s knowledge of law, which he use, and as the process recusandi iudicem is says has been “greatly exaggerated.” It is practically the same as challenging a juror in sufficient to say here that this author not temporal cases, it is natural to translate the only falls into the blunder concerning, word by ‘challenge.’ In any case, I question Shylock’s “single bond” (p. 132), but whether there ever were technical vernacular actually cites Shakespeare’s use of the word terms for the Latin technical terms in use in “statutes” in Love’s Labour’s Lost (I, i, 15) the Church Courts. There is no doubt that as an example of our great poet’s ignorance: the author of this part of King Henry VIII, You three, Biron, Dumain, and whoever he was, was acquainted with the Longaville, correct procedure of the ecclesiastical Have sworn for three years’ term to live courts, and has stated it accurately in this with me scene, and, therefore, that this passage My fellow-scholars, and to keep those cannot be advanced as an instance of statutes Shakespeare’s lack of legal knowledge. On That are recorded in this schedule here. the contrary, it would seem to have been Whereupon this sapient critic observes: “a exceptional—above even Mr. Devecmon’s!” statute imports a legislative act...The word [Ample authority for this can be found in the seems to be used inaccurately for vows or Corpus Juris Canonici. See the Decretals of resolves.” [p. 128.] Could stupidity and Gregory IX, which I would quote in extenso ignorance go further? This learned did space permit.] gentleman had, it seems, never heard of the One could hardly have a more instructive “statutes” of a College or of a Cathedral—to example than the above of the dangers that say nothing of “statutes merchant” and lie in wait not only for the layman, but for “statutes staple”! Yet it is to such a witness the lawyer himself, unless he be equipped as this that Sir Sidney Lee appeals by way of with all-round legal training, when he essays settling the question of Shakespeare’s to criticize Shakespeare’s use of legal terms. knowledge of law! In any view, I venture to say that to base a Mr. Devecmon had, previously, taken the case for Shakespeare’s ignorance of law on same ridiculous objection. “A statute is an the use by Queen Katherine of the word Act of the legislature.” Shakespeare, “challenge” was absurd; but here it is therefore, was ignorant of law! This is too demonstrated by one who has knowledge of much even for Mr. Robertson, who opines the old Canon Law that this passage of that his “ally is in the wrong for once” here.

24 The George Greenwood Collection

Sir Sidney Lee, by the way, says of recent Fiske Heard (1883), quoted in Is There a sceptical writers, with regard to the Shakespeare Problem? at p. 71.] “Stratfordian authorship,” that “they have But let us see how he proceeds. “That is to been for the most part lawyers who lack the say, that the so-called ‘legal’ meaning of required literary training to give their work ‘acquisition of property by one’s personal on the subject any genuine authority.” (p. action as distinct from inheritance’ is the 655.) But what of “literary” men who lack original meaning, and is the likely sense of the required legal training to give their the word in the whole feudal period.” [The opinion on the subject of Shakespeare’s law Baconian Heresy, p.101.] And he further “any genuine authority?” Sir Sidney appears tells us that this “original and general sense to imagine that the “literary” man untrained is the ‘legal’” sense. [p. 99] in law is quite competent to pronounce on this matter. [Let me here “enter a caveat” Now, I was at first puzzled to know whence with regard to this question. When Mr. Robertson takes his definition of “the discussing the legal terms and phrases used so-called ‘legal’ meaning” of the word by Shakespeare we ought, obviously, to “purchase,” which he marks as a quotation. I confine ourselves to really “Shakespearean” find, however, in the Oxford Dictionary, plays. I should, therefore, rule out Henry VI, under the word “purchase,” the following: Pt. I, and by far the greater portion of Parts “(5) Law. The acquirement of property by II and III; also Titus Andronicus, The one’s personal action as distinct from Taming of the Shrew, and parts of other inheritance.” So that perhaps I should not be plays, such as Timon of Athens, Pericles, wrong in assuming that Mr. Robertson has Henry VIII, and Troilus and Cressida.] taken his definition from that source. Now, the Oxford Dictionary is generally a pretty I now come to deal with Mr. Robertson’s safe guide; but in this instance it is not so, wonderful discovery concerning the word for the definition is obviously inadequate. In “purchase.” Hitherto it has been supposed the first place, for “property” we ought to by lawyers that there is a special legal sense read “real property,” or “land,” seeing that of that word; and critics have noted that the term “purchase,” in the “legal” sense, Shakespeare has on several occasions, as has no application to “personal” property. they fondly imagined, made use of the word And, secondly, one may take land by in that special legal sense. Mr. Robertson, “purchase,” in the “legal” sense, without any however, now tells us that this is a delusion. “personal action” of one’s own, for There is no “legal” sense of the word. “The “purchaser,” in the “legal” sense, includes philological fact is that the sense of those who have received land as a gift, or ‘acquisition,’ ‘a thing got,’ is the upon whom it has been settled before they fundamental meaning of the word were born, and even heirs-at-law, who ‘purchase,’ of which the starting-point is the would otherwise have inherited, if they take idea of the chase (Fr. pourchasser), the by a devise not in accordance with the product of hunting or foraging. It is the idea course of descents. If Mr. Robertson had of buying that is secondary, though that is looked further down in the Oxford now become the normal force of the word.” Dictionary, under the word “purchase,” So far, so good. The only criticism one has supposing he consulted it on this point, he to make here is that what Mr. Robertson would have found the following quoted from says, however true, is by no means new. Wharton’s Law Lexicon: “An acquisition of [See Shakespeare as a Lawyer, by Franklin land in any lawful manner, other than by descent or the mere act of law, and includes

25 The George Greenwood Collection escheat, occupancy, prescription, forfeiture, uses the language of a conveyancer’s and alienation”; and under “purchaser” he chambers in Lincoln’s Inn”: would have found this quotation from His faults in him seem as the spots of Blackstone’s Commentaries: “The first heaven, purchaser...is he who first acquired the More fiery by night’s blackness; estate to his family, whether the same was hereditary transferred to him by sale, or by gift, or by Rather than purchas’d. any other method, except only that of descent...If I give land freely to another, he Now, it is evident that Mr. Robertson has is in the eye of the law a purchaser.” Or, gone “clean off the rails”; first, because he turning to Williams on Real Property (21st has adopted a wrong definition of the word edition, p. 227), he might have read: “The “purchase,” and, secondly, because he has word purchase has in law a meaning more attached a wrong meaning to the word extended than its ordinary sense: it is “legal” in a definition given by Mr. Grant possession to which a man cometh not by White. That critic wrote: “Take the word title of descent: a devisee under a will is ‘purchase,’ for instance, which in ordinary accordingly a purchaser in law.” (See use means to acquire by giving value, but Chapter IX, “On the Descent of an Estate in applies in law to all legal modes of obtaining Fee Simple.”) property except by inheritance or descent.” He would have done better if he had written But Mr. Robertson, I repeat, tells us that this “modes of obtaining property by any lawful is all a delusion, because there is no “legal” manner” (as in Wharton’s Law Lexicon) sense of the word purchase; “the so-called [See Stephen’s Comm., 8th Ed. i, 383, where ‘legal’ meaning” is just the original the author gives a quotation from Co. Litt. meaning. “Equally complete,” he writes in 18 b, instancing certain wrongful modes of the Literary Guide (January, 1916), “is the acquisition, and laying down that they are collapse of the case founded by Mr. Grant not “purchase.”] instead of “legal modes,” White on the use of the word ‘purchase,’ and if he had written “land” instead of and adopted by Mr. Greenwood.” But the “property.” Mr. Robertson is greatly case was not “founded by Mr. Grant White.” perturbed at the word “legal.” He seems to Malone, himself a lawyer, had noticed the think it begs the question. “There was no use by Shakespeare of the word “purchase” more a ‘legal’ sense of the term ‘purchase’ in the “legal” sense, and gives an example of than there was or is of the term ‘property’ or it from Henry IV, Pt. II, Act iv, Sc. v, 1. 200: ‘obtain’: the law simply discriminated, on For what in me was purchas’d legal lines, between right or wrong modes of Falls upon thee in a much fairer sort. ‘purchase.’ To pick out cases in the plays in Whereupon, says Malone, “Purchase is here which ‘purchase’ means lawful acquisition used in its strict legal sense, in is thus pure mystification.” [The Baconian contradistinction to an acquisition by Heresy, p. 99.] This appears to me to betray descent.” (See Boswell’s Malone, vol. ii, p. a total misapprehension of the point. Nobody, so far as I know, desires “to pick 108, 1821.) out cases in the plays in which ‘purchase’ Again, we have an example in Antony and means lawful acquisition.” The acquisition Cleopatra (Act i, Scene iv), where Lepidus, must, of course, have been lawful, otherwise as Lord Campbell says, “in trying to palliate it would not be recognized as “purchase”; the bad qualities and misdeeds of Antony, but the examples “picked out” are those where Shakespeare has used the term

26 The George Greenwood Collection

“purchase” in an analogous sense to that he uses the term with a special sense not to employed by the lawyer who uses it with be found in the examples paraded by Mr. reference to land acquired “in any lawful Robertson as parallels! manner other than by descent or the mere act What, then, is the point of difference? It is of law.” In consequence of his ignorance of this. When “purchase” is used in the “legal” this legal use, Mr. Robertson seems to think sense there is always the contrast between that the above quotations from Henry IV and acquisition by such means as are recognized Antony and Cleopatra can be paralleled by by the law as “purchase,” and acquisition by such a passage as this, for instance, from “inheritance.” Therefore, “purchase,” when Beaumont and Fletcher: used in the “legal” sense, must always be Yet, but consider how this wealth was used with regard to land, or, as in Henry IV, purchased, of a title which descends like land, or where he tells us, truly enough, that metaphorically, as a poet might use it, and as “purchased” means “acquired,” so that, Shakespeare does use it (in Antony and apparently, wherever “purchase” occurs in Cleopatra—e.g.), as though he were a the sense of “acquire” we have a parallel to lawyer speaking of land—”hereditary rather those two passages cited from Shakespeare. than purchas’d.” Now, potatoes do not “Mr. White,” he writes, “is merely descend as land does according to the mystifying us in his assertion that the ‘legal’ canons of inheritance, and therefore if I sense of ‘purchase’ occurs only once in speak of “purchasing” a sack of potatoes I Beaumont and Fletcher’s fifty-four dramas. do not use the term in the “legal” sense; and In its original and general sense, which is this remark applies, mutatis mutandis, to Mr. the ‘legal,’ it occurs twice in one of their Robertson’s instances from Beaumont and plays and it occurs repeatedly in others by Fletcher at p. 100 of his book, such as, to the same authors.” He then proceeds to give take an example: us numerous examples of the word in its All you shall wear or touch or see is ordinary sense of to “acquire”! purchased If Mr. Robertson is right, therefore, the By lawless force. writers of legal text-books need no longer The things alluded to here are personal trouble themselves to explain “the legal property, and there is no contrast between meaning of the word purchase,” for the legal the acquisition of them by “purchase” and meaning is just the ordinary meaning, and if the acquisition of them by descent, for they, I say that I have “purchased” a sack of like potatoes, do not descend in the manner potatoes I have used the term just as much, in which land descends. Therefore, no and just as little, in a “legal” sense as that in lawyer would say there is a “legal” use of which Shakespeare uses it in the quotations the term here, or that the examples cited are above set forth. Yet, surely, any reasonable in any way “parallels” to those above quoted being can see that when the King who has from Shakespeare. It is through ignoring this usurped the crown says to the Prince of elementary distinction that Mr. Robertson Wales, who will take it by inheritance: has gone so painfully astray. His “parallels” for what in me was purchas’d are, in fact, ridiculous. Falls upon thee in a much fairer sort, I would just note, in passing, that I do not now stop to inquire whether the use of the word “purchase” by Shakespeare in its “legal” sense is of any importance with

27 The George Greenwood Collection reference to the question of Shakespeare’s pronouncement, with the sole exception that knowledge of law. I am only concerned with Shakespeare, in All’s Well that Ends Well, Mr. Robertson’s curious contention that the alludes “incorrectly” to the law of Wardship word has no special “legal” sense, as to and Marriage. I claim to have shown, which I will only say that if he had however, that there is really no consulted any competent lawyer before “incorrectness” here on Shakespeare’s part raising it he would have been preserved (see above p. 22). Mr. Underhill, further, from grievous error. remarks on Shakespeare’s “allusions” to [Mr. Charles Allen, in his Notes on the “fines” and “recoveries,” which he says, Bacon-Shakespeare Question (1900)—a “seemed to Lord Campbell to infer profound work referred to by Sir Sidney Lee, in his knowledge of the abstruse of real property,’” last edition of A Life of Shakespeare, as but which “only seem profound and difficult supporting the contention that Shakespeare’s to lawyers of the nineteenth and twentieth knowledge of law has been “much centuries because they have become archaic exaggerated”—does not question the fact and unfamiliar.” But whence has Mr. that there is a “legal” meaning of the word Underhill, who gives no reference taken the “purchase,” and, after quoting the examples words which he has marked as a quotation? I from Shakespeare above cited, he remarks: cannot find them in Lord Campbell’s book, “Instances of a like use of this word by other though with regard to the passage in the writers are certainly infrequent.” He adds: Comedy of Errors, to which I have referred “The instance in Beaumont and Fletcher, above, he writes that the jests “show the referred to by White, was, perhaps, the author to be very familiar with some of the most abstruse proceedings in English following passage in The Laws of Candy: jurisprudence”—a very different thing from Of my peculiar honors, not derived the “profound knowledge of the abstruse law From successary, but purchased with my of real property.” Moreover, allusions blood. cannot “infer” knowledge, though one may Here we have the contrast between inherited infer knowledge from allusions! It cannot, honours and honours obtained by purchase. by the way, be suggested that “fines” and Beaumont, it may be remembered, was a “recoveries” would have seemed “profound lawyer. See p. 47.] and difficult” to Lord Campbell, because they had “become archaic and unfamiliar,” seeing that these collusive actions were part Note to Chapter 1 of our normal legal procedure for upwards of fifty years of his Lordship’s life, not having been abolished till 1833, when he Mr. Arthur Underhill, in his article on held the office of Solicitor General. For the “Law” in Shakespeare’s England (published rest, I note that Mr. Underhill apparently since the above was in print), writes that considers all the plays published in the Folio Shakespeare’s “knowledge of law was as undoubtedly “Shakespearean,” alluding to neither profound nor accurate.” Mr. The Taming of the Shrew and 2 Henry VI as Underhill is one of the conveyancing though there were no question as to their counsel to the High Court of Justice, and his authorship. This, as I have already said, opinion, especially on Conveyancing and appears to me to be a dangerous and Real Property Law, is certainly entitled to uncritical proceeding. Finally, Mr. Underhill much respect. He does not, however, give refers us to Charles Allen’s Notes on the any arguments in support of his

28 The George Greenwood Collection

Bacon-Shakespeare Question, a work which, hundred years. I am not now concerned to as I have already shown, goes woefully consider whether he is right or wrong in so wrong on the matter of Shakespeare’s law. doing. He has, at any rate, this advantage over me, that at the present day it seems to

be considered a far worse thing to be a CHAPTER II heretic in the matter of the “Stratfordian” MR. ROBERTSON AS EXPONENT OF than in the matter of the Christian Gospel. THE CLASSICS But, however this may be, I considered it very relevant in view of the fact that Mr. HAVING now examined Mr. J. M. Robertson had undertaken to instruct us Robertson’s qualifications to “expose” my concerning Shakespeare’s classical incompetence to deal with legal matters, it knowledge—or, rather, concerning may be well to consider his title to perform Shakespeare’s ignorance in that matter—to the same kindly office with regard to my set before my readers a certain passage from ignorance of the classics, since this very his recent book on the subject of the erudite critic, who has taken all knowledge historicity of Jesus. The question under for his province, has graciously vouchsafed consideration concerns the cult of Mary, the to give us the benefit of his omniscience in mother of Jesus, and the following is the connection with both these departments of passage referred to: learning. Let us turn, therefore, from Mr. Robertson, the exponent of law, to Mr. “It is not possible from the existing Robertson, the classical scholar. data to connect historically such a cult with its congeners; but the mere Now, in my book, Is There a Shakespeare analogy of names and epithets goes Problem? (p. 7), I drew attention to the fact far. The mother of Adonis, the slain that, whereas Mr. Robertson arraigns me as ‘Lord’ of the great Syrian cult, is a “heretic” with regard to the Shakespearean Myrrha; and Myrrha in one of her authorship, he is himself an arch-heretic myths is the weeping tree from with regard to a belief which has generally which the babe Adonis is born. met with acceptance throughout the civilized Again, Hermes, the Greek Logos, has world since the foundation of Christianity. for mother Maia, whose name has Since that time it has been generally further connections with Mary. In accepted as a historical fact that Jesus of one myth Maia is the daughter of Nazareth, however much the details of his Atlas, thus doubling with Maira, who life may be obscured by the mythology has the same father, and who, having which has gathered around it, really lived, ‘died a virgin,’ was seen by and preached, and was crucified. Mr. Odysseus in Hades. Mythologically, Robertson, however, takes another view. He Maira is identified with the denies the “historicity of Jesus” in toto, and Dog-Star, which is the star of Isis. has written a book in support of the thesis Yet again, the name appears in the that the belief in Jesus as a historical person East as Maya, the Virgin-Mother of is a fond thing vainly invented. Whereas, Buddha; and it is remarkable that therefore, I merely venture to cast doubts according to a Jewish legend the upon a tradition of some three hundred name of the Egyptian princess who years’ standing, Mr. Robertson impugns a found the babe Moses was Merris. tradition which has been practically The plot is still further thickened by unquestioned for more than six times three the fact that, as we learn from the

29 The George Greenwood Collection

monuments, one of the daughters of equations. I suspect he is carried away by Ramses II was named Meri. And as the parti pris which leaks out in the Meri meant ‘beloved,’ and the name following passage of his henchman and was at times given to men, besides imitator, Dr. Drews: ‘The romantic cult of being used in the phrase ‘beloved of Jesus must be combated at all costs ...... This the gods,’ the field of mythic cannot be done more effectually than by speculation is wide.” [Christianity taking its basis in the theory of the historical and Mythology, by J. M. Robertson Jesus from beneath its feet.’” [See The (Watts; 1910), p. 297.] Christ Myth, 2nd ed. p. 18. Dr. Drews styles “And we feel that it is wide indeed,” himself “Professor of Philosophy in the comments Dr. Conybeare, in his book The Techn. Hochschule, Karlsruhe.”] Historical Christ (p. 71), “when, on p. 301, Whereupon Dr. Conybeare’s comment is: the three Marias mentioned by Mark are “If ‘at all costs’ means at the cost of equated with the three Moirai or Fates!” common-sense and scholarship, I cannot I have styled the above an “amazing agree. I am not disposed, at the invitation of passage,” and see no reason to withdraw the any self-constituted high priest of epithet, though, according to Mr. Rationalism, to derive old Hebrew names Robertson’s nomenclature, it falls under the from Egyptian, Greek, and Buddhist head of “invective.” [Is there a Shakespeare appellations that happen to show an initial Problem? p. 9. Maira, I may note in passing, and one or two other letters in common.” is said by philologists, such as Merry and [Dr. Conybeare, it may be remembered, is himself a Rationalist. He roundly accuses Riddell, to be connected with the root µar Mr. Robertson of “childish, all-embracing, (cf. µarµairw, to shine, or sparkle). I and overwhelming credulity,” as well as of hardly see the relevancy of the remark that lack of scholarship, and says that his she “died a virgin.” Maia, as we all know, “temper is that of the was loved by Zeus, and bore him a son.] For Bacon-Shakespeareans,” in which remark I myself, I believe that this identification of find no little entertainment.] Mary (or, rather, Miriam, which is the original form of the name) with Myrrha, And, further: “What, again, have the three Maia, Maira, Maya, Merris, and Meri, is Maries in common with the Greek Moirai sheer rubbish; and, in any case, I will leave except the number three, and a delusive it to any competent scholar to say what he community of sound?” [The Historical thinks of the equation of “the three Marias” Christ, p. 179, where Dr. Conybeare's with “the three Moirai”! criticism is well worthy of perusal. Another passage quoted by him from Mr. Robertson's As Dr. Conybeare further writes: “It does work is the following:—”On the hypothesis not do to argue from superficial that the mythical Joshua, son of Miriam, was resemblances of sound that Maria is the an early Hebrew deity, it may be that one same name as the Greek Moira, or that the form of the Tammuz cult in pre-Christian name Maia has ‘connections with Mary,’ or, times was a worship of a mother and child— again, that ‘the name (Maria) appears in the Mary and Adonis; that, in short, East as Maya.’ The least acquaintance with Maria=Myrrha, and that Jesus was a name Hebrew would have satisfied Mr. Robertson of Adonis”!] that the original form of the name he thus conjures with is not Maria, but Miriam, Now, why do I quote these passages from which does not lend itself to his hardy Mr. Robertson’s book on the question not of

30 The George Greenwood Collection the historicity of Shakespeare (which, by the “Shakespeare, says Mr. Robertson, way, nobody denies), but of the historicity was a man of little culture and of no of Jesus? I do so in order to give the reader learning (p. 166)……in his an opportunity of forming his own opinion Montaigne and Shakespeare he both as to Mr. Robertson’s scholarship and describes Shakespeare as ‘not much as to Mr. Robertson’s judgment, and, cultured, not profound, not deeply therefore, as to his qualifications to guide us passionate’ (p. 157).” [Literary in the matter of Shakespeare’s (or anybody Guide, January, 1916, p. 9.] else’s) knowledge of the classics, and of Then, says Mr. Robertson in virtuous classical mythology. For that purpose I think indignation, if the reader will turn to his they are extremely relevant. book, p. 147, “he will see that the passage I understand, however, that Mr. Robertson’s cited is a presentment of Shakespeare in the rejoinder here is that Dr. Conybeare, some first stage of his career,” and he proceeds to time subsequently to the publication of his quote his own words, showing what book on The Historical Christ (1914), was conditions he postulated, “in order that such guilty of publishing in the United States an a man as this [my italics] should develop extremely unwise letter (to say the least of into the Shakespeare of the great tragedies it) concerning the British position with and tragic comedies.” regard to the war with Germany, and Quite so; but “if the reader will turn” to my afterwards found himself constrained to book, at the page referred to, “he will see” make an ignominious recantation. But how that, after quoting Mr. Robertson’s this can be construed as a reflection on Dr. description of Shakespeare, as above cited Conybeare’s scholarship I am at a loss to (at p. 157), together with his further words, conceive, and still less can I conceive how “a personality which of itself, if under no the incident is in any way relevant to the pressure of pecuniary need, would not be question of Mr. Robertson’s own likely to give the world any serious sign of scholarship, or the lack of it, to be gathered mental capacity”(!), I continue: “Such, it from his own words, as quoted by Dr. seems, is Mr. Robertson’s conception of the Conybeare. man before he had developed ‘into the With this preface, I turn to Mr. Robertson’s Shakespeare of the great tragedies and book on The Baconian Heresy, and to his tragic comedies.’” So that, so far from articles in the Literary Guide, for further “perverting” Mr. Robertson’s proposition, illumination on this matter. by citing a part of it only, I actually supply I will commence with a typical example of the very words necessary to show that the his controversial methods. He charges me first part of the quotation is “a presentment with using “a part of a proposition” of his of Shakespeare in the first stage of his (in his Montaigne and Shakespeare) “in career”! such a way as to pervert absolutely the It now appears, therefore, that it is Mr. nature of the whole”; and, to demonstrate Robertson himself who is once more this, he quotes my book to the following indulging in his inveterate habit, of which I effect, jumbling together, more suo, some have given several examples in my book of words on p. 157, with other words, taken quoting “a part” only of a passage in a work without their context, from a later page. This which he essays to criticize, “in such a way is the supposed quotation, but the italics are as to pervert absolutely the nature of the Mr. Robertson’s own: whole.” Yet he actually allows himself to

31 The George Greenwood Collection say that, in the “mood of exasperation” as to what is “culture,” and what is a which he attributes to me (is not this just a “vestige”! little silly, or is it but the reflection of his Meantime, I note that, in Mr. Robertson’s own feelings?), I have “falsified the whole opinion, Shakespeare was able to produce issue”! the Venus and the Lucrece “with only the I wrote of Mr. Robertson that “he denies intellectual material of a rakish Stratford him [Shakespeare] any vestige of ‘classic lad’s schooling and reading and the culture culture.’” This, says Mr. Robertson, “is quite coming of a few years’ association with the untrue.” Let us see. In his Montaigne and primitive English stage and its Shakespeare (p. 340) Mr. Robertson writes: hangers-on”—not exactly “classic culture,” I “The sonnets not only give no sign of classic apprehend! [Montaigne and Shakespeare, p. culture, but distinctly avow the lack of it.” 148.] But, more than that, Mr. Robertson has I will now examine some of Mr. Robertson’s definitely and whole-heartedly subscribed to supposed proofs of Shakespeare’s lack of Farmer’s verdict as to Shakespeare’s entire classical knowledge, and I will leave it to lack of “classic culture.” It is quite true that, the reader to say whether they amount to when Farmer says Shakespeare only evidence of ignorance on the part of “remembered perhaps enough of his Shakespeare, or on the part of his critic. Let schoolboy learning to put hig, hag, hog into me premise, however, that here, as with the the mouth of Sir Hugh Evans,” Mr. question of Shakespeare’s alleged Robertson expresses his opinion that this is knowledge of law, I make no attempt to “certainly much overstrained if meant to be prove the poet’s knowledge of the classics. I taken otherwise than humorously,” and he am now merely considering Mr. Robertson’s now says I “try desperately to pin” him to qualifications to instruct us upon that point. what he “had repudiated as humorous extravagance.” But this is “quite untrue.” I In Love’s Labour’s Lost (I, 1, 13), quoted this passage, with his suggestion as Shakespeare writes: to the supposed “humour” in Farmer’s hig, Our Court shall be a little Academe. hag, hog remark, at length, though I further suggested that a reference to the original And (of “women’s eyes”): would show that Farmer was writing in all They are the ground, the books, the seriousness. But Farmer also wrote that “his Academes, [Shakespeare’s] studies were most From whence doth spring the true demonstratively confined to nature and his Promethean fire. own language,” and this, says Mr. (IV, 3, 303.) Robertson, “is justified by the whole context of the essay” (ibid., p. 308). Moreover, Farmer set forth what he called “an Upon this Mr. Robertson writes: “Be it irrefragable argument that Shakespeare did observed that the scansion of the word in not understand two, very common words in Love’s Labour’s Lost is precisely what a the French and Latin languages”—viz., the good classical scholar would not do with it.” French word “cher” and the Latin word [Baconian Heresy, p. 278.] “praeclarissimus.” What rag of “classic Here, therefore, Mr. Robertson undertakes to culture” is left to Shakespeare by Farmer, tell us what “a good classical scholar” and his convinced disciple Mr. Robertson, in would, or would not, do in the matter of the view of all this? But perhaps we only differ “scansion of the word” Academe. It is a pity

32 The George Greenwood Collection he had not consulted a moderately good classical scholarship! My so-called classical scholar before making this absurd “laboured argument” was an exceedingly pronouncement. There is no possible reason brief statement, as it well might be, seeing why “a good classical scholar” should not the extreme simplicity of the matter under have written “Academe” to scan as in consideration, [See Is There a Shakespeare Shakespeare’s lines. As Mr. Hunter wrote Problem? p. 115.] and I said nothing (and his words are quoted with approval by whatever about the pronunciation of the Dr. Furness), Academe “is no affected word, word “Academe” when used by nor is it thus written for the sake of metre. It “prose-writers before Shakespeare,” nor am was the usual form of academy. When I in the least concerned to inquire! [I do not Bolton had devised the scheme for the know, however, what evidence there is that association of men eminent in literature and the “prose-writers” did not pronounce the art, he called it the Academe Royal.” The words as the poets pronounced it. In Greek original is ’ΑΚαδημια, or, more Peacham's Emblems (1642) we have: correctly, ’ΑΚαδημεια, whence Academe Thy solitary Academe should be (trisyllabic, as in Shakespeare) is quite Some shady grove upon the Thames' fair properly derived. Mr. Robertson gives side. references to The Book of Good Manners, 1487, and Sandys’ Travels, 1610, p. 275. He Judge Willis quotes “Achademe” from the has taken these from Judge Willis’s Book of Good Manners, 1487.] Baconian Mint (p. 10), and it is a pity he did Then again, says Mr. Robertson, still trailing not also copy the line from Sandys quoted the unsavoury fish, “in alleging (on by the learned judge, ‘authority’) that ‘Academe’ was the usual Thy villa, nam’d an Academe, doth bost, spelling he is once more mistaken.” I made no such allegation, but I did quote Mr. where, the “scansion” is the same as in Hunter, approved by Dr. Furness, to the Shakespeare. effect that “Academe was the usual form of Mr. Robertson has the temerity to return to academy.” I imagine that statement rests this matter in the Literary Guide (February, upon some good evidence, but even if it 1916), where he writes (p. 27): “From a does not the question with regard to laborious argument of his [mine, to wit], Shakespeare’s scholarship, and Mr. which seems to have set up further Robertson’s want of it, remains entirely hallucinations among his reviewers, I can unaffected. draw no inference save that he believes that But Mr. Robertson has yet something more when prose-writers before Shakespeare used to tell the readers of the Literary Guide with the spelling ‘Academe’ they pronounced the regard to this matter: word ‘Acadeem.’” This is a characteristic example of the gentle art of drawing a red “When he [myself, to wit] informs us herring across the track. The question is, that the ‘classical’ form would have whether we are to infer that the author of been ‘Academy,’ he is putting as his Love’s Labour’s Lost could not have been “a what was my position.” good classical scholar” because he uses the This is really charming. After quoting the word “Academe” as he does use it, or lines from Love’s Labour’s Lost, in whether Mr. Robertson’s pronouncement to connection with Mr. Robertson’s portentous that effect does not rather suggest that the pronouncement, I wrote: “What, pray, is critic himself knows nothing at all about wrong here? The Greek original for

33 The George Greenwood Collection

Academy (which, were it not for custom, ‘a Wherein of antres vast and deserts idle, good classical scholar’ would, I suppose, Rough quarries, rocks and hills whose scan as Academy!) is ’αΚαδημια, or, more heads touch heaven correctly, ’αΚαδημεια.” Mr. Robertson has It was my hint to speak. turned a blind eye to the “note of Mr. Robertson’s comment on the word admiration” in the parenthesis. What is the “antres “is edifying. It runs as follows: “? suggestion here? Obviously that it would be An old French word, from antrum. So all the quite as reasonable to say that a man cannot commentators. But it might have come be “a good classical scholar” because he through the Italian antro. It could not writes (and pronounces) “Acadĕmy,” as to conceivably be a new word, thus introduced make that statement because be writes in a play; even scholars would be at a loss to “Acadēme”! Both statements would, of associate it, on the sudden, with antrum. course, be ridiculous. The Latins said [The Baconian Heresy, P. 281. My italics.] “orātor,” but we do not style a man a bad scholar because, speaking in English, he Now, I venture to say that not only says “orător! “scholars,” but anyone who was tolerably well-read in Latin—any intelligent But, says Mr. Robertson, that the “classical schoolboy after a few terms of classical “form should have been “Acadēmy” is “my education—would, at once, associate the position”! Well, what follows from that? word “antres” with antrum. But let us hear How on earth does it bear out the statement Mr. Robertson further: “Its meaning is not that the word “Acadēme” shows bad absolutely certain, though all the scholarship? The inference, obviously, is commentators connect it with Fr. antre, a just the other way. Here is yet another cave...... It is just possible that the derivation “exposure”! [So little, in fact is the word is through Chaucer’s entrée. In Boece (ii. pr. “Academe,” scanned as in Shakespeare, 2) he renders in Jovis limine by ‘in the obnoxious to Mr. Robertson’s absurd entree, or in the celere (v.r. seler) of criticism, that it has been readily adopted by Jupiter.’ Elsewhere he translates both scholars of the present day. Thus Mr. adytum and aditum by ‘entree’ (ii, Pr. I; i, Andrew Lang has given it the sanction of his pr. 6), perhaps knowing that adytum scholarly usage (see Shakespeare, Bacon, primarily meant a cave and confusing the and the Great Unknown, pp. 124 and 130); two words.” [The italics here are Mr. and Mr. Thomas Seccombe, in his Robertson’s.] Introduction to the “Everyman” Lavengro, tells us that “Norwich had become at the All this sounds portentously learned; but it commencement of the last century a little can hardly be regarded as a revelation of Academe.” Tennyson has: wisdom. Chaucer, in his translation of Boethius (Bk. II, Pr. I, 1. 22, Skeat’s ed., The softer Adams of your Academe. 1894), renders “de nostro adyto” by the The “scansion” is the same as in words “out of my entree” (not “entrée,” as Shakespeare!] Mr. Robertson writes), showing that he Mr. Robertson should really leave the confounded “adyto” with “aditu”; for question of Shakespeare’s classical “adyto,” as Dr. Skeat remarks, means scholarship to those who are competent to “sanctuary.” [As the New Engl. Dict. says, he confuses adytum with aditus, whence “a deal with it. sense ‘innermost part,’ ‘sanctuary,’ has been Shakespeare wrote in Othello (1, 3, 140): erroneously inferred.”] He also renders, as

34 The George Greenwood Collection

Mr. Robertson tells us, “in Jovis limine” by as I need scarcely say, does Mr. Robertson “in the entree, or in the celere of Jupiter” Smith in any way bear out that original (Bk. II, Pr. II), where the word “celere” (i.e., statement. That “competent scholar” writes: cellar) was, possibly, suggested to him by “The adytum, or dark inner chamber, found the Greek ’εν Διος (=“On the floor of Zeus’ in many temples was almost certainly in its abode”). [Or did Chaucer, haply, also origin a cave.” That is a very different thing confuse ονοας with ονοος, a threshold, Latin from saying that the primary meaning of limen?] But the idea that Shakespeare’s “adytum” was a cave. It was not, seeing that “antre,” a cave (obviously from Latin adytum = αδυτον which merely means the antrum, Greek αντρον), is derived from place “not to be entered,” whether a cave or Chaucer’s “entree” (or “entry”) will, I think, some other form of “dark inner chamber.” hardly commend itself to the instructed Mr. Robertson alludes to Mr. Lang’s reader. [“Entry” is from Latin intrare, or late mistake with regard to the use by Latin intrata.] Shakespeare, in the Winter’s Tale, of the Chaucer, says Mr. Robertson, perhaps knew word “Delphos “(which Mr. Lang called “a “that adyum primarily meant a cave.” This is nonexistent word”) [Shakespeare, Bacon, a remarkable statement, and I have ventured and the Great Unknown, P. 44. See Is there to suggest that he should tell us whence he a Shakespeare Problem? p. 162.] as an derived that information. [See Is there a example of how a good classical scholar Shakespeare Problem? p. 117.] He now may make blunders in scholarship as well as vouchsafes to do so. “I will meet his desire,” those less well endowed with classical he writes (Literary Guide, February, 1916, knowledge. But Mr. Lang’s blunder is no p. 27), “to know whence I derived the reflection on his classical scholarship. On information that the adytum of an ancient the contrary, it was just because he was a temple was primarily a cave. He will find it good classical scholar that he took exception in the Religion of the Semites of Robertson to the form “Delphos,” in ignorance or Smith (ed. 1889, p. 183), whom I suppose he forgetfulness of the old usage in English will admit to have been a competent literature. scholar.” Mr. Robertson then goes on to say (Literary So Mr. Robertson, who is so contemptuous Guide, February, 1916, p. 27) with reference of “authority”—who so frequently indulges to this old usage of the word “Delphos”: “As in sneers at my references to “authority”!— Mr. Greenwood has discovered with the whose own authority is usually Mr. help of friends (I gave him the case of Robertson—here, for once, condescends to Florio), it was the normal usage in and appeal to the “authority “of “a competent before Shakespeare’s day and long after.” scholar”! That is good, and we may (My italics.) congratulate him upon it. Now, it is quite true that that finished But let us look a little further. Mr. Robertson scholar, Mr. Austin Smyth, the Librarian of had written, as above quoted, that “adytum the House of Commons (whom, by the way, primarily meant a cave”—i.e., that that was Mr. Robertson should consult as to the primary meaning of the word. He now “Academe”), first called my attention to Mr. prudently changes that assertion into the Lang’s error with regard to this word, and to statement that “the adytum of an ancient the fact that Boyle had actually charged temple was primarily a cave.” But this is not Bentley with pedantry because he used the the statement upon which I commented, nor, form “Delphi,” and, further, that the

35 The George Greenwood Collection scholarly Milton has made use of the word copiously in the plays of Shakespeare” and “Delphos” in his Ode to the Nativity [“With as to which be says: “I have considerable hollow shriek the steep of Delphos leaving.” doubt whether any of these expressions But “Delphos” here may stand for the would be found in any of the contemporary eponymous hero of Delphi.] but Mr. prose of Elizabeth’s reign; but could Robertson’s assertion that he “gave” me “the authority be produced for Latinisms so case of Florio” is “sheer hallucination”—to forced, it is still not likely that one who did employ one of his favourite terms. I happen not understand their proper meaning would to possess a copy of Florio’s translation of have introduced them into poetry.” Montaigne’s Essays, and my own reading Mr. Robertson omits from my citation from therein was quite sufficient (pace Mr. Hallam the words I have put in italics, and Robertson, who genially intimates that I upon which I laid some little stress, [See Is have never done any reading of the kind) to there a Shakespeare Problem? p. 153, and supply me with several instances of his use Mr. Robertson’s article in the Literary of the word “Delphos”; [See (e.g.) the essay Guide for February, 1916, p. 27.] but “Of Custome,” Bk. I, ch. xxii, and the essay endeavours to fasten upon me the “Of Praiers and Orisons,” Bk. rI ch. lvi.] so responsibility for the words immediately that I really cannot acknowledge any preceding, which he says I have “adopted” indebtedness to Mr. Robertson’s superior as my own. This he does by a knowledge and kind condescension in this misinterpretation of some words of mine in matter. My own reading also, strange to say, a footnote. Mr. Robertson had written that introduced me to the use of the word by “Hallam’s qualified obiter dictum has been Puttenham, in his Arte of English Poetry, adopted without scrutiny” by me. I replied and by Lyly in his Midas (if, indeed, that (Is there a Shakespeare Problem? p. 153, work is by Lyly), and, further, by Sir R. note 1) that “Hallam’s observations are not L’Estrange in his Life of AEsop (1669). [See an obiter dictum, but represent his Is there a Shakespeare Problem? P. 163, considered judgment,” which I imagine is and reference to Sir R. L’Estrange on the true. I went on to say that these “Addenda” page. I must frankly admit that “observations” were not adopted ‘without the references to Puttenham and Lyly I scrutiny’ by me,” as Mr. Robertson had obtained through Walter Begley’s Bacon’s alleged, the fact being that they had not been Nova Resuscitatio, vol. i, p. 37. Mr. Begley “adopted” by me at all, except to the limited was under the impression that these authors extent indicated in the work above referred had made a “classical blunder” by using the to (see pp. 151-154), and that I had never word “Delphos.”] subscribed to Hallam’s “doubt whether any Mr. Robertson again assails me on account of these expressions would be found in any of my reference to Hallam. Hallam, be tells of the contemporary prose of Elizabeth’s us, made “an ignorant pronouncement,” reign.” Which I have “unteachably adhered to” That this is so will be at once apparent to (Literary Guide, February, 1916, P. 27). any reader who Will take the trouble to refer This “ignorant pronouncement” is to be to my book. [See Is there a Shakespeare found in the Literature of Europe (1839), Problem? pp. 151-154.] There he will find vol. ii, p. 389 (Part II, ch. iv, sec. 41), where that the only instance that I deal with of the Hallam comments on certain “phrases words cited by Hallam is that of the word unintelligible and improper, except in the “continent,” used in the meaning of “that case of their primitive roots, which occur so which contains,” whereupon I write as

36 The George Greenwood Collection follows: “On this I pointed out, [Viz., in The The carcase with the stream was carried Shakespeare Problem Restated.] inter alia, down, that it had been denied by Mr. Willis, in his But the head fell backward on the Baconian Mint, that this use of the word continent. continent indicates any classical learning, But inasmuch as I have never disputed, and because the word was, as he showed by indeed was perfectly familiar with, this use reference to North’s Plutarch and other of the word, the only point of the quotation writers, used, in Shakespeare’s time, for would seem to be to give another example of ‘that which contained,’ as opposed to the what was already admitted. [I do not think, contents. Thus North writes: ‘The continent however, that Mr. Robertson’s example is exceedeth the thing contained.’ While freely well chosen, for, if we may trust the Oxford admitting this, however, I pointed out that it Dictionary, “continent” here does not mean did not altogether dispose of the value of the containing bank, but “the land as Shakespeare’s allusion to rivers ‘that have opposed to water; terra firma.” See other overborne their continents’ as suggestive of instances there cited.] classical knowledge, because the point is that Shakespeare uses ‘continents of rivers’ Yet, in spite of all this, which makes his in the sense ‘banks of rivers,’ which is misinterpretation of the words of my exactly Horace’s continente ripa, although footnote so exceedingly obvious, Mr. Horace is speaking of sea-banks and not Robertson charges me with ignorance of the river banks.” [We should say “shore” when fact, which has been pointed out again and speaking of the sea, but Shakespeare writes again by Shakespearean critics in recent of “the wild sea-banks” (Merchant of V. 5, times, that the words referred to by Hallam 1).] are to “be found” in both contemporary prose and contemporary verse “of How after this it can be suggested that I had Elizabeth’s reign,” and goes on, greatly to subscribed to Hallam’s doubt whether the his own satisfaction, to inform his readers word “continent,” so used, “would be found that “it is the lack of this kind of necessary in any of the contemporary prose of elementary knowledge that makes Mr. Elizabeth’s reign “I am at a loss to conceive. Greenwood’s book in these matters I did, however, venture to express the worthless.” opinion that Hallam was right in recognizing “the continente ripá of Horace” in Mr. Robertson is fond of dismissing my Shakespeare’s expression, because “the reasoning as “forensic.” His own arguments continents of rivers” means the containing are, certainly, not very appropriate for a banks of rivers, and continens ripa, also Court of Justice! means the containing bank. In each case it is But now, since I trust I am always ready to the bank which is the continent, so that the acknowledge making a mistake, when it is a one expression is the exact equivalent of the real and not merely an imputed one, I freely other, and to my mind forcibly suggests that admit that I went wrong when, in my book the poet was familiar with the Latin original. of eight years ago, I incautiously quoted Mr. Robertson quotes, as an illustration of without comment Mr. W. Theobald’s this use of the word “continent,” the statement to the effect that “the coinage of following lines from Spenser’s Fairie the new word deracinate (to tear up by the Queen:— roots) is evidence of his (Shakespeare’s) thorough familiarity with the Latin tongue”; for, although the word “deracinate” certainly

37 The George Greenwood Collection comes from a Latin root, it was taken into author printed as Italian the phrase, ‘E purs the English language through the medium of e mouve.’” To this I replied (Literary Guide, the French. I freely make Mr. Robertson a April, 1916): “I know of no such book. In present of this admission, and, having done The Shakespeare Problem Restated, at p. so, I will set beside it a little mistake of his 222, occur the words, ‘E pur se muove’ own. (‘mouve’ is a characteristic invention of Mr. After discussing the above quotation from Robertson’s). They were incautiously taken Hallam in his Baconian Heresy, he goes on by me from Dr. Thomas’s Dictionary of to say (P. 255): “As all English scholars are Biography, which I happen to possess, and aware, all words of Latin or French where they are so given. And ‘se’ is an derivation bore in the sixteenth century a error! Yes, and I passed over these words in closer relation to their source than they do the proof! And what is the inference from now.” He then proceeds to give some that? Why, that I know very little about illustrations of this, among which I find the Italian. And that is true. Similarly, when I following (p. 256): “‘Confer’ (the ‘cf.’ of find that Mr. Robertson has passed over our footnote references) meant for them ‘κητοι,’ repeated four times on five [writers in Shakespeare’s day], as in Latin, successive pages, as Greek for ‘gardens,, I ‘compare.’” This is certainly not a fact of draw the inference that he knows very little which “all English scholars are aware.” It is about Greek.” [The Baconian Heresy, pp. just an error which is hardly indicative of 184, 185, 186, 188.] scholarship. When Ben Jonson said that he wrote his verses prefixed to Joshua Now let me say, first, with regard to the Sylvester’s translation of Du Bartas “before word “mouve,” which I characterized as an he understood to confer,” he did not mean to “invention” of Mr. Robertson’s, that there “compare” but to converse in French so as to was, of course, no suggestion here that he understand it. In the same way he wrote:— had wilfully ascribed to me an error— How can I speak of thy great pains but whether a misprint or otherwise—which I err? had not, in fact, made. The most malignant Since they can only judge who can critic would not be so foolish as to charge an confer. author with a blunder which a mere —i.e., Jonson, not being able to converse in reference to the work under consideration the French language, felt himself not would show that he bad not, in fact, made; competent to pronounce upon the merits of and, secondly, let me say that I, naturally, the translation. From “confer” in this sense was under the impression that the “book” to we get the word “conference.” But “the cf. which Mr. Robertson referred was The of our footnote references” does not stand Shakespeare Problem Restated, where the for the English word “confer,” but for the words occur as I have quoted them above. My belief, therefore, was that Mr. Robertson imperative of the Latin verb conferre! had substituted “mouve” for “muove,” I come now to a very painful case, where I either by a slip of memory or a misreading have to admit that I walked unsuspectingly of the passage to which I alluded, unless the into a trap which Mr. Robertson had word thus written was a mere lapsus calami ingeniously set for me. In a footnote to his on his part. second article in the Literary Guide (February, 1916, p. 27) he wrote: “Mr. Alas! I had no suspicion of the trap which bad been set for me. More than fourteen Greenwood and I know a book in which the

38 The George Greenwood Collection years ago I published a book called The parity of reasoning to Mr. Robertson’s Faith of an Agnostic, under the penname of fourfold, and more flagrant, error. The “George Forester.” That book has long been engineer, it seems, is hoist with his own out of print, and I did not know that Mr. petar. Robertson was aware that I was the author But there is still more cogent evidence than of it, or, indeed, that he had ever read it. He this. says, as I now understand, that I informed him some years ago that I had written it. If When Mr. Robertson launched his brutum so, I am not concerned to deny the fulmen at my head, in the shape of his statement, but all recollection of the incident ridiculous threat to “expose” me, I replied has entirely faded from my memory. I was that happily I was not called upon to equally oblivious of the fact that the words perform that office in his case, for the ascribed to Galileo were quoted, or simple reason that he is always misquoted, by me in that book. But I now unconsciously and ingenuously performing find, in a footnote at p. 76 thereof, the it for himself, proprio motu. I have already terrible error which Mr. Robertson bad given some instructive instances of this discovered, and apparently treasured in his self-revealing process; but I now come to mind for future reference: “E pur se one so illuminating that it may stand as the mouve.” The words had previously appeared definitive example. in the text, at p. 55, as “E pur se muove,” so In The Shakespeare Problem Restated (p. that I think nobody will be found to suggest 370 note) I wrote of Shakespeare’s Sonnets: that “mouve” in the footnote is anything but “I venture to think it highly probable that the a mere misprint which had been overlooked. author of them was not unacquainted with When, therefore, I wrote, “I know of no Plato’s Phaedrus. Haply he had the soul of such book,” I said what was strictly true. At one not only ϕιλοσοϕησαντος αδολως, but that time I had no idea of the existence of also παιδεραστησαντος μετα ϕιλοσοϕιας. But any book where the words so appeared. such things are not easily understood in days when Such is a plain statement of this case, and my argument is not in the least affected by Folds of summer-light enclose the fact that I was oblivious of the error All that once was Anteros. which had been passed over in the footnote (See ante, p. 82, and see Plat. Phaedrus, to a book published by me nearly fifteen 249A and 255D.)” years ago. In Dr. J. Thomas’s Dictionary of Biography (J. S. Virtue and Co.), in the life Now, what is Mr. Robertson’s portentous of Galileo (vol. i, pt. ii, p. 986) it is said that comment on this? I must really give it in the great man “whispered to a friend: ‘E pur full: se muove.’” I quoted those words as I found “In the present volume [I.e., Is there them, which shows, as I have said, that I a Shakespeare Problem?] he know very little about Italian, and similarly I [myself, to wit] has attempted to am very confident that when Mr. Robertson retort on his opponents the charge of passes κητοι four times over on five lowering the character of the man successive pages as Greek for “gardens,” it whom they accept as the playwright. may fairly and truly be said of him that he It may suffice in reply to call knows very little about Greek. I frankly attention to the pleasing suggestion admit my mistake and the inference which he made in his first book (p. 370) as fairly arises from it, and I do but apply a

39 The George Greenwood Collection

to the character of the unnamed but in Plato or his imitators, though the moral personage whom he imagines conception was familiar to the poets. [See to have been the necessary type. It Phaedrus, 255D. and Dr. Thompson’s note.] would be interesting to have his It occurs in the Phaedrus in the course of a explanation.” [Lit. Guide, Feb. 1916, long speech of the Platonic Socrates p. 27.] concerning the soul and its immortality, and Here, as I wrote in the Literary Guide the word called up in my mind a very (April, 1916): “Mr. Robertson, to use a beautiful poem by William Cory (better vulgar expression, ‘gives away the whole known to old Etonians as William Johnson), show,’ in a manner which has afforded me of which I will here quote two stanzas: no little entertainment.” He thinks that by Naiad, hid beneath the bank applying to the author of the sonnets the By the willowy river-side words quoted from Plato I was making a vile Where Narcissus gently sank, suggestion as to his moral character, and he Where unmarried Echo died, menacingly calls for my explanation! Unto thy serene repose Now, if he had known anything about Waft the stricken Anteros. classical literature, anything about Plato—if Glide we by, with prow and oar; he had only turned to a translation of the Ripple shadows off the wave, Phaedrus, at the passages to which I made And, reflected on the shore, special reference—he would have been Haply play about the grave. aware that the Greek expression which I Folds of summer-light enclose cited, so far from conveying any immoral All that once was Anteros. suggestion, denotes, in the Platonic system, [See “A Dirge” published in Ionica one of the highest forms of psychic (George Allen; 1891).] existence. [“Only the soul of a philosopher, But what are the things that are so difficult guileless and true, or the soul of a lover who to understand in days when Anteros, as the is not without philosophy, may acquire Greeks understood him, has passed away? wings in the third recurring period of a Well, I can only refer again to such works as thousand years.” Jowett’s translation of the Grote’s Plato, and would respectfully words quoted by me from Phaedrus, 249A. commend to the reader’s attention vol. ii, ch. See that dialogue as edited by the late Dr. 24. I will quote only a few words, which are, W. H. Thompson (1868), Appendix I, p. however, quite inadequate to explain the 160, and Grote’s Plato, vol. ii, p. 209.] subject as it presented itself to the Greek in But I understand Mr. Robertson has seen the days of old. “Personal beauty (this is the something dark and sinister in my reference remarkable doctrine of Plato in the to “Anteros,” and my remark that “such Phaedrus) is the main point of visible things are not easily understood at the resemblance between the world of sense and present day.” Aye, what is the meaning of the world of Ideas: the Idea of Beauty has a that? I do not think there will be many who brilliant representative of itself among the will, like him, “give themselves away” by concrete objects—the Ideas of Justice and putting such a ridiculous question; but in Temperance have none. The contemplation case there may be any such I will relieve of a beautiful youth, and the vehement their anxiety by a very simple explanation. emotion accompanying it, was the only way The word Anteros, in the sense of “love of reviving in the soul the Idea of Beauty which it had seen in its antecedent stage of returned” or “return-love,” occurs nowhere

40 The George Greenwood Collection existence.” Thus the love of a beautiful is not—there is one Sonnet which is quite youth, almost amounting to worship, might conclusive of the matter, and he who be entertained by the best of men, and cast professes to find any such suggestion in no reflection whatsoever upon the purity of what I have written on the Sonnets in The his moral character. [I would refer further to Shakespeare Problem Restated simply the following passage in Grote’s Plato (vol. proclaims his own ignorance, and, ii, p. 219, 2nd ed.): “It is by the aspect of possibly, also that he is possessed by that visible beauty, as embodied in distinguished unhappy spirit which is prone to see evil youth, that the faculty of reminiscence is where no evil exists. Honi soit qui mal y first kindled in minds capable of the effort. pense. It is only the embodiment of beauty, acting as it does powerfully upon the most So much, then, for Mr. Robertson’s intellectual of our senses, which has qualifications to lecture us on Shakespeare’s sufficient force to kindle up the first act or classical knowledge, or the want of it. stage of reminiscence in the mind, leading Just one word more in this connection. Mr. ultimately to the revival of the Idea of Robertson is pleased to write that I have Beauty. The embodiments of justice, altogether surrendered the case for wisdom, temperance, etc., in particular men Shakespeare’s classical knowledge. This is do not strike forcibly on the senses, nor the charming way in which he puts it, as approximate sufficiently to the original Idea, usual entirely to his own satisfaction and to to effect the first stroke of reminiscence in the satisfaction of those who are content to an unprepared mind. It is only the visible accept his authority without examining the manifestation of beauty which strikes with work of which he professes to give a sufficient shock at once on the senses and veracious account: the intellect, to recall in the mind an “No less complete in effect, and no adumbration of the primitive Idea of less garbled in form, is his surrender Beauty.” The whole passage should be of the old ‘classical’ case, under a consulted.] blank-cartridge fire of pretended But this, I say, is difficult for us to support” (Literary Guide, January, understand at the present day; and 1916, p. 10). equally difficult, as it seems to me, is it to Let us see how this proposition is understand the passionate and adoring established-to the satisfaction of Mr. terms which we find in Shakespeare’s Robertson and his claque. Sonnets-though these are almost works of to-day in comparison with the Ph6edrus “In his first book,” writes Mr. Robertson, of Plato-addressed by the author to a “Mr. Greenwood expressly assented to the “lovely boy.” It is as though “Anteros” had extravagant claim of Professor Collins”— come to life again, for the writer was viz., with regard to Shakespeare’s classical evidently one ειδωλον ερωτος αντερωτα knowledge. εχων. [Phaedrus, 255 D.] But to suggest This is quite untrue, and the very words that there is here one lot or tittle of which Mr. Robertson quotes from The evidence upon which to base an Shakespeare Problem Restated show it to be abominable charge against “Shakespeare” so. Professor Collins wrote that is to make a suggestion as preposterous “Shakespeare could almost certainly read as it is disgraceful. Indeed, if any evidence Latin with as much facility as a cultivated to the contrary were necessary—which it Englishman of our time reads French,” that

41 The George Greenwood Collection he must have been able to read Latin authors obtained by reading in the original or by “ad sensum with facility and pleasure,” and, means of translations.” further, that “through the Latin language he Now see Mr. Robertson’s triumphant had access to the Greek classics, and that of comment on this: “Thus the whole debate the Greek classics in the Latin versions [my dissolves into forensic farce.” (He had italics] he had, in all probability, a already written with regard to the case for remarkably extensive knowledge.” Shakespeare’s legal knowledge: “Our time Now, in The Shakespeare Problem Restated has been wasted by a forensic (p. 87), after remarking that the classical mystification.” Evidently he thinks that it is knowledge thus postulated for Shakespeare quite sufficient to overthrow an argument to by Professor Collins was very large indeed, I speak of it as “forensic.”) “On this expressed my opinion that he had made out proposition it could never have arisen. The his case, “at any rate to this extent—viz., use of translations—so obvious in the case of that the author of the Plays and Poems must the Plutarch plays—is precisely what was have bad a large knowledge of the Latin suggested against the ‘scholar’ theory; and language and an extensive acquaintance now, furtively adopting that counter thesis, with Latin authors.” So that, instead of Mr. Greenwood professes to be supporting “expressly assenting to the extravagant his original case!” claim of Professor Collins,” I had, on the “Cairns,” said Sir Richard Bethell, on a contrary, “expressly” limited my acceptance certain occasion in one of the Courts of of it! Chancery— “Cairns, don’t you find it rather Then, says Mr. Robertson, after accepting irksome [laying much stress on the word] to the “extravagant claim,” I have now entirely argue with these men?” Well, it is certainly thrown it over. not a little “irksome” to have to meet such “And where does he stand now? He has ‘no arguments as these. Mr. Robertson intention of attempting to prove’ that claim.” apparently supposes that “the classics” Then follows a quotation from Is there a means the Latin classics only. He ignores Shakespeare Problem?, which I will slightly the fact that Professor Collins, in the passage which I had quoted from him, speaks of amplify. Shakespeare’s “extensive knowledge of the After restating Professor Collins’s postulates Greek classics,” which he supposes had regarding Shakespeare’s classical been obtained by means of “the Latin knowledge, I wrote (p. 113): “This is a very versions,” if not from the originals. Now, I large claim. Those who desire to see how certainly suppose also, and have always ably the late Professor Collins endeavoured supposed, that Shakespeare must have to make it good may read his Studies in derived his knowledge of “the Greek Shakespeare (1904). I certainly have no classics” by means of translations. As to intention of attempting to prove its validity. “the Latin classics,” I conceive, and I think What I do maintain, however, is that the Professor Collins ha’s proved, that works show that Shakespeare was not an Shakespeare could read Latin authors in the unlearned man [as Farmer’s Essay, original, though at the same time, I think, as subscribed to by Mr. Robertson, endeavours Professor Collins also thought, there can be to exhibit him], but, on the contrary, a man no doubt that he referred to translations as of the highest culture, of wide reading, much well, as in the case of Golding’s Ovid, for learning, and a large familiarity with the example. As to North’s Plutarch, nobody, of classics, whether that familiarity was

42 The George Greenwood Collection course, has ever doubted that he made free Mr. Robertson writes, with much sarcasm, use of that translation. to the following effect: “Max Müller, All this talk, therefore, of my having Lectures on the Science of Language (6th ed., I, 309), citing—of all authorities— surrendered the “classical” case—I do not say “the old classical case,” and I do not Renan’s Histoire des langues sémitiques! I cannot find the passage in my copy (2nd ed.) know what Mr. Robertson means by that expression, but the “classical” case within of Renan. Mr. G. C. Bompas (Problem of the Shakespeare Plays, 1902, p. iv) the limits that I have “expressly” laid characteristically asserts that the ‘estimate’ down—is mere bluff and rhodomontade. is Max Müller’s own.” [The Baconian Heresy, p. 517, note 3.] CHAPTER III According to Mr. Robertson, therefore, Max ALIA ENORMIA Müller did not himself form the estimate that Shakespeare used some 15,000 words in I have now considered Mr. Robertson in his his plays, but merely took it from Renan’s capacity of critic of Shakespeare’s legal Histoire des langues sémitiques—”of all knowledge, in the course of which inquiry I authorities”!—and Mr. Bompas makes the have, I think, shown pretty conclusively, “characteristically” false assertion that the among other things, that when he estimate is Max Müller’s own. Yet the truth commented upon the use by the poet of the is, as I have shown, that Mr. Bompas was legal terms “fine” and “recovery” he was quite right, and the “characteristic” assertion quite ignorant of the real meaning of those is Mr. Robertson’s. [Is There a Shakespeare terms, and that when he denied that there Problem? p. 471.] was any “legal” meaning of the word “purchase” he was really quite in the dark as Max Müller wrote (Science of Language, to the use by lawyers of that technical term 1885, vol. i, pp. 308-9): “The Hebrew also. As to his qualifications to instruct us Testament says all that it has to say with with regard to the question of Shakespeare’s 5,642 words; Milton’s works are built up knowledge of the classics, I leave what I with 8,000; and Shakespeare, who probably have written—and, more especially, what he displayed a greater variety of expression has written—to speak for itself. than any writer in any language, produced all his plays with about 15,000 words.” I must now consider a few other matters, lest it should be said that I have left certain Now, here we find the following curious charges unanswered, or declined to make note: “Renan, Histoire, p. 138. “Obviously, those admissions with regard to mistakes of then, cries Mr. Robertson, this estimate is my own which I ought in fairness to make. not Max Müller’s own; he simply took it, But first I would examine once more the without verification, from Renan’s Histoire strange case of Mr. Robertson and the late des langues sémitiques—”of all authorities”! Professor Max Müller. But surely it might have occurred to this The late Mr. G. C. Bompas, in his book The impetuous critic, so eager to score a point Problem of the Shakespeare Plays, cited the against the “heretical” Mr. Bompas, that it authority of Max Müller, with regard to was in the highest degree improbable that Shakespeare’s vocabulary, to the effect that Renan, in his Histoire des langues the poet in his plays used the large number sémitiques, or anywhere else for the matter of 15,000 words. Now, upon this statement of that, would have formed an estimate of Shakespeare’s vocabulary, or that Max

43 The George Greenwood Collection

Müller should have relied upon his authority Guide, February, 1916), to admit “that he for such an estimate! And when Mr. [i.e., myself] has made one ‘score’—not Robertson searched in vain for the passage against his opponents—in correcting a in his copy of Renan’s book, surely it would wrong reference of Max Müller’s (my have said more for his critical acumen if he italics). Now, I do not claim to have made a had made further inquiry before committing “score”—that is not the term that I should himself to his sarcastic footnote! The employ in this connection. What I do claim explanation was really not difficult to is that I have shown Mr. Robertson to have discover. It merely required a little further been guilty of an inexcusable blunder, consideration of Max Müller’s book, for at whereby he has misled his readers with p. 307 of that book—but two pages before regard to Shakespeare’s vocabulary, and the occurrence of the strange note, Renan, done injustice both to Max Müller and the Histoire, p. 138”—we find the statement, late Mr. Bompas. And this Mr. Robertson “Hebrew has been reduced to about 500 dismisses as merely “correcting a wrong roots”; and here we also find, in its proper reference of Max Müller’s”—whereas the place, a reference to that same page (138) of “wrong reference” was open and palpable to the Histoire des langues sémitiques. Let the anyone who took the trouble to examine the reader then turn to that page of Renan’s passage in question with a little critical care. work, and he will find that Renan is here But with regard to this same “wrong dealing with the Hebrew language; and if he reference,” I made a remark which has given will read on to p. 140, he will find this Mr. Robertson the opportunity of once more statement “on evalue le nombre des racines indulging in the congenial practice of hebraïques à cina cents.” He will see, drawing the red herring across the scent, in further, that Max Müller’s note, on p. 307, order to divert attention from his own error. says Leusden counted 5,642 Hebrew words Commenting on that curious note, “Renan, in the Old Testament; and this also he will Histoire, p. 138,” which of itself ought to find is taken from Renan’s Histoire des have aroused the suspicions of any langues sémitiques (1863) at p. 140. thoughtful critic, I wrote, “‘ Histoire’—what It is abundantly clear, therefore, that Max ‘Histoire’? It might be the Histoire Müller refers to Renan on the Hebrew d’Israel.” [Is there a Shakespeare Problem? language only; that the second reference to p. 472.] Here is Mr. Robertson’s chance to the “Histoire, p. 138,” has crept in per give the go-by to his own blunder by incuriam; and that Max, as might be ex- fastening upon one of mine. pected, makes no reference at all to Renan in Even in correcting Max Müller’s “wrong support of his statement with regard to the reference,” he says, Mr. Greenwood “adds a Shakespearean vocabulary. Thus it turns out, blunder, by supposing an absurd date for the on examination, that Mr.Robertson’s sneer Histoire du peuple d’Israel, which title he at Max Müller and his supposed “authority,” misquotes and misprints.” and the suggestion that Mr. Bompas is “characteristically” untrustworthy, are based Now, I really do not know at what date upon his own uncritical error, which a little Renan’s Histoire du peuple d’Israel was more care bestowed upon the works referred published, nor am I concerned to inquire. to would have enabled him to avoid. My statement was that “Histoire,” put baldly thus, might refer to the “Histoire Now, mark the light and airy manner in d’Israel” or any other “Histoire,” for the which Mr. Robertson affects to dispose of matter of that. I ought, no doubt, to have all this. “It is only fair,” he says (Literary

44 The George Greenwood Collection written “Histoire du peuple d’Israel” make treatment of certain arguments advanced by Mr. Robertson a free present of that Professor Churton Collins with reference to admission. But, as my point was simply that the question of Shakespeare’s alleged “Histoire” by itself was sufficient to suggest familiarity with the classics, and, in order to any careful critic that the reference was a that this charge may be fairly stated, I will mere mistake, and that this footnote had quote Mr. Robertson’s own words: slipped in by an inadvertence, Mr. “After citing on pp. 150-151 [of Is there a Robertson’s counter-attack here seems to me Shakespeare Problem?] certain arguments a singularly futile one. His red herring in of Professor Churton Collins and others on this case is not, I apprehend, sufficiently the question of Shakespeare’s classical pungent to divert his readers from the true scholarship, Mr. Greenwood writes (p. 151): scent. ‘Of all these, and nunterous other But Mr. Robertson, having thrown over Max arguments to the same effect, Mr. Robertson Müller’s estimate of Shakespeare’s has really nothing to say-exeept it be that vocabulary, on the false supposition that it is similar classical allusions may be found in based on Renan’s authority, and not on Max John Taylor, the Water Poet...... Mr. Müller’s own investigation, brings the great Robertson makes no attempt to deal with poet, in this respect also, into harmony with Professor Collins’s arguments here, or Farmer’s theory of a man who did not know indeed at all. [The italics are Mr. the meaning of the simplest words whether Robertson’s.] in Latin or in French. Accordingly, we find him suggesting “that the playwright was “Now, Mr. Greenwood had before him my really not a man of supremely large book on Montaigne and Shakespeare (2nd vocabulary for his time.” [The Baconian ed.), from which he frequently quotes; and Heresy, p. 521. My italics. What meaning is the reader, on turning to that, will find (1) to be attached to the words “for his time” I that I deal (pp. 308-336) with fifteen items confess I do not know. Is it suggested that of Professor Collins’s case (‘think, all that is Elizabethan vocabularies were normally significant,’ were my words), besides much larger than those of the present day, devoting eighteen pages to him in the and that, though Shakespeare’s vocabulary introduction; (2) that I expressly deal with may be “supremely large” for the twentieth special points stressed by Mr. Greenwood.” century, it was not so for the seventeenth “Here, clearly, there can be no question of century? If this is not the meaning, I cannot ‘misunderstanding,’ no possibility of a conceive what is.] forensic defence such as Mr. Greenwood is so greatly given to. He has simply suffered I now come to matters of personal from a total lapse of memory” (Literary controversy which will, I fear, be of little or Guide, January, 1916, p. 9). no interest to the general reader. I feel bound to deal with them, however, for the reasons “Forensic,” as I have already pointed out, is, which I have already stated. I am consoled seemingly, considered by Mr. Robertson a by the thought that those who have read to very telling epithet as applied to me, I this point—if, indeed, any have had the suppose because I was once a practising patience to get so far—are under no barrister. But an argument is not necessarily obligation to proceed further. ineffectual because it is suited to the environment of a Court of Justice. The Mr. Robertson charges me with having question is whether it be true or false. If it be made an untrue statement with regard to his true, it is no worse for being “forensic.”

45 The George Greenwood Collection

However, let us see how the case stands Golding’s translation. Now it was with against me with reference to this particular regard to these particular arguments that I charge. wrote: “Mr. Robertson makes no attempt to And, first, I must direct attention to the deal with Professor Collins’s arguments passage purporting to be quoted by Mr. here, or, indeed, at all”; [See Is there a Robertson from my book, at page 151. It Shakespeare Problem? pp. 150, 151.] and, will be seen that it commences with the so far as I am aware, that assertion is strictly words, “Of all these and numerous other true, for I find no attempt made by Mr. arguments,” and concludes with the words, Robertson to deal with these particular “Mr. Robertson makes no attempt to deal arguments either in The Baconian Heresy or with Professor Collins’s arguments here, or, in Montaigne and Shakespeare, unless, indeed, I am to be told that he makes such indeed, at all.” an attempt at p. 309 of the latter work, Now, the fact is that there is no such passage where he refers to Dr. Maginn’s rejoinder to in my book. Mr. Robertson has taken some Farmer. Here, after quoting from Golding, words which occur on page 150, and in the “Ye airs and winds, ye elves of hills,” etc., first line of page 151, of that book, and he writes: quoted them as following after some words “This is one of the many cases in which which occur at the bottom of the latter page! Farmer logically and convincingly rebutted It is not usual, so far as I am aware, thus, the mistaken claims of the commentators; without notice to the reader, to invert the and Maginn’s rejoinder is naught. He can order of two passages taken from a book but argue (and in this plea Professor Collins under criticism, but, doubtless, Mr. has followed him) that Shakespeare at Robertson had some good reason for so several points reproduces some ideas which doing; in fact, the words, as thus cited, are are in Ovid’s lines, but not in Golding’s much more convenient for his argument. It version. Now, waiving the possibility that is an artifice which might, really, almost be Shakespeare had heard at the Mermaid a called “forensic”! I am, however, going to discussion of Golding’s translation, [My take the liberty of considering the two italics.] and assuming that he had actually passages in their proper order, and I think it compared it with the original, we should will be found that it is not immaterial to do simply have before us a fact in keeping with so. Jonson’s ‘small Latin,’ not at all a proof that Farmer had asserted that in Prospero’s he was familiar with the classics. The famous speech, commencing “Ye elves of classical case has so far broken down.”[ My hills, brooks, standing lakes, and groves italics.] “(The Tempest, v, 1), Shakespeare had If any one should call this “an attempt to merely followed Golding’s translation of deal” with Professor Collins’s detailed Ovid’s Metamorphoses (vii, 197-206). arguments with reference to this passage, I Professor Collins, however, brought forward can only say that we diff er as to the arguments, conclusive as I think, to prove meaning of language! [See Studies in that the poet, although, doubtless, making Shakespeare, pp. 36-38. Mr. Robertson here use of Golding’s version, must have worked makes the assumption that Shakespeare with the Latin original also before him, for might have compared Golding’s translation in Prospero’s speech we find English with the original, and might, therefore, have equivalents to certain expressions in the been able to read the original, and to original which are altogether ignored in understand it, at least to some extent. Yet he

46 The George Greenwood Collection is a professed follower of Farmer, who, as would point out that Mr. Robertson’s Professor Collins says (work cited, p. 8), topsy-turvy quotation, and his remarks contended “that Shakespeare had no thereon, appear to suggest that when I wrote classical knowledge at all “—that he could “Of all these and numerous other arguments not understand the simplest Latin words like to the same effect,” I was referring to “praeclarissimus” or “praecarissimus,” for Professor Collins’s arguments only, which I example.] have now demonstrated is not the fact. Let me now come to the passage from my I should be more sorry for my mistake— book which Mr. Robertson has put first in which, after all, is not, I think, a very serious the alleged quotation, though, as a fact, it one—were it not for the manner in which stands after the passage which he has chosen Mr. Robertson is pleased to deal with it. He to put last. The two passages are, in fact, knows that some two years since I met with distinct (not one, as they are represented by a painful accident, and it seemingly affords Mr. Robertson), and refer respectively to him much pleasure to be always harping different arguments. If the reader will turn— upon this unfortunate occurrence with I admit I can hardly expect him to do so—to exquisite sarcasm. Thus, with reference to p. 151 of Is there a Shakespeare Problem? the matter in question, he writes (January, he will see that I there make reference to (1) 1916): “On his part, of course, I must treat Professor Collins’s argument founded on the lapse as pathological”; and again Shakespeare’s use of the word “Titania.” (February, 1916), concerning another slip to [See that writer’s Studies in Shakespeare, p. be considered presently: “The pathological 36.] (2) Mr. E. A. Sonnenschein’s proof that solution suffices here.” I leave it to my Shakespeare drew upon Seneca’s De readers to judge of the temper, taste, and Clementia for Portia’s great speech. (3) spirit of one who could so write. Some arguments of my own founded on the Mr. Robertson, in The Baconian Heresy (p. fact that Shakespeare’s last two Sonnets are 36), had, by a strange oversight, quoted and simply adaptations of a Greek epigram of criticized as mine some words which I had Marianus. cited from Professor Churton Collins’s I then go on to say, as quoted: “Of all these Studies in Shakespeare, whereupon I, not and numerous arguments to the same effect, unnaturally, took exception to his Mr. Robertson has really nothing to say,” “negligence” in ascribing to me, as though &c. Well, I admit my error. I had in mind they were part of my argument, words cited The Baconian Heresy only when I so wrote. by me from Mr. Churton Collins. [Is there a I ought, no doubt, to have turned to Shakespeare Troblent? pp.40-41.] What Montaigne and Shakespeare, for there (p. says Mr. Robertson as to this? 317) Mr. Robertson has, at any rate, “One real grievance Mr. Greenwood something to say as to “Titania” —used by has against me—an accidental Shakespeare as a proper name, and not as an ascription to him of a passage he had epithet as in the original Latin—and as to quoted from Mr. Churton Collins. As Seneca’s De Clementia, though I do not to that, I had personally offered him think he has anywhere thought it worth the reparation of inserting an while to discuss my suggestions with erratum slip in the remaining copies reference to Sonnets cliii and cliv. of my book, correcting the mistake, To this extent, therefore, I must cry mea and explaining that Mr. Greenwood culpa, and express regret for the error. But I had only endorsed the cited

47 The George Greenwood Collection

proposition in several other passages. supposed autograph in the British Museum That proposal he negatived [my copy of Florio’s translation (of Montaigne’s italics], as be well might, seeing that Essays); but, as the highest authorities have he had actually adopted the passage. pronounced the signature an undoubted Yet he treats the matter as an actual forgery, it has been wisely suppressed in the misrepresentation.” (Literary Guide, second edition.” February, 1916.) Here I regret to say my memory played me It is sufficient here to reprint my reply to false. Mr. Robertson’s first edition of this which appeared in the Literary Guide Montaigne and Shakespeare did not publish for April, 1916: the facsimile referred to. My statement, it “Mr. Robertson, having by mistake will be observed, contained no reflection on ascribed to me a passage which I had Mr. Robertson; on the contrary, it rather quoted from Mr. Churton Collins, bears witness to his wisdom in this instance. now says that he offered to insert an It would have been natural enough had he erratum slip, correcting the published the facsimile of a signature which mistake—with an addendum of his Sir F. Madden thought to be authentic, and it own—but that I ‘negatived that would have been wise to withdraw it when proposa.’ Surely this latter statement pronounced a forgery by Sir E. Maunde is lust a little absurd on the face of it! Thompson. In truth, however, this facsimile Since when has it been the custom did not appear in Mr. Robertson’s book. It for an author whose work has been was, he says, simply an “hallucination” of misquoted by another to be called mine, for which “the pathological solution” upon by the offender either to accept suffices. or ‘negative’ a correction? When Mr. But what are the facts? Mr. Robertson’s first Robertson found that he had made a edition of Montaigne and Shakespeare— mistake (which, by the way, I have then called Montaigne and Shakspere— never charged as ‘misrepresentation,’ published in 1897, contained the following but only as an example of ‘haste’ and statement: “It is quite possible that carelessness—see Is there a Shakspere may have seen parts of Florio’s Shakespeare Problem? p. 41) I translation before 1603, or heard passages should have thought he would have from it read, or even that he might have read been anxious to correct it for his own Montaigne in the original. But as his sake. He has, however, preferred to possession of the translation is made certain let it remain uncorrected. I am not by the preservation of the copy bearing his surprised, but the statement that I am autograph, and as it is from Florio that he is in any way responsible for the seen to have copied in the passages where omission I entirely deny. It has no his copying is beyond dispute, it is on warrant whatever.” Florio’s translation that we must proceed” Now, as a set-off to this mistake of his, Mr. (pp. 12-13; my italics). Robertson, not unnaturally, made reference It will be seen, therefore, that Mr. to a blunder of my own. In a note to p. 211 Robertson, in his Montaigne and Shakspere, of Is there a Shakesptare Problem? I had though he had not published a facsimile of stated that the first edition of Mr. the forged signature, had committed himself Robertson’s Montaigne and Shakespeare to its authenticity, and it is this passage “showed a facsimile of Shakespeare Is which he has now “wisely suppressed” in

48 The George Greenwood Collection his second edition—a passage which I as when he argues ...... that Sheridan, the son should have been well content to quote had of an actor, knew nothing of stage technique it not been for my unfortunate lapse of when he began to write plays. As usual, Mr. memory, “pathological” or otherwise. Greenwood has been hypnotized by an It is this error of mine which Mr. Robertson authority, in this case Mr. Bennett, of whom sets side by side with his own “lapse” in he makes facile misuse” (Literary Guide, attributing to me words which I had quoted February, 1916, p. 27). from Mr. Churton Collins. He omits to say, These remarks provide the reader with an however, that immediately I discovered the excellent measure of Mr. Robertson’s mistake I caused an erratum page to be accuracy. It so happens that all I have inserted in my book (I did not ask Mr. written concerning Sheridan in Is there a Robertson whether he would accept or Shakespeare Problem? had previously “negative” it!), in which I expressed my appeared in an earlier book, In re regret and apologized for the slip. I am quite Shakespeare, which I published in 1909, content to leave the comparison of these two four years before Mr. Arnold Bennett’s cases of error, and the manner in which they article above referred to had seen the light. were respectively dealt with, to the Moreover, as I have already said, there is no judgment of my readers. I may add, word concerning Sheridan in that article. however, that my own mistake no longer According to Mr. Robertson, therefore, I appears in my book, as I had, some time was hypnotized by an “authority” which I previously to the publication of Mr. had not seen, on a matter about which that Robertson’s article in the Literary Guide, authority says nothing. It is a fair sample of arranged for a new issue in which p. 211 has Mr. Robertson’s reckless style of criticism. been corrected and reprinted. [Were I liable to be “hypnotized by In Is there a Shakespeare Problem? (pp. authority,” I hardly think I should be found 215-217) I commented at some length on the among “heretics” with regard to the fact that “Sheridan could write immortal Shakespearean authorship.] plays when he knew little or nothing of the But a few more words, and, I am thankful to theatre and ‘stage technique’—when he had say, my “heavy task” will be done. served no ‘apprenticeship’—and wrote a One who is not habitually as solemn as a very bad one when he had long inhaled ‘the judge and as dismal as a mute at a funeral is scent of the footlights’”; and in a footnote I always at a disadvantage when brought into quoted from an article in the English Review controversy with Professor Dryasdust. for July, 1913, by Mr. Arnold Bennett, Anything intended to be jocular—anything wherein he discourses concerning the in the nature of “chaff” or badinage—is “enormous amount of vague reverential always taken by him au pied de la lettre and nonsense” which, he tells us, “is talked au grand serieux. Let me give two examples about the technique of the stage,” making of this in the present case. reference to Shakespeare, Sardou, Henri Bernstein, Sir Herbert Tree, Dion Mr. Robertson, in The Baconian Heresy (pp. Boucicault, and others, but saying no word 38-39), after remarking that he had spent as to Sheridan. four and a-half years of his “youthful life” in a Scotch law-office, where, however, he What is Mr. Robertson’s criticism on this? “was immensely more interested in literature He pronounces ex cathedra that in my latest than in law,” proceeds to say that “in Scotch book I have “added worse arguments to bad, law they do not, to my recollection, speak of

49 The George Greenwood Collection

‘caveats,’ which word is, therefore, for me time after the passing of the Statute of Uses, simple English, and not ‘jargon.’” that the law will not tolerate “a use upon a My comment upon this was I note that use.” To one, therefore, who was not born ‘caveat’ is for Mr. Robertson ‘simple under the sign of Saturn, and who has a English,’ though for most others it is simple temperament unaffected with the dour Latin.” [Is there a Shakespeare Problem? p. solemnity of the typical undertaker, or of the “Scotch law-office,” it was most natural, 39.] and, indeed, irresistible, to comment here as Now, I really should have thought it would I did—viz., to “remind Mr. Robertson that have been self-evident that this was not a the law does not allow ‘a use upon a use,’ solemn criticism, but the most obvious and that literature might well follow law in badinage. “Caveat for me is ‘simple this respect!” English,’” says Mr. Robertson. It seemed so natural to retort, with just a spice of Mr. Robertson takes this in the most tragic jocularity in the ink: “Well, really, I should style. Mr. Greenwood, he says, “portentoitsly writes” as above! If he wanted myself have said it was ‘simple Latin’”! an adverb of adverse criticism, he would But Mr. Robertson takes it all au grand have been better advised bad be said serieux. It is a most pedantic criticism this of “flippantly.” He might have characterized it mine, and “pedantry that miscarries is twice as “vacant chaff,” but he will take it unblest.” So he solemnly assures his readers solemnly as “meant for grain”! Of course, I that “not only for Bacon but for other men, recognized that the repetition of the word ‘caveat’ was an English word in Tudor “use” was a mere slip of the pen, and I had times, as it has been ever since, even as fiat no idea of making any capital out of it and veto and exit, and a hundred other further than to say that the uncorrected words, are English for educated men, though sentence is one of the indications I have they happen also to be Latin.” How absolute found that Mr. Robertson’s “magnum opus” the knave is! We must speak by the card. was put together in haste. And this, I think, [Literary Guide, February, 1916. I am not is a true criticism, for I understand both concerned to dispute this statement, but it is author and publisher have boasted that the sometimes rather difficult to say when a book was written and published in “record Latin word pecomes an English word as time.” But the idea that anything can be well. We speak of “a fieri facias.” Is, then, intended to be taken in a jocular vein seems “fieri facias” an English word? “Caveat” is to be foreign to Mr. Robertson’s nature, so certainly the third person singular of the let him who enters into controversy with present subjunctive of the verb cavere. Is it Professor Dryasdust beware of Jocosity. “English” also?] Should he deviate by one hair’s breadth Here is another illustration. Mr. Robertson from the lich-path of solemn seriousness, writes concerning the word “purchase”: “I “pedantic” and “portentous” are the mildest will simply clear the matter up by citing epithets that he will bring upon his devoted many instances of the use of the head. quasi-‘legal’ use of the word in other writers Then Mr. Robertson, being misled, as I and dramatists “(The Baconian Heresy, p. venture to think, by his imperviousness to 99; my italics). anything in the shape of humorous Now, there is an old rule, well known to suggestion into supposing that I have been lawyers, which came into existence some “seeking to make capital out of the misprints in an opponent’s book” (which I should be

50 The George Greenwood Collection the last to do, knowing full well how liable I START am myself to make slips and errors), [Mr. Take the word “drivel.” It is certainly an Robertson’s little slips, however, are not unpleasant epithet,” and the reader has, quite accurately described by him as probably, been led to imagine that I have “misprints.”] proceeds, not unnaturally, to applied it to Mr. Robertson. As it happens, unearth an absurd mistake of my own in my however, that is not the fact. In a footnote to first “Shakespearean” book published more be found in The Shakespeare Problem than nine years ago. And truly he has a right Restated (1908) I wrote, after commenting to hold up to ridicule—I was about to say upon some Shakespearean theories which “make merry over”; but that expression seemed to me ridiculous: “Truly the would hardly be appropriate to Mr. Baconians have not a monopoly of drivel.” Robertson’s peculiar style—what he justly Mr. Robertson, apparently, sees offence in calls my “monumental ‘howler’” in writing this. I presume he wishes the “epithet” to be “the second foot of a dactyl.” I am quite strictly limited to “the Baconians.” I am prepared to be pilloried for such an sorry that I cannot agree with him. egregious slip, and I only wish I could picture Mr. Robertson indulging in a good But, worse still, I have even described hearty laugh over the ridiculous blunder. It Stratford in the sixteenth century as “squalid might do him good. [Were I disposed “to and illiterate.” Id sane intolerandum. This is make capital” out of Mr. Robertson’s slips laying hands upon the very ark of the or misprints, I might refer to such errors as covenant. It is not to be endured! It may be “in iure civile” (work cited, p. 82), “the quite true that Stratford was a squalid and verbs dormior (sic) and morior” (p. 120), illiterate place at the time referred to— “suum quique” (p. 171), and “Si tibi non indeed, there is plenty of evidence to that corda fuerant connubia nostra” (p. 209).] effect; but, if so, it must not be said. Favete linguis. It makes Mr. Robertson’s blood But it is not only for “howlers” that Mr. boil. I might have used such epithets with Robertson has been ransacking my books. impunity with regard to Bethlehem or He has been searching for instances of Nazareth, because, of course, Jesus was not strong or violent language in order, a “historical” person. But about Stratford it apparently, that he may justify his own; and is rank blasphemy! he tells us that in my “first book” and in “the present volume” (viz., Is there a Then there is “post-prandial eloquence.” Shakespeare Problem?) he has lighted upon What “frightfulness”! Surely worthy of the “such epithets as ‘drivel,’ ‘ridiculous,’ Huns! But it so happened that I was ‘squalid and illiterate Stratford,’ speaking of a lady who had made an ‘ridiculously irrelevant,’ ‘amazing,’ after-dinner speech about Shakespeare, and ‘ludicrously irrelevant,’ ‘post-prandial published it. She herself says it was an eloquence,’ ‘preposterous,’ ‘silly,’ ‘solemn “impromptu speech,” and in criticizing some nonsense,’ applied to the persons, places, of the statements made therein I speak of the and theses of his [i.e., my] animosity”—to lady’s “post-prandial eloquence.” [See Is say nothing of the word “absurdity” applied there a Shakespeare Problem? Appendix C.] to some of Mr. Robertson’s reasoning at I can see no offence here, but Mr. some place in my first book. Robertson, so noted for his extremely restrained and temperate and courteous I will not waste much time over this language, apparently includes this “derangement of epitaphs”; but a few words may, I think, be said.

51 The George Greenwood Collection expression in the “cloud of invective” which Are we to suppose that Mr. Robertson looks he attributes to me. upon such an expression as another Over the other epithets I will not delay. I opprobrious epithet to be classed with what think they will be found to be abundantly he calls my “invective”? If not, where is the justified by their context. Mr. Robertson, “penalty” of which he speaks? transferring his own feelings to his But Mr. J. M. Robertson’s complaint of my opponent, in quite characteristic fashion, epithets surely comes somewhat strangely refers to them as evidence of my from Mr. J. M. Robertson! Quis tulerit “animosity,” and then complains that “the Gracchos de seditione querentes? It was in rest of us may not even say ‘sheer absurdity’ view of his own unrestrained controversial or ‘cavil’ under penalty of having ‘ian’ style that I wrote (Is there a Shakespeare added to our names.” Problem? p. 10): “Here let me say that Mr. Now, I do not know that I have ever Robertson has been so very frank and complained of Mr. Robertson’s habitual outspoken in his expression of opinion characterization of my arguments as “sheer concerning my views and arguments that he absurdity,” or of his equally habitual has relieved me of all necessity to mince my designation of any criticism of mine as a words when dealing with his book. If, “cavil”—an “epithet” of which he is so therefore, my language should be found to enamoured that he repeats it thrice on two be somewhat vigorous at times, he will, I am successive pages (pp. 564-65). I have not sure, recognize in it that sincerest form of complained—far from it—of such delightful flattery which consists of imitation.” pleasantries as his reference to that Mr. Robertson, having styled my argument “amazing argument” of mine, which he will “the most consummate paralogism in the “leave standing in its naked absurdity”—an literature of biography,” is now pleased to argument which is but “a tissue of error and speak of my “indignation” over his use of paralogism.” I have recognized such things such a term; and he once more, with that as just “pretty Fanny’s way”—as the exquisite good taste of his, assures his habitual style of this very gentle perfect readers that “the pathological solution” is knight; a style which is, of course, neither sufficient to account for it. Yet, in truth and “embittered” not “invalid,” and which stands in fact, as he well knows, I have never in need of no “pathological” excuse. I have, written or spoken a word to justify the however, ventured to suggest that an imputation to me of such a feeling as argument is not necessarily “absurd” just “indignation”—save the mark!—on account because Mr. Robertson chooses to call it so, of this characteristic pronouncement of his. nor is a serious criticism properly described That is just one of his “many inventions,” as a “cavil” just because this refined and and “paralogism” is just one of those long sensitive controversialist is so taken with the and imposing words which are dear to his word that he scatters it at random over his heart because they give such an air of pages. erudition to his writings—a word suggestive As to Mr. Robertson’s complaint with of scientific learning; a word to “tickle the regard to the suffix “ian,” I do not quite groundlings” withal. Most critics would be understand his objection to it. It is applied content to speak of my arguments as without offence to greater men than Mr. “fallacious,” if they so regarded them. But Robertson. If we may say “Shavian,” surely that, of course, would not do for Mr. we are at liberty to say, “Robertsonian “! Robertson. He must needs have a fine impressive “dictionary” word, such as

52 The George Greenwood Collection

“paralogism”! I should be the last to complain of such a word, so applied, nor have I ever done so. I have merely smiled. But ohe, iam satis. “Time is our tedious song should here have ending,” and I will conclude this booklet as I concluded my second article in the Literary Guide: “I now leave the Right Honourable gentleman to chew the cud of his ‘exposure’—whether of me or of himself I leave it to my readers to say. Notwithstanding the extreme bitterness and irritation with which he writes, I feel grateful to him for giving me this opportunity of demonstrating (1) how entirely unsubstantial are the charges which he has brought against me, and (2) how wholly imaginary are his pretensions to instruct us on any question of Shakespeare’s legal or classical knowledge. The cobbler should, really, stick to his last.”

53 The George Greenwood Collection

nor had I ever heard of him, and the Law List gave me no information concerning him SHAKESPEARE'S LAW except that, judging from the date of his call to the Bar, I gathered that he is a very

considerably younger man than I am. And Sir George Greenwood this is the style in which he thought it becoming to address a septuagenarian member of his profession, an entire stranger edited by Mark Andre Alexander to him, who had, in an evil hour, been induced to submit an essay for his editorial Foreword consideration. He commenced by politely informing me that my article contains "a couple of howlers"! Now if he imagined that WHEN this essay was completed it occurred he had discovered two mistakes in my essay, to me that it might, possibly, find a place in and had, with due courtesy, drawn my a certain Legal Magazine, which shall be attention to them, I should, if his criticism nameless. I therefore wrote to a had appeared to be just, have been grateful distinguished lawyer who had for some for his correction, and if he had been an years edited the Journal in question, and intimate friend I should not have taken any with whom I happened to be acquainted, exception whatever to the familiar epithet asking if I might be permitted to submit my employed to designate them. But for this paper for his consideration. He replied that stranger editor to write to me that I had been he had recently resigned the editorship, but guilty of "howlers" appeared to me to that he had forwarded my letter to the new indicate that, whatever else he might be a editor, and subsequently that gentleman who judge of, he is not exactly qualified to act as was entirely unknown to me, was good arbiter elegantiarum; in fact, that his enough to write that he was "willing to manners are far from having that repose consider" my article. Thereupon I forwarded which stamps the caste of Vere de Vere. it to him, but he shortly returned it to me saying that it was "unsuitable." And what were the "howlers" of which he asserted I had been guilty? Well, first, I state Now if he had stopped there I should, of in my essay (see p. 31) that "no lawyer course, have had nothing further to say. An needs to be told that 'fines' and 'recoveries' editor is master of the situation, and if he were collusive actions." But, says the editor decides to reject a proposed contribution it is of this Legal Periodical, "a fine was not a extremely foolish to quarrel with his collusive action." Here then is "howler" decision. Nor was I, in truth, greatly number one! perturbed by it. Unfortunately, however, this gentleman did not stop there. He proceeded Now I should be quite content to leave this to lecture me, de haut en bas, in a style very remarkable assertion—viz., that "a fine which, speaking from a long experience, I was not a collusive action"—to any lawyer venture to say that editors are not in the who has ever paid attention to the old law habit of employing in such a case. On the relating to "fines" and "recoveries." contrary, I believe, and I sincerely hope, that Moreover, it is quite unnecessary to refer to this gentleman's editorial methods are well-known authorities with regard to it, for unique. As I have already said, he was an I happen to have before me a very entire stranger to me. I had never met him, interesting pamphlet, entitled The Line of Least Resistance, by Mr. Arthur Underhill,

54 The George Greenwood Collection

LL.D., Bencher of Lincoln's Inn, and Senior view of the case is that, so far as I can Conveyancing Counsel to the Court, from ascertain, this gentleman speaks with no which I will quote but two sentences:—"The authority except that which comes from Statute Quia Emptores made freehold self-assertion. I cannot learn that he is a tenancies in fee-simple saleable free from gentleman of any particular distinction in his the rights of the vendor's heir, although, profession, or that he possesses any curiously enough, subject to his widow's qualifications which entitle him to claim any right to dower. . . . This right was ultimately particular value for his opinion. Let us see able to be barred by a collusive action called how he comments on the words of Mrs. a fine" (p. 11). I do not think I need say Page, in the Merry Wives, to which Lord more on this matter, though quite possibly Campbell has drawn attention, and which I my omniscient editor will retort that Mr. have discussed at p. 30 of the following Arthur Underhill has been guilty of a paper. "If the devil have him not in fee- "howler." I hardly think, however, that even simple, with fine and recovery," says the his self-sufficiency will carry him quite so Merry Wife, with reference to Falstaff, "he far as that.1 will never, I think, in the way of waste As to "howler" number two, it was a mere attempt us again." Now listen to the matter of misapprehension of my meaning, illuminating criticisms of the very learned and I need not now waste words upon it. But lawyer (soi-disant) who occupies the exalted position of editor of a certain Legal Journal. let us see what follows. Here it is. "The devil could not have Falstaff Speaking not as a matter of opinion, but ex in fee simple, but could only have an estate cathedra, from his editorial chair, as though pour autre vie. Again, as waste could only making an infallible pronouncement, this be enjoyed by freehold tenants of a manor pontifical lecturer tells me that Shakespeare grant (actual or presumed), there would be a "wrote of law as a dramatist, and in every suggestion to a lawyer that Ford and Page one of the instances that can be quoted there were pimps. The analogy of a copyhold is not a single case in which he has not tenant's claim to waste would be too misapplied the technical expressions, or in far-fetched for a lawyer to consider it for a which a lawyer would not have omitted moment." them"! Now I would beg the reader to refer once This is really magnificent. The question of more to the delightful passage in Shakespeare's legal knowledge is thus Shakespeare's play to which all this refers, settled for all time by this gentleman's ipse and then to ask himself whether in the whole dixit. There is, in fact, no question to be range of Shakespearean commentary he can discussed. All the lawyers whose opinions I point out a more entirely futile and absurd have cited in the following essay, and who pronouncement, or one that shows such an in their time held high place in their entire lack of appreciation of comedy, than profession, may be dismissed as poor this portentously pedantic display of ignorant simpletons whose judgment in this absurdly misapplied learning, if learning matter is not worth the paper it is written on. indeed it be! What the train of reasoning is We may, therefore, spare ourselves the that would induce "a lawyer" (save the trouble of making any further inquiry as to mark!) to discover in Mrs. Page's words "a our great poet's knowledge of law. "I am Sir suggestion that Ford and Page were pimps," Oracle," says Mr. Editor, and "when I speak I thank Heaven—though I used to call let no dog bark"! The only objection to this myself "a lawyer"—I have not the least idea.

55 The George Greenwood Collection

But, unfortunately, our legal lecturer English Literature. I know, of course, and descends to still lower depths. I have pointed know only too well, that a "Great Taboo," as out in the following essay (p. 28) that the a recent writer has styled it, has been critics who think they have detected "bad established against those who venture to law" in Shakespeare's play All's Well that suggest that, possibly, the name Ends Well, are mistaken, because, although "Shake-Speare" was a mask-name under a guardian was not entitled to insist that his which some great man, other than he who ward should marry a lady of inferior rank, as came from Stratford-on-Avon, was able to was Helena's position with regard to write while preserving his own anonymity. I Bertram, yet the King of France was no know that the Highbrows of English ordinary guardian, seeing that he had the Literature will not deign even to mention, power to raise the lady to a rank as high as still less to admit, any discussion of an that of his ward, and had actually undertaken hypothesis which is so shocking to their so to do. Now hear the comment of my tender sensibilities; I know that, as a editorial mentor upon this. "I must say," he distinguished French scholar has said, writes, "that I do not appreciate your "L'hétérodoxie dans ce domaine a paru suggestion that a king could, by ennobling a jusqu'à present aux maitres des universités et strumpet, make her a suitable match for his aux érudits, une opinion de mauvais goût, ward"! I commend this charming piece of téméraire et malseante, dont la science legal and literary criticism to all lovers of patentée n'avait pas à s'occuper, sauf pour la Shakespeare, lawyers or laymen; I commend condamner."2 I myself, although I yield to it to all who have ears to hear, heads to none in my admiration of Shakespeare's appreciate, and hearts capable of righteous works, have been called a "Defamer of indignation. Helena, according to Shakespeare," because, after many years' Coleridge—no mean critic—is thought and study of the subject, I find I am Shakespeare's "loveliest creation." constrained to hold this "heterodox" opinion Concerning Helena Mrs. Jameson writes: concerning the authorship of those works. "There never was, perhaps, a more beautiful But to write of one of Shakespeare's most picture of a woman's love . . . patient and beautiful characters that she is "a strumpet," hopeful, strong in its own intensity, and that, of course, is not to "defame sustained by its own fond faith . . . the Shakespeare," provided you are sound on beauty of the character is made to triumph the true Stratfordian Faith. And it is before over all." such Judges that we poor heretics have to be Such is Helena to Coleridge and Mrs. tried! It is true that there is nothing at all Jameson. Such I should have thought she "heretical" in the following essay. It might would be to all men and women sufficiently have been written by the most "orthodox" of educated to read Shakespeare's play, and "Stratfordians." Aye, but my antecedents who are possessed of wholesome and are, of course, known. I come before the decently constituted minds. But to him who Court as a suspect character. Nay, more, I from his editorial chair sends me this am marked out as a subject of the "Great unsolicited, this entirely gratuitous—may I Taboo"! not say this extremely impertinent?—written Well, we must e'en bear it as best we may. harangue, Helena is "a strumpet"! Magna est Veritas et praevalebit—some day Well, well. There I am content to leave it. perhaps! Such are now, it seems, the self-constituted Judges who preside over the Courts of

56 The George Greenwood Collection

Shakespeare's Law subsequently complained, and it appears not without justice, that the Lord Chancellor had made use of his work, but had omitted to IN the year 1859, Lord Campbell, who in make reference to the source upon which he that year became Lord Chancellor, having had drawn. "It is well known," wrote a 4 previously (in 1850) been Lord Chief Justice writer in one of the newspapers of that day, of the Queen's Bench,3 published a book in "that Lord Campbell, some time afterwards, the form of a letter to Mr. Payne Collier, published a similar work, availing himself, entitled Shakespeare's Legal Acquirements, without acknowledgment, of Mr. Rushton's in which he contended that Shakespeare had labours, as the Examiner conclusively "a deep technical knowledge of the law," pointed out." and an easy familiarity with "some of the Mr. Rushton's book has become scarce, and most abstruse proceedings in English it is now very difficult to obtain a copy of it, jurisprudence." With regard to the poet's but he subsequently published two little "judicial phrases and forensic allusions" he brochures on the same subject, viz.: writes: "I am amazed, not only by their Shakespeare's Testamentary Language number, but by the accuracy and propriety (1869) and Shakespeare's Legal Maxims with which they are uniformly introduced." (1907), both of which, but especially the And on the question as to the means by former, will be found well worthy of study. which Shakespeare could have acquired all In both he takes note that Lord Campbell this legal knowledge, he expresses himself himself, in the work mentioned, has made as strongly inclining to the hypothesis that several mistakes in law, and he makes use of the dramatist had studied law in an that fact to warn the reader of the danger attorney's office. there is in concluding that Shakespeare was Lord Campbell's great experience as a no lawyer because, it may be, he also has lawyer, and the high position which he held been guilty of some mistakes of the same in the legal profession, naturally led to a kind. For if that argument is to prevail it can very general acceptance of his opinion on be equally well proved that Lord Campbell this matter of Shakespeare's knowledge of himself was no lawyer, or, to use Sir Sidney law, and that opinion has been too Lee's expression (infra p. 17), had had no 5 frequently cited as a conclusive authority on "technical experience." Quod est absurdum. the question by writers who have not taken But, asks Mr. Rushton, "Is there a barrister the trouble, or who have not been or a solicitor in large practice, or a judge on competent, to examine the arguments upon the bench, who can say with truth, 'I never which it is founded. made a mistake in law'?" Now Lord Campbell had been anticipated in The question then is, Does Shakespeare, this inquiry by a learned barrister of Gray's although, possibly, he may be found to be at Inn, to wit Mr. William Lowes Rushton, fault here and there, show by his plays and who in August, 1858, a year before the issue poems such a general knowledge of law, and of Lord Campbell's book, had published a legal principles, and such an exceptional little work called Shakespeare a Lawyer, in familiarity with legal procedure, and the which he also adduced arguments well ways and habits of lawyers, as force us to worthy of consideration in support of the conclude that either he was himself a contention that Shakespeare had an accurate lawyer, or had, at any rate, received, knowledge of law, and this author somehow and somewhere, a sound legal education?

57 The George Greenwood Collection

And here, before passing on, it may be well remembered in the history of Shakespearean to mention that long before the days of bibliography, spoke of "the marvellous Rushton and Campbell, one of the acutest, intimacy which he displays with legal terms, most learned, and most distinguished of his frequent adoption of them in illustration, Shakespearean critics, Malone to wit, and his curious technical knowledge of their himself a lawyer of no mean authority, had form and force." Professor Churton Collins, written of Shakespeare: "His knowledge and also, has written of Shakespeare's "minute application of legal terms seems to me not and undeviating accuracy in a subject where merely such as might be acquired by the no layman who has indulged in such copious casual observation of even his and ostentatious display of legal all-comprehending mind; it has the technicalities has ever yet succeeded in appearance of technical skill."6 keeping himself from tripping." Another lawyer, and well-known If then appeal is to be made to authority on Shakespearean, Richard Grant White, has this matter, one could point to a formidable written: "No dramatist of the time, not even body of opinion in support of the Beaumont, who was a younger son of a proposition that the works of Shakespeare judge of the Common Pleas, and who, after prove that their author must have been studying in the Inns of Court, abandoned exceptionally well equipped with legal law for the drama, used legal phrases with knowledge; and, in accordance therewith, Shakespeare's readiness and exactness… we find Sir Sidney Lee, in the earlier legal phrases flow from his pen as part of his editions of A Life of William Shakespeare, vocabulary and parcel of his thought." making mention of "Shakespeare's accurate use of legal terms which deserves all the Yet another learned lawyer, the late Mr. E. 8 T. Castle, K.C., has borne testimony to the attention that has been paid it." Since those accuracy of Shakespeare's legal knowledge, editions were published, however, it appears and lays stress on his "familiarity with the that Sir Sidney has changed his views on the habits and thoughts of counsel learned in the subject, for he now writes: "The poet's legal knowledge is a mingled skein of accuracy law." and inaccuracy, and the errors are far too I might further cite the opinions of Lord numerous and important to justify on sober Penzance, Judge Webb, and Judge Holmes inquiry the plea of technical experience of the Supreme Court of the United States, [sic].9 No judicious reader of The Merchant but as these were supporters of the of Venice or Measure for Measure can fail to "Baconian" theory it may perhaps be better detect a radical unsoundness in not to call them as witnesses in the case.7 Shakespeare's interpretation alike of Turning now to lay writers, it is interesting elementary legal principles and of legal to note that that highly distinguished critic, procedure." And in a note, after expressing George Steevens, who, as Sir Sidney Lee his opinion that Lord Campbell "greatly writes, "made invaluable contributions to exaggerated Shakespeare's legal Shakespearean study," and whose edition of knowledge," he refers us to Notes on the the poet, published in 1773, was "long Bacon Shakespeare Question by Charles regarded as the standard version," expressed Allen (Boston, 1900), as showing "the true himself as in agreement with Malone's state of the case," and more particularly to estimate of Shakespeare's legal knowledge; ch. vii. of that work, on "Bad Law in and one may add that Charles and Mary Shakespeare," which he informs the reader 10 Cowden Clarke, whose names will ever be "is especially noteworthy."

58 The George Greenwood Collection

Now were I to attempt to make a survey of What says Mr. Charles Allen as to this? "A Shakespeare's plays and poems with the statute imports a legislative act; or, if used object of testing the truth of Sir Sidney Lee's here for 'edict,' even an edict stands of its assertion that the great poet and dramatist own force, and does not require an oath to was "radically unsound in his interpretation support it in order to make it binding. . . . alike of elementary legal principles and of The word seems to be used inaccurately for legal procedure"—a fairly sweeping vows or resolves." statement—I should require to add yet Now this criticism really appears to me—if another volume to the mountainous mass of one may be allowed to express an honest "Shakespeare" literature, in order to do opinion in plain language—to exhibit such a justice to such a far-reaching and deficiency both of knowledge and common comprehensive subject. Happily, however, sense that, in my judgment, it is sufficient of Sir Sidney has himself indicated a shorter itself to put Mr. Allen's book, so far as it and easier method of investigation. He has pretends to be an exponent of law and legal referred to Mr. Charles Allen's chapter on principles, altogether out of court. "A statute "Bad Law in Shakespeare" as being imports a legislative act"! Mr. Allen, then, "especially noteworthy." I propose, had never heard of "Statutes Merchant" and therefore, to examine the evidence of our "Statutes Staple." But we may put these great poet's ignorance of legal principles and aside. He had never heard of the "statutes" procedure so conveniently set before us by 11 of a School or College, or of a Cathedral this American writer, and vouched for by Chapter! He had never heard of scholars, Sir Sidney Lee, only premising that I decline students, disciples, or teachers being called to accept as examples of Shakespeare's upon to make oath to keep such statutes! alleged "bad law" instances taken from plays And this is set before us as an example of which are, in whole or in part, of very Shakespeare's "bad law"—save the mark! It doubtful authorship, such as Henry VI (all is, really, a very melancholy example of the three parts), Titus Andronicus, Timon of teacher's incompetence to teach.12 Athens, and some others. We must confine ourselves to admittedly "Shakespearean" Let us now see what our legal mentor has to plays. tell us about The Merchant of Venice, one of the two plays in which, if we fail to Here, then, is a "noteworthy" example of recognize Shakespeare's ignorance both of Shakespeare's "bad law" according to our "elementary legal principles and of legal legal mentor Mr. Charles Allen (p. 128). In procedure," we must, according to Sir Love's Labour's Lost the King addresses his Sidney Lee, be content to forfeit all claim to three friends and companions in the be called "judicious" readers. Nay, another following words: Transatlantic lawyer, Mr. Devecmon, of the You three, Biron, Dumain, and Maryland Bar, has informed us that in this Longaville, play the bard of all ages "not only manifests Have sworn for three years' term to his lack of knowledge of the technique of live with me the legal profession, he shows a profound My fellow-scholars, and to keep ignorance of law and of the fundamental those statutes principles of justice"!13 I am not sure, That are recorded in this schedule however, whether Sir Sidney would be here. altogether ready to subscribe to this astonishing pronouncement. To say that Shakespeare was ignorant of the

59 The George Greenwood Collection

"fundamental principles of justice" is, off less than a pound of flesh," and so forth perhaps, going rather farther than even he is and so forth. prepared to go. So clearly Shakespeare was hopelessly But let us hear Mr. Charles Allen on the ignorant "alike of elementary legal subject. First of all, adverting to the fact that principles and of legal procedure." Yes, and by the will of Portia's father, all her suitors may we not add, with the learned Mr. must submit to the test of the caskets, and if Devecmon, "of the fundamental principles unsuccessful must for ever renounce of justice" also? marriage, he writes: "This testamentary Now I would ask the "judicious reader," provision in restraint of marriage, with no what does he think of criticism of this kind? means of enforcing it, would seem to have To me I confess it appears to be indicative been the invention of a story-teller rather of an utter dearth not only of critical than of a lawyer." intelligence, but of ordinary common sense. Well, the tale of the Caskets certainly was What is this delightful play which we all the invention of a story-teller, for, as Sir know as The Merchant of Venice? First of Israel Gollancz writes, "The Gesta all let it never be forgotten that it is a Romanorum—Richard Robinson's English comedy. Those who saw the late Sir Henry version, entitled 'Records of Ancyent Irving in it could hardly escape from the Historyes' (1577)—contains the nearest idea that it was a tragedy. Their sympathies approximation to the story of 'The Three 14 became gradually enlisted in favour of the Caskets' as treated in this play," and it was harassed old Jew, and Shylock became the well known to English dramatic literature at hero of the piece; and even those who have least as early as 1579. But then this seen Maurice Moscovitch in the part—to my "testamentary provision" was "in restraint of mind an ideal Shylock—can hardly laugh at marriage"; so Mr. Charles Allen appears to the misery of the wretched old man, as, no think that no writer who had any knowledge doubt, audiences in Shakespearean times, to of law could possibly have introduced this whom Jewbaiting on the stage was a old story into a play! congenial sport, were accustomed to do, or Then the Trial Scene—let the reader take refrain, in spite of his avarice and his cruel note of Mr. Allen's destructive criticism as desire for vengeance, from extending to him to that.15 Why, inter alia enormia, Doctor some need of sympathy in his despair. But Bellario actually palms off Portia on the this, I take it, arises from the softened Duke of Venice as a young doctor of laws humanities of our own times, when we feel from Rome, who could expound and that "the quality of mercy is not strained" determine the law of Venice. "Such even when it is extended to such a miserable conduct," says Mr. Allen, "if it were creature as Shylock. possible under our system, would be good The play, then, is a "comedy," and must be ground of disbarment here"! criticized as a comedy. But the point is that, Then just see how the trial is conducted. in the main, it is all taken from the Pecorone Why, "Portia's rules of law will not bear of Ser Giovanni (Day IV, Novel I). Here we examination." Amongst other things, "such a find the Merchant, the Jew, the bond, the condition of a bond (Antonio's) probably pound of flesh, the lady ("of Belmonte") would not even at that time have been valid, doctor of laws, the episode of the ring, etc., as it involved a homicide. But if valid, it etc., with all of which Shakespeare has made would be no violation of the condition to cut us familiar; and that he followed the old

60 The George Greenwood Collection

Italian writer very closely is made manifest evidence whatever either that he had special by a reference to the original. Take the knowledge of law, or that he was ignorant of following as one example. Shylock law. A man endowed with the dramatic stipulates for: genius of Shakespeare, even though he were an equal pound a Lord Chancellor, or a Lord Chief Justice Of your fair flesh, to be cut off and of England, might take an Italian model and taken fashion upon it such a play, even though all In what part of your body pleaseth the law and legal procedure therein were wildly discordant when compared with "our me. system," to which Mr. Allen makes such Ser Giovanni's words are: "Che 'l Giudeo gli solemn reference. All his concern would be potesse levare una libra di carne d'addosso to make a delightful comedy amid delightful di qualunque luogo c'volesse"; i.e., "that the Italian scenery, and, not being a stolid dolt, Jew might take a pound of flesh from any he would not concern himself a twopenny part of his body he pleased."16 buttontop about the laws of England and the This, then, is the story which Shakespeare practice of the King's Bench. has taken and alchemized in his own If, then, it is deemed "judicious" by our marvellous way, transmuting baser metal Shakespearean Highbrows of the present into purest gold, as he alone knew how, but day to see in The Merchant of Venice a following closely upon the lines laid down proof that the poet who is "not of an age but for him by Ser Giovanni's novel; and for all time" was destitute of all knowledge because the Jew who "thought to play a trick of "elementary legal principles and legal is tricked himself"; because he is not only procedure," I can only pray that I may be denied his pound of flesh, but done out of found among the injudicious to the end of his ducats; because he is mocked and jeered my allotted time.17 at and made a butt of in the play, as in the novel; because the dramatist brings in But what about Antonio's bond? Is it not Portia, "the lady of Belmonte," as a doctor clear that Shakespeare went wrong here on of laws, and introduces into his comedy a an elementary point of law? Why, he did not trial scene very much after the style of the know the distinction between a "single Italian original, therefore we are to be told, bond" or simplex obligatio, and a forsooth, by a doctrinaire critic that conditional bond! Shakespeare could have had no knowledge Let us examine this, and I think we shall of elementary legal principles or procedure, find that the error is not Shakespeare's but and perhaps not even of the "fundamental that of the learned critics and commentators. principles of justice"! What says Mr. Charles Allen? "In The Is this, I would ask, really to be accepted as Merchant of Venice Shylock says: the intelligent and enlightened and Go with me to a notary, seal me well-informed Shakespearean criticism of there the present day? For myself I should Your single bond. characterize it by epithets of a very different Technically, a single bond was a bond kind. But perhaps the "judicious reader" will without condition, but Antonio's bond was supply them. I assert that such a play as The to have a condition, and therefore it was Merchant of Venice, though it gives us proof inaccurately described as a single bond." that the author of it stands in the supreme rank of dramatists, provides us with no

61 The George Greenwood Collection

Now, in the first place, the Cambridge Antonio binds himself absolutely to pay this Editors tell us that the expression a "single certain sum at a certain place on a certain bond" may be properly used of a bond day. True there was a penalty attached if he without sureties, and so also says Sir Israel failed to do so. In that case he was to forfeit Gollancz.18 But I have no desire to ride off a pound of flesh. But that was not a on that explanation, for I propose to show "condition" on the performance of which the that Antonio's bond was not a conditional bond was to become void. On the contrary, bond, as that expression is understood by it was a penalty pure and simple, dependent lawyers, but really a "single bond." for its effect upon the existence of the bond. "Bonds have usually a condition annexed to If it had been provided by the document that them that on the person bound paying so Antonio should enter into an obligation to much money, or doing some specified act, allow Shylock to cut off a pound of his the bond shall be void. A bond without a flesh, "on such a day, in such a place," the condition is called a single bond."19 Again, "condition" of the bond being that if he paid "a bond is an instrument under seal whereby a certain sum of money at a fixed date then the party from whom the security is taken the bond should become void and of no obliges himself to pay a certain sum of effect, in that case the bond would have money to another at a day specified. If this been a "conditional" one. But we have only be all, the bond is called a single one to refer to the passage cited from the play to (simplex obligatio), but there is generally a see that this was not so, for, I repeat, condition added that if the obligor does, or Antonio simply bound himself to pay the abstains from doing, some particular act, the money at a fixed time and place, without obligation shall be void, or else shall remain condition or qualification, and, says in full force, and the sum mentioned in the Shylock, if he did not do so: obligatory part of the bond is in the nature of let the forfeit (ie. the penalty) a penal sum (or penalty), and is usually Be nominated for an equal pound fixed at much more than is sufficient to Of your fair flesh. cover any possible damage arising from the And further on he asks: breach of the condition."20 If he should break his day, what A well-known example of a conditional should I gain bond is a common recognizance, in which By the exaction of the forfeiture? the obligor binds himself to pay a certain sum of money to H.M. the King, the So that the "obligation" was not to allow the "condition" of the recognizance being that if pound of flesh to be cut away; the obligation he is of good behaviour for a certain time "was to pay the money, subject to the the bond becomes void, and no money has forfeiture," or penalty, named, which was to to be paid. be enforced, if the Jew so pleased, upon the obligor's failure to pay as agreed. It is as if A Now let us try to apply these legal binds himself to pay to B £100 on January 1 definitions and examples to Antonio's bond. at the Royal Exchange, subject to the Antonio bound himself to pay to Shylock a penalty, on failure so to do, of handing over certain sum of money "on such a day, in his motor-car to B. But this is not a bond such a place" (Merchant of Venice, i. 3, "with collateral condition." It is a "single 147). And what was the "condition" "upon bond" with a penalty attached in case of the performance of which the bond was to non-payment. It is true that Shylock talks of become void? There was no such condition. "such a sum or sums as are expressed in the

62 The George Greenwood Collection condition," but "condition" here means were to be called in to draw covenants nothing more than the bargain, or this which should be valid in law." The answer is particular term of the bargain, and that this that all this story about the wager was taken is so, and that Shakespeare had not in view a from Boccaccio, and it is absurd to suppose "condition" in the technical sense, is made that Shakespeare, when founding a play on manifest by a reference to the original an Italian romance, would trouble himself Italian from which the story is taken. Here about the English law concerning wagers we read: "E perchè gli mancavano, dieci contra bonos mores and the like. Aye, but milia ducati, andò a un Giudeo a Mestri, e Posthumus says to Iachimo, "Let there be accattogli con questi patti e condizioni, che covenants drawn between us . . . let us have s'egli non glie l'avesse renduti dal detto dì a articles betwixt us,"22 and Iachimo agrees, San Giovanni di giugno prossimo a venire, and says "We will have these things set che 'l Giudeo gli potesse levare una libra di down by lawful counsel," and such an carne d'addosso di qualunque luogo e' agreement between these two (entered into volesse"—i.e., "As he wanted still ten at Rome) is adduced by Mr. Allen as thousand ducats, he applied to a Jew at evidence of "bad law" and ignorance of Mestri, and borrowed them on these terms legal principles, because according to and conditions, that if they were not repaid English law—though Cymbeline, it may be on the feast of St. John in the next month of remembered, was a British King supposed to June, the Jew might take a pound of flesh have been contemporary with the Roman from any part of his body he pleased." Emperor Augustus—such a contract could This clearly shows whence the dramatist not be enforced! Are we really to regard this took the word "condition" which he puts as the sort of Shakespearean criticism which into Shylock's mouth and that its meaning is is now accepted and endorsed by our pundits only such as I have explained. It is from not of literature? Quantula sapientia! observing this that certain critics, like Mr. * * * Charles Allen, have been misled into I now come to an instance of alleged bad charging Shakespeare with "bad law," law in Shakespeare which has been because he calls Antonio's obligation a frequently cited by the critics, and where "single bond," which in reality it was. If it again I think I shall have no difficulty in be objected that such a form of bond is not showing that it is the critics, and not often met with in our English practice or Shakespeare, who are in error. "our system", as Mr. Allen calls it—the answer is that in all this story Shakespeare "In All's Well that Ends Well," says Mr. merely follows Ser Giovanni, and the Allen, the King of France assumed the conclusion of the whole matter is that it is power to compel his ward Count Bertram to the sapient critics, and not the great marry Helena, though Bertram remonstrated dramatist, who have been guilty of against being compelled to marry a poor lamentable error and absurdity concerning physician's daughter." But the law of both the bond, and the play generally.21 "Guardian and Ward" was that "the spouse must be of equal rank with the ward," and Quite similar, and open to the same Coke on Littleton is quoted to show that "the observation, is Mr. Allen's criticism of lord could not disparage the ward by a Cymbeline. Here, says he, "the wager upon mésalliance." Then, says Mr. Allen, "it is which Iachimo came to England was grossly quite clear that Shakespeare overlooked this immoral, and could never have supported an feature of the law"; and here he is supported action at law; but in the play lawful counsel

63 The George Greenwood Collection by Mr. Arthur Underhill, a distinguished threaten a ward with the results of his conveyancing counsel, who, in displeasure should he refuse to marry a lady Shakespeare's England (vol. i. p. 387), whom the King desired him to marry writes that Shakespeare had "ignored" this although of inferior rank, what cogency condition. Moreover, Lord Campbell could reasonably be attached to such an himself has a note to the effect that "it is incident in a drama, as evidence of doubtful whether Bertram, without being ignorance of law on the part of the liable to any penalty or forfeiture, might not dramatist? Very little indeed as it appears to have refused to marry Helena—on the me. Yet this is the only instance cited by Mr. ground that she was not of noble descent," Underhill in support of his assertion that citing Coke on Littleton as above.23 Shakespeare's "knowledge of law was I venture to say, however, that Shakespeare neither profound nor accurate"—an instance had neither "overlooked" nor "ignored" the which, when carefully examined, has condition in question. True "the spouse must "melted into air, into thin air." be of equal rank with the ward," as Mr. And here I must turn aside for a moment Underhill writes, but the King was no from Mr. Charles Allen in order to say yet ordinary "guardian." The King is the foun- another word concerning Mr. Underhill's tain of honour, and it was in his power so to essay on Shakespeare's Law. This learned ennoble "the spouse" as to make her "of writer remarks on Shakespeare's allusions to equal rank with the ward." And this the King "fines and recoveries," which, he says, of France undertook to do in Helena's case. "seemed to Lord Campbell to 'infer Hearken unto the following: profound knowledge of the abstruse law of King. 'Tis only title thou disdain'st in real property,' but which only seem her, the which I can build up . . . profound and difficult to lawyers of the If thou canst like this creature as a nineteenth and twentieth centuries because maid they have become archaic and unfamiliar." I can create the rest: virtue and she Now to Lord Campbell, at any rate, such Is her own dower; honour and wealth expressions as "fines" and "recoveries" would not have seemed either "profound" or from me. "difficult," neither to him would such terms Whereupon says Bertram: have been "archaic and unfamiliar," seeing who so ennobled that these proceedings were part of our Is as't were born so. normal legal procedure for upwards of fifty years of his Lordship's life, and that he was And the King, to clinch the matter, adds: himself Solicitor-General when they were Take her by the hand, abolished by the legislature in the year 1833. And tell her she is thine: to whom I Moreover, I cannot find the quotation which promise Mr. Underhill purports to cite from Lord A counterpoise: if not to thy estate, Campbell in his book on Shakespeare's A balance more replete.24 Legal Acquirements.25 What he does say, with reference to some words quoted by him It appears to me that it is the critics who from the Comedy of Errors, is that "they have "overlooked" or "ignored" a very show the author to be very familiar with material passage in the play. some of the most abstruse proceedings in But even if it had been otherwise; if English jurisprudence"!—a very different Shakespeare had made a King of France

64 The George Greenwood Collection thing from "the profound knowledge of the education, who were the great poet's abstruse law of real property." contemporaries, has cited the word "fine," Lord Campbell further cites the following when used in its ordinary sense of a money-payment, as a parallel to the word as from The Merry Wives: used by Shakespeare in the expression "fine Mrs. Ford. What think you? May and recovery," and the word "recovery" we, with the warrant of womanhood, when used of the recovery of a debt, or of and the witness of a good the ordinary action for the recovery of land conscience, pursue him with any (as distinct from the fictitious suit), as further revenge? parallel to Shakespeare's usage of the word Mrs. Page. The spirit of wantonness in the technical sense as above! is, sure, seared out of him. If the Now no lawyer needs to be told that fines devil have him not in fee simple, and recoveries were collusive actions with fine and recovery, he will never, employed to bar estates tail, to bar dower, to I think, in the way of waste, attempt convey estates of married women, to enable us again. married women to join with their husbands Here Lord Campbell does not suggest that in selling property, and for other purposes the mere mention of all these well-known known to conveyancers. They differed in legal terms—warrant, witness, waste, fee their procedure and in their effects. One simple, fine and recovery—is proof of "levied" a fine, but one "suffered" a Shakespeare's knowledge of legal principles. recovery. The word "fine" in this connection All he suggests is that his "head was so full had nothing to do with a money payment. of the recondite terms of the law, that he As we read in an ancient record of makes a lady thus pour them out, in a Parliament, 18 Edward I, "finis sic vocatur confidential tête-à-tête with another lady," eo quod finis et consummatio omnium and further, that "this Merry Wife of placitorum esse debet"; and, similarly, we Windsor is supposed to know that the read in the statute 27 Edward I, c. i, "Quia highest estate which the devil could hold in fines in curia nostra levati finem litibus any of his victims was a fee simple, debent imponere, et imponunt et ideo fines 26 strengthened by fine and recovery." vocantur." Now few lawyers, I take it, of the present And the supposed parallels to the word day know very much about fines and "recovery" as used by Shakespeare in recoveries, and laymen, naturally, know conjunction with "fine," are equally nothing at all. Nevertheless we find that ridiculous. certain laymen, though themselves ignorant But some sapient critics have objected that of law, have of late, with sublime Shakespeare is inaccurate in speaking of a confidence, undertaken to instruct us "fee simple with fine and recovery," concerning Shakespeare's legal knowledge, imagining that both these forms of assurance or the want of it; whence it happens that would not be employed in respect of the many laughable errors have been solemnly same property. They are wrong, as the committed to print. One recent lay critic, for reader may satisfy himself if he cares to example, who desires to show that all refer to Cruise on Fines and Recoveries (3rd Shakespeare's "law" can be easily paralleled Edn. 1794; see vol. ii. pp. 21 and 52). by similar legal expressions to be found in Together these two devices operated to other dramatists, though devoid of all legal

65 The George Greenwood Collection

"make assurance doubly sure," and were not And this is solemnly put before us as an unfrequently so used.27 example of Shakespeare's "bad law," and Let us now return to Mr. Charles Allen and our literary pastors and masters commend it see what further supposed proofs of to us as "especially noteworthy" criticism! Shakespeare's "bad law" he has to set before Yes, noteworthy it is indeed. us. He actually finds one in Antony's great Here is another example: In Coriolanus, speech over the body of the murdered Julius. Sicinius says: Moreover he hath left you all his He hath resisted law, walks, And therefore law shall scorn him His private arbours and new-planted further trial orchards, Than the severity of the public power On this side Tiber; he hath left them Which he so sets at naught. you, But, comments Mr. Allen, "Resisting law And to your heirs for ever. was no legal reason for denying him a trial"! But, cries Mr. Allen, "In a devise or Now it is curious that Mr. Rushton, himself dedication of lands to the public, the words a learned lawyer, has quoted this very 'to your heirs for ever' are misplaced, as they passage, amongst others cited by him, to would imply individual ownership, instead illustrate Shakespeare's familiarity with of a right vested in that indefinite body the legal maxims. In connection with the public." These words, he says, are not to be above-quoted words from Coriolanus (Act found in any other account of Caesar's Will, iii.1) he refers to the maxim, "Merito "and they were probably added by beneficium legis amittit, qui legem ipsam Shakespeare, who either did not know or subvertere intendit" (2 Inst. 53), and notes overlooked their inappropriateness in a that, in accordance therewith, "Coriolanus devise of this kind." had resisted law and therefore lost the It is difficult to speak with due restraint of benefit of the law."28 such criticism as this. "Their And after all, as Mr. Allen notes, "it was inappropriateness"! Good Heavens! finally decided to proceed regularly by Whether or not Shakespeare was a lawyer he process." Really such solemn trifling is but was certainly a dramatist, and the best of all waste of the reader's time. dramatists. And could anybody with a spark of dramatic instinct, anybody but a Again, Mr. Allen takes objection to the use hide-bound pedant, fail to see how of the word "demise" in the following splendidly those words, "and to your heirs passage from King Richard III: for ever," ring out for the ears of the Tell me, what state, what dignity, populace? They may be "inappropriate" for what honour an indenture, but Antony was no lawyer, and Canst thou demise to any child of he was not drafting a deed. Neither was mine? Shakespeare, whether lawyer or not, such a (iv. 4, 247.) poor dramatist as to make a great orator, speaking to rouse the passions of a Roman Here he says the word "seems to be used not mob, talk in the technical language of a only in an untechnical, but in an unusual conveyancer. sense." Now the first comment to be made on this is that the words in question are spoken by the

66 The George Greenwood Collection

Queen Elizabeth, and I am not aware that it inasmuch as he was King, and even a has ever been asserted even by the most subject could make a grant of such things zealous advocate of the "legalist" "with the King's licence." Shakespearean School, that Shakespeare And here I must give another alleged was not only such a hide-bound lawyer, but example of Shakespeare's "bad law," again also so wanting in dramatic propriety as to to be found (as it is said) in the utterance of make his ladies use legal expressions with a Queen, which, although it is not cited by the accuracy of the trained lawyer. He does, Mr. Charles Allen, is so full of interest and indeed, as we have already seen, sometimes instruction for Shakespearean critics and put a string of well-known legal expressions, students that it cannot be left out of the such as "fines" and "recoveries" and the like, account. into a woman's mouth, but that is, of course a very different thing from making women Queen Katherine, in Henry VIII (Act ii. 4), speak, in serious conversation, in the says to Wolsey: technical language of the lawyer. This is the I do believe, answer to another objection taken by Mr. Induced by potent circumstances, Allen, viz.: that "In As You Like It, Celia, in that speaking of her own father, says to You are my enemy, and make my Rosalind, 'And, truly, when he dies, thou challenge. shalt be his heir,' meaning that she herself You shall not be my judge. would share her inheritance with Rosalind," where, says Mr. Allen, "this use of the word Whereupon say certain critics, lay and appears to be not only untechnical but legal—Mr. Devecmon of the Maryland Bar unique." is one of them, and I quote his words: "To 'challenge' is to object or except to those Is he then prepared to argue that if who are returned to act as jurors, either Shakespeare had really possessed an individually or collectively as a body. The adequate knowledge of law (which, of judge was not subject to challenge." This, course, he denies) he would have sacrificed therefore, is yet another instance of "bad his dramatic art to legal propriety, and made law" on Shakespeare's part. his ladies speak with the technical accuracy of the law-student? If not, objections of this Now, here I should have thought it was nature are but fond things vainly invented. sufficient to reply that "challenge" was constantly used in the sense of "objection"; But to come back to this use of the word and that, even though the poet might have "demise." To "demise" means to "convey," had the legal significance in his mind, it "transfer," or "grant." To apply it to a certainly does not argue the absence of legal "dignity" or "honour" may be unusual, but, training on his part that Katherine should certainly, it cannot be called an example of apply, by a very natural analogy, to one of "bad law." Moreover, the Queen is right, the two Cardinals who were to act as judges prima facie at any rate, when she suggests to in her case (but subject to the supreme Richard that he has no power to "demise" tribunal of the Pope, the real judge), a term any dignity or honour to a child of hers, for, which in strict legal usage is properly as Comyn's Digest informs us, "a dignity or applicable to a juror only; and here again I nobility cannot be aliened or transferred to might comment on the curious idea that a another." Nevertheless there was an dramatist cannot be a lawyer unless he exception. It was possible for Richard to makes his ladies and laymen speak in the "demise" such dignities or honours,

67 The George Greenwood Collection language that a trained lawyer would Shakespeare's legal nescience, is, on the employ. contrary, a very remarkable proof of his But there is much more than this to be said. exceptional legal knowledge. One could These critics have forgotten that the question hardly find a more instructive example of of Katherine's divorce was to be tried not in the dangers that lie in wait, not only for the one of the Temporal Courts, but in an layman, but for the lawyer himself, unless Ecclesiastical Court; and here an objection he be equipped with a very thorough all-round legal training, when he essays to might be taken by the defendant on the 29 ground that the judge was a "suspect" person criticize Shakespeare's use of legal terms. (iudex potest ut suspectus recusari) for All this is, I think, instructive and certain just causes which may be found set illuminating, but I have to admit that, so far forth in the Corpus Juris Canonici, and the as I am concerned, it is ex abundanti on the Decretals of Gregory IX. Katherine, matter of Shakespeare's legal knowledge, therefore, acted strictly within her rights in because, in my humble judgment, it has now challenging Wolsey ("challenge" here been proved that so much of Henry VIII as standing for "recusare"—"I do refuse you was not written by Fletcher was the work of for my judge"), because she believed him to Massinger, who wrote in collaboration with be her enemy. Wolsey, however, denies the him.30 accusation, tells the Queen to put such It now only remains to say a word notions away from her, and will not admit concerning Measure for Measure, the the objection. This was provided for by the second of the two plays, in which, according Canon Law: quod si iustam recusationis to Sir Sidney Lee, "no judicious reader can causam noluit admittere delegatus . . . a tali fail to detect" Shakespeare's ignorance gravamine licite potuit ad nostram "alike of elementary legal principles and of audientiam appellare. Agreeably with this legal procedure." Let us see, then, what Mr. Katherine makes her appeal: Charles Allen, to whom Sir Sidney refers us I do refuse you for my judge, and for legal light and leading, has to say here, concerning this play. Before you all, appeal unto the Pope "In Measure for Measure," writes this critic, To bring my whole cause 'fore his "Claudio was condemned to death for an holiness, assumed offence of which he was legally And to be judged by him. innocent. . . . Claudio had taken Juliet for his Katherine, it seems, follows the correct wife, per verba de praesenti. According to procedure throughout, except that, perhaps, the law in Shakespeare's time, cohabitation the more regular course would have been to after such a pre-contract of marriage was not let her proctors act for her in making her a crime." Here, then, is a flagrant instance of challenge and raising her appeal, but that "Bad law in Shakespeare." would have led to the sacrifice of one of the But let us examine this case a little further. most dramatic incidents of the play. There can be no doubt that Shakespeare There seems, then, to be no doubt that the based his play of Measure for Measure upon author of this part of King Henry VIII was George Whetstone's drama of Promos and acquainted with the correct procedure of the Cassandra (1578), and the prose version of ecclesiastical courts, and has stated it the same story which Whetstone included in accurately in this scene, and, therefore, that his Heptameron of Civil Discourses this passage, instead of being an example of published in 1582.31 Here we find that the

68 The George Greenwood Collection scene is laid at Julio in Hungary, where Lord and following lines. It is clear, however, Promos (Shakespeare's Angelo) has been, that, in the assumed circumstances of appointed lieutenant, or "deputy," by Shakespeare's play, such a "pre-contract" Corvinus, the King of Hungary and was of itself no defence to a charge under Bohemia. In this city we are told there was a the "statute," which required "the "statute," which had been allowed to go into denunciation of outward order," i.e., a disuse, but which was "revived" by Promos, solemn ceremony of marriage, before whereby incontinence was made a crime intimacy could be legalized. This plainly punishable by death. Under this statute appears from the fact that Claudio himself Andrugio (Claudio), who, "by the yeelding nowhere contends that he is not guilty under favour of fayre Polina" (Juliet), had the terms of the "statute"; he only complains trespassed against this ordinaunce," although that he is to be made amenable under a he "onlye sinned through love, and never "drowsy and neglected act"; nor is there any ment but with marriage to make amendes," suggestion made by any of the characters in was sentenced to be executed. We need not the play that his sentence was illegal. And if further follow the plot except to say that it had been so, why, we may ask, did not the Promos, giving way to unlawful passion Duke, as soon as he began to take interest in inspired by Andrugio's sister Cassandra— the affairs of the persons concerned, at once who, unlike Isabella, is induced to sacrifice quash Angelo's illegal sentence?33 herself in order to save her brother's life— So far all is plain sailing, but when we come becomes, like Angelo, himself guilty of the to consider Angelo's case we are confronted capital offence. with no little difficulty. Angelo himself was Now in Shakespeare's play the scene is laid bound to Mariana by a "pre-contract" per in Vienna, and here, as in Whetstone's play, verba de praesenti. Mr. Allen, indeed, we find there was an old statute, which had suggests that this pre-contract "was perhaps been "let slip," i.e., disused, for "fourteen merely per verba de futuro, a mere years" (Act i. 3, 21)32 under which the executory contract to marry in the future," penalty of death was decreed against those but there is no warrant whatever for such a guilty of unlawful love—a statute the suggestion, as is made manifest by Act iv. existence of which Mr. Allen strangely Sc. 1. 72, where the Duke says to Mariana, omits to mention. with reference to Angelo, "He is your It is true that Shakespeare complicates husband by a pre-contract," clearly showing matters by introducing the doctrine of that such pre-contract was per verba de "pre-contract," and by assuming the praesenti. But here comes the difficulty. The existence of two such "pre-contracts," one in Duke counsels Mariana, counterfeiting the case of Claudio and Juliet, and another Isabella under the cover of darkness, to have in the case of Angelo and Mariana, and marital relations with Angelo; for, says he: seeing that "according to the law [of He is your husband on a England] in Shakespeare's time," such a pre-contract. "pre-contract" per verba de praesenti was To bring you thus together, 'tis no sufficient to constitute legal marriage, Mr. sin, Allen apparently considered himself Sith that the justice of your title to justified in saying that Claudio was "legally him innocent" of any offence, for "Claudio had Doth flourish [i.e., adorn, or justify] taken Juliet for his wife, per verba de the deceit. praesenti," as appears from Act i. Sc. 2, 149,

69 The George Greenwood Collection

But these words might equally have been principles and of legal procedure" that "no applied to Claudio, who was Juliet's judicious reader" can fail to detect it. I "husband on a pre-contract," and yet held would earnestly commend this sad case to guilty of a capital offence under the statute. the "judicious" student of Shakespearean And that the ceremony of marriage was criticism. necessary in order to legalize the union of But, here again, there is yet more to be said. Angelo and Mariana appears by Act v. Sc. 1. Mr. Allen quotes from this same play of 380, where the Duke asks Angelo, with Measure for Measure the following words: reference to Mariana: For his possessions, Say, wast thou ever contracted to this Although by confiscation they are woman? ours, and upon his answering, "I was, my lord," We do instate and widow you withal, enjoins him to "take her hence, and marry To buy you a better husband. her instantly." And his comment is that no similar use of It would really seem, then, that in advising the word "widow" as a verb, "meaning to Mariana to counterfeit Isabella, as before give the right of a widow, is known either in mentioned, the Duke was counselling her to law or elsewhere." break the law as laid down by the statute. Now this statement as to the peculiar use of This is not a little puzzling, but perhaps all the word "widow" may be, as far as I know, we can say is that Shakespeare, for the correct, but it is curious that in the Literary purposes of his drama, was content to be Supplement to the Contemporary Review of inconsistent, and that that part of his plot November, 1911, the writer of an interesting which relates to the "statute," and that which article on "Shakespeare and the Law of relates to the "pre-contract," cannot be made Marriage," whose name is not given, but to harmonize. But evidence of legal who speaks of himself as "a lawyer," quotes nescience there, is really none, and Mr. this very passage from Measure for Allen himself, though he cites this play Measure, in order to show that Shakespeare under the heading of "Bad Law in here makes a "correct statement of the law" Shakespeare," does not actually accuse the in a matter where "the law itself was, one dramatist of any legal blunder here, for he is would think, too complicated and unusual in good enough to tell us that "it is quite practice for a layman to have known." The probable, morally certain indeed, that point is that "if a tenant in chivalry Shakespeare himself knew the law in respect committed a felony, this affected his to such pre-contracts . . . but in Measure for holding, and an escheat to the lord propter Measure for dramatic purposes he chose to delictum tenentis followed. But a felony was ignore it."34 He adds, "a mere playwriter an offence against the State, and so the might thus trifle with the law, but the future Crown claimed the escheat or forfeiture. But Lord High Chancellor of England would the Crown was compelled to surrender this have been less likely to do so"! But, really, right by Magna Charta, though it managed we are not out to discuss the "Baconian" to retain it in the case of high treason, and to hypothesis. The simple question is whether this day, in the case of an outlawry upon an Shakespeare has in Measure for Measure, as indictment for treason, the traitor's land is Sir Sidney Lee says, provided us with such a forfeited to the Crown. But what about the flagrant example of "radical unsoundness in rights of the widow, whether the escheat is his interpretation alike of elementary legal to the lord or the Crown? . . . The widow

70 The George Greenwood Collection had larger rights in her estate of dower than learning on Shakespeare's part that "there even the heir, for she was absolutely secured can neither be demurrer, nor bill of against any form of alienation by the owner. exceptions, nor writ of error" to the law as Yet Shakespeare makes the Duke declare he makes reference to, or "expounds it."35 that, in this case, she had no rights; and he But the examples which Mr. Allen parades was correct, for the law had been finally before us, when properly examined, entirely settled that way not so very long before fail to disprove the proposition that the great Shakespeare's time. Up to the reign of dramatist had exceptional knowledge "of Edward VI the widow was not protected legal principles and legal procedure." against escheat for felony or treason; but in Whether that proposition can be established 1549 it was settled by statute that escheat in by an examination of the plays and poems of the case of felony did not affect the widow's Shakespeare conducted by a competent and right of dower, though in the case of high or impartial critic it is not for me to say, but, in petit treason the dower was extinguished, view of all the wrangling and contention thus confirming, in the case of treason, the there has been on this interesting question it old law, not only that no heir born before or is, I submit, very desirable that such an after the felony could take the escheated examination should be undertaken, and the property, but that every gift (including whole matter re-considered ab initio, if only dower) made in the felon's lifetime was bad. that competent and impartial critic can be So Mariana would not have been entitled to discovered, and be willing to undertake the dower unless the Duke had relinquished his task. If such there be I will venture to tender rights." him some advice before he enters upon the The learned writer finds it difficult to inquiry. suppose that Shakespeare, as a layman, In the first place it is evident that he must be although he has (possibly "by accident"!) a lawyer, and "a ripe and good one." It is correctly stated the law in the passage cited, absurd to suppose that a man who has had "was familiar with this particular obscurity no legal training is competent to pronounce in the law of treason"; but he adds, "On the upon Shakespeare's knowledge or ignorance other hand, the play teems with legal of "legal principles and legal procedure." He references and correct statements of law, must also be learned not only in the law of and it is dangerous to dogmatize as to the to-day, but in the law, and the practice of the extent of Shakespeare's legal knowledge." law, civil, criminal, and ecclesiastical, as Alas, it is clear that the writer of this article, known to the lawyers of Elizabethan times. though, doubtless, an able and experienced Secondly, he should confine his lawyer, could not have been a "judicious investigations to the plays that are generally reader"! admitted to be Shakespearean. I would I have now examined all Mr. Allen's exclude from the inquiry such plays as (e.g.) instances of Shakespeare's "bad law" which Titus Andronicus, Henry VI (all three parts), appear to me worthy of any consideration, Timon of Athens, Pericles, The Taming of and as I venture to submit, I have shown that the Shrew, Henry VIII, and, possibly, Troilus his case has entirely broken down. In tenuem and Cressida (in part at any rate) as well. evanuit auram. Lord Campbell may have Thirdly, he must, when adducing legal terms "greatly exaggerated Shakespeare's legal used by other poets and dramatists, knowledge," and I certainly should not like contemporaneous with Shakespeare (in to base upon his book a case for such legal order to consider the question whether these

71 The George Greenwood Collection others also do not, as some contend, give earlier critics, including lawyers like Malone proof of legal knowledge as great as that to and Lord Campbell, appeared to entertain no be found in the Shakespearean plays and doubt that Shakespeare's works evinced such poems), strictly limit himself to such writers an exceptional knowledge of law that their as had, so far as is known, no special legal author must, somewhere and somehow, have education. For the question being whether received a certain amount of technical Shakespeare shows by his writings that he training. Just to give another example of the had an exceptional knowledge of law, and opinion which prevailed on this matter till must, therefore, have received some legal about the beginning of the present century, I training, it is obviously otiose to quote, in may cite a little book which lies before me this connection, passages from such writers by a Barrister, who dedicates his work to the as Middleton, Donne, Beaumont, Marston, late Lord Hatherley, then Lord Chancellor Ford, and others, who, as we know, had (Was Shakespeare a Lawyer? by "H. T." studied law. Longmans, 1871). If, then, such an investigation should some The author, who appears to be a lawyer of day be undertaken by such a competent and some distinction, asserts with confidence impartial lawyer, or, I would rather say, by a that "any practising lawyer, who had special committee of lawyers so qualified— attentively studied the Plays, would feel a consummation devoutly to be wished, but satisfied" that nothing less than some hardly to be hoped for—I venture very technical training would "account for the gravely to doubt whether they would be perpetual and abundant crop of legal lore found in agreement with Sir Sidney Lee's which bristles over the productions of assertion that "the poet's legal knowledge is Shakespeare's mind." And we have already a mingled skein of accuracy and inaccuracy, seen that Sir Sidney Lee, in the earlier and the errors are far too numerous and editions of his Life of Shakespeare, refers to important to justify on sober inquiry the plea the poet's "accurate use of legal terms which of technical knowledge," or with Mr. Arthur deserves all the attention that has been paid Underhill's pronouncement that to it." "Shakespeare's knowledge of law was Now, however, we see that a marked change neither profound nor accurate." On the has come over the spirit of the critical contrary, I think that they would dissent dream. Shakespeare's legal knowledge, so altogether from any such judgment on the far from being exceptional, is but "a mingled question of "Shakespeare's Law." But until skein of accuracy and inaccuracy; the errors that investigation can be made the are numerous and important." Shakespeare "judicious" critic must, I apprehend, be displays "a radical unsoundness in his content to say, whatever his own opinion interpretation alike of elementary legal may be, adhuc sub iudice lis est. principles and of legal procedure." Now, in the meantime it had been asked by Final Note certain audacious sceptics, how came it about that William Shakspere of Stratford had acquired all the exceptional knowledge Tis impossible not to take note of the of law that the earlier critics—lawyers and curious change which has of late manifested laymen alike—had attributed to him? When, itself in orthodox criticism with regard to where, and how had he obtained it? The Shakespeare's law. As we have seen, the theory that he had once been an Attorney's

72 The George Greenwood Collection clerk had not a scintilla of evidence to against another by his own agreement." If support it, and, for many reasons, seemed both plaintiff and defendant agree to bring wildly improbable. How, then, to account an action with a common object, that is a for Shakespeare's law? Was it possible that "collusive action." As my editorial mentor the name "Shakespeare" stood, not for himself admits, "Recoveries" were Shakspere of Stratford, but for some other in "collusive actions," but, like "fines," they whose case the hypothesis of a legal training were recognized and approved methods of presented no difficulty? dealing with land in certain cases, and no Then at once the alarum sounded in the suggestion of fraud or deceit attached to orthodox camps. The note of criticism was them. changed. What? Shakespeare evinces an 2. Sous le Masque de "William exceptional knowledge of law? Nonsense. Shakespeare" by Abel Lefranc, Professeur Those old critics and commentators were all au Collège de France, Vol. 1. p. 20. absurdly wrong. We know better now. The 3. We now speak of "The Lord Chief Justice layman of today is more competent to of England," but that title dates only from decide this question than old lawyers like the year 1875, although Coke had tried to Malone, or Campbell, or Rushton, or Grant assume it, and was informed, when he was White, or Judge Webb, or Lord Penzance, et dismissed in the year of Shakespeare's death, hoc genus omne. Go to. Shakespeare had no that he had incurred the displeasure of the, more legal knowledge than any other King by so doing. Upon this matter we read dramatist of his day, in fact not so much. in the modern Encyclopaedia of the Laws of Shakespeare was no more learned in the law England: "Shakespeare, ever accurate in his than he was learned in Latin, or, in fact, in legal terminology, styles Gascoigne, C. J., anything else. So that difficulty is happily 'Lord Chief Justice of the King's Bench,' in disposed of. Nous avons changé tout cela. the dramatis personae of 'King Henry IV. Magna est Falsitas et praevalebit. Part 2.'" (Italics mine.) 4. The Liverpool Albion. Mr. Rushton was End Notes closely connected with Liverpool. We may notice that Lord Campbell's letter to Payne Collier bears the date, in his book, 1. Amongst other authorities, I might September 15, 1858, though the book itself mention the Encyclopaedia of the Laws of was not published till 1859. Mr. Rushton's England, where "Fines" are described as book was published in the first week of "collusive actions." In other places they are August, 1858. called "fictitious" actions, as (e.g.) in 5. I would recommend those who are Williams on the Law of Real Property: inclined to sneer at Lord Campbell's "Fines were fictitious suits commenced and authority as a lawyer to read Mr. G. P. then compromised by leave of the Court, Macdonell's article on him in the Dict. Nat. whereby the lands in question were Biog. acknowledged to be the right of one of the parties" (12th Edn., p. 230). It is hardly 6. Boswell's Malone (1821), Vol. ii. p. 108. necessary to say that the word "collusive" 7. Mr. Castle was not altogether "orthodox." does not necessarily connote fraud, or He entertained the curious idea that deceit. As we read in Termes de la Ley, Shakespeare and Bacon collaborated in what "Collusion is where an action is brought he calls "the Legal Plays." See Shakespeare,

73 The George Greenwood Collection

Bacon, Jonson, and Greene, by E. T. Castle, Collier's "Shakespeare's Library," Vol. ii. p. K.C. Lord Penzance's legal competence no 65. See also The Pecorone of Ser Giovanni, one, I apprehend, will be found to question. now first translated into English by W. G. 8. I quote from the Illustrated Library Waters, illustrated by E. R. Hughes, R.W.S. Edition (1899), p. 30. (1897). 9. How "errors" could possibly "justify a 17. There is yet another thing that sapient plea of experience" is beyond the limit of lay critics are apt to forget. It is impossible for the best of lawyers to make a "trial my very ordinary intelligence. scene" on the stage conform to strict legal 10. A Life of Shakespeare (1915), p. 43. He procedure. Take, for example, the play further refers to Mr. J. M. Robertson's called The Butterfly on the Wheel, by Mr. E. Baconian Heresy (1913), but I have said all G. Hemmerde, K.C., where such a scene is I desire to say about that work in my introduced. Here a legal critic may find booklet, Shakespeare's Law and Latin many things said and done which could not (Watts & Co., 1916). Mr. Robertson, it will have been actually said or done in a real trial be remembered, is not a lawyer, nor, for that by jury, but it would be absurd to say that, matter, is Sir Sidney Lee. therefore, Mr. Hemmerde is ignorant of law. 11. Mr. Charles Allen, now deceased, was a A dramatist is, of course, under the necessity lawyer of some distinction, who practised of greatly compressing his "trial scene," latterly at Boston. otherwise it would, probably, last many hours, and in order to do this he is obliged to 12. "Statutes." A writer in the Times depart from the rules of legal procedure. His Literary Supplement of June 25, 1920, has witnesses, for instance, cannot be examined, brought to our notice an instructive example cross-examined, and re-examined as they of the use of this word, where it certainly would be in a Court of law, and, amongst does not "import a legislative Act." The other irregularities, "leading questions" are "Statutes" of the Ewelme Almshouse (built absolutely necessary for him. These things before 1450) "run in the names of William are not "mistakes." They are the result of the de la Pole, Duke of Suffolk, and Alice his necessities of the case. wife." But such use of the word was, and is, of course, extremely common. 18. The "Temple" Edition, Glossary, p. 124. 13. "In re Shakespeare's Legal 19. Encyclopaedia of the Laws of England, Acquirements," by William C. Devecmon. vol. ii. p. 334. Art. "Bond" (1906). Publications of the New York Shakespeare 20. Stephen's Comm., l1th Edn. (1890), vol. Society, No. 12, London, Kegan Paul, 1899. ii. p. 117. (My italics). 21. Malone, himself a sound lawyer, knew 14. "The Temple Shakespeare" Edition, p. better. He quotes the words "Go with me to ix. See the "Story of the Choice of Three a notary, seal me there your single bond" in Caskets" from the Gesta Romanorum," illustration of Shakespeare's legal translated by Richard Robinson, in Payne knowledge. Boswell's Malone, vol. ii. p. Collier's "Shakespeare's Library," Vol. ii. p. 109. 102. 22. In Boccaccio's story (The ninth Novel of 15. Work cited, p. 113 and following. the second day of the Decameron) we read: 16. Ser Giovanni Fiorentino's story, with "The two persons concerned were so English translation, is to be found in Payne resolutely bent on their purpose that all

74 The George Greenwood Collection dissuasions were ineffectual, and an and from Porter: Obligation in writing being drawn up, they Francis, my love's lease I do let to both signed and sealed it in the presence of thee, their companions" (Mrs. Lennox's Date of my life and time; what say'st translation). It will be seen how closely thou to me? Shakespeare follows his Italian model here. The ent'ring, fine, or income thou 23. Shakespeare's Legal Acquirements must pay. (1859), p. 58. And actually informs us that, "There is 24. Act ii. Sc. 3. nothing more technical in the 'Comedy of 25. Mr. Underhill has kindly written to me Errors'"! (The Baconian Heresy, p. 46). This that his article was written upwards of ten is, of course, ludicrous. See my years ago, and that he cannot now say where Shakespeare's Law and Latin (Watts & Co., he got the words in question, but "must have 1916), p. 11 et seq. We even find the above taken it [the quotation] from some printed absurd error as to the meaning of the word source." I think, therefore, there can be no "fine" in Schmidt's Shakespeare Lexicon doubt that he took it from some writer who (1874). misquoted Lord Campbell. Certainly he 27. Malone tells us of a deed of June 2, would not have written such nonsense. See 1647, "to lead the uses of a fine and my letter in the Times Lit. Supp., March, 11, recovery of our poet's estate, then in the 1920. possession of his eldest daughter, Susanna 26. Mr. Underhill gives us a brief Hall." Boswell's Malone (1821), vol. ii. pp. description of a Common Recovery, and 116-7. adds a word with regard to a fine (Work 28. Shakespeare's Legal Maxims (1907), p. cited, pp. 404-5). I would refer to Stephen's 58. Comm., 8th Edn., i. 564; Kerr's Blackstone 29. Mr. W. W. Graham, British Vice-Consul (1862), vol. ii. 351; and Cruise on Fines and at Durango, Mexico, writes to me that Recoveries (3rd Edn., 1794, vol. i. pp. 175, "Under the old Spanish Code either party to 197-227). Mr. J. M. Robertson, who, as a a suit has the right to 'recusar,' i.e., layman, was not unnaturally ignorant of the 'challenge' the judge on eleven different meaning of the words "fine" and "recovery" grounds, of which No. 9 is that he has used in their technical sense, has come quite previously interested himself or expressed amusingly to grief by finding parallels to an opinion on the case pending. This right is them in the use by Dekker and other frequently exercised in Mexican law today. dramatists contemporary with Shakespeare The Queen, true to her character as a of the same words in their ordinary Spanish lady, twice 'refuses' Wolsey as signification, as, e.g., in the use of "fine" in judge, an almost literal translation of its common meaning of a money payment. 'recusar.' Surely this is one more proof that Thus, after telling the reader that "'Fine,' as the Great Unknown was posted on Spanish it happens, is a common figure in the drama law as well as on English"! of Shakespeare's day," he quotes from Dekker: 30. See Sidelights on Shakespeare, by H. Dugdale Sykes. (The Shakespeare Head an easy fine Press, Stratford-upon-Avon, 1919.) It was, For which methought I leased away of course, Mr. James Spedding who offered my soul proof that a great part of the play, including

75 The George Greenwood Collection

Wolsey's and Buckingham's speeches, was had used in disposing of his realty"; for, as written by Fletcher, an opinion which has Mr. Rushton points out, in Shakespeare's met with general acceptance. day "the words devise and bequeath were 31. See Payne Collier's "Shakespeare's applied indifferently to both real and personal property." Shakespeare's Library," vol. ii. p. 50. Testamentary Language (1869), pp. 23 and 32. "The law hath not been dead, though it 49. hath slept," says Angelo (Act ii, 2, 90), whereupon Mr. Rushton suggests that Shakespeare had in mind the legal maxim "Dormiunt aliquando leges, moriuntur nunquam." 33. I find it difficult, therefore, to subscribe to Mr. Underhill's statement that "Angelo's condemnation of Claudio for alleged fornication was, and was intended by Shakespeare to be, absolutely tyrannical and illegal" (Shakespeare's England, vol. i. p. 408). Mr. Underhill (who, however, does not suggest any "bad law" on Shakespeare's part here) appears to have ignored the existence of the "statute." Angelo, it may be noticed, styles Juliet a "fornicatress," in spite of the pre-contract (Act ii. 2, 24), and it seems that he was justified in so calling her, since the poet evidently requires us to assume that the pre-contract alone was not sufficient to give validity to the marriage, or to exempt her and her lover from the provisions of the statute. 34. Lord Campbell certainly knew the law with regard to "pre-contracts," though he says nothing on the subject with reference to Measure for Measure. See his learned judgment in the Queen v. Millis, 10 Clark & Finnelly (1st Series), p. 534, which is a locus classicus on the subject. See pp. 763, 784. 35. Lord Campbell was himself guilty of mistakes in law, as when commenting on the words "I give unto my wife my second-best bed," in Shakespeare's will, he writes "the subject of this magnificent gift being only personal property, he shows his technical skill by omitting the word devise, which he

76 The George Greenwood Collection

variety; but notwithstanding that the whole world has been ransacked for evidence, and notwithstanding that lives have been Ben Jonson and devoted to the subject and an incredible amount of labour bestowed upon it, we find Shakespeare it as true today as it was when the late J. R. Green published his History of the English People, that "of hardly any great poet do we by Sir George Greenwood M.P. know so little." In marked contrast with Sir Sidney's edited by Mark Andre Alexander flamboyant assertion are the more sober, and quite veracious, words with which Mr. Gregory Smith commences his recently FOREWORD published study of Ben Jonson in the "Englishmen of Letters" series (1919): "We know more of Jonson than of any of the greater writers of his age. There are no Sir Sidney Lee some twenty years ago mysteries, or at least great mysteries, in his committed himself to the following literary career, and the biographer is not statement concerning William Shakspere of driven, with the Shakespearians, to Stratford-upon-Avon: "Patient investigation conjectural reconstruction from the shards of which has been in progress for more than record and anecdote. Even his personality two hundred years has brought together a stands forth fresh and convincing beside the mass of biographical detail which far blurred portrait of Marlowe, or Shakespeare, exceeds that accessible in the case of any or Fletcher. For this fuller knowledge we are poet contemporary with Shakespeare." indebted to Jonson himself." (Times, Jan. 8, 1902). Here I cannot do better than quote the words Now if this statement is intended to mean of a correspondent who has given much (and I can assign no other reasonable thought and study to this question. "It is the significance to the words) that we know very fulness and precision of the information more about the life of Shakspere of Stratford we possess respecting Jonson's literary and than we know about that of any poet dramatic relationships, particularly during contemporary with him, there is an audacity the eventful years of the ‘Shakespeare' about it which is really quite sublime; period, which prove that Jonson had little or indeed the proverbial "one step" between the nothing to do with Shakspere. His sublime and the ridiculous seems here to aggressive self-assertion not only kept him have entirely disappeared. in the lime-light, but dragged into public view every one that had anything to do with It is quite true that around the name of him, either as friend or foe. We have his "Shakespeare" there has grown up a correspondence, his conversation, his mountainous mass of literature—of personal dealings with—even compli- criticism, of illustration, of theory, of mentary poems addressed to—everybody conjecture, of dogmatism, of assertion, of but Shakspere." There is, indeed, nothing allusions, real or supposed, etc., etc.—which whatever to show that there was any real is perfectly appalling in its extent and

77 The George Greenwood Collection intimacy, nay, any friendship, or any "love guided his erratic steps. . . . . Born a lost," between Jonson and William Calvinist he became a Catholic. After the Shakspere of Stratford. The alleged "merry Powder Plot he joined the court religion and meeting" between these two and Drayton, at helped in hunting down his colleagues." which Shakspere is reported to have drunk (Royal Windsor, vol. Iv., p. 92). so hard that he died from the effects of it, is so obviously a fable that it demands no This, it may be said, is an unduly harsh consideration, and as to Jonson's remarks in judgment. Possibly it may be so, but it is at his Discoveries, made many years after any rate much nearer to the truth than the Shakspere's death, and not published till assertions of some critics and some six years after Jonson's own death, it controversialists, who, in the supposed appears to me that these later utterances interest of the traditional "Stratfordian" must be taken with many "grains of salt," for faith, apparently think it necessary to put they bear no relation to, and have no "honest Ben," as they love to style him, in correspondence with, the known facts of the same category with George Washington Jonson's life. As I have endeavoured to — "the man who never told a lie!" show in the following pages Jonson was closely associated with the preparation and But what a thousand pities it is that—so far publication of the Folio of 1623 (as a "send- as we know, and as we are fully justified in off" for which he wrote his famous concluding—William Shakspere never panegyric), and was fully cognisant of the addressed a letter or a poem to Jonson; never true authorship of the plays therein given to received a letter or a poem from Jonson; the world; and it was, as I am convinced, never received one of those gift-books this association and this knowledge which which Jonson was so fond of presenting to coloured the cryptic utterances of his old his friends with his well-known and age. excellently-written autograph on the front page! What a thousand pities that Ben's As to the idea that Jonson was too "love," almost amounting to "idolatry"—and uncompromisingly honest to lend himself to what is "idolatry" but the worship of a any literary deception even in those days graven image?—never appears to have when literary deceptions were so extremely found utterance or expression till many common as to be generally regarded as but years after William Shakspere's death! G. G. venial offences, if not altogether justifiable, it may, perhaps, be of use to quote the judgment of a deceased writer and critic of no small distinction. "James," says Hepworth Dixon, "had made him [Jonson] laureate, and he had to earn his hundred marks. If flattery were wanted he was rich in phrases; if abuse were wanted he was no less rank in venom. Both were needed by the King: flattery the most fulsome, abuse the most scurrilous that poet had ever penned. He vas extremely fond of drink; he was inordinately foul of tongue; in sycophancy he knew no depth; no sense of religion

78 The George Greenwood Collection

Now let us briefly consider this Jonsonian testimony. There are two utterances to Part One - Jonson and which the orthodox appeal as conclusive Shakespeare evidence, viz.: the lines bearing Jonson's signature prefixed to the Folio of 1623, and the much-quoted passage De Shakespeare nostrati in his Timber or Discoveries. Let us THE sheet anchor of the traditional belief first consider the evidence of the Folio. with regard to the authorship of the plays and poems of Shakespeare is undoubtedly Seven years after the death of William Ben Jonson. It is to the Jonsonian utterances Shakspere of Stratford-upon-Avon, it that the apostles of the Stratfordian faith entered into the mind of somebody to always make their appeal. That faith we are publish a collected edition of "Mr. William told is based on the "irrefragable rock" of Shakespeare's" plays. Who that somebody Ben Jonson's testimony.1 was we do not know, but we do know that Ben Jonson was very closely associated with Well, it was not so very long ago that we the undertaking. It cannot reasonably be used to be told that the truth of a universal doubted that Jonson was the "literary man" deluge and the preservation of mankind and who, as the Cambridge Editors long ago animals of every kind and species, in Noah's suggested, was called in to write the Preface Ark, was established on the "impregnable "To the Great Variety of Readers "signed by rock" of Holy Scripture, and yet today we the players Heminge and Condell."2 That he find even high Church dignitaries—with did, indeed, write this Preface was, in my whom Mr. J. M. Robertson would certainly opinion, proved by that very able critic, be in entire agreement here—disavowing George Steevens, in a masterly critical any belief in this interesting mythological analysis. "After the publication of my first tradition. Is it not, then, possible that the edition of Shakespeare's works," writes Jonsonian testimony may prove no more Steevens, "a notion struck me that the "irrefragable" or "impregnable" than that of preface prefixed by the players in 1623 to those old chronicles, which age-long their edition of his plays had much of the tradition has ascribed to the authorship of manner of Ben Jonson, and an attentive "Moses"? comparison of that preface with various passages in Jonson's writings having As a distinguished writer, well-known both abundantly supported and confirmed my in the political and the literary world, has conjecture, I do not hesitate3 now to assert written to me, the difficulties in the way of that the greatest part of it was written by the orthodox "Shakespearian" belief seem to him. Heminge and Condell being themselves be insuperable. Are the Jonsonian utterances wholly unused to composition, and having of such weight as to outweigh them all? I been furnished by Jonson, whose reputation reply, put Jonson in one scale and all the was then at its height, with a copy of verses difficulties and improbabilities —if not in praise of Shakespeare, and with others on impossibilities—of the "Stratfordian" the engraved portrait prefixed to his plays, hypothesis in the other, and old Ben will would naturally apply to him for assistance kick the beam. in that part of the work in which they were, for the first time, to address the publick in their own names. . . . I think I can show the

79 The George Greenwood Collection whole of the first member of this address, Dedication and Preface to his comprising eighteen lines out of forty, to be [Shakespeare's] works."6 entirely his; . . . a minute comparison of the first half of this preface with various The Cambridge Editors—and the names of passages in Jonson's works will, I conceive, Messrs. W. G. Clark, John Glover, and Aldis establish my hypothesis beyond a doubt."4 Wright must always command respect—are at least so far in agreement that they tell us It will be noticed that Steevens here speaks "the Preface (to the Great Variety of without doubt as to part of this Preface only Readers) may have been written by some as having been written by Jonson, but we literary man in the employment of the need have no hesitation in saying that if publishers, and merely signed by the two Jonson is proved to have written part he players." Nor would this be at all an unusual undoubtedly wrote the whole of the Preface. thing to do. For example, when the folio It seems to me absurd to suppose that, edition of Beaumont and Fletcher's Plays having been called in to write in the names was brought out in 1647, by the publisher of the players, he would have contented Moseley, there was a dedicatory epistle, himself with composing a fragment of a similar to that of the Shakespeare Folio, preface, and have left the rest to others. prefixed to it, and addressed to the survivor Least of all would he have left what he had of the "Incomparable Paire," viz.: Philip, written to be completed by those "deserving Earl of Pembroke and Montgomery, who men," Heminge and Condell, who were, as was then Lord Chamberlain. This was Steevens justly remarks, "wholly unused to signed by ten of the players of the King's composition." That was not the way in Company, but nobody, I imagine, supposes which old Ben, of all men, was in the habit that they wrote it, or any one of them. "The of doing things. I entertain no doubt, actors who aided the scheme," says Sir therefore, that the Preface "To the Great Sidney Lee, in his Introduction to the Variety of Readers" was wholly written by Facsimile Edition of the Shakespeare Folio, Ben Jonson. "played a very subordinate part in its execution. They did nothing beyond But, further, there can be, in my judgment, seconding Moseley's efforts in securing the no reasonable doubt that Jonson wrote the 'copy' and signing their names—to the "Epistle Dedicatory" also. He was, doubtless number of ten—to the dedicatory epistle." (I use that often misused adverb with From this I conclude that, in Sir Sidney confidence here), employed as the "literary Lee's opinion, the actors in this case, at any man" to write the prefaces to the Folio, as, rate, did not write the epistle to which they also, the poetical eulogium of the author so signed their names. prefixed to it. The "Epistle Dedicatory" contains many classical allusions, quite in Now in the case of the Shakespeare Folio we the Jonsonian style. Some of it is taken know that Jonson wrote the lines facing the direct from the dedication of Pliny's Natural Droeshout engraving, subscribed with his History, and there is an obvious allusion to a initials, and the eulogistic verses signed with well-known ode of Horace.5 Mr. James his name in full. Is it not reasonable, then, to Boaden, amongst others, had no doubts conclude that he was the "literary man in the about the matter. "Ben," he says, "it is now employment of the publishers," as suggested ascertained, wrote for the Player-Editors the by the Cambridge Editors, and that he wrote the prefaces, which are entirely in his style?

80 The George Greenwood Collection

May we not go further and say that it is remark, "The natural inference to be drawn certain that he was the author of these from this statement is that all the separate prefaces? Let us see what the Professor of editions of Shakespeare's plays were stolen, English Literature in the University of 'surreptitious,' and 'imperfect,' and that all Pennsylvania has to say on the subject. Dr. those published in the Folio were printed Felix Schelling, who holds this position, is from the author's own manuscripts. But it recognized as a high Shakespearean can be proved to demonstration that several authority. He is, moreover, a man to whom of the plays in the Folio were printed from any doubt as to the "Stratfordian" authorship earlier quarto editions, and that in other of the plays is anathema. And this is what he cases the quarto is more correctly printed, or tells us with regard to the preparation for from a better manuscript, than the Folio text, publication of the Folio of 1623: "Neither and therefore of higher authority. . . . As the Heminge nor Condell was a writer, and such 'setters forth' are thus convicted of a a book ought to be properly introduced. In 'suggestio falsi' in one point it is not such a juncture there could be no choice. improbable that they may have been guilty The best book of the hour demanded of the like in another." 8 sponsorship by the greatest contemporary man of letters. Ben Jonson was the King's Jonson then, as writer of the prefaces, and poet, the Laureate, the literary dictator of the closely associated with the preparation and age; and Jonson rose nobly to the task, publication of the Folio, was guilty of the penning not only the epigram 'To the suggestio falsi concerning the "stolne and Reader,' and his noble personal eulogium, surreptitious copies," with which the but both the prose addresses of dedication. Cambridge Editors justly charge the "setters Of this matter there can be no question forth," or the "literary man" who, as they whatever, and if anyone is troubled by the suggest, wrote the prefaces for them. And signatures of Heminge and Condell even if it may be contended, as Mr. A. W. appended to two addresses which neither of Pollard contends, that, speaking strictly by them actually wrote, let him examine into the card, the statement was true, inasmuch his own conduct in the matter of circulars, as not all but only some of the quartos ought resolutions, and other papers which he has to be treated as "stolne and surreptitious," had written by skilled competence for the that cannot acquit the author of the preface, appendage of his signature."7 seeing that, as this learned writer admits, "with the sale of the First Folio in view it But, as every student of Shakespeare knows, was doubtless intended to be interpreted" as the players, in the Preface "to the Great it has, in fact, been interpreted ever since, Variety of Readers," which bore their viz.: that the plays were all now for the first signatures, say, or rather, are made to say, time published from perfect author's that the readers of the plays who were manuscripts, which certainly is very far "before . . . . abus'd with diverse stolne, and from the truth.9 surreptitious copies, maimed, and deformed by the frauds and stealthes of injurious Jonson must have known also that a large imposters," are now presented with correct quantity of work was included in the Folio versions, "cur'd, and perfect of their limbes; which was not "Shakespearean" at all, i.e., and all the rest, absolute in their numbers, as which was not the work of the real he [Shakespeare] conceived them." "Shakespeare," whoever he was, the one Whereupon the Cambridge Editors justly supremely great man who has given us such

81 The George Greenwood Collection plays as Hamlet, Lear, and Othello, to take strictly orthodox Shakespearean, the late Mr. but three examples. Many plays had been A. H. Bullen, entitled Sidelights on published in the convenient name of Shakespeare, has contended—and I think "Shakespeare," or as by "W.S.," such as the there can be no doubt he is right—that all of Tragedy of Locrine (1595), Sir John this magnificent drama that was not written Oldcastle (1600), Thomas Lord Cromwell by Fletcher is the work of Massinger. In (1602), The London Prodigal (1605), The fact, as Mr. Sykes writes, "the editor of the Puritan (1607), A Yorkshire Tragedy folio foisted upon the public as a (1608)10 Pericles (1609). All these were Shakespearean drama an early work of rejected by the editor, or editors, of the First Massinger and Fletcher's." Folio, although they were included by the editors of the Third Folio (1664) and What, then, becomes of the supposed retained by the editors of the Fourth Folio guarantee of "those deserving men" (1685). Heminge and Condell? What becomes of the dismal farce of the "unblotted manuscripts?" On the other hand, there were included in the First Folio such plays as Henry VI., Part Let us listen to what Mr. Dugdale Sykes, I., which all are agreed is not himself, I believe, a quite orthodox Shakespearean, although it is possible that it "Stratfordian," has to say on these points. In contains some few items of Shakespeare's reply to the question how it was that work; Henry VI., Parts II. and III., a very Heminge and Condell came to include large part of which is certainly not Henry VIII. in the First Folio Shakespeare, Shakespearean; Titus Andronicus, which, and how it was that Waterson came to put according to the overwhelming balance of Shakespeare's name with Fletcher's on the authority, is not Shakespearean; The Taming title-page of The Two Noble Kinsmen, he of the Shrew, as to which it is unanimously writes, "I suggest as a possible answer to agreed that Act I is not Shakespeare's, and this question that neither Heminge and which is considered by many, and I think Condell nor Waterson possessed a higher with reason, not to be Shakespearean at all; standard of honesty than seems to have been Timon of Athens generally believed to be prevalent among the publishers of their day: very largely non-Shakespearean; and other that in this respect there may have been little plays, such as Troilus and Cressida, in to choose between them and Humphrey which the work of one or two other pens is, Moseley, who in 1647 printed as Beaumont probably, to be found. Nevertheless, all and Fletcher's (from 'the author's original these plays were published as by copies') thirty-five plays of which a large "Shakespeare." number were written by Massinger and Fletcher, while three (The Laws of Candy, Again, take the case of Henry VIII. James The Fair Maid of the Inn, and Love's Cure) Spedding long ago proved that the greater contain no recognizable trace either of part of this play, including Wolsey's famous Beaumont or Fletcher. When we find that soliloquy, and Buckingham's beautiful and two publishers issued spurious plays as pathetic speech on his way to execution, is Shakespeare's during his lifetime, and that a the work of Fletcher; and now Mr. H. third put Shakespeare's name on the title- Dugdale Sykes, in an excellent little book page of the early play of King John in 1623, published at the Shakespeare Head Press at there appears to me to be no reason why we Stratford-on-Avon, with the blessing of that should accept Heminge and Condell's

82 The George Greenwood Collection attribution of Henry VIII. to Shakespeare as the names of writers who were not really the decisive. And I submit that we have a solid authors thereof. reason for doubting their honesty, inasmuch as their assertion that all the plays in the And now, in 1623, all "Shakespeare's" plays Folio were printed from the author's manu- were to be published in collected form, scripts is known to be untrue."11 "Truely set forth, according to their first ORIGINALL," as the second title-page of So much then for the "deserving men," and the Folio informs the reader. But alas, they the "True Originalls" and the "unblotted were far from being all Shakespearean work, manuscripts." And what becomes of and many of them far from being "set forth Jonson's testimony? Jonson was "in the according to their first original." Jonson, swim." He was concerned "up to the hilt" in however, was employed to give the volume the publication of the Folio, and all these a good send-off, not only by writing the facts must have been within his knowledge. prefaces, and making himself responsible for the statements therein contained, together Part Two - Jonson and with those on the two title-pages, but also by the exercise of his poetical genius. He Shakespeare accordingly wrote the very remarkable lines which face the paralysing Droeshout engraving and also the long eulogy signed by his name prefixed to the Folio. The orthodox were wont to appeal to Messrs. Heminge and Condell as though it Now, what was the state of the case, as I were blasphemous to doubt the truth of any conceive it to have been? I conceive that the word they have said. Now this bubble has name of "Shakespeare," first given to the been pricked, and soon, perhaps, it may public on the dedicatory page of Venus and dawn upon the critics that "Jonson's Adonis, in 1593, had been adopted as a testimony" with regard to the Shakespearean convenient mask-name.13 That many Folio and its supposed author is not of much subsequently wrote under that name besides greater value. He knew that not all the plays the real "Shakespeare," whoever he was; is a included in the Folio were written by simple matter of fact, and also that they did "Shakespeare"; he knew well enough that so unrebuked and unrestrained, without let they were not printed from the "true or hindrance. I conceive that several men of originals"; he knew that the statement about high position, but, more especially one man the "unblotted manuscripts" was mere 12 of high position and of supreme genius, fudge. It is not necessary to condemn him wrote plays under that name. I conceive that and the players as guilty of dishonesty in the Shakspere, the actor-manager, who was same measure as we should do if we tried probably himself able to "bumbast out a them by the standard of the present day, for blank verse," acted as "honest broker" for we should remember that such aberration these plays.14 He received them, and put from the path of strict veracity was, as Mr. them on the stage if he thought fit to do so, Dugdale Sykes truly says, looked upon as a and they became, presumably, the property more or less venial offence in those times of the Company. They became when literary mystifications of this sort were "Shakespeare's" plays, and the authorship, of common occurrence, and when plays, and about which there was no questioning—for other works, were frequently published in who cared a twopenny button-top about the

83 The George Greenwood Collection authorship at that date? 15 —was, I take it, they had expressed their opinions openly." generally attributed to him, though, as a fact, This may be an exaggerated statement, but it must have been known that, whether he or quite apart from any fear of punishment, to somebody else were the real "Shakespeare," write dramas for the players was considered many of these plays were not altogether below the dignity of a noble, or "Shakespearean" at all. But this was a matter any man of high position in the community. in which but few people took any interest in However innocent might be the work, it those days. brought him into ridicule and contempt, and might prove an insuperable obstacle to his Now, some six-and-twenty years ago advancement in the State. Even to publish Frances E. Willard wrote in the Arena poetry in his own name was unworthy of a Magazine (Boston, Mass., 1893): "It seems man of high position.16 In these perfectly reasonable to me that Lord Bacon circumstances it was but natural that men in and a number of other brilliant thinkers of high place, who had in mind, it might be, to the Elizabethan era, who were nobles, and instruct and improve, as well as to entertain, who, owing to the position of the stage, the public, through the medium of the would not care to have their names drama, should do so under the disguise of a associated with the drama, composed or pen-name; and "Shakespeare," or, as it was moulded the plays." This fairly well so often written on title-pages, "Shake- expresses my own view, with the speare," formed an excellent pen-name. qualification that I make no assumption whatever with regard to the "Baconian" But now the time had come when these hypothesis. I would rather say, "it seems "Shakespearean" plays—those of them perfectly reasonable to me" that some men which appeared to the editor, or editors, of of high position, and especially one great the Folio to be most worthy of publication— man of transcendent ability, wrote dramas were to be collected and republished (such under the mask-name of "Shakespeare"—a as had already been published), and with name which had been already adopted by them were to be given to the world sixteen the author of Venus and Adonis—which dramas which had never seen the light in were confided to the actor-manager to be put print before, including such masterpieces of upon the stage. If anybody asks why they literature as Twelfth Night, As You Like It, A should think it necessary to conceal their Winter's Tale, Julius Caesar, Macbeth and identity, I need do no more than advise him Cymbeline. These now, seven years after to study the social history of the Elizabethan William Shakspere's death, were to be age. "The period of the Tudors," writes E. A. rescued from that oblivion to which the Petherick, in his preface to Edwin Johnson's actor-author (if, indeed, he was the author of Rise of English Culture, "was not only a them) was, apparently, quite content that time of severe repression and of harsh they should be consigned. government, but also a time when free speech was impossible. Able men could And now Jonson was to write a poetical only dissemble and speak in allegory. The panegyric which should commend the Folio plays of Shakespeare and of other writers to the reading public, and give it a good are doubtless a reflection of the period; the send-off. And right well he did it, and fully names but a disguise—the play-writers does the world now recognise that he did not merely the spokesmen of those who would exaggerate by one jot or tittle the eulogy of have been sent to the Tower and the Block if

84 The George Greenwood Collection that "Shakespeare" whose writings he held would be a matter of such transcendent up to the admiration of all readers, as such importance as it has now become. Not having met Jonson in the flesh, and not "As neither Man, nor Muse, can praise too knowing what his views may have been with much." regard to these literary deceptions, or by what constraining influences his action may The plays, I repeat, were the plays of the have been governed, but knowing something actor-manager; they were, it would seem, concerning the practice of the times in this the property of his Company; they were connexion, I see nothing unreasonable in "Shakespeare's" plays, and the authorship believing that he acted as I have suggested, was, we may suppose, generally ascribed to and I should no more think of calling him "a him, so far as anyone ever concerned liar" on that account than I should think of himself about the authorship. It was, then, branding Sir Walter Scott with that for Jonson to eulogize "Shakespeare," and opprobrious epithet because he denied point- for the general public "Shakespeare" would, blank the authorship of the Waverley Novels. I imagine, be Shakspere of Stratford, the We know that he considered himself actor-manager.17 The true Shakespeare's real justified in so doing, and we doubt not that name could not be revealed, but some Jonson also considered himself justified in ostensible author there must be. Why, then, what he did. disturb the accepted legend? So Shakespeare would for the general public be the "Swan of So much, then, for Jonson's famous Avon," as he appears in Jonson's poem. panegyric, which probably did more for the sale of the Folio than even his equally But here the indignant critic will doubtless famous suggestio falsi (in the Preface "To interpose. "What! Jonson wrote thus, though the Great Variety of Readers"), to the effect knowing all the facts. Then, according to that all the plays therein included were now you, Jonson was a liar!" Whereat we of the published "perfect of their limbes" and "heretical" persuasion can afford to smile. "absolute in their numbers,"18 as the poet For we see no reason to suppose that Jonson conceived them. What now of the allusion to might not have taken the course we attribute Shakespeare in his Discoveries? Here to him, and considered himself quite Jonson, writing late in life, apparently some justified in so doing. time between 1630 and 1637, records in glowing terms the high personal regard in Nearly three hundred years sever us from which he held Shakespeare the man. "I the publication of the Folio, and, as I have loved the man and do honour his memory on already said, we know that at that date very this side idolatry as much as any." But he much less strict views were commonly held goes on to say of him that he was such a as to the obligations of literary integrity. voluble talker that at times it was necessary Literary deceptions— "frauds" we might to "closure" him. He had to be "stopped." perhaps call them at the present day—were Like Haterius, who had such a deplorable constantly perpetrated. Works were not rapidity of utterance, "sufflaminandus infrequently attributed by their authors to erat,"19 i.e., the brake had to be applied. "His other writers, who were, in fact, guiltless of wit was in his own power, would that the any responsibility for them. Moreover, rule of it had been so too," says Jonson. nobody at that date could foresee that the "Nevertheless," adds Ben, "he redeemed his authorship of the Shakespearean plays vices with his virtues."

85 The George Greenwood Collection

Now, is it credible that Jonson was here poet" he would, naturally, have had fair speaking of the man whom he had so copies of his dramas made for him, and eulogized some ten or twelve years before; these would have been set before the the "soul of the age," the man whom he players. As R. L. Stevenson wrote long ago, believed to have been the author of Hamlet, "We hear of Shakespeare and his clean Lear, Othello, Macbeth, and all those manuscript; but in the face of the evidence wondrous plays of which he had spoken of the style itself and of the various editions with such glowing admiration some thirteen of Hamlet this merely proves that Messrs. years before? If he was speaking of the Heminge and Condell were unacquainted player only, knowing that the author—who with the common enough phenomenon was "not of an age but for all time"—was a called a fair copy. He who would recast a different person, there is nothing tragedy already given to the world, must extraordinary in this carping, though, as we frequently and earnestly have revised details may believe, quite just criticism which has in the study." (Men and Books, p. 149). But so much perturbed and astonished those who let the reader glance at Shakspere's assume that he is alluding in such shabby signatures, and ask himself if it is possible to and disparaging terms to the "sweet Swan of conceive that the Shakespearean dramas Avon." Or must we assume that he was in were not only written by the man who so his dotage when he so wrote? 20 wrote, but written without a blot! No; if the anti Stratfordian case seems improbable But, it will be objected, Jonson speaks of the here, surely the "orthodox" case is more players as saying of Shakespeare that "he improbable still, so improbable indeed, as to never blotted out a line," and writes of them be incredible. And of two improbabilities, if as com mending "their friend" by that such there be, it is wise to choose the less. 21 "wherein he most faulted." Jonson, therefore, identifies player and poet. And Part Three - Jonson and this, no doubt, will be conclusive for those who find it impossible to believe that Jonson Shakespeare knew all the facts of the case, but felt bound in 1630-6, as he had been in 1623, not to reveal them to the world. But what of the "unblotted manuscripts?" Are we really to But there are some earlier Jonsonian believe that player Shakspere wrote Hamlet utterances upon which we have not yet (e.g.) currente calamo, and "never blotted touched, but which must by no means be left out a line?" No more preposterous out of the account. In 1616, the year of suggestion was ever made, even in player Shakspere's death, Jonson published a Shakespearean controversy. No; if the book of Epigrams. The volume was players really said of Shakespeare that he dedicated to William Earl of Pembroke, "never blotted out a line" (or that they had Lord Chamben, the elder brother of the "scarse received from him a blot in his "Incomparable Pair" of the Shakespeare papers ") and if the statement was true, so Folio, and Jonson writes, "I here offer to far as their experience went, it shows that your lordship the ripest of my studies, my the players had received from the author fair Epigrams." Now among these Epigrams copies only, and here is a piece of evidence appears one which must have been written a which the sceptics may well pray in aid. For good many years earlier, "On Poet-Ape," if the real "Shakespeare" was "a concealed and there can be little doubt that by "Poet-

86 The George Greenwood Collection

Ape" Jonson intended to make reference to "And apes are apes though clothed in player Shakspere. This Epigram runs as scarlet," follows: which reminds us that players belonging to Poor Poet-Ape, that would be thought our the royal household were clothed in scarlet chief, cloth. Whose works are e'en the frippery of wit, From brokage is become so bold a thief, We remark also the words "he takes up all," As we, the robb'd, leave rage, and pity it. an expression which brings to our mind At first he made low shifts, would pick and Pantalabus of the Poetaster (Act. iii., sc. i.). glean, This Pantalabus was a player and "parcel- Buy the reversion of old plays, now poet"23 who had the reputation of writing grown "high, lofty, in a new stalking strain," and To a little wealth and credit in the scene, against whom Jonson is bitterly sarcastic. He takes up all, makes each man's wit his His name is, obviously, derived from the own, Greek panta lambanein to "take all," or to And told of this, he slights it. Tut, such "take up all," as "Poet-Ape" is said to do. crimes The sluggish, gaping auditor devours; In this play also ( Act I., sc. 1) we find He marks not whose 'twas first, and after Tucca, the braggart Captain saying, with times reference to the players, "They forget they May judge it to be his as well as ours. are i' the statute, the rascals, they are Fool! as if half eyes will not know a fleece blazoned there, there they are tricked, they From locks of wool, or shreds from the and their pedigrees; they need no other whole piece. heralds I wiss." The statute is, of course, the statute of Elizabeth (see 14 Eliz., c. 5, and Jonson, then, it seems looked upon 39 Eliz., c. 4) under which players were Shakspere very much as Greene looked classed with "Rogues and Vagabonds" upon "the only Shakescene," viz., as "an unless duly licensed to play under the hand upstart crow" beautified with stolen and seal of any Baron of the Realm or other feathers.22 "Poet-Ape" is the player-poet, Personage of greater Degree, and one can arrayed in garments stolen from others, hardly doubt that the words, "they are whose works are "the frippery of wit" (i.e., blazoned there," etc., are a hit at Shakspere's the cast-off garments of others); who lives prolonged but ultimately successful efforts by "brokage" (was Shakspere then, to obtain a Coat of Arms, to which Jonson perchance, a broker of plays?), and "makes makes another and still more obvious each man's wit his own." Here we may allusion in Every Man out of his Humour. I compare the Prologue to Jonson's Poetaster refer to the conversation between Sogliardo, where the figure of Envy is brought on the Sir Puntarvolo, and Carlo Buffone, the stage and asks, Jester, in Act III., sc. 1. Here we find Sogliardo saying, "Are there no players here? No poet- apes?" "By this parchment, gentlemen, I have been so toiled among the harrots and where we read further [i.e., heralds] yonder you will not believe; they do speak i' the strangest

87 The George Greenwood Collection

language and give a man the hardest Folio of 1623, he was really addressing the terms for his money, that ever you knew." man whom he had satirized as "Poet-Ape," and whose proceedings in obtaining a coat "But," asks Carlo Buffone, "ha' you arms? of arms, in order that he might "write ha' you arms?" To which Sogliardo replies: himself a gentleman," he had held up to "I' faith I thank God, I can write myself a public contempt and ridicule? It appears to gentle man now; here's my patent, it cost me me impossible so to believe.26 thirty pound by this breath." We, therefore, who find ourselves unable to Then, after more talk about this newly- believe that the young man who came from granted "coat" and the "crest," during which Stratford to London in 1587 as "a Stratford Puntarvolo says ("aside") "It is the most rustic" (as Messrs. Garnett and Gosse very vile, foolish, absurd, palpable, and truly describe him in their Illustrated ridiculous escutcheon that ever these eyes History of English Literature, p. 200), survised," the same character, asked by composed "Love's Labour's Lost" in, say, Sogliardo, "How like you 'hem, signior?" 1590, and Venus and Adonis in, say, 1592; replies, "Let the word [i.e., the Motto] be, we to whom the arguments against the 'Not without mustard.' Your crest is very "Stratfordian" authorship appear rare, sir." insuperable; we who are in agreement with Professor Lefranc when he writes: "J'ai la Now these words, "not without mustard," conviction que toute personne dont le are, I think undoubtedly a parody of the jugement est reste libre en ce qui concerne le Motto assigned to Shakspere, when he and probleme shakespearien, reconnaitra que les his father, after much "toiling among the anciennes positions de la doctrine harrots," obtained from them a grant of arms traditionelle ne sauraient etre maintenues";27 with the challenging Motto "Non sans we "heretics" are convinced that when Ben Droit." This they finally did in 1599, though Jonson wrote his panegyric of they had previously obtained a draft, and a "Shakespeare" as a sendoff for the Folio, in "tricking" (cf. "there they are tricked" of the the publication of which he was so closely Poetaster) in October, 1596, and another associated, he was perfectly well aware that later in the same year, neither of which "Shakespeare"—speak of him as the "Swan drafts, says Sir Sidney Lee, was fully of Avon" though he might, and depreciate executed.24 Every Man out of his Humour his learning though he might28 —was, in was produced in 1599, and it may be noted truth and in fact, but a mask-name for other that Sogliardo, who is laughed at as "a boor" writers, and more particularly for one man by Sir Puntarvolo, is the younger brother of of transcendent genius who was, indeed, Sordido, a farmer (Shakspere's father was "not of an age but for all time." also a farmer amongst other things) and is described as "so enamoured of the name of And here it seems right that I should say a gentleman that he will have it though he word concerning Jonson's ten lines "To the buys it." The Poetaster was entered on the Reader," introducing him to the Droeshout stationers' registers in December, 1601.25 Engraving of "Gentle Shakespeare."

Now is it possible to believe that when Now as to this famous engraving, I can Jonson composed that splendid eulogium of never understand how any unprejudiced "Shakespeare "which was prefixed to the person, endowed with a sense of humour,

88 The George Greenwood Collection can look upon it without being tempted to absurd that, surely, it can hardly be taken as irreverent laughter. Not only is it, as many seriously intended. have pointed out, and as is apparent even to the untrained eye, altogether out of drawing; And what interpretation are we to put upon not only is the head preternaturally large for the following lines? the body; not only is it quaintly suggestive of an unduly deferred razor; but it looks at O, could he but have drawn his wit one with a peculiar expression of sheepish As well in brass as he hath hit oafishness which is irresistibly comic. As His face, the Print would then surpasse George Steevens long ago remarked, All that was ever writ in brasse. "Shakespeare's countenance deformed by Droeshout resembles the sign of Sir Roger Sir Sidney Lee's comment is: "Jonson's de Coverley when it had been changed into a testimony does no credit to his artistic Saracen's head, on which occasion the discernment." But is it possible to believe Spectator observes that the features of the that old Ben was not only so lacking in gentle knight were still apparent through the "artistic discernment" but also so deficient in lineaments of the ferocious Mussulman." the sense of humour and the perception of Even Mr. Pollard writes: "If his [Jonson's} the grotesque as to write these lines with the lines on Droeshout's portrait are compared Droeshout engraving before him, if, indeed, with their subject, we may well be inclined he wrote them seriously? I think, on the to wonder whether he had seen that very contrary, it is reasonable to believe that doubtful masterpiece at the time that he Jonson was aware when he so wrote that this wrote them"—a suggestion which certainly portentous caricature was not, in truth and in does not say much for the value of Jonson's fact, a portrait of the true Shakespeare; that testimony. the lines above quoted are capable of a meaning other than that which the ordinary And it is of this ridiculous caricature that reader would put upon them; that, as that Jonson writes: "orthodox" writer, Mr. John Corbin, says, Ben does well to advise the reader , "if he This Figure that thou seest put wants to find the real Shakespeare, to turn to It was for gentle Shakespeare cut the plays" and to look "not on his picture, Wherein the graver had a strife but his book," which is certainly very With nature to out-doo the life. excellent advice.

Now Jonson was an enthusiast concerning Here, then, the sceptic can find no the pictorial art. "Whoever loves not strengthening of the orthodox tradition picture," he writes, "is injurious to truth and concerning the Shakespearean authorship. all the wisdom of poetry. Picture is the He rather prays in aid the portentous invention of heaven, the most ancient and Droeshout portrait, and the Jonsonian lines, most akin to Nature.29 How then could he as lending themselves to a cryptic inter- have thus written concerning the Droeshout pretation which, as it appears to him, may signboard? When one looks at this graven quite reasonably be put upon them, and image of the Folio frontispiece, the sugges which is, to say the least of it, quite tion that the Graver had here a strife with consistent with the "heretical" case.30 nature to "out-doo the life" appears to be so

89 The George Greenwood Collection

But did those who were intimate with applause, delight, the wonder of the stage "; Shakspere of Stratford really believe that he that man whom, and whose works, the two was the man whom Jonson intended to Earls had "prosecuted with so much favour" eulogise as the author of the plays of during his lifetime! Surely they ought to "Shakespeare"? Did they themselves believe have done this! Surely, as shrewd men of that he was, in truth and in fact, the author of business, wishing to recommend their case those plays? to the Lord Chamberlain, they could not fail to recite these facts, so much in their favour, Now but twelve years after Jonson's if facts they were! Surely they must have magnificent panegyric was published, viz., appealed to Jonson's splendid panegyric of in 1635, we find that the Burbages, to wit, their fellow, it they really believed that the Cuthbert Burbage, and Winifred, the widow Earl believed that it was their fellow whom of Richard Burbage, and William his son, Jonson had in mind as the author of the presented a petition to the Earl of Pembroke plays and the object of his eulogy! Yet what and Montgomery, the survivor of the do they actually say? "To ourselves we "Incomparable Pair" to whom the Folio was joined those deserving men, Shakespere, dedicated in such eulogistic terms, and then Heminge, Condall, Phillips, and others, Lord Chamberlain, praying that their rights partners in the profits, etc.," and, as to the and interests in the Globe Theatre, which Blackfriars, there they say they "placed men they say they built at great expense, and the players which were Hemings, Condall, Blackfriars, which was their inheritance Shakspeare, etc." from their father— those theatres where "Shakespeare's" dramas were presented— Those of the orthodox faith, who refuse to should be recognized and respected. The admit that there is a Shakespeare Problem at petitioners are naturally anxious to say all all, of course make light of this. They affect they possibly can for themselves and the to think it the most natural thing in the company of players with whom they were world. Yet, surely , to the impartial man it associated, and they seek to enforce their must seem incredible that the Burbages claim by a reference to the past history of should have thus written about Shakspere, those theatres, and those connected with calling him just a "man-player," and them, both as players and profit-sharers. One speaking of him in the same terms as of the of those players, one of the "partners in the other players, viz., as a "deserving man," profits of that they call the House" (viz., the and nothing more, if indeed both they and Globe) was William Shakspere. the Lord Chamberlain knew, and all the world knew, that he was the immortal poet And how do they speak of him? Surely here who was "not of an age but for all time," was a great opportunity to remind the Earl whose collected works, dedicated to the two that one of their company had been that man Earls, to their everlasting honour, had been of transcendent genius, "Shakespeare," the for twelve years before the public, and great dramatist, the renowned poet, the whose poems, dedicated to another great "sweet swan of Avon," whom no less a man Earl, were "familiar as household words" to than Ben Jonson had eulogised but twelve every man of the time who had the slightest years before—viz., in that great work pretension to literary taste or knowledge! containing his collected plays which was The author of Venus and Adonis, and dedicated to the Earl himself and his Lucrece, of Hamlet, Lear, and Othello, of As brother—as the "Soul of the age, the You Like It, The Merchant, and Twelfth

90 The George Greenwood Collection

Night, and all the other immortal works, but highest respect and esteem towards "the a "man-player" and "a deserving man"! Is it large-browed Verulam."32 I do not know that not incredible that he should be so there is evidence to show just how it was described? that such intimacy commenced, but we learn from his conversation with Drummond that But it was as a fellow-player—a "man- when Ben was setting forth, in the summer player" and a "deserving man "—that the of 1618, on his walk to Scotland, Bacon Burbages knew Shakspere. It was in these laughingly told him that "he loved not to see capacities that the Earl of Pembroke knew Poesy go on other feet than poetical him; and it was in these capacities, as I am Dactylus and Spondams." We know, too, convinced, that Ben Jonson knew him, that Bacon wrote in 1623, the very year of however much it may have suited his the publication of the Shakespeare Folio, purpose and the purpose of those who were "My labours are now most set to have those associated with him in the publication of the works which I had formerly published. . . . Folio, that he should "camouflage" the well translated into Latin by the help of immortal poet under the semblance of the some good pens that forsake me not"33 ; and player. that Jonson was one of these "good pens" we know, because, in "Remains now set forth The truth is, as I cannot doubt, that the by him under the title of Baconiana," Arch- Burbages were writing as plain men dealing bishop Tenison relates that the Latin with facts, while Jonson's ambiguous poem translation of Bacon's Essays "was a work has to be interpreted in an esoteric sense. If performed by diverse hands by those of Dr. then, the real truth were known, I have no Hackett (late Bishop of Lichfield), Mr. doubt that the "irrefragable rock" would turn Benjamin Johnson (the learned and out to be but scenic canvas after all. There judicious poet), and others whose names I was "camouflage" even in those days, and once heard from Dr. Rawley, but I cannot plenty of it, although the name was then now recall them." unknown.31 But there is evidence that Jonson was Note A - Jonson and Bacon working for Bacon some years before 1623. We find, for example, Thomas Meautys writing to Lord St. Alban in 1621-2, "Your books are ready and passing well bound up. Mr. Johnson will be with your lordship to- Although I have no intention of appearing as morrow."34 But, further, we know that on an advocate of the "Baconian" hypothesis, it January 22, 1621, Bacon had kept his seems desirable to say a word here sixtieth birthday at York House, and that concerning the relations between Bacon and Jonson had been with him, and had Jonson. composed his well-known Ode in honour of that event.35 There is, I think, good warrant for saying that in some of his dramas Jonson made We find, then, Jonson a frequent visitor, if satirical allusions to Bacon, but, however not also a resident, at York House, on this may be, it is certain that in later years intimate terms with Bacon, writing a highly the two were on very intimate terms, and complimentary ode to him on his birthday, that Jonson entertained feelings of the and translating his works into Latin in 1623,

91 The George Greenwood Collection the date when the Shakespeare Folio first Henry James to Miss Violet Hunt in August, saw the light. 1903. (Letters, Macmillan, 1920, Vol. I., p. 432). Henry James, therefore, found it We find, further, that Jonson is if not almost impossible to conceive that Bacon actually editing that work, at any rate taking wrote the plays, but quite impossible to great and responsible part in its publication. conceive that "the man from Stratford" Nor can we omit to notice that if Jonson wrote them. But this was written nearly challenges "comparison" of Shakespeare's twenty years ago, and much critical water works with "all that insolent Greece, or has flowed beneath the Stratford bridge haughtie Rome sent forth, or since did from since that date, and it is but truth to say that their ashes come," he writes of Bacon in all recent criticism and investigation have exactly the same terms, viz.: that he has enormously strengthened the "anti "performed that in our tongue which may be Stratfordian" case. The belief that the plays compared or preferred either to insolent and poems of Shakespeare were written by Greece or haughty Rome"—truly a most "the man from Stratford" is one of the extraordinary coincidence, however much greatest of the many delusions which have the "Stratfordians" may endeavour to make afflicted "a patient world." light of it. Note B - The Term "Actor- Now that Bacon, whether or not he wrote any of the plays, was concerned in their Manager" collection and publication in 1623, although he himself was as usual, working "behind the scenes," appears to me eminently probable, and it is to say the least of it, very In speaking of William Shakspere as "actor- possible that if we only knew the real manager" I have followed the "orthodox" circumstances in which that precious hypothesis, but there appears to be very little volume was given to the world a flood of evidence to show that he really occupied light might be thrown on the Jonsonian that position; in fact there seems to be no utterances. little doubt with regard to his position on the stage generally. In the spring of 1597 he A powerful writer, and highly distinguished purchased New Place at Stratford-on-Avon, literary man, thus writes concerning the and, says Halliwell-Phillipps, "there is no "Shakespeare Problem": "I am sort of doubt that New Place was hence forward to haunted by the conviction that the divine be accepted as his established residence." William is the biggest and most successful Early in the following year, on February 4th, fraud ever practised on a patient world. The 1598, corn being then at an unprecedented more I turn him round and round the more and almost famine price at Stratford-on- he so affects me. But that is all—I am not Avon, he is returned as the holder of ten pretending to treat the question or to carry it quarters in the Chapel Street Ward, that in any further. It bristles with difficulties and I which the newly acquired property was can only express my general sense by saying situated, and in none of the indentures is he that I find it almost as impossible to described as a Londoner, but always as conceive that Bacon wrote the plays as to "William Shakespeare of Stratford-on-Avon, conceive that the man from Stratford, as we in the County of Warwick, gentleman." know the man from Stratford, did." So wrote (H.P. Vol. I., p. 122, 6th Edn.) There is

92 The George Greenwood Collection evidence, as Halliwell-Phillipps also tells us, 4d. respectively) for whom the authorities that at this time he was taking great interest were searching in 1598, ignorant of the fact in the maintenance and improvement of his that he had moved, some years before, from grounds, orchards, etc. "Thenceforward his Bishopsgate to Southwark. Evidently, then, land, property and tithes purchases, along he was not at that time living in the public with the fact that in 1604 he takes legal eye and mixing freely in dramatic and action to enforce payment of a debt for malt literary circles." (Ibid., p. 58). According to which he had been supplying for some Sir Sidney Lee, Shakspere became liable for months past, are circumstances much more an aggregate sum of £2 13s. 4d. for each of suggestive of permanent residence in three subsidies, but "the col lectors of taxes Stratford, with an occasional visit may be to in the City of London worked sluggishly. London, than of permanent residence in For three years they put no pressure on the London, with occasional trips to Stratford. . . [alleged] dramatist, and Shakespeare left . From the time when he was described as Bishopsgate without discharging the debt. William Shakspere of Stratford-upon-Avon Soon afterwards, however, the Bishopsgate (1597) there is no proof that he was officials traced him to his new Southwark anywhere domiciled in London, whilst the lodging." (Life, 1915, p. 274). But here we proofs of his domiciliation in Stratford from are met by the assertion of another eminent this time forward are irrefutable and Shakespearean authority, viz.: Professor C. continuous. Clearly our conceptions of his W. Wallace, of the "New Shakespeare residency in London are in need of complete Discoveries," who tells us there is ample revision."36 evidence of a negative sort, that Shakespeare never had residence in Southwark!" "Charles and Mary Cowden Clarke," adds (Harper's Magazine, March, 1910, p. 505). Mr. Looney, "in the Life of Shakspere, "Who shall decide when doctors disagree?" published along with their edition of his This conflict of opinion but further plays, date his retirement to Stratford in the illustrates the fact of the mystery which sur- year 1604 precisely. After pointing out that rounds the question of Shakspere's in 1605 he is described as 'William residences while in London . Shakspere, gentleman, of Stratford-on- Avon,' they continued: 'Several things And now we are confronted with the dates conduced to make him resolve upon ceasing of the Shakespearean drama. "It was not till to be an actor, and 1604 has generally been the year 1597," says Halliwell-Phillipps, considered the date when he did so.' Several "that Shakespeare's public reputation as a other writers, less well- known, repeat this dramatist was sufficiently established for the date; and works of reference, written for the booksellers to be anxious to secure the most part some years ago, place his copyright of his plays." (Vol. I., p. 134). In retirement in the same year. 'There is no 1598 his name appears for the first time on doubt he never meant to return to London, the title page of a play, viz.: Love's Labour's except for business visits, after 1604' Lost, where the author's name is given— for (National Encyclopedia)." (Ibid., p. 424.) that one occasion only—as "W. Shakespere," and subsequently in the same We are told that Shakspere lodged at one year, on the title pages of Richard II. and time in Bishopsgate, and, later on, in Richard III., the author appears as "William Southwark, "because he was a defaultant Shake-speare." "We are consequently taxpayer (for two amounts of 5s. and 13s. faced," writes Mr. J. T. Looney, "with this

93 The George Greenwood Collection peculiar situation that what has been died and he took over his father's property. regarded as the period of his highest fame in On May 1, 1602, he purchased 107 acres of London began at the same time as his formal arable land. In September, 1602, ' one retirement to Stratford; and whilst there is Walter Gatley transferred to the poet a undoubted mystery connected with his place cottage and garden which were situated at or places of abode in London, there is none Chapel Lane opposite the lower grounds of connected with his residence in Stratford. A New Place.' 'As early as 1598 Abraham curious fact in this connection is that the Sturley had suggested that Shakespeare only letter that is known to have been [William Shakspere] should purchase the addressed to him in the whole course of his tithes of Stratford .' In 1605 he completed life was from a native of Stratford addressed the purchase of 'an unexpired term of these to him in London, which appears amongst tithes.' 'In July, 1604, in the local court at the records of the Stratford Corporation, and Stratford he sued Philip Rogers, whom he which 'was no doubt forwarded by hand [to had supplied since the preceding March with Shakspere whilst in London] otherwise the malt to the value of k1 19s. 10d., and on locality of residence would have been added' June 25 lent 2s. in cash.' In a personal record (Halliwell-Phillipps). Evidently his fellow from which so much is missing we may townsmen who wished to communicate with justly assume that what we know of his him in London were unaware of his dealings in Stratford forms only a small part residence there; and the fact that this letter of his activities there. Consequently, to the was discovered amongst the archives of the contention that this man was the author and Stratford Corporation suggests that it had directing genius of the magnificent stream of never reached the addressee" (p. 59). "In dramatic literature which in those very years 1597 the publication of the plays begins in was bursting upon London, the business real earnest. In 1598 they begin to appear record we have just presented would in with 'Shakespeare's' name attached. From almost any court in the land be deemed to then till 1604 was the period of full flood of have proved an alibi. The general character publication during William Shakspere's life of these business transactions, even to such time: and this great period of touches as lending the trifling sum of 2s. to a 'Shakespearean' publication (1597-1604) person to whom he was selling malt, is all corresponds exactly with William suggestive of his own continuous day to day Shakspere's busiest period in Stratford. In contact with the details of his Stratford 1597 he began the business connected with business affairs." So writes Mr. Looney, the purchase of New Place. Complications with more to the same effect, and, in ensued, and the purchase was not completed connexion with his argument, we must till 1602. In 1598 he procured stone for the remember that a journey from London to repair of the house, and before 1602 had Stratford and back was a very different thing planted a fruit orchard.' (S.L.) In 1597 his in Shakspere's time than what it is now, and, father and mother 'doubtless under their indeed, from what it was some hundred son's guidance' began a law-suit for the years later than Shakspere was lodging with recovery of the mortgaged estate of Asbies one Montjoy, a "tire-maker" (i.e., wig- in Wilmcote, which ' dragged on for some maker) in "Muggle Streete" (i.e., Monkwell years.' (S.L.) 'Between 1597 and 1599 (he Street) near Wood Street, Cheapside, for in was) rebuilding the house, stocking the the case of Bellott v. Montjoy, which was barns with grain, and conducting various heard in the Court of Requests in 1612, there legal proceedings.' (S.L.) In 1601 his father is a deposition signed, according to

94 The George Greenwood Collection

Professor Wallace, who discovered the and the same period he was transacting all documents at the Record Office, "Willm this business at Stratford, and composing all Shaks," but according to Sir E. Maude these marvellous plays, and performing the Thompson, "Willm Shakp,"37 wherein the duties of "actor-manager" at a London witness is described as "William Shakes- theatre. To us, however, who entertain no peare," (not of London, be it remarked, but) doubt whatever that player Shakspere of "of Stratford-upon-Avon in the Countye of Stratford was not the author of the plays and Warwicke, gentleman" (but not either as poems of "Shakespeare," there appears to be actor or dramatist!) from which, and other no impossibility in the hypothesis that the depositions, it appears that "Will" was, in player occupied the position of manager of fact, lodging at that time with the worthy the theatre with which he was connected, "tire-maker," and lent his good offices to more especially in view of the fact that there persuade Montjoy's apprentice Bellott to is no evidence whatever to show that any solicit the hand of the said Montjoy's important roles were at any time assigned to daughter Mary in holy matrimony; him in the Shakespearean, or any other whereupon the enthusiastic Professor plays. Wallace at once jumps to the conclusion that "here at the corner of Muggell and Silver "There was not a single company of actors Streets Shakespeare was living when he in Shakespeare's time," says Halliwell- wrote some of his greatest plays—Henry V., Phillipps, "which did not make professional Much Ado, As You Like It, Twelfth Night, visits through nearly all the English Hamlet, Julius Caesar, Troilus and counties, and in the hope of discovering Cressida, Macbeth, Measure for Measure, traces of his footsteps during his provincial Othello"! About this he tells us there can be tours" this writer tells us that he has no possible doubt whatever! But as this is personally examined the records of no less the same Professor who also informed us than forty-six important towns in all parts of that Shakspere "honors his host by raising the country, "but in no single instance," says him in the play [Henry V.] to the dignity of he, "have I found in any municipal record a a French Herald under his own name of notice of the poet himself."39 Later Montjoy," in blissful ignorance of the fact investigations, including the archives of that "Montjoy, King-at-Arms" was the some five and twenty additional cities, have official name of a French Herald, who, as proved equally fruitless, yet, writes Sir Holinshed (whose history the Professor had Sidney Lee, indulging once more in his apparently either not read or forgotten) tells favourite adverb, "Shakespeare may be us, was conspicuous at the time of the battle credited with faithfully fulfilling all his of Agincourt, and as, moreover, there is no professional functions, and some of the evidence whatever for the above wild references to travel in his sonnets were assertion, we may be content to dismiss such doubtless reminiscences of early acting futilities with a smile, and pass on to more tours"! The records of Edinburgh have been serious considerations.38 searched but again with negative results. There is no evidence whatever that I will here leave this vexed question of Shakspere was ever north of the Tweed. Shakspere's residence in London. Much With regard to performances in London, the more might be said, but I think enough has accounts of the Treasurer of the Chamber, already been said to give us pause when we showing payments made for performances are asked to accept the statement that at one of The Burbage Company for the years

95 The George Greenwood Collection

1597-1616 (except for the year 1602 the accounts of the Treasurer of the Chamber record of which is missing) have been from September, 1579, to July, 1596. These scrutinized. Here we find mention of accounts were engrossed year by year by Heminge, Burbage, Cowley, Bryan, Pope one of the Clerks in the Pipe Office , and and Augustine Phillipps, but not once does signed by the Accountant in each year, or the name of William Shakspere occur in all period of years. Now in 1594 Sir Thomas these accounts. As to the Lord Heneage was Treasurer of the Queen's Chamberlain's books, which, as Mrs. Stopes Chamber, and in May of that year he writes, "supply much information married Mary, widow of Henry Wriothesley, concerning plays and players," the Earl of Southampton, but he died in October documents, as she adds, "unfortunately are of the following year, and it seems that no missing for the most important years of "declared accounts" had at that date been Shakespearean history." "In the light of all rendered since September, 1592. The Queen, the other mysterious silences regarding therefore, issued her warrant to the Countess William Shakspere," says Mr. Looney, "and as widow and executrix of the late the total disappearance of :the 'Shakespeare' Treasurer, commanding her to render the manuscripts, so carefully guarded during the account, which she duly did from September years preceding the publication of the First 29th, 1592, to November 30th, 1595. The Folio [viz.: the seven years which elapsed entry in question therefore had no doubt, between Shak spere's death and that been prepared by one of the clerks in the publication], the disappearance of the Lord office of the Treasurer of the Chamber, and Chamberlain's books, recording the trans was thus sent in to the Pipe Office by the actions of his department for the greatest Countess, according to the Queen's period in its history, hardly looks like pure command. She was thus only formally accident." Be this as it may, the loss is connected with the account, and further than certainly very remarkable and most this there appears to have been no connexion unfortunate. An entry has, however, been whatever between her and Shakspere of discovered in the accounts of the Treasurer Stratford. In all probability she never even of the Chamber to the following effect;— saw the entry in question.40 All that appears, "To William Kempe, William Shakespeare, therefore, from this entry, is that "William and Richarde Burbage, servaunts to the Lord Shakespeare," with Kempe and Burbage, Chamberleyne, upon the Councelles warrant about March, 1594, received payment of £ dated at Whitehall XV. to Marcij, 1594, for 20 in all for two comedies or interludes twoe severall comedies or enterludes "showed" by them "at the preceding shewed by them before her Majestie in Christmas", though what these comedies or Christmas tyme laste paste, viz.: upon St. interludes were, and what part in them was Stephen's daye and Innocentes daye . . . in assigned to "William Shakespeare" we are all xx. li." (H.P. Vol. I., p. 109). A foolish not informed. He might have acted as attempt has been made to make prompter or stage-manager for all we know. "Stratfordian" capital out of this, because the "And this," writes Mr. Looney, "although entry in question is said to have been pre occurring three years before the opening of pared by the Countess of Southampton, to the period of his [i.e., 'Shakespeare's'] fame, whose son "Shakespeare" had dedicated his is the only thing that can be called an two poems. As a fact, however, the entry official record of active participation in the referred to occurs in a roll of the Pipe Office performances of the Lord Chamberlain's "declared accounts," which contains the Company, afterwards called the King's

96 The George Greenwood Collection

Players, and erroneously spoken of as of his Performance was the Ghost in his own Shakespeare's Company: the company of Hamlet "! which he is supposed to have been one of the leading lights. All we can say, then, is that Shakspere was one of "those deserving men," whom the Jonson inserts the name of Shakespeare in Burbages, in their petition to the Lord the castes of his plays, Every Man in his Chamberlain, in 1635, say they joined to Humour, and Sejanus, but no mention is themselves as "partners in the profits" of the made of the parts played by him. "We Globe; those "men players" whom they know," says Mr. Looney, "neither what pits placed at the Black Friars. (Ante, p. 34.) he played nor how he played them; but the Whether or not he acted as "Manager" of one thing we do know is that they had either theatre we really do not know. We nothing to do with the great 'Shakespeare' only know that his name in its literary form plays. There is not a single record during the of "Shakespeare," or "Shake-Speare" was whole of his life of his ever appearing in a lent or appropriated to cover the authorship play of 'Shakespeare's.' . . . It is worth while of a great number of plays which were noticing that although Jonson gives a published under that name. It seems not foremost place to the name of 'Shakespeare' unreasonable to suppose that he acted as a in these lists [viz.: of his plays above- "broker of plays"—as I have already sug mentioned] when Jonson's 'Every Man out gested—on behalf of the theatres with which of his Humour' was played by the Lord he was connected. It is curious that we find Chamberlain's Company, the whole of the him in 1613, but three years before his company, with one notable exception, had death, after all the great Shakespearean parts assigned to them. That one exception works had been written, and when, if he was Shakspere, who does not appear at all in were in truth "the great dramatist" he must the cast.''41 have been at the zenith of his fame, employed with Dick Burbage at Belvoir to All that Sir Sidney Lee can say, after work at the Earl of Rutland's new "device," mentioning a number of plays which or "impreso," for which each of them Shakspere and his colleagues are said to received the sum of 44s.! have produced before the sovereign in Shakspere's lifetime, is "It may be presumed Mr. Looney has summarized the results of that in all these dramas some role was his exam ination of the middle or London allotted to him!" In the list of actors prefixed period of William Shakspere's career, which, to the Folio of 1623, in the preparation and omitting three or four of them, are as publication of which Jonson took such a follows: large part, the name of "William Shakespeare" stands first, as in the He was purely passive in respect to all the circumstances, we should expect that it publications which took place under his would. But what parts did he play? Rowe in name. his "Life of William Shakspear," published some ninety-three years after Shakspere's There is the greatest uncertainty respecting death, says, "though I have inquired I could the duration of his sojourn in London and never meet with any further account of him the strongest probability that he was actually this way [viz.: as an actor] than that the top resident at Stratford whilst the plays were

97 The George Greenwood Collection being published. [For "published" we might, His name is missing from the following perhaps, substitute "performed."] records of the Lord Chamberlain's company in which other actor's names appear. Nothing is known of his doings in London, and there is much mystery concerning his (1) The cast of Jonson's "Every Man out of place of residence there. his Humour," in which all the other members of the Company appear. Only after 1598, the date when plays were first printed with "Shakespeare's" name, are (2) The record of proceedings respecting the there any contemporary references to him as Essex Rebellion and the Company. [i.e., a dramatist. with regard to the performance of Richard II.] The public knew "Shakespeare" in print, but knew nothing of the personality of William (3) The Company's attendance on the Shakspere. Spanish Ambassador in 1604. [See my Is there a Shakespeare Problem? p. 483.] He has left no letter or trace of personal intercourse with any London contemporary (4) The Company's litigation in 1612. [See or public man. The only letter known to Mrs. Stope's "Burbage and the Shakespeare have been sent to him was concerned solely Stage." pp. 106-107.] with the borrowing of money. (5) The Company's participation in the Although the company with which his name installation of the Prince of Wales. is associated toured frequently and widely in the provinces, and much has been recorded (6) References to the burning of the Globe of their doings, no municipal archive, so far Theatre. Further, even rumour and tradition as is known, contains a single reference to assign him only an insignificant role as an him. actor. There is no contemporary record of his ever Note C - Jonson's appearing in a "Shakespeare" play. The only plays with which as an actor his name was Discoveries associated during his lifetime are two of Ben Jonson's plays. The accounts of the Treasurer of the Ben Jonson's Timber or Discoveries was Chamber show only one irregular reference published in 1641, and, therefore, some six to him, three years before the period of his years after Jonson's death. The work [i.e., of "Shakespeare's"] greatest fame, and apparently consists of notes written from none at all during or after that period. time to time during the later years of his life. Into whose hands the manuscript notes fell The Lord Chamberlain's Books, which and who edited them, and what became of would have [i.e. which ought to have] them, and whether we now have them as furnished the fullest records of his doings Jonson wrote them, is, I apprehend, during these years, are, like the "Shake- unknown. On the title-page we read, speare" manuscripts, missing. "Timber or Discoveries, Made upon Men

98 The George Greenwood Collection and Matter: As They have How'd out of his wanted arte. . . . Shakspeer in a play, daily Readings; or had their refluxe to his brought in a number of men saying they had peculiar Notion of the Times," with the date suffered shipwrack in Bohemia, where there MDCXLI. It seems clear that the notes were is no sea neer by some 100 miles." Here, written during the last years of Jonson's then, we have Jonson unbosoming himself life.42 Sir Israel Gollancz, who edited the in private conversation with his host and work, in the Temple Classics series (1902), friend, and this, apparently, is all he has to writes, with reference to the note De say about the great bard who, only four Shakespeare Nostrati (No. LXIV.), "the years afterwards, he was to laud to the skies impression it leaves is that it must have as the "Soul of the age, the applause, delight, preceded that noblest of all eulogies on the wonder of our stage." We would have Shakespeare prefixed to the First Folio of expected to find whole pages of eulogy, in 1623." But this appears to be an erroneous Drummond's notes, of the poet who "was inference. Dr. Ingleby gives the limits of not of an age but for all time," instead of date as 1630-37 (Centurie of Prayse. Second which we have only these two carping little Edition, p. 174). In an early note (No. XLV.) bits of criticism: "That Shakspeer wanted Jonson speaks of an event which happened (i.e., lacked) arte"—a curious remark to in 1630. In note No. LVI. he tells us that his have proceeded from the mouth of him who memory was good till he was past forty, but wrote, in the Folio lines, that a poet must be had since much decayed. If, therefore, we "made as well as born"; that Nature must be assume, as seems reasonable, that he was supplemented by art; and that in upwards of fifty when he so wrote, we arrive Shakespeare's case such art was not lacking, at a date certainly subsequent to 1623. but, on the contrary, was conspicuous "in his Moreover in note No. LXXIII.43 he speaks of well-turned and true-filed lines." And then "the late Lord Saint Alban," so that this note that niggling bit of criticism concerning the must have been written subsequently to coast of Bohemia in the Winter's Tale, taken Bacon's death in 1626. straight from the learned Greene's novel of Dorastus and Fawnia, which may be It appears, therefore, that the note De compared with the depreciatory allusion to Shakespeare Nostrati must be taken as Julius Caesar in the Discoveries. As representing Jonson's opinion of "the man" Professor Herford remarks, "It is significant Shakspere some seven or more years after that both in the Conversations 'and the the publication of "that noblest of all Discoveries,' where high praise is given to eulogies."44 But some four years before the others, Jonson only notes in the case of appearance of the Folio of 1623, viz.: in Shakespeare his deficiency in qualities on January, 1619, Jonson was staying with which he himself set a very high value." Drummond of Hawthornden, and (Article on Jonson in Dic. Nat. Biog.) Drummond made notes of his conversation, and, under the title, or heading, "His With regard to Jonson's allusion to the play Acquaintance and Behaviour with poets of Julius Caesar, some critics have living with him," we have recorded remarks suggested that the lines he has cited are made by Ben concerning Daniel, Drayton, merely misquotation. Thus Mr Andrew Lang Beaumont, Sir John Roe, Marston, asks, "of whom is Ben writing?" and Markham, Day, Middleton, Chapman, answers, "of the author of Julius Caesar, Fletcher, and others. What do we find certainly, from which, his memory failing, concerning Shakspere? "That Shakspere he misquotes a line." (Shakespeare, Bacon,

99 The George Greenwood Collection and The Great Unknown, p. 257). But if Ben terms of friendship with either Jonson or here misquotes, owing to failing memory, it Drayton, and Ben's remarks both in the follows that the whole story is a myth. The "Discoveries," and in his conversation with basis of the story, if Jonson is alluding to the Drummond, do but strengthen the play, is that Julius Caesar originally hypothesis that the main object which Ben contained the words quoted by him, "Caesar, had in view in writing his poetical eulogy of thou dost me wrong," and Caesar's answer "Shake-speare" prefixed to the First Folio, as quoted. But in the play as we now have it was to provide a good "send off," and to there are no words such as "Caesar, thou give "bold advertisement," for that volume, dost me wrong," uttered by Metellus Cimber in the publication of which his services had (Act III., sc. 1 ., 33), so that, on Mr. Lang's been enlisted, and in which he was so hypothesis, Ben not only misquoted two intimately concerned. Moreover, as already lines, but invented the whole story. Gifford, mentioned, he must have written well on the other hand, says that Jonson must knowing that several of the plays, and large have heard the words he has quoted at the portions of plays, therein ascribed to theatre. "Shake-speare" were not, in truth and in fact, by him, that is to say not by the true Finally, it may be noted that although Shake-speare, whoever the true Shake- Jonson, writing in the late years of his life, speare may have been. says of Shakespeare (or Shakspere) that he "lov'd the man," and honours his memory, It is remarkable that many passages in the yet the often-quoted Nicholas Rowe Discoveries which have all the appearance (Shakespeare's first biographer—so-called) of being Jonson's original observations are, tells us that "he was not very cordial in his in fact, literal translations from well-known friendship," nor have we, in fact, any Latin writers, such as Quintilian and the two evidence whatever that he and William Senecas. This is well seen in his remarks De Shakspere of Stratford were close friends. Shake speare Nostrati. "His wit was in his Shakspere's friends were men such as his own power; would the rule of it had been so fellow- players, Heminge, Burbage, and too! Many times he fell into those things Condell, to whom he left by his Will 26s. could not escape laughter. . . . But he 8d. apiece to buy them rings. He makes no redeemed his vices with his virtues. There mention whatever of Ben Jonson, who, (if, was ever more in him to be praised than to indeed, he was really the author of the note be pardoned." This is just taken from the de Shakespeare Nostrati, in the elder Seneca's Controversia (Bk. iv., posthumously published Discoveries)45 Preface), "In sua potestate habebat would have us believe that he so "lov'd the ingenium, in aliena modum. . . . Saepe man," while as to the tradition chronicled by incidebat in ea quae derisum effugere non John Ward upwards of fifty years after possent. . . . redimehat tamen vitia virtutibus Shakspere's death (he became Vicar of et persaepe plus habebat quod laudares Stratford in 1662) that Shakspere, Drayton, quam cui ignosceres." There seems, and Ben Jonson had "a merie meeting, and it however, nothing to be concluded from this seems drank too hard, for Shakespear died except that Jonson thought Seneca's of a feavour there contracted," it is so observations applicable to "Shake speare," obviously a myth that it is unworthy of and adopted them as his own pro hac vice; serious consideration. There is no shred of just as when he said of Bacon that he had evidence that Shakspere was on intimate "performed that in our tongue which may be

100 The George Greenwood Collection compared or preferred either to insolent 6. On the Portraits of Shakespeare, 1824, p. Greece or haughty Rome"—words which he 13. Mr. Furness, also, commenting upon a had previously used with reference to rem ark of Pope's, writes that he "could "Shakespeare," in his lines prefixed to the hardly have been so unfamiliar with the Folio of 1623—he was again quoting from Folios as not to have known that Jonson was Seneca: "Deinde ut possitis aestimare in the author of both the Address to the Reader quantum cotidie ingenia descres cant et and some commendatory lines in the First nescio qua iniquitate naturae eloquentia se Folio." (Julius C a esar, by Furness, Act III., retro tulerit: quidquid Romana facundia Sc. 1, p. 137 note). Mr. Andrew Lang writes, habet, quod insolenti Graeciae aut opponat "Like Mr. Greenwood, I think that Ben was aut praeferat, circa Ciceronem effloruit," etc. the penman." (Shakespeare, Bacon and The (Controversia, Bk. I, Preface, cf. the passage Great Unknown, p. 207 note). in the Discoveries, No. LXXII., Scriptorum Catalogus, which, by the way, makes no 7. See report of an address delivered at mention of Shakespeare). Houston Hall, Penn sylvania , by Dr. Felix Schelling, in The Pennsylvania Gazette, Jan. END NOTES 16, 1920. My italics. The Jonsonian authorship has been again forcibly 1. "The testimony of Jonson is monumental advocated by Professor W. Dinsmore and irrefragable.--"The Rt. Hon. J. M. Briggs. See The Times Literary Supplement, Robertson in The Observer, of March 2nd, Nov. 12, 1914, April 22, and Nov. 18, 1915. 1919. See further, Appleton Morgan's Intro duction to Hamlet and the Ur-Hamlet 2. See Preface to the Cambridge (Bankside Shakespeare, 1908, p. xxvii). Sir Shakespeare (1863), p. 24. Sidney Lee appears to suppose that Heminge and Condell were imitating Jonson in these 3. Original italics. Steevens's first edition of prefaces. Certain phrases therein he says Shakespeare was published in 1773. "crudely echo passages" in Jonson's works (Life [1915], p. 558). This appears to me a 4. See Boswell's Malone (The "Third ridiculous suggestion. The prefaces are Variorum,” 1821), Vol. 2, p. 663, where Jonsonian to the core, and if the two Steevens's masterly proof will be found. See "deserving men," or either of them, had been also my Shakespeare Problem Restated at p. able to write in this style it is pretty certain 264 et seq.: where, how ever, by an that we should have heard of other writings unfortunate slip, the demonstration is from their pen. But, as the Cambridge ascribed to Malone instead of to Steevens. Editors remark, they had no "practice in See further Is there a Shakespeare Problem? composition," these editors being thus in p. 382 et seq. agreement with George Steevens who, as already mentioned, says of the two players 5. Odes, Bk. III., 23. The reader will note that they were "wholly unused to com the expression, "absolute in their numbers," position." [Dr. Schelling has now re- in the Preface "To the Great Variety of published the above mentioned address Readers"—a classical expression to be under title "The Seedpod of Shakespeare found in Pliny and Val. Maximus—and Criticism."]. other similar expressions taken from the classics quite in the Jonsonian manner.

101 The George Greenwood Collection

8. I have dealt at some length with this Shakespeare's name on the title-page, matter in Is there a Shakespeare Problem? deprives this of any value." (See Times ch. XI. As Mr. J. Dover Wilson writes, "The Literary Supplement, Jan. 1, 1920). Mr. title-page (of the Folio) is inscribed Sykes, by the way, warns us that "the 'Published according to the True Originall inclusion of the play in the second Copies,' while the sub-title on a later page is Beaumont and Fletcher folios is of no more still more explicit: 'The Workes of William value as evidence for Beaumont than for Shakespeare, containing all his Comedies, Massinger, as it has been established beyond Histories, and Tragedies: Trudy set forth, doubt that Massinger and not Beaumont was according to their first ORIGINALL.' The Fletcher's partner in a large number of the phrase 'first original' can mean only one so-called Beaumont and Fletcher plays." thing—author's manuscript. Mr. Dugdale Work cited, p. 1 note. Sykes is, therefore, perfectly correct in his statement that those responsible for the Folio 12. Very much the same thing was said claimed to be printing all the plays in the about Fletcher by Moseley in his volume from Shakespeare's autograph." introduction to the Beaumont and Fletcher (Times Literary Supplement, Jan. 22, 1920.) Folio, viz.: that what he wrote was "free And this claim we know to be false. from interlining" and that he "never writ any one thing twice." The saying appears to have 9. See Shakespeare Folios and Quartos, by become a cliché. Moreover, what of A. W. Pollard (1909), pp. 1, 2. Jonson's statement in his eulogium prefixed to the Folio to the effect that Shakespeare 10. Both A Yorkshire Tragedy and The Two was wont to "strike the second heat upon the Noble Kinsmen were licensed as by Muses anvil," in order to fashion his "well- Shakespeare. turned and true-filed lines"? This means, of course, that, instead of writing currente 11. The Two Noble Kinsmen was attributed calamo and leaving "scarse a blot" on his on the title-page of the first Edition (1634) papers (an absurd idea on the face of it), he to "the memorable worthies of their time, carefully revised his plays. It follows, Mr. John Fletcher and Mr. William therefore, that when these plays were Shakespeare." It is now, as I apprehend, handed to the players (if ever they were so established by Mr. Dugdale Sykes, handed) either the manuscripts must have following "Mr. Robert Boyle's extremely shown many a blotted line, or the players able advocacy of Massinger's claims to the received "fair copies." If we adopt the first authorship of the scenes attributed to alternative the statement of the writer of the Shakespeare" (Transactions of the New Folio preface was untrue; if we adopt the Shakespeare Society for 1882), that the play second the hypothesis of the fair copies is is the joint work of Massinger and Fletcher. vindicated. Some critics, however, who See Mr. A. H. Bullen's Prefatory note to cling tenaciously to the idea of the Sidelights on Shakespeare, p. viii. With "unblotted manuscripts" would have us regard to Waterson's ascription of the play to reject Jonson's testimony as to Shakespeare's Shakespeare and Fletcher in 1634, Mr. patient revising. Jonson, in fact, is to be Sykes writes, "The omission of the play taken as an unimpeachable witness of truth from the later Shakespeare Folios and its when it suits these critics so to take him, but inclusion in the second Beaumont and to be summarily dismissed as untrustworthy Fletcher Folio, after it had been issued with when his testimony does not square with

102 The George Greenwood Collection their theories. In any case, then, Jonson's 16. This was so even at a much later time. evidence is discredited. The learned Selden (e.g.) writes, "'Tis ridiculous for a Lord to print verses; 'tis well 13. In its hyphenated form the name "Shake- enough to make them to please himself, but speare," which so often appears, was an to make them publick is foolish."— excellent pseudonym. But why on earth TableTalk, under title "Poetry." should player Shakspere wish to appear as "Shake-speare?" A man of the name of 17. But see Note B at p. 45. Northcliffe (e.g.) does not usually desire to publish under the name of "North-Cliffe." 18. As already mentioned, this is a classical, Nor if his name happens to be Sheepshanks and quite Jonsonian expression. Like certain does he give his writings to the public in the other expressions in the Epistle Dedicatory, name of "Sheep-Shanks." Nor does Mr. evidential of the Jonsonian authorship, it is Ramsbottom feel any call to write in the taken from Pliny; "fiber numeris omnibus name of "Rams-Bottom." "Shake-speare" absolutus" (Ep. 9, 38). Not much like poor was a good "mask-name," et voila tout. As Heminge and Condell, I apprehend! old Thomas Fuller says, the name has a warlike sound, "Hasti-vibrans," or "Shake- 19. The word sufflaminare means to check speare," and as Jonson writes, it is a name or repress in speaking. See Is there a under which the author Shakespeare Problem? p. 387, and the passages from Seneca and Ménage there "Seems to shake a lance cited. As brandish'd in the eyes of ignorance." 20. Jonson says, "Many times he fell into 14. If Jonson in his Poet-Ape Epigram those things could not escape laughter, as referred to Shakspere, as seems to be almost when he said in the person of Caesar, one certain, he considered him as, at that time, speaking to him, 'Caesar, thou dost me concerned in the "brokage" of other men's wrong.' He replied, ' Caesar did never wrong writings. See below, at p. 27. As to the term but with just cause,' and such like, which "actor-manager," see Note B at p. 45. were ridiculous." Can this he a reference to Shakespeare the dramatist? "He said in the 15. In earlier times, no doubt, people didn't person of Caesar" in answer to "one trouble at all about the author of a play. It speaking to hint!" He said something in was the play 'presented by the Earle of persona Caesaris! Would one so speak of a Leicester's servantes,' 'by the children of dramatist with reference to something he Pawles,' 'by the children of the chapel,' 'by had written? Does it not rather indicate the Lord Admiral's servantes,' 'by the Lord something said on the stage by an actor, as Chamberleynes' servantes,' or by 'Her Pope long ago suggested? And "he fell" into Majesties' servantes.' We have much the things which excited laughter. Does this same thing nowadays, when a ' producer' suggest that Jonson was criticising the advertises his new pieces as if they were his considered writing of a dramatist? Surely it own invention; and when we have phrases rather suggests the actor. It is true that like 'the new Gaiety piece,' 'the new Jonson, in the Induction to his Staple of Kingsway play,' etc."—Mr. Ernest Law in News (1625), makes "Prologus," say, "Cry the Times Literary Supplement, Dec. 30, you mercy, you never did wrong but with 1920. xxx just cause," but this does not prove that the

103 The George Greenwood Collection words were in Shakespeare's play. It is more 27. Sous de Masque de "William likely that Jonson only heard them at the Shakespeare," by Abel Lefrane, Professor au theatre (or heard of them as spoken at the College de France (1919), Preface p. xiii. theatre), as Gifford thought. Can this be Jonson's deliberate criticism of the immortal 28. "And though thou hadst small Latin and bard whom he had lauded to the skies in less Greek" wrote Jonson. "Here," says the 1623? Or is he speaking of the actor, and not learned Dr. Ingleby, "hadst is the the author? (As to Jonson's quotation, subjunctive. The passage may be thus "Caesar did never wrong," etc., I would refer paraphrased: 'Even if thou hadst little the reader to Is there a Shakespeare scholarship, I would not seek to honour thee Problem? p. 390 and following). As to by calling thee as others have done, Ovid, Jonson's borrowing from Seneca, see p. 59. Plautus, Terence, etc., i.e., by the names of the classical poets, but would rather invite 21. See further on Jonson's Discoveries, them to witness how far thou dost outshine Note C at p. 56. them.' Ben does not assert that Shakespeare had 'little Latin and less Greek,' as several 22. cf. Horace Epist., 1, 3, 18. understand him." (Centurie of Prayse, 2nd Edit., p. 151). This may be correct, but "Ne si forte suss repetitum venerit olim others contend that Ben's words are to be Grex avium plumas, moveat cornicula taken not in the subjunctive but in the risum indicative mood. It may be so, since Ben Furtivis nudata coloribus." was writing on the hypothesis that the player would be generally taken as the poet, and, 23. i.e., like a parcel-gilt goblet, a poet on naturally, had to adapt his language to that the surface only, but inwardly and truly only hypothesis. Either interpretation will equally base metal. Herrick has written two lines well suit the sceptical case. headed "Parcel-gilt Poetry." 29. Discoveries CIX. and CX., Poesis et 24. See A Life of Shakespeare (1915), p. 282 pictura and De Pictura. seq. 30. I have dealt with this matter at greater 25. I have dealt with these matters at some length in Is there a Shakespeare Problem? length in The Shake speare Problem at p. 395 et seq. Restated (1903). See p. 454 et seq. 31. Another instance in point is the case of 26. If he had come to look upon the man John Manningham, barrister of the Middle whom he had satirized under the name of Temple, a cultured and well-educated man, "Poet-Ape" as having become the "Soul of who saw Twelfth Night acted in the Hall of the Age" would he have republished the that Inn, and was so struck by it that he Epigram among "the ripest of his studies" in makes an appreciative note in his diary 1616, and in a volume dedicated to the Earl concerning it, under date Feb. 2, 1601, yet of Pembroke? And would he have continued had no idea that player Shakspere was the the contemptuous passage concerning author of the play, for on March 13 of the Shakspere's coat of arms in Every Man out same year he makes a note of a scandalous of his Humour, when he published that play story concerning Burbage and Shakspere in 1601 and again in 1616? while acting in Richard III., and instead of

104 The George Greenwood Collection recording that Shakspere was the author and says that Shake speare lodged with the either of that play or of the play that pleased tire-maker from 1598 to 1612, of which, so them so much on the occasion of their Grand far as I know, there is not a scintilla of Night at the Middle Temple, he appends the evidence. The supposed fact, however, is laconic remark, "Shakespeare's name cited in support of the hypothesis that Bacon William!" How differently did he speak of befriended Shakspere, who thus came under Ben Jonson! Would he write "Jonson's name Bacon's influence, because Bacon had a Benjamin?" Hardly. He well knew the house in Noble Street, close to the junction literary and the theatrical world, and he tells of "Muggle Str." and "Sylver St." where us of "Ben Jonson, the poet," though Mountjoy lived.— Law Sports at Gray's Inn, "Shakespeare the poet" was unknown to by Basil Brown, New York, 1921. him! See the Diary under date Feb. 12, 1603. 39. Outlines, Second Edition (1882) pp. xiv., xv. 32. It seems somewhat remarkable that Jonson's feelings concerning both Bacon and 40. See my Vindicators of Shakespeare, p. "Shakespeare" appear to have changed at 28. just about the same time. 41. See Shakespeare Identified, pp. 73-89. 33. Spedding. Letters and Life, Vol. VII., p. The reference is to the Folio Edition of 428. Jonson's plays published by him in 1616, the year of Shakspere's death. 34. Ibid., p. 354. 42. Of that opinion also is Professor Felix 35. It has been further said that Jonson was Schelling. See his edition of the work for a considerable time a resident member of (1892), Introduction, p. xvii. See also the Bacon's household, but I do not know edition by Maurice Castelain ( Paris, 1906), whether there is sufficient evidence in Introduction, p. xi., M. Castelain suggests support of this statement. that the book may have been begun after the burning of Jonson's library in 1623 36. "Shakespeare" Identified, by J. Thomas Looney (Cecil Palmer, 1920) p. 56. 43. The numbers are conveniently prefixed to the notes by Sir I. Gollancz. 37. See my Shakspere's Handwriting (John Lane, 1920). 44. "In the remarks de Shakespeare Nostrati we have, doubtless, Ben's closet-opinion of 38. Dr. Wallace says that "upon his own his friend, opposed as it seems to be to that testimony Shakespeare lived at Mountjoy's in his address to Britain," prefixed to the during all the time of Bellott's Folio of 1623. (Ingleby). apprenticeship, that is six years from 1598 to 1604" (Harper's Magazine, March, 1910, p. 45. M. Castelain thinks that the Latin 505); but if Shakespeare's answer to marginal titles of the various notes were Interrogatories in the case of Bellott v. "added by the editor" (p. ix.) Mountjoy be examined it will be found that he says nothing of the kind. A recent writer in America, however, has gone one better,

105 The George Greenwood Collection

p. 374): "I may say at once that a long and minute study of the portraits of Shakespeare The Stratford Bust & The in every medium and material has led me, otherwise hopeful as I was at the outset Droeshout Engraving years ago, no distance at all towards the firm establishment of the reputation of any one of by Sir George Greenwood M.P. them as a true life portrait." And in the Encyclopædia Britannica (IIth Ed.) he edited by Mark Andre Alexander wrote: "Exhaustive study of the subject, extended over a series of years, has brought

the present writer to the conclusion— identical with that entertained by leading Part One Shakespearean authorities—that two portraits only can be accepted without The Stratford Bust & The question as authentic likenesses." And what Droeshout Engraving are these two portraits? In the first place "the bust" in Stratford Church (which Mr. Spielmann, no doubt with good warrant, but contrary to general usage, speaks of as a "portrait") and the famous "Droeshout SOME twelve years ago, viz. in June, 1912, engraving." by kind permission of the Editor, I published in the National Review an article under title And to this opinion Mr. Spielmann still "The Dugdale Engraving of the Stratford adheres. "The mystery that," as he truly Monument." Since that date, however, there says, "veils so much in Shakespeare's has been much further discussion on this genius, life, and work, involves also some question, and on "Shakespeare" portraiture aspects of his Iconography. It is probable generally, and, in particular, Mr. Marion H. that of Shakespeare more portraits have been Spielmann, who has the reputation of being painted, drawn, engraved, and modelled, a first-rate authority on Shakespearean than of any other uncrowned king of men.... "Iconography," and who has from time to The British Museum, it is true, according to time contributed to various newspapers and its Catalogue, has only about 200 engraved magazines a large number of articles and portraits of the poet. The Grolier Club of letters concerning the portraits of New York, at its Tercentenary Exhibition in Shakespeare (real or supposed), has recently 1916, did better with about 450, including published yet another work on the subject, 50 each of the Bust and the Droeshout Plate. which is, as he describes it, A Comparative Many of us no doubt could have added Study of the Droeshout Portrait and the scores to these.... And yet, of all these Stratford Monument. [The Title-Page of the presentments only two portraits of the Poet First Folio of Shakespeare's Plays. A can be regarded as authentic.... That greatly Comparative Study of the Droeshout simplifies the problem. Yet neither is Portrait and the Stratford Monument. By M. directly a life-portrait." The two H. Spielmann. London: Humphrey Milford; "presentments" which can be "regarded as Oxford University Press. 1924.] authentic" are the Stratford bust and Martin Droeshout's print on the title-page of the Now some years since Mr. Spielmann wrote First Folio. [Work cited, pp. 1 and 2.] in the Stratford Town Shakespeare (Vol. X,

106 The George Greenwood Collection

The fact is, as I wrote some sixteen years picture of the Stratford monument which is ago, "that just as the utter dearth of the earliest known presentment of that information concerning Shakespeare Mecca-stone of many adoring pilgrims. This tempted unprincipled men to deceive the work was not published till 1656, but there public by forgery of documents purporting is good evidence to show that the author to supply new facts—such as John Jordan's prepared it, in the neighbourhood of fabrications, Ireland's wholesale forgeries, Stratford-on-Avon, about the year 1634, and the numerous forgeries promulgated by and, unfortunately, the central figure in his John Payne Collier—so the absence of any picture of the monument differs in face, authentic portrait of Shakespeare prompted figure, position, and, in fact, in all respects needy and unprincipled artists to supply the from the central figure as we now see it at public demand, and their own necessities at Stratford. It presents us with, the bust of an the same time, by fabricating likenesses of elderly man, of a somewhat melancholy 'the immortal bard'—all of them, of course, aspect, and with drooping-moustaches, of undoubtedly contemporaneous date!" resting his hands upon a curious oblong [The Shakespeare Problem Restated (1908), cushion. p. 238. The reader who has not already done so will find it well worth while to consult How are we to account for this extraordinary the chapter "Concerning Mock Originals," in discrepancy? Mr. Spielmann puts the blame, Mr. John Corbin's A New Portrait of in the first place, upon the engraver, Shakespeare (John Lane, 1903), more whoever he may have been, whether Hollar, especially with regard to the methods or, as he thinks more probable, Gaywood, employed by Messrs. Zincke & Holder in one of Hollar's assistants, and "one of the ill- the wholesale manufacture of faked paid hacks employed by the publishers to "Shakespeare" portraits.] engrave on brass or copper plates from sketches supplied to them"(p. 20); and he Well, we may be sincerely grateful to Mr. proceeds to give examples of the "engravers' Spielmann for having "simplified the disloyal indifference to accuracy," as problem." We need no longer trouble about illustrated by Hollar's engraving of the "The Chandos Portrait," or "The Janssen statue of Charles I looking to Whitehall, and Portrait," or "The Felton Portrait," or "The also the very inaccurate engravings in Ely Portrait," or "the hopelessly unauthentic Dugdale's work of the Carew and the and discredited Kesselstadt Death-Mask," Clopton monuments. [See work cited, p. 12.] or any other of the hundreds of counterfeit presentments of Now it must be freely admitted that these Shakespeare except the portrait in stone at charges against the engravers of that time Stratford and the engraving already alluded are fully justified. They are made good by to. "For this relief much thanks!" Mr. Spielmann's illustrations, as they have been made good before. But this is a case But now, with reference to the Stratford where the blame cannot be thrown upon the bust, we come at once to a matter which has engraver alone. That either he, or Dugdale given rise to a vast amount of discussion and himself, was responsible for the faulty disputation, and not a little heated language. details of this engraving of the Stratford It is well known that the famous antiquary monument is, indeed, self-evident. I myself Sir William Dugdale, in his History of the long ago pointed out, for example, that the Antiquities of Warwickshire, gives us a little sitting figures in Dugdale's print,

107 The George Greenwood Collection holding spade and hour-glass, "are placed as [Mr. Spielmann dismisses this important no monumental sculptor would be likely to fact, which makes irrelevant most of his place them." [The Shakespeare Problem remarks on the inaccuracy of the engravers Restated, p 247 note.] But this is not a of that period, in the following curt footnote. question of details, nor is it a question of "It is the fact that the original drawing for mere carelessness on the part of Dugdale this engraving is extant and in the and his artist. For the fact is, that the original possession of a lineal descendant of Dug- drawing for the engraving of Shakespeare's dale, and that the plate departs in details [my bust, as it appears in The Antiquities of italics] from the sketch. Why? One of them, Warwickshire, was made by Sir William obviously, must be wrong. In truth, both are Dugdale himself, and is still in existence. libels on the original." But both the "original For this valuable information I am indebted drawing" and "the plate" agree with regard to the courtesy of Mr. William F. S. to the central figure, and to say that both are Dugdale, of Merevale Hall, Atherstone, libels on the original merely assumes the Warwickshire, the present representative of point at issue.] the celebrated antiquary, who, among the papers and manuscripts in his possession, Now Dugdale was himself a Warwickshire discovered a manuscript book of Sir William man. He was well acquainted with Stratford- Dugdale's—which he kindly allowed me to on-Avon. He was an admirer of the works of inspect—containing a number of his original "Shakespeare." He himself made a drawing notes and drawings prepared for the work in of the monument for his forthcoming work question. Here he lighted upon the original on The Antiquities of Warwickshire, not drawing made for the engraving as it caring to leave it to any of the "hacks appears in that work, and that this drawing employed by the publishers." Yet he was made by Sir William himself cannot presents us with a bust of Shakespeare admit of a doubt, being in his private which is absolutely unlike the effigy as it manuscript book, and surrounded, as it is, by exists today—so preposterously unlike notes in his own handwriting. Moreover, indeed that the absurdity of it would at once although he did not profess to be an artist, have been recognised by any Stratford man, Sir William could, at any rate, sketch well or any of his Warwickshire or other heraldically, as can be proved by many contemporaries familiar with the church at drawings in the possession of Mr. W. F. S. Stratford. [It is sometimes said in support of Dugdale. It was from this drawing that the the authenticity of the bust as it now exists, artist, whether Hollar or some other, that the personal appearance of William prepared the engraving, which is an exact Shakspere the player (assumed to be the copy of the sketch except that it corrects it author of the plays), must have been very where it is somewhat out of drawing. Over it well known at Stratford, and that no bust is written, in Sir William's own handwriting, would have been set up there that did not "In the north wall of the Quire is this bear a personal resemblance to him. But this monument for William Shakespeare the argument applies with tenfold force to famous poet," and, in another place, the Dugdale's engraving, and the original bust if inscription is written out in full, together it was such as that engraving represents— with the inscriptions on the tombs of John always assuming that the intention WC to and Susanna Hall. Above these is written the erect a bust which should resemble the date, namely July, 1634, showing that it was player, and not some one else!] in this year that these notes were made."

108 The George Greenwood Collection

Are we not, then, driven to this conclusion, "Judycio [sic] Pylium." But the words as viz. that either the bust has been materially written in his own handwriting, in his altered since the date of Dugdale's drawing, manuscript book, are correctly given, viz. or the great antiquary must deliberately (but "Judicio Pylium," etc., showing that the for no reason that can be suggested) have inaccuracy was not his but the engraver's. presented his readers with a false picture of But what about his statement "that Combe's it? monument is of alabaster whereas it is of sandstone"? It seems impossible to contend, in such a case as this, that the preposterous Well, humanum est errare, but it really does discrepancy between the present bust and not follow that a man is likely to make an Dugdale's drawing of it is to be explained by absurdly and preposterously false copy of a the constant "inaccuracy" which Mr. bust in which he was especially interested, Spielmann attributes to the antiquarian. No and to have that false copy engraved for all man could set himself to draw the Stratford men to laugh at, in a great book upon which bust as it at present exists and substitute he might be said to have staked his Dugdale's sad-looking figure for the present reputation, because he has made a few stone "portrait" of a seemingly well-satisfied inaccurate statements in a work involving an and contented man, with the dandified almost incredible amount of industry and moustache (of which more anon), from mere labour, and, in particular, an inaccurate "inaccuracy." statement with regard to the material used in John Combe's monument. But, says Mr. Spielmann, On many points on which I have consulted Dugdale—both Let us take Mr. Spielmann's own case, for text and illustrations —I have found him example. Mr. Spielmann wrote in the Pall inaccurate on simple matters of fact. Not Mall Gazette (Dec. 6th, 1910): "When the only does he assert that Combe's monument, chronicler avers that the bust, like the close by, is of alabaster, whereas it is of recumbent figure of John Combe, hard by sandstone, but, among other things, he Shakespeare's, is of alabaster, whereas they transcribes inaccurately as to spelling the are both of local sandstone, we may hesitate inscriptions on Shakespeare's monument and to accept unquestioned his authority on gravestone, and on the gravestones of the every other point." [Italics mine.] And worse Shakespeare family in the chancel of the still, in his article on the Portraits of church" (p. 4). Shakespeare " in the Encyclopedia Britannica (nth Ed.) he repeated this Now with regard to the inscription on the statement, saying that Dugdale—"the gravestone, the fact seems to be that the accurate Dugdale," as he sarcastically calls original inscription was altered at some him—tells us that Shakespeare's bust is of unknown date when the present inscription alabaster, whereas it is of soft stone. was substituted for it. But that is too long a story to be gone into here. As to the Yet it turns out, upon investigation, that inscription on the monument, it may be well Dugdale nowhere makes the statement to note that the old antiquarian has been attributed to him by the critic, viz. that charged with inaccuracy in his Latin also, "Shakespeare's bust is of alabaster!" The because the inscription under the engraving "inaccuracy" is, in fact, Mr. Spielmann's! of the bust commences with the words Yet I certainly would not say, on that

109 The George Greenwood Collection account, that "we may hesitate to accept C. C. Stopes (1914), p. 123. A work in unquestioned his authority on every other which I must honestly own I find more to point," any more than I would say that he is criticise than to agree with. See my Is there habitually inaccurate in his grammar a Shakespeare Problem? (John Lane, 1916), because he turns the conjunction "than" into Appendix C.] a preposition governing the accusative case! ["A much younger man than him of the Let us, however, frankly admit that there are bust" (p. 26), (my italics) and the same at p. numerous "inexactitudes" in Dugdale's great 33.] book, as, indeed, was only to be expected in a work of such gigantic proportions—I With regard to the inaccuracies of the allude not to its actual size, but to the engravings of the Carew and Clopton enormous amount of labour involved in its monuments also—which certainly appear compilation. I repeat, nevertheless, that to sufficiently ridiculous as they stand in find an explanation of the absolute Dugdale's book—there is something to be discrepancy between Dugdale's own arid, and it shall be said in the words of a drawing of the bust and the bust as it at witness whose entire "orthodoxy" on the present exists in the church of Stratford-on- matter of the "Shakespearean" authorship is Avon, in mere "inaccuracy"—the wretched beyond suspicion—none other, in fact, than "seventeenth-century ideas of accuracy," as the learned and industrious Mrs. Charlotte Mr. Spielmann says—seems to me so Stopes. This lady has also, through the repugnant to reason and probability that it courtesy of Mr. Dugdale of Merevale, can, surely, be accepted by those only who inspected "the volume of Sir William feel they must adopt any theory, however Dugdale's Diary which contained his own improbable, which may relieve them from special drawings for the tombs in the necessity of adopting the unpalatable Warwickshire Churches," with regard to hypothesis that, at some unknown date, the which she writes as follows: "The greatest present bust was substituted for the original 'proof' of Dugdale's inexactitude, so as seen and drawn by Dugdale. [It may be triumphantly brought forward by my worth mentioning that Mrs. Stopes, by way opponents [viz., on the matter of the of comparison, carefully examined Shakespeare bust], is utterly extinguished by Dugdale's engraving of Sir Thomas Lucy's this volume. The drawing of the Carew monument in Stratford Church, and found it Clopton monument does not appear in the represented the original with substantial Diary, which means that the Clopton family, accuracy. His "inaccuracy" seems to have and not Dugdale, was responsible for its been specially reserved for "Shakespeare"!] drawing and its inaccuracies. He only drew those which had not been sent to him by the With regard to this supposed alteration of families whom he had invited to do so. He the original bust, I will say a word or two evidently thought Shakespeare's monument, presently, but before passing on I would though not sent on, specially important, and draw special attention to a remarkable did it carefully himself. The present Mr. feature in the bust as we see it today. Here Dugdale thinks, from its position in the we see the face of a man wearing a volume, and from some notes in the Diary, moustache shaven in a very peculiar and that it therefore was one of the latest of the very "dandified" style. "In the normal face," drawings before the final publication in as Mr. John Corbin writes, "the hair begins 1656." [Shakespeare's Environment, by Mrs. at the base of the nose, often in the very

110 The George Greenwood Collection nostrils, and this is notably the case in the frequently put, and to which I have never Droeshout engraving. In the bust there is a been able to obtain any satisfactory answer, wide and very ugly interval." [A New is this: Is there any known print, engraving, Portrait of Shakespeare, by John Corbin or other portrait of an Englishman, before (John Lane, 1903), p. 28.] And not only is the year 1616, wearing a moustache shaven there this interval between the base of the in this ridiculous style? What evidence is nose and the moustache, but there is a there that it was "not uncommon" in this similar "shaven space," as Mr. Spielmann country at that date? I have gone through a calls it, between the moustache and the large number of prints and engravings of the upper lip, so that the moustache (which, by period in question at the Museum, but I have the way, is beautifully curled en croc, as the never found an Englishman so shaven on the French style it) is very carefully separated upper lip. And, surely, if Mr. Spielmann had both from the nose and the lip. In fact, it known of any such portrait he would not meanders elegantly between them. have gone all the way to Holland for his illustration! Further, I doubt very much Now in previous writings Mr. Spielmann whether any Official of the Prints and had told us that this was merely a "long- Engravings Department of the Museum prevailing fashion carried to an extreme," could refer him to such a portrait. [Here, and that "certain portraits of other persons however, I must strictly guard myself. I do show the same thing" [See letter in the Pall not for a moment suggest that any official of Mall Gazette of Feb. 21st, 1912, and article the Museum supports my theory in this in the Ency. Brit.] He now, however, uses matter. They neither support it nor oppose it. more guarded language. He characterises They say, very naturally, we will put all the this style of shaving the moustache as "a materials at your disposal for inspection, and fashion said to be not uncommon though by you must make your own researches for no means general at the time." [Work cited, yourself.] p. 10.] I am myself under the impression that this But "said" by whom? This Mr. Spielmann peculiar "fashion of wearing the moustache" fails to tell us. He presents us, however, with never obtained among Englishmen until the an engraving Of "Maurice, Prince d'Orange, time of the later Stuarts, and possibly not 1567-1625," in order "illustrate the fashion before the time of Charles II, when it was of wearing the mustache as in the adopted by some of the Court dandies of that Shakespeare effigy." [Work cited, Plate 7.] period.

Now I have long been familiar with an If this hypothesis is correct, how came engraving of Maurice, Prince of Orange, Shakespeare to be wearing such a moustache showing him with a moustache shaven in in the last few years of his life, or, indeed, at somewhat similar fashion to that of the any time, for the matter of that? Are we to Shakespeare bust—though by no means so suppose that he copied this absurd fashion carefully curled and dandified—for several —and improved upon it—from Maurice, such are to be seen in the Prints Department Prince of Orange, whom, so far as I know, of the British Museum; [Note especially the he never saw? [He could not have seen him one bearing the inscription "Henricus in Holland, since, according to Sir Sidney Hendius delin. et excudit Hagae Comic Lee and other authorities, "Shakespeare" 1630."] but the question which I have never went out of England.] And mark what

111 The George Greenwood Collection a beautifully cut and trimmed and carefully Stratford to London in or about the year shaped beard Shakespeare is wearing in the 1587, with regard to whom they entertain, Stratford effigy—far more elegantly cut and for the most part, feelings of sympathy and shaped than that of Maurice, Prince of interest, or it may be, in some cases, of Orange!—and why are not these things, and indifference so far as he personally is especially this moustache, so fashioned, concerned, but certainly with no feelings of shown anywhere as appurtenant to hostility or dislike. Shakespeare except in this Stratford bust? How comes it that they are absent in the Now these persons Mr. Spielmann thinks it Droeshout engraving—that only other right and proper to characterise as authentic portrait of "the Immortal Bard"— "Shakespeare-haters"! Well, we have all and in the Flower Portrait, and in the heard of the pugilist who, when asked why Chandos Portrait, and the Janssen Portrait, he allowed his wife to hit him in the face, and the Felton Portrait, and all the other replied, "It amuses her, and does not hurt portraits, in which, although they are not me!" But to describe Shakespeare-lovers as "authentic," the artist must be supposed to Shakespeare-haters is such an obvious have endeavoured to represent a man of the departure from the paths of veracity that I type such as was ascribed to the great poet venture to think Mr. Spielmann might be Shakespeare? satisfied in future by calling us "fools and fanatics," and so forth, which from long These questions are not frivolous ones. On habituation of course we could not object to, the contrary they are questions of and which might, perhaps, as was the case importance, but I have never yet heard an with the pugilist's wife, amuse him, without answer to them, unless it be the answer that hurting us. the present bust is different from that which was originally placed in the Stratford And, quite apart from the ineptitude of such monument, and is of a later date. [See Note a childishly silly characterisation, its A at p. 51.] injustice stands out naked and unashamed; for, incredible as it may seem, in the same Let us see, then, what can be said for the class as these so-called "Shakespeare-haters" hypothesis that the Stratford bust was Mr. Spielmann is constrained to include, so altered, or a new one substituted for the far as this matter is concerned, such an original in the year 1748 or 1749. ardent and orthodox worshipper at the Stratfordian shrine as Mrs. Charlotte There is a very considerable and increasing Carmichael Stopes! For Mrs. Stopes it was number of persons, male and female—and who first set this ball rolling, to wit, the good Anglo-Saxons to boot—who love theory that the Stratford Bust was altered Shakespeare (and by "Shakespeare" I, of when the monument was "repaired and course, mean the plays and poems of beautified"—as it certainly was—in the "Shakespeare") quite as much as, and years 1748-9. [See her able and copiously perhaps considerably more than, Mr. Marion illustrated article in the Monthly Review of H. Spielmann, but who, for reasons which April, 1904, subsequently reprinted in a appear sufficient to them, have abandoned pamphlet hearing title The True Story of the the traditional belief that the author of those Stratford Bust (John Murray, 1904).] plays and poems was, in truth and in fact, William Shakspere, who came from

112 The George Greenwood Collection

Again, I say, therefore, let us see what Dugdale of such gross inaccuracy as almost evidence there is to support Mrs. Stopes's amounts to fraud? Is it possible that the theory that the original Stratford bust was central figure was in his time as he drew it, altered, or another substituted for it at some and as he had it engraved? C'est lá la date considerably later than the erection of question. the monument, and probably in the middle of the eighteenth century; and let us, as Now Mrs. Stopes discovered in the Wheler lovers of Shakespeare, and "haters" not, Collection at Stratford-on-Avon certain certainly, of Shakespeare but of prejudice, MSS. of the Rev. Joseph Greene, Master of misrepresentation, and intolerance, examine the Grammar School, written in September, that evidence without parti pris and with an 1746, from which we learn that "as the impartial mind. curious original monument and bust" of the poet, "erected above the tomb that enshrines Who erected the Stratford monument, and his dust [sic] [Shakspere's "tomb" at when, and at whose cost? Nobody knows. Stratford, it need hardly be said, is a The mystery which, as Mr. Spielmann says, cenotaph. His dust lies, or is said to lie, surrounds so much of Shakespeare's life and beneath the gravestone close by.] in the work, extends to this monument also. All we Church of Stratford-upon-Avon, can say is that there must have been some Warwickshire, is through length of years sort of monument to Shakespeare, either and other accidents become much impaired existing or, at least, projected, in Stratford and decayed," [My italics] an offer had been Church in 1623 when the First Folio was made by Mr. John Ward, the grandfather of published, for in his lines to W. the celebrated Mrs. Siddons, and his Shakespeare, prefixed to that immortal company, to act Othello, in the Town Hall, work, Leonard Digges speaks of the poet's " on September 9th, 1746, the receipts of Stratford monument." But the question is: Is which were "to be solely appropriated to the the monument, and more especially the bust, repairing of the original monument as they are now to be seen at Stratford, aforesaid"; and there is a "copy of an old identical with those that were originally play-bill, at the time of repairing and placed there, or was the original altered, and beautifying [My italics. See Note B at p. 58.] if so, when, and by whom? Shakespeare's monument, with the Rev. Joseph Greene's remarks on the performers."

Part Two Ultimately it was agreed that the execution of the work should be committed to "Mr. The Stratford Bust & The John Hall, Limner," and it is contended by Droeshout Engraving Mr. Spielmann, as it was also contended by Mr. Andrew Lang, that all Hall had to do was to repaint, and do certain superficial restoration. "If anything," says Mr. Now nobody, so far as I know, has ever Spielmann, in his reply to Mrs. Stopes (Pall contended that the whole monument has Mall Gazette, Dec. 6th, 1910), "beyond been altered, or that another has been surface restoration and painting of the bust erected in the place of the original. The were needed, the work would hardly have question at issue is practically confined to been committed, as it was, to John Hall, the bust. Is it possible to absolve Sir William Limner... only the removal of discoloration

113 The George Greenwood Collection on the monument, re-stopping and binding it will be seen that the amount paid for the together of loose joints, and the decay of the repair of the monument was not such a pigment in the bust, would constitute the paltry sum" as Mr. Spielmann suggests, after necessary repairs, and this labour would all. well represent the expenditure of £12 10s. which we are told was paid for the work." In the above-quoted letter of John Hall, So also in his recent work Mr. Spielmann written in November, 1748, it is to be noted writes: "John Hall, a painter, was employed that he says he intends to pay a visit to for the renovation; but when we look into Stratford "next summer," when he hopes to the history of that renovation, naively put have the pleasure of seeing the monument forward by the main supporters of the new completely finished, from which we may theory, and accepted by the blind followers conclude that the work upon it was not of it, we find that the amount raised from the actually completed till the year 1749, Othello performance was no more than £12 although John Ward's company had given 10s., and that the repairs which were their performance of Othello, the receipts of effected after two years of wrangling, are which were duly handed over to the supposed to have resulted in this fine new churchwardens, in September, 1746. marble monument and carved stone bust for that paltry sum!" Now what was the reason of this delay? I think it is fairly obvious from the Now upon this it may be remarked: Firstly, documents, which show that there was no that, so far as I know, nobody contends that little disagreement between the Rev. Joseph a "fine new marble monument" was erected Greene, the Master of the Grammar School, at the date in question, and in the absence of and the Rev. Mr. Kenwick, the Vicar of such a contention—in which I, certainly, Stratford, with regard to the amount of should have no part or lot—it appears to me discretion which should be given to John that Mr. Spielmann greatly overstates his Hall in the matter of repairing the case. And, secondly, it appears that £12 10s. monument. Greene was for giving him a was not the whole amount paid to John Hall pretty free hand in the work of "repairing for his work on this occasion, for we find and beautifying," while the good vicar was that the contributors to the fund had for restricting his operations. Thus we read previously agreed that "we will also use our of "a form proposed by Mr. Greene to the endeavours that such further money shall be gentlemen at the Falcon, but rejected by Mr. collected and given him as, with the former Kenwick who thought it did not sufficiently collections, may make up the whole sum of limit what was to be done by Mr. Hall, as sixteen pounds." Moreover, we find that Mr. did a form which he himself had drawn up" John Ward, writing to Mr. Joseph Greene in (Nov. 30th, 1748,) and I think it may November, 1748, says that he will "readily reasonably be concluded that when it was at come into any proposal to make good the last agreed "That Mr. John Hall, Limner, sum for the use intended [viz. the reparation shall repair and beautify, or have the of the monument] if what is already in the direction of repairing and beautifying, the churchwardens' hands should prove original monument of Shakespeare the deficient." [See Shakespeare's Environment, poet," Greene had carried his point, and that p. 349.] And, thirdly, when we add to all this John Hall was given a considerably wider the consideration that money at that date limit than what the vicar had considered to was worth six or eight times what it is now, be desirable. It is to be noted here that,

114 The George Greenwood Collection according to a form drawn up for signature few words. He, of course, rejects it as by the contributors, but which appears never inaccurate and untrustworthy. He informs to have been signed by them, the money us, however, that it is by Hollar, being thus subscribed was to be paid to Hall "provided in disagreement with Mr. Spielmann so far he takes care, according to his ability, that as this particular is concerned. As to the the monument shall become as like as monument, he writes: "A person who visited possible to what it was when first erected." Stratford a few years after the restoration by It seems clear that this is the pledge for Hall (1749), after observing that he could which Mr. Kenwick contended, and if, as I not discover a single person of the name of gather from the documents quoted by Mrs. Shakespeare in Stratford, says, 'his Stopes, this form was only proposed for monument, the sexton's wife told me, had signature, but not in fact signed, that been very much neglected, and had a circumstance appears to constitute pregnant lamentable appearance, till about five years evidence in favour of those who believe that since, when Ward's company of comedians the alterations of 1748-9 were not "confined repaired and beautified it from the produce to such matters as repainting, and the re- of a benefit play exhibited for that purpose" stopping and binding together of loose (Vol. I, p. 232). Then, with reference to the joints," etc. Moreover, if it had been a mere work executed upon it, when it was question of recoloration there would have "repaired and beautified," he writes: "The been no need to stipulate that "the material of the bust itself, and of the cushion monument shall become [sic] as like as on which it rests, is a limestone of blue tint; possible to what it was when first erected." the columns on either side are of black But, apparently, even that pledge was not polished marble, and the capitals and bases given. belonging to them are composed of freestone. The whole of the entablatures Let us now turn to what is said on this were formerly of white alabaster, but when subject by Mr. Halliwell-Phillipps. But here the monument was repaired in 1749, the I must promise that I should always be very architraves being decayed, new ones of reluctant to accept any statement made by marble were substituted" (Vol. I, p. 227. My this Shakespearean critic, on any italics.) controversial matter, unless it is supported by extrinsic evidence. As, however, he is Now if this statement is accepted, it proves cited as a reliable witness by Mr. Spielmann, conclusively that the work executed in 1748- as will presently be seen, his testimony with 9 was by no means confined to repainting regard to the repairs executed on the and petty superficial repairs. On the monument must by no means be omitted. contrary, it bears witness to a certain amount of structural alteration. "Hall," says Mr. Now it is remarkable that Halliwell- Spielmann (Pall Mall Gazette, Dec. 6th, Phillipps in his Outlines of the Life of 1910), "was a painter pure and simple." If Shakespeare says nothing at all on this so, clearly he was not the man to remove the subject. But in his Works of Shakespeare, a decayed architraves, and to substitute new monumental work in sixteen ponderous entablatures of marble in lieu of the old ones volumes, he makes, in Vol. I, some of white alabaster! For this, obviously, a interesting observations both on the Dugdale stonemason and sculptor was required, and engraving and on the monument. As to the it seems that, after all, Mrs. Stopes was in all engraving, he gives it the go-by with very

115 The George Greenwood Collection probability right when she postulated a steeled," the bird on the monument appears "sculptor who collaborated with Hall." to be much more like a dove than a falcon! See Spielmann, Plate 6, and cf. the very But here a rather curious point arises. different crest as depicted in each volume of Commenting on this passage in Halliwell's the " Temple Shakespeare."] great work, which I had discovered and quoted, Mr. Spielmann some considerable Anyhow, it is quite clear that, according to time ago (I have not the reference at hand, Halliwell-Phillipps, when the monument but I think it was in the Pall Mall Gazette) was repaired in 1749, some part of the observed, with regard to the monument, superstructure above the columns (which he "Behold, there are no entablatures!" calls the entablature"), and which was "formerly of white alabaster," was removed, Now an "entablature" is—at any rate in owing to decay, and "marble" was classic architecture—"the superstructure substituted for it. which lies horizontally upon the columns, and is divided into architrave, the part If, then, Mr. Spielmann rejects this immediately above the column; frieze, the testimony as untrustworthy, he is hardly central space; and cornice, the upper entitled to ask us to accept Halliwell- projecting mouldings;" [I quote from T. H. Phillipps's unsupported statement on another Parker's "Concise Glossary" of Architectural matter, as that of an undoubtedly reliable Terms] and I presume that Halliwell's state- witness. ment bears reference to this superstructure above the columns of Shakespeare's So far, therefore, we have evidence that the monument, though whether he was right in repairs done to the monument in 1749 were dignifying it with the name of "entablature," not limited to a painter's work, but included and whether he is right in speaking of a certain amount of structural alteration. It "entablatures," I confess, being unlearned in must be frankly admitted, however, that, so such matters, I should not venture to far as I know, no direct evidence can be pronounce. In Lee's Life of Shakespeare, found to support the hypothesis that the bust however, I read the following: "The poet's was altered at that time, or, possibly, a new monument in Stratford Church was in tablet one substituted for an old one, which, in the form and was coloured in accordance with words of the sexton's wife, "had been very contemporary practice. It presents a central much neglected and had a lamentable arch flanked by two Corinthian columns appearance." That is only a presumption, which support a cornice and entablature... founded on the clear evidence of some over the centre of the entablature is a block structural alteration, and on the fact that of stone, on the surface of which the poet's Dugdale had drawn and caused to be arms and crest are engraved." [Life, pp. 297- engraved a figure—certainly of "lamentable 8. Sir Sidney further quotes Mrs. Stopes: appearance"—which differs entirely from "The pillars were of marble, the ornaments the existing bust of Shakespeare. were of alabaster" (Shakespeare's Environment, pp. 117-18). It is rather But here steps in Mr. Spielmann with remarkable that although the crest or evidence which he conceives to be cognizance said to have been assigned to conclusive against Dugdale, and to establish "Shakespeare" was "a falcon his wings the identity of the existing bust with that displayed argent, supporting a spear gold

116 The George Greenwood Collection which was placed in the monument when it aid of some cement" (Shakespeare's was first erected. Environment (1914), p. 112. See also Note 2, p. 30).] shows us the architectural It is well known that Rowe, Shakespeare's proportions, the mantling, the seated "earliest biographer" (so-called), in the cherubs, the brackets (instead of feet), and, edition of his Life of Shakespeare, published above all, "the figure with its hands ready to in 1709, presents us with an engraving of the write upon a cushion," just as today. bust which is practically identical with Dugdale's. But then, it is said, Rowe did not This, certainly, is an argument of some go to Stratford himself; he merely copied weight. For an engraving of 1723, showing a Dugdale. This, of course, may be the fact. I figure with hands upon a cushion ready to would notice, however, in passing, that write, a pen in the right hand, and a sheet of Rowe did not copy the inscription which is paper beneath the left hand, as now, not to on Dugdale's engraving, for there we read mention the other similarities mentioned by (evidently through the fault of the engraver, Mr. Spielmann, undeniably raises the since it is not in Dugdale's own drawing) the presumption that a figure closely words "Judycio Pylium," which Rowe resembling, if not identical with, the present corrects by reading "Judicio Pylium." He did figure in the monument was there some not, therefore, copy the Dugdale engraving twenty-five years before the work of in all particulars. "repairing and beautifying" was done in 1748, and this even although Vertue's figure But, then, says Mr. Spielmann, look at differs in one amazing particular from the George Vertue's engraving of 1723. This present figure owing to the fact that the "presents the monument to us pretty well "Chandos" head has been substituted for the exactly as it is today [Original italics.] —all head of the figure as we now see it. except the head"! And what about the head? Why "the so-called scrupulous Vertue... What answer has Mrs. Stopes to make to coolly places the head of the Chandos this? I will give it in her own words. "In portrait—the popular portrait of the day—on Pope's edition of 1725 we find a remarkable the shoulders of the effigy!" And, further, variation. Vertue did not go to Stratford but "he daintily places impossible burning tapers to Rowe for his copy. Finding it so very in the boys' hands, as more likely than arrow inartistic, he improved the monument, and hour-glass." Otherwise, however, making the little angels light-bearers rather Vertue's monument is pretty well exactly "as than bearers of spade and hour-glass, and we see it today. "But the deadly thing," instead of the bust he gives a composition writes Mr. Spielmann, "is that this from the Chandos portrait, altering the arms engraving, which was done for Tonson in and hands [i.e. of the assumed original], and 1723, or twenty-five years before the alleged adding a cloak, pen, paper, and desk. It 'radical reconstruction' of the monument, retains, however, the drooping moustache which is pretended to have occurred in and slashed sleeves." [The True Story of the 1748," [I do not know who speaks of the Stratford Bust (John Murray, 1904), p. 9. "It "radical reconstruction of the monument" is curious," writes Mrs. Stopes, "that none of which Mr. Spielmann marks as a quotation. the other editions of the eighteenth century Mrs. Stopes writes: "Whoever the sculptor reproduce the tomb [she means, of course, was who so much improved the figure, it is the monument] either as Vertue or Gravelot more than likely he restored the face by the

117 The George Greenwood Collection rendered it." She describes the Vertue "I obtained," he says, "permission to engraving as "a purely imaginary version."] photograph it, and I found, pasted on the back, a label with the following inscription If this explanation be adopted, we must signed by Halliwell-Phillipps. This old assume that those who repaired and altered painting of the monumental effigy of the monument in 1748-9 took their Shakespeare is a great curiosity, being the inspiration, to some extent at least, from the one painted by Hall before he re-coloured bust as depicted by Vertue in 1725, and the bust in 1748. The letters proving this are from Gravelot's similar version in Hanmer's in the possession of Richard Greene Esqr., edition of 1744, which, says Mrs. Stopes, is F.S.A., who presented them some years ago "mainly copied from Vertue, and followed to Fraser's Magazine. I purchased the by the restorers of the Bust in 1746-8," and picture of Mr. Greene, who is the lineal finding the existing figure both suffering descendant of the Rev. Joseph Greene of from the lapse of time and "very inartistic," Stratford, the owner of the painting of about altered it so as to produce the bust as we 1770. J. O. Halliwell—(that is to say now see it. ["Whoever the sculptor was," Halliwell-Phillipps)."And," says Mr. writes Mrs. Stopes, "who so much improved Spielmann, "I think we can leave the matter the figure, it is more than likely he recon- there." structed the face altogether" (p. 10). She presents us with copies of both the Vertue But, with all respect, I think it would be very and the Gravelot engraving.] unsatisfactory to "leave the matter there." In the first place it is to be noted that the I must leave the reader to form his own allegation that this little picture was painted opinion as to the value of this reply to Mr. by Hall before he re-coloured the bust in Spielmann. The engraving of 1725 certainly 1748 rests (apart from "the letters" alluded seems a somewhat formidable obstacle in to, as to which a word anon) entirely upon the way of Mrs. Stopes's hypothesis. On the the statement signed by "J. O. Halliwell," other hand, it seems very improbable not i.e. Halliwell-Phillipps as he afterwards only that Dugdale should have drawn such a became. Now Mr. Spielmann asks us here to preposterously false representation of the accept the testimony of Halliwell-Phillipps bust as Mr. Spielmann charges him withal, as that of a witness of indisputable accuracy. but also that Vertue, or anybody else, Yet he himself declines, as it appears, to should, while purporting to give an accurate accept the evidence of this witness when he engraving of the monument, have obliterated bears testimony to the structural alterations the head as it now exists by substituting the of the Stratford monument made in 1748-9. head of the Chandos portrait! But, as every lawyer knows, counsel cannot both impeach the evidence of a witness on But Mr. Spielmann has yet another string to one matter and at the same time ask the jury his bow, for "in the Whitechapel to accept it as unimpeachable on another Shakespearean and Theatrical Exhibition of matter; or if he does so he stands in great 1910, a little picture was lent by the late Earl danger of losing his verdict. of Warwick, showing the monument practically as it is today." [Original italics. Now Halliwell-Phillipps is, certainly, not a See p. 24 of Mr. Spielmann's work, and his witness of unimpeachable accuracy. In the Plate 16 fronting that page.] "The painting," present case he tells us that he "purchased he tells us," is 19 inches high by 13 wide." the picture of Mr. Greene, who is the lineal

118 The George Greenwood Collection descendant of the Rev. Joseph Greene of Spielmann's case. We really cannot accept Stratford, the owner of the painting of about statements as undoubted facts upon no better 1770." He does not inform us at what date evidence than this. he purchased it. He calls the Rev. Joseph Greene "the owner of the painting of about And now let us look at the picture itself, as 1770." What does that mean—"the painting Mr. Spielmann presents it to us. If it was of about 1770"? It really seems not a little really painted by John Hall he must have difficult to say. We are told that the painting been a very inaccurate "limner"! Look first in question was done some forty-two at the "details." Look at the "boys"—we years—or "about" forty-two years—before cannot call them "cherubs"!—on the top of that date. And the letters "proving" that this the monument. The boy on the left holds out picture was painted by Hall before he re- his leg like a young lady of the present day coloured the bust are said to be at the time at a garden party—quite unlike the attitude of Halliwell-Phillipps's inscription "in the of the boy on the left of the monument as it possession of Richard Greene Esqr., F.S.A., exists today—while he rests his left hand on who presented them some years ago to a skull, which is conspicuous by its absence Fraser's Magazine." But if Richard Greene on the present monument. The boy on the had presented these letters to Fraser's right, also, who extends his leg in a similar Magazine some years before the date of this manner, is quite unlike the boy on the right inscription, it seems not a little strange that of the monument as we now see him. And as they should have been still in his possession to the skull at the top, it is a grotesque at that date! Where are these letters now? pantomime image emerging very absurdly Fraser's Magazine has long ago from the apex of an unsightly pyramid. Let disappeared, but possibly some one may the reader compare all these details with know what has become of these evidentiary those that he will find presented for our letters, in the absence of which Mr. edification, as now existing on the Halliwell-Phillipps's inscription has but very monument, in Mr. Spielmann's Plate No. 6. little weight. For decidedly the unsupported statements of that Shakespearean enthusiast Let us, however, pass from "details" to the are not to be accepted as undoubtedly central figure of "Shakespeare" itself, as veracious. Perhaps the present Earl of represented in this picture "of great Warwick might help us, or, possibly, Mr. curiosity." We shall see, in the first place, Spielmann might be able to throw some the head of a gentleman quite unlike our further light upon the history of this "Shakespeare" of the existing Stratford bust. remarkable little picture. Moreover, whereas the present bust looks one straight in the face, Hall's Suppose, for instance, that Mr. Halliwell- "Shakespeare"—if Hall's it is—is turning his Phillipps was—unconsciously of course— head to the right, so as to present himself guilty of a slight inaccuracy, or that he had almost in profile. It is true that his right hand been wrongly informed! Suppose that John holds a pen, but what has become of the left Hall painted this little picture—if, indeed, he hand? In the bust, as we now see it, the left did paint it—not "before" but after he re- hand lies very conspicuously on a sheet of coloured the Stratford bust! That is an paper which rests upon a cushion. In Hall's entirely possible supposition, and, if such picture there is little or nothing to be seen of was the fact, the picture, it is needless to say, the cushion, and the left hand of the figure has no value at all in support of Mr.

119 The George Greenwood Collection has disappeared, paper and all. In fact, it is probability in its favour. [See Note B at p. nonexistent. 58.]

One can only say that if Mr. Halliwell- Perhaps, however, the strongest evidence in Phillipps's "inscription" is not more support of the contention that the present trustworthy than this picture, said to have bust is of much later date than is generally been painted by John Hall, very little assigned to it, consists in the peculiar reliance can be placed upon it. And, after all, fashion of shaving the moustache, to which I it seems much more probable that Hall have already drawn attention, and which should have painted the monument—if, believe did not come into vogue in this indeed, he did paint it—after rather than country—so far as it did come into vogue at before he had helped to "repair and, all—till the time of Charles I, or, more beautify" it. If it was done before what Mr. probably, Charles II. Spielmann terms the "misalleged reconstruction" of 1748, and if it was an accurate drawing of the bust as it existed at Part Three that time, then, certainly, a new head was placed upon the bust after that date! Moreover, according to the evidence of the The Stratford Bust & The Droeshout sexton's wife of Stratford, as noted by a Engraving person cited by Halliwell-Phillipps himself as a reliable witness, the monument before 1748 "had been very much neglected and had a lamentable appearance," which And now what of the bust itself? Well, de certainly does not appear in the little picture gustibus non est disputandum. Mr. " shown in Mr. Spielmann's Plate No. 16, Spielmann cites the names of some nor is it very likely that Hall would care to distinguished persons, from Chantrey to paint a neglected monument of "a "Mr. Arthur Benson, of today," who, as he lamentable appearance." On the whole it tells us, were great admirers of this effigy. appears to me much more probable that [Mr. Spielmann cites Matthew Arnold as Hall—if he was the artist—painted an having been a great admirer of the present inaccurate picture of the monument —for Stratford bust, quoting, from his well-known inaccurate it certainly is—after he had taken sonnet to "Shakespeare," the words, "Thou part in the repairing and recoloration smilest and art still, Out-topping thereof. Perhaps, therefore, we can now knowledge." It does not much matter "leave the matter here," at any rate until whether Matthew Arnold was or was not a those mysterious "letters" are produced. great admirer of the bust, but I cannot think that when he wrote this famous sonnet, Mr. Spielmann's arguments, then, when beginning "Others abide our question, Thou closely examined, seem to leave the case art free," he had in mind the Stratford effigy very much in statu quo ante. At the same at all. He was, I apprehend, thinking solely time it must be frankly admitted that the of the mysterious author of the plays and verdict on Mrs. Stopes's contention, viz, that poems of "Shakespeare," the man who, as he the present bust really dates from the year says, did "tread on earth unguess'd at"— 1748-9, must be that of "Not proven," "planting his steadfast footsteps in the sea, although there appears to be strong making the heaven of heavens his dwelling-

120 The George Greenwood Collection place." Let any impartial man look at the the bust," though how an "aspect" which is Stratford bust, and ask himself if it suggests stupid at first sight loses its stupidity at to him the words "Thou smilest and art still, "second sight" he fails to make clear to the Out-topping knowledge"!] He, however, at ordinary human understanding. once proceeds to demonstrate that Chantrey's judgment can have but little No doubt an enthusiastic and adoring weight in this matter, for "Chantrey believed admirer of the Works of Shakespeare, it to be from a death-mask, for the reason looking at the effigy in Stratford Church that the raised lip shows a contraction of with the eye of faith, and believing it to be a muscle which suggests I—as if any sculptor, true and faithful representation of "the however unskilful, would be fool enough Immortal Bard," would be prone to see in it deliberately to introduce into a bust, what he naturally expects to find—the purporting to represent a living and beautiful intellectual face which he obviously a robust and humorous-minded associates with the author of those man, a corpse's rigidity!" magnificent and immortal works; but my firm belief is that a really impartial judge But many others, ardent and orthodox could not do otherwise than subscribe to the "Stratfordians" though they be, have found verdict of such faithful apostles of the little indeed to admire in this effigy. Sir "Orthodox" tradition as Sir Sidney Lee and Sidney Lee (e.g.) writes: "The Stratford bust Mrs. Stopes in this matter. [Let the reader is a clumsy piece of work. The bald domed compare Mr. Spielmann's Plate 9 ("The forehead, the broad and long face, the plump Stratford Monument—The Effigy") with his and rounded chin, the long upper lip, the full Plate 45, showing the idealised bust on the cheeks, the massed hair about the ears, Heminge and Condell Memorial, in St. Mary combine to give the burly countenance a the Virgin churchyard, Aldermanbury, by mechanical and unintellectual expression." Professor C. J. Allen. He will then realise [Life of Shakespeare (1915), P. 524.] Mrs. the necessity which the talented sculptor felt Stopes—the learned, industrious, and himself to be under to substitute a manly, devoted Mrs. Stopes—writes as follows: dignified, and handsome face (albeit still "Every one who approaches the Stratford wearing the ridiculously shaven moustache) bust is more disappointed in it as a for the heavy, sensuous, and "stupid aspect" revelation of the poet than even in the crude of the Stratford bust. It is a fine head, but we lines of Droeshout. There is an entire lack of may rest assured that it is no more the true the faintest suggestion of poetic or spiritual head of "Shakespeare" than is that inspiration in its plump earthliness... The unfortunate original, the "plump earthliness" pen strives to write 'this is a literary man,' of which is so much deplored by Mrs. but there is nothing to support the Stopes.] attribution," and she further refers to "the intensely disappointing nature of this It remains to say a word concerning the supposed simulacrum of the poet." ["The Droeshout engraving prefixed to the First True Story of the Stratford Bust," Monthly Folio. Review, Ap. 1904, p. 153. (Subsequently reprinted in pamphlet form.)] Here we must, in the first place, express our gratitude to Mr. Spielmann for lending the Mr. Spielmann himself refers to "the weight of his authority to a proposition curious, and at first sight stupid, aspect of which, after consideration of the picture in

121 The George Greenwood Collection question and the evidence concerning it, has Mrs. Stopes speaks of "the inartistically long seemed quite obvious to many of us, designed and coarsely executed engraving of viz. that the "Flower Portrait" was not "the Droeshout," and adds, truly enough, that in Droeshout original," as some persons have the reproduction which appeared as conceived it to be, but the work of some frontispiece to Shakespeare's Poems in later artist who desired to correct the faults 1640, the engraver Marshall "increased the and imperfections of the unfortunate inanity of the expression." "Inanity" is quite Droeshout print, and to furnish the world the right word for that particular expression with a more presentable representation of of face which appears in the engraving. that great poet and dramatist who is "not of an age but for all time." Mr. Spielmann cites Mr. Arthur Benson, who is, as he had told us on an earlier page, And what of the Droeshout engraving itself? an admirer of the bust (p. 9), as speaking of Here again we must remember the adage De the "horrible hydrocephalous development gustibus non est disputandum; but, for my of the skull in the engraving" (p. 32). But, part, I can never understand how any after all, any ordinary person of sane mind unprejudiced person, with a sense of who has eyes and understanding is, or ought humour, can look upon it without being to be, competent to judge in this case. tempted to irreverent laughter. Not only is it, as many have pointed out, and as is apparent As to Jonson's well-known lines concerning even to the untrained eye, altogether out of this ridiculous caricature, it is not necessary drawing; not only is the head preternaturally to discuss them here. I will, therefore, large for the body; not only is it quaintly content myself with quoting what Professor suggestive of an unduly deferred razor; but A. W. Pollard has written on the matter: "If it looks at one with a peculiar expression of his (Jonson's) lines on Droeshout's portrait sheepish oafishness which is irresistibly are compared with their subject, we may comic. It might do excellently well as well be inclined to wonder whether he had signboard of "The Shakespeare Arms," but seen the very doubtful masterpiece at the that this woodeny thing, with its time that he wrote them" (Shakespeare hydrocephalous forehead, straight lank hair Folios and Quartos, 1909, p. 122). bunched over the ears, and idiotic stare, should do duty as the counterfeit I might add, however, the following words presentment of the world's greatest poet, from Sir Sidney Lee's Life of Shakespeare though provocative of human smiles, is (1915, p. 528) "Jonson's testimony does no really calculated to "make the angels weep." credit to his artistic discernment; the expression of countenance is neither Sir Sidney Lee writes: "The face is long and distinctive nor lifelike." the forehead high; the one ear which is visible is shapeless; the top of the head is Well, if Jonson wrote his well-known lines bald, but the hair falls in abundance over the "To the Reader," facing this all-too- ears. There is a scanty moustache and a thin remarkable Droeshout print which appears fringe of hair under the lower lip... the on the title-page of the First Folio, without dimensions of the head and face are having seen the supposed portrait of disproportionately large as compared with Shakespeare, as Mr. Pollard suggests, but those of the body." nevertheless bearing testimony to the excellence of the likeness, one can only say

122 The George Greenwood Collection that Jonson's evidence, both here and Pembroke and the Earl of Montgomery. elsewhere, so far as "Shakespeare" is These critics, including many "men of concerned, must be received with many letters" of the present day, who bear "grains of salt." And at this conclusion I distinguished names, seem to imagine that long ago arrived for reasons which the such a dedication was something quite exigencies of space do not allow me to go unique; that only the works of Shakespeare into here. [See my Ben Jonson and were considered worthy of such high Shakespeare (Cecil Palmer, 1921). It must honour, or were in fact so honoured. They be remembered that we have now the appear to be quite ignorant that many books, highest "orthodox" authority for saying that both before and after the date of the Folio, Jonson wrote both the Folio Prefaces. "Of were dedicated to these two Earls. Let me that," writes the distinguished give a few instances: "A World of Wonders; Shakespearean, Professor Felix Schelling, a preparation treatise to the Apologie for "there' can be no doubt whatever." See "The Herodotus"; London, imprinted for John Seedpod of Shakespeare Criticism," report Norton, 1607, and dedicated to the Rt. Hon. of an address delivered at Houston Hall, Lords William Earle of Pembroke and Philip Pennsylvania, by Dr. Felix Schelling, Jan., Earle of Montgomerie. Patrons of Learning, 1920.] Patterns of Honour." [There was another edition of the same work, so dedicated, But, says Mr. Spielmann, "Whether or not imprinted by Andrew Hart and Richard Ben Jonson meant quite what he said—he Lawson, published in Edinburgh in 1608.] repentantly admits that he was formerly "Amorum Emblemata," by Otho Vcenius, sometimes to blame in this matter published in Antwerp in 1608, and dedicated [Unfortunately Mr. Spielmann does not tell "to the most honourable and worthie us where Jonson makes this repentant brothers William Earle of Pembroke and admission.] —the fact remains that the print Philip Earle of Montgomerie, patrons of was issued in an expensive memorial edition learning and chevalrie." Then again we have of Shakespeare's work, issued at £1 (say, "The General History of the Magnificent some £6 or £7 of our money today) by State of Venice, collected by Thomas Shakespeare's fellow-actors, and dedicated Fougasses, Englished by W. Shute, printed to two of the greatest noblemen of the realm, by G. Eld and W. Stansby, 1612, dedicated high personages at Court and in Society, to the same "truly noble and worthie of all who had known the Poet and were perfectly honour" brethren, "Knights of the familiar with his appearance" (p. 31). Honourable order of the Garter."

Now that the First Folio was really "issued" Then we have "St. Augustine or the Citie of by those "deserving men," Messrs. Heminge God. With comments by Jo. Lod. Vives; and Condell, is, as I submit with entire englished by J. H." Printed by George Eld in confidence, a mere fable, however much it 1610, and dedicated to the Earl of may find acceptance with "orthodox" Pembroke, reprinted in 1620 by George Eld credulity. However, let that pass. What I and M. Flesher, dedicated to "the three most desire to call attention to is the enormous noble brothers William Earle of Pembroke, importance which appears to be attributed Lord Chamberlain, and Thomas Earle of by such critics as Mr. Spielmann to the fact Arundel, two of the Lords of His Majesties that the Folio was actually dedicated to that most honourable Privy Councell, and Philip "Incomparable Pair of Brethren," the Earl of Earle of Montgomery, Knights of the most

123 The George Greenwood Collection noble Order of the Garter. Grace and Peace for by purchasers, who were few and far in Christ." between, but rather by the proceeds of the Dedication, together with the contributions Further we have "Geography delineates of lovers of literature—of whom it is quite forth in two books, by Nathaniel Carpenter, reasonable to suggest that Lord Bacon was printed by John Lichfield and William in all probability one, whether or not he had Turner, 1625"—two years after the Folio, it any share in the authorship of the plays. A will be observed—the first volume fulsome dedication to great and dedicated to William Earle of Pembroke, the distinguished men was the means of second volume dedicated to Philip Earle of launching many a valuable work which Montgomerie. would not otherwise have seen the light. [Mr. Spielmann, by the way, says that the It is unnecessary to give further examples, "Incomparable Pair" had known the Poet but I may just mention "The Second Session and were perfectly familiar with his of the Parliament of Vertues reall for better appearance. This is likely enough, but propogation of all true pietie," by Joshua whether they had much knowledge of, or Sylvester, dedicated to the Rt. Hon. William acquaintance with William Shakspere of Earle of Pembroke, Lord Chamberlain. Not Stratford—the man whom the Burbages, in dated. [I am indebted to my friend, Mr. their Petition to the survivor of these William T. Smedley, for this list of works illustrious brethren, but twelve years after dedicated to "the Incomparable Pair," and he the publication of the Folio, described as had others so dedicated in his marvellous merely a "man player" and a "deserving library of fifteenth-, sixteenth-and man," one may certainly take leave to seventeenth-century works and MSS.] doubt.]

It appears, therefore, that instead of its being The question remains: Are these two sole a most striking and exceptional honour that authentic portraits of "Shakespeare," the books should be allowed to be dedicated to bust and the Droeshout engraving, at all these two Earls, their names appeared as the alike, the one to the other, bearing in mind "dedicatees" of a large number of works of that, as Mr. Spielmann tells us, they purport the period. Now it is well known that at that to show " the skull of the same man, who, in time great and distinguished men were wont the engraving, is some twenty years or so to pay large sums to authors for the honour younger than him [sic] of the Bust"? and distinction of seeing their names, with high, and, sometimes, very much On this matter Sir Sidney Lee writes: "There exaggerated tributes to their merits as is considerable discrepancy between the patrons of Learning and Chivalry and all two; their main points of resemblance are good things beside on a dedication page. It the baldness on the top of the head, and the was, in fact, by these means that the fulness of the hair about the ears." [Life, publication of a large number of expensive Illustrated Ed., 1894, p. 234.] works was financed. And thus, as I think there is no doubt, it was with the Well, two bald men always resemble each Shakespeare Folio. It was published not for other so far as their baldness is concerned, "gain" but for "glory," or, at any rate, for a so we may cheerfully admit the baldness and most honourable motive—the instruction the fulness of the hair about the ears as the and edification of mankind. It was not paid "main points of resemblance." Nevertheless,

124 The George Greenwood Collection that very distinguished lawyer, the late Mr. equanimity, and with entire tolerance and Charles Elton, Q.C., an unexceptional good humour. But he must needs satisfy his witness in such a matter, says: "The bust is unreasoning prejudice by making two so unlike the Droeshout print in the First statements concerning them, both entirely Folio... that the presentments might well devoid of veracity: first, that they are "haters belong to different persons." [William of 'the man from Stratford'"; and, secondly, Shakespeare, His Family and Friends (John plunging still deeper into the mire of Murray), 1904, p. 232.] misrepresentation, that they, who love "Shakespeare" certainly quite as much as, Mr. Spielmann, however, is of an entirely and perhaps, even more than he does, are different opinion. After telling us that of all "haters of Shakespeare!" Queue petulance. the multitudinous alleged portraits of "Shakespeare" only these two, the Stratford However, it is only charitable to leave such bust and the Droeshout engraving, "possess inaniter dicta for the delectation of the actual authority," he proceeds: "It is curious foolish and unthinking persons for whom that both of them have been strongly they were presumably intended. Let us attacked; in the first place by the haters of rather consider that "touchstone of 'The man from Stratford,' and in the resemblance" between the bust and the second—so far as the bust is concerned—by engraving which "lies in the shaped bony persons so unversed in matters of structure of the skull." Unfortunately this iconography as to be misled by can only be appreciated by those who are characteristic inaccuracies of the early hack- versed "in matters of iconography." Now engravers. The touchstone of resemblance "Icon," we know, is an "Image," and, between the two lies in the shape and bony according to my Concise Oxford Dictionary, structure of the skull—one complementing "Iconographer" means a "worshipper of and confirming the other." [See Mr. images." But of course, Mr. Spielmann does Spielmann's lecture on "Shakespeare not use such an impressive word — Portraiture," delivered at King's College, on "Iconography"—in that sense. He refers to May 4th, 1923, and reported in The Times of those poor uninstructed people who are May 5th. (Italics mine.)] unable to appreciate "the outstanding fact that the forms [sic] of the skull [of the "the haters of 'the man from Stratford'" with Droeshout engraving], with its perpendicular a smile, only regretting that such a man as rise of forehead, correspond with those in Mr. Spielmann, whose personal courtesy I the Stratford effigy," and that "this—the have had reason to appreciate; should give formation of the skull—is the definite test of vent to "anger insignificantly fierce" by all the portraits." It is thus proved, against making a remark at once so foolish and so all scoffers or doubters, that "the Droeshout untrue. He knows, of course, perfectly well, and the sculptured effigy show the skull of that those who disbelieve in what I may call the same man, who, in the engraving, is the "Stratfordian" authorship of the plays some twenty years or so younger than him and poems of "Shakespeare," look upon "the [sic] of the bust." man from Stratford," the events of whose life—real or imaginary—are set before us in Thus, then, the matter is settled. We may the pages of Rowe, and Halliwell-Phillipps, now throw over Sir Sidney Lee's two "main and Sir S. Lee, although certainly not with points of resemblance," viz. "the baldness on admiration, at any rate, with perfect the top of the head and the fulness of the

125 The George Greenwood Collection hair about the 'ears." Let us trust to all, of course, very different from either the "Iconography"—"the forms of the skull with Stratford bust or the Droeshout engraving. its perpendicular rise of forehead." And, Amongst others I would specially draw verily, it must be admitted that both the attention to the "Portrait of William effigies—bust and engraving—are even Shakespeare (The Stratford Bust and the "super-high-brows," although the bust has Droeshout Print collated) by Ford Madox the advantage in not having such an Brown" (Plate 46). Upon this, after unnaturally enlarged and "hydrocephalous" eulogising Professor Charles J. Allen's bust, forehead as the monstrous Droeshout to which I have already alluded, [See p. 36, engraving. [Surely such a term as note.] as "dignified and convincing beyond "hydrocephalous," meaning, as it does, most of the sculptured effigies of the Poet," "suffering from water on the brain," could Mr. Spielmann writes as follows: "Similarly only be applied to an effigy of the great poet inspired—but not, however, leaving wholly by a "hater of Shakespeare!" Yet many of out of account the Janssen, Chandos and the orthodox, even distinguished critics, Hunt likenesses of Shakespeare, in spite of have not hesitated to apply it to the their relative unworthiness—is the finely Droeshout engraving!] realised ideal portrait by Ford Madox Brown, now one of the honoured ornaments These, then, are your gods, O Israel! These of the Manchester Gallery." He adds that it twain are the real authentic and counterfeit is a "beautifully conceived and elaborated presentments of the world's greatest poet work," and that Dante Rossetti, as the artist and dramatist. That is proved by "the shape told him, sat for the picture, of which and bony structure of the skull." Well, after Madox. Brown himself wrote, in 1865, it is all, it is possible that they are meant to be "an attempt to supply the want of a representations, good or bad, of William creditable likeness of our national poet [my Shakspere of Stratford-upon-Avon. He, at italics] as a historian recasts some tale told any rate, must have been known at Stratford. long since in many fragments by old Mr. Spielmann informs us that the chroniclers." monument, containing the bust, was "set up by his family." As a fact, nobody knows But now behold a wonder and a portent This when, or by whom, or at whose cost it was Ford Madox Brown portrait is nothing more erected, but seeing that "the man from nor less than a reproduction, with some Stratford" was the supposed hero thereof, it variations, of Van Somers' portrait of was but natural that the sculptor who Francis Bacon, which hangs at Gorhambury, fashioned the bust (even though the one that and was engraved and published by Vertue now stands there is in all probability not the in 1723. original) should have endeavoured to fashion it, to some extent at least, in the I would ask the reader to look at Vertue's resemblance of "the man from Stratford," or engraving of that portrait, or the engraving what he fancied to be such, after the man of it by James Fittler, A.R.A., which is himself had been dead at least six years, and, prefixed to the 1803 and the 1826 Edition of possibly, many more. Bacon's works (in ten volumes), and he will see that this undoubtedly is so. [The " Mr. Spielmann has presented us, for our Worthington" engraving, published by edification, with several portraits of the ideal William Pickering in 1826, is much inferior, Shakespeare as conceived by modern artists, because it cuts out part of Bacon's right arm

126 The George Greenwood Collection and hand and part of the left hand and of the "Baconian" he could hardly have painted a paper upon which it lies.] Of course there more "Baconian" Shakespeare! Moreover, to are certain differences. Ford Madox Brown's use Mr. Spielmann's own words, "the model stands rather to the right of the outstanding fact remains," viz. that the observer, while Bacon, in the Van Somers forms of the skull, with its perpendicular rise portrait, stands rather to the left. Ford of forehead, correspond with those in the Madox Brown has endowed his ideal Van Somers portrait; "and this—the Shakespeare with hair under the sides of the formation of the skull—is the definitive test jaw, although there is no such hair on the of all the portraits." [Work cited, p. 33.] As Droeshout print, or on the Stratford bust my friend Mr. William T. Smedley, who (Spielmann, Plate 9); and although both the first drew my attention to this striking "ideal Shakespeare" and the Van Somers resemblance, truly observes, the artist seems portrait have a more or less pointed beard, to have taken the Vertue print and reversed the beard of the former is not made to join it. "The pose of the figure, the positions of the moustache as in Bacon's case. Had this the arms and hands, the pattern of the lace been done, it would have been obvious to all round the cuffs are identical." [He adds: that the modern artist had taken the Van "Even if the artist was not what is termed a Somers portrait for his model. Moreover Baconian, and wished to paint an idealised Ford Madox Brown has so far followed the portrait of Shakespeare in 1850 (six years bust as to make the moustache of his "ideal before the Baconian authorship of the plays Shakespeare" curl up as does that of the was mooted), what more likely than that he bust. But taken altogether, the resemblance should take the portrait of Bacon as his between the Van Somers portrait of Bacon model? I do not think that any one can look and Ford Madox Brown's ideal Shakespeare at the Madox Brown picture and the Somers is really most remarkable. Each model has engraving and have any doubt but that this bushy hair hanging around the ears; each was what he did." But perhaps the spirit of has, as I have already said, a moustache and Bacon was present and guided the hand of more or less pointed beard; each has a high the unconscious Brown! He certainly made domed forehead, though the artist has rather "an ideal Shakespeare" I Whether his picture exaggerated that of his ideal Shakespeare; in any way resembles Dante Gabriel the hands of each are placed strikingly in the Rossetti, I am unable to say. But, obviously, same position, though the modern artist has the artist when called upon to draw an ideal placed "Shakespeare's" right hand on a table picture of "Shakespeare" thought he could where Van Somers has placed Bacon's left not do better than take a portrait of Francis hand, and allowed "Shakespeare's" left hand Bacon as his model.] to lie as Bacon's right hand lies. Each is dressed in very similar fashion. Each wears In the year 1593 the name "Shakespeare" a ruff, and the laced cuffs at the end of the first made its appearance in literature, sleeves are also most strikingly alike; the subscribed to the dedication of Venus and faces of each bear a remarkable Adonis. Now many of us are entirely resemblance, and the eyes of each gaze upon convinced that that name "Shakespeare" was the observer in the same piercing manner. not just one form of the name of "the man But the two portraits must be looked at from Stratford" (who, by the way, never together in order to enable the observer to himself wrote his name in that form), but appreciate the resemblance. He will see that that the author of the work in question, and had Ford Madox Brown been himself a of Lucrece which followed in the next year

127 The George Greenwood Collection with a dedication signed with the same "Shakespeare," whose monument is not name, was a man of high social position, either in alabaster, or marble, but in his who desired to conceal his identity under a immortal works; the man who could truly pseudonym. In 1598 plays were published in say with Horace, and with far better warrant the name of "Shake-Speare," which than Horace: hyphenated form was very frequently employed after that time. "Shakespeare" or Exegi monumentum mre perennius, "Shake-Speare" was a name to conjure with. Regalique situ pyramidum altius. Many plays admittedly not Shakespearean were published in that name, or as by "W. Note A S.," and few critics will deny that some of the plays, or parts of plays, attributed to "Shakespeare" in the Folio of 1623 were not really written by him. Since the foregoing pages were written, we have been treated to yet another surprise. Now, in course of time, the authorship of Early in August, 1924, I sent the following these plays and poems became, as it appears, letter to the Editor of The Times Literary attributed to Shakspere of Stratford, [Not, Supplement, which appeared in that journal however, it would seem, by his fellow- on August 7th of that year: players, to whom he was only a "deserving man" and a "man-player." See the petition of THE STRATFORD BUST OF the Burbages to the Earl of Pembroke and SHAKESPEARE Montgomery, the survivor of the "Incomparable Pair," in 1635. (Vide: Is there SIR,—As everybody knows, the Stratford a Shakespeare Problem? John Lane, 1916, bust of Shakespeare shows us the head of a p. 364.)] —how, or why, or to what extent, man wearing a moustache, carefully is a question which cannot be entered into trimmed and curled, but shaved in a peculiar here—but, this being so, some persons fashion, so as to leave a hairless interval conceived the idea of setting up a monument between the base of the nose above and the to him at Stratford, and it is contended that top of the upper lip below. Neither the the bust exhibited in that monument—the Droeshout engraving, nor any other alleged "Sensuous disappointing effigy," with "its portrait of Shakespeare, so far as I know, plump earthliness"—is fashioned, or presents us with this peculiarity, and I have intended to be fashioned, in his likeness, often asked whether there is any portrait, and, further, that the engraving with the print or engraving of an Englishman, before "hydrocephalous" head, published in the the year 1616, showing a moustache shaven Folio of 1623, was also intended to be a in this curious manner? likeness of this William Shakspere of Stratford. Mr. Spielmann, in his recent work, The Title-Page of the First Folio of Be it so. Stratford is welcome to its Shakespeare's Plays, gives us as a parallel a "Incomparable Pair"! What we, the lovers of print of "Maurice, Prince d'Orange (1567- Shakespeare, seek for is a portrait, if such 1625), to illustrate the fashion of wearing indeed exists save that which our mental the moustache, as in the Shakespeare vision supplies us withal—even without the effigy." Now I have long been familiar with aid of "iconography"—of the true an engraving of this Prince wearing a

128 The George Greenwood Collection moustache so shaven—though not in such a Sir,—The question raised by Sir G. dandified manner as that of the Stratford Greenwood, in his letter published on p. 489 bust—in the British Museum, subscribed of the Literary Supplement of August 7, is "Henricus Hendius delin. et excudit, Hagæ one of great interest in connexion with Comit: 1630," and there are others similar; Shakespeare portraiture. The poet's but I have never been able to find one of an moustache was quite singular, and it forms a Englishman, of the date in question, so feature of great value as a test of authenticity elaborately shaved and trimmed on the of portraiture. I enclose a print of a portrait upper lip, though I have inspected a large dated 1609, in which the peculiarity of this number of prints and engravings of the feature is plainly shown. From this it will be period at the Museum, and I cannot help seen that Sir G. Greenwood's reading of the thinking that had Mr. Spielmann known of intention of the Stratford bust is a little any such he would hardly have gone to incorrect. The moustache is composed of two Holland for his parallel. I may, of course, be quite separate halves which do not meet at entirely mistaken, but my impression is that all in the centre, but from each side run up this fashion of shaving the upper lip did not almost to the nostrils. On the ground of come into vogue in this country before the technical method and pigment the portrait in time of the later Stuarts, and possibly not question is the only one in the whole range before it was adopted by some of the young of Shakespeare portraiture which can lay dandies of the Court of Charles the Second. claim to be genuinely contemporary with the If I am wrong in this may I hope that some poet. It therefore forms a valuable of your better informed readers will, very confirmation of the authenticity of this kindly, correct me, and give me a reference feature of the Stratford bust. It is not a little to some of the portraits that may enlighten remarkable that this feature also lends my ignorance? I have already consulted tremendous strength to the case for the some high authorities on this subject, but authenticity of the Garrick Club terra-cotta have not been able to get any help. bust. Even a casual comparison of the photograph here reproduced [The letter was Yours faithfully, accompanied by a print of the portrait in GEORGE GREENWOOD. question.] with the reproduction of the Garrick bust as in Sir S. Lee's Life of This elicited a letter from Dr. W. A. Shaw, Shakespeare reveals an absolute identity of of the Public Record Office, accompanied details and features and measurements. by a reproduction of an alleged portrait of Whatever the history of the Garrick bust, I Shakespeare, dated 1609, which the learned have not the slightest doubt as to its writer asserts, as will be seen, to be "the truthfulness and authenticity. only one in the whole range of Shakespeare portraiture which can lay claim to be WM. A. SHAW, Litt.D. genuinely contemporary with the poet!" Public Record Office. That letter runs as follows: Upon this, thinking, very naturally, that Dr. (See T.L.S. of August 28th, 1924.) Shaw's newly produced portrait of Shakespeare was supposed by him to be THE STRATFORD BUST OF evidence in support of the "authenticity" of SHAKESPEARE. the Stratford bust as it exists today, I wrote To the Editor of The Times. pointing out that "the fashion of wearing the

129 The George Greenwood Collection moustache exhibited in this interesting print Well, of course Dr. Shaw was right in is entirely different from that shown in the thinking that I was "referring to the Stratford Stratford bust, as also from that seen in monument as it is today." I had no notion engravings of Maurice, Prince of Orange, that he was in agreement with Mrs. Stopes one of which is reproduced in Mr. in believing that the bust had been "restored Spielmann's recently published work," since and mutilated"—or rather, as think he ought in Dr. Shaw's portrait, as he himself to have said, "mutilated and restored"—and observes, "the moustache is composed of that Dugdale's drawing, and the engraving in two quite separate halves which do not meet his Antiquities of Warwickshire, "is the only at all in the centre, but from each side run up existing evidence of the original condition of almost"—the print shows that he might have the bust." I have, therefore, no quarrel with said "quite"—"to the nostrils," whereas in Dr. Shaw on that ground, though, as I have the case of the Stratford bust the moustache already shown, one must admit that there are is not "composed of two quite separate difficulties (I think, however, by no means halves," but, on the contrary, runs across the insuperable ones) in the way of that upper lip in one unbroken though narrow hypothesis. band, and does not "run up to the nostrils" at all, but leaves a shaven space between the With regard to this newly produced "portrait nostrils and this narrow band, as, also, of Shakespeare" Mr. Spielmann and Dr. between the narrow band and the upper lip. Shaw are, of course, at loggerheads. The (T.L.S., Sept. 4th, 1924.) former writes that he was "distressed" to see the reproduction of it in The Times Literary This, to my surprise, produced a letter from Supplement, and declares that his "first Dr. Shaw in the following terms: glance" convinced him that "we have here yet another example of the work of the "Sir George Greenwood's concluding letter clever painter who has, within the past few in your issue of the 4th inst. makes it clear years, been producing a considerable that he is referring to the Stratford number of so-called 'Early English' and monument as it is today. In that case cadit other portraits which have found a ready qucestio, for in its modern restored and market at comparatively small prices." mutilated condition, the bust is valueless as (T.L.S., Sept. 18th, 1924.) a testimony to the portraiture of Shakespeare. Dugdale's original drawing of The latter retorts that "Mr. Spielmann's letter the monument and also the reproduction of calls for only the briefest answer." For "to that drawing in his 'Warwickshire' is the anyone who is acquainted with the genuine only existing evidence of the original English work of the sixteenth century, there condition of the bust, and both agree in can be no question of copying or making the moustache to consist of two reproducing." He then proceeds to give his separate halves which turn down and not up. reasons for this opinion at some length, and They also agree in showing the beard concludes by the statement that "no real exactly as it is in the portrait reproduced in expert ought ever to be at a loss in this your issue of the 28th ult. Here, again, the field." (T.L.S., Sept. 25th, 1924.) modern bust has been mangled out of recognition." ("T.L.S.," Sept. 18th, 1924. It almost seems, therefore, that Dr. Shaw has Italics mine.) the temerity to suggest that Mr. Spielmann is not a "real expert"—a thing imagination

130 The George Greenwood Collection boggles at! But it is a very pretty quarrel as Mountjoy and Knight of the Garter," which it stands, and we may be well content to is to be found facing page 264 of the second "leave it here." Non nostrum tantas volume of The Itinerary of Fynes Moryson, componere lites. published by James Mac Lehose & Sons of Glasgow, MCMVII. I at once, therefore, Let us now examine this new "portrait of referred to the work in question, where I Shakespeare" as reproduced in The Times found, at the place indicated, an engraving Literary Supplement, for which Dr. Shaw of an alleged portrait of this Lord Mountjoy, makes such very high claims. Is this, really, by an unknown artist, and by an anonymous the portrait of "Shakespeare"? O qualis engraver, subscribed are to be sold by Henry facies, et quali digna tabella! Look at the Balam in Lombard Street." But whether or lips, look at the expression! Alas, if this be a not this be an engraving of an authentic portrait of the author of Hamlet, and if any portrait of the then Lord Mountjoy it is confidence is to be placed in physiognomy, unnecessary to inquire, for it represents a we can only say that the author of Hamlet youth wearing a small moustache fashioned appears to have been a most egregious oaf! in a manner entirely different from that worn But this, we know, cannot have been so. Let by the "Shakespeare" of the Stratford bust as us console ourselves, therefore, by the it is today, and, in fact, "composed of two thought that it may be only a counterfeit quite separate halves which do not meet in presentment of William Shakspere, of the centre but from each side run up to the Stratford-upon-Avon, apparelled in nostrils." It is the difference between a gorgeous array, possibly for some theatrical straight line and two lines which meet to display! For we, lovers of "Shakespeare," form an angle! can never bring ourselves to believe that the great poet of our admiration had a face so My question, therefore, still remains stupid, and so little worthy of homage, as unanswered, and I am fortified in my that which appears in this really ridiculous suspicion that Mr. Spielmann was unable to effigy. discover any portrait of an Englishman, before the year 1616, wearing a moustache In conclusion I need only add that my appeal fashioned as that worn by the "Shakespeare" in The Times Literary Supplement of August of the Stratford bust as it is today, and was 7th, 1924, for some example of an "fain therefore to go to Holland for an Englishman before the year 1616, who is example", to wit in a print of "Maurice, depicted in some contemporary print or Prince d'Orange (1567-1625)." But that is no engraving as wearing a moustache shaved proof of any such ridiculous custom having and fashioned as is that of "Shakespeare" in existed in England before the death of the Stratford bust, as it is today, has, with William Shakspere of Stratford-on-Avon. If, one exception, been left unanswered. That therefore, this fashion of wearing the exception was a letter addressed to the moustache was only adopted in this Editor of The Times, who kindly forwarded country—so far as it ever was adopted—at a it to me, bearing date August 30th, 1924, later date than 1616, the bust cannot be a signed E. S. Fryer, and written from "627, true representation of William Shakspere of Colina Lane, Santa Barbara, California, Stratford-upon-Avon, who, we must U.S." In this letter the writer refers me to an remember, was never represented as wearing engraving of a portrait of the " Rt. Hon. a moustache so fashioned in any other of the Charles Blunt, Earl of Devon, Baron numerous alleged portraits of him.

131 The George Greenwood Collection

sympathetic feelings of Mr. John Ward Note B towards necessary restoration. The fact is recorded that Mr. John Hall was to have the doing of the work of 'repairing and re- beautifying' or 'the direction' of it. But that The reader may consult Article XIII of 'materials' were to be used." Shakespeare's Environment, by Mrs. C. C. Stopes (G. Bell & Sons, 1914), on "The "My arguments are these. No one would call True Story of the Stratford Bust," and her the present tomb a 'curious' one; but as note at p. 346 concerning "Its Restoration in represented by Dugdale in his Antiquities of 1749," where she cites from the Wheler Warwick (1651) it is 'curious,' a curiousness Collection, at Stratford-on-Avon," a number which had increased by the process of of copies from the MSS. of the Rev. Joseph decay, when Rowe produced it in his Life, Greene, Master of the Grammar School." 1709. Mr. John Hall, acting in all good faith, "The series," she tells us, "begins with the after provincial notions of restoration in the account of the reasons for the movement eighteenth century, would fill up the gaps, towards restoration." She commences with restore what was missing, as he thought it the following quotation: "As the generous ought to be, and finally repaint it according proposals of the proprietors of the two to the original colours, traces of which he greatest playhouses in the kingdom were might still be able to see in the hollows of kindly accepted and encouraged, in relation the bust. It would only be giving good value to each of them acting a play for the sole for his money to his churchwardens if he purpose of erecting a new monument to the added a cloak, a pen, and manuscript. He memory of Shakespeare in Westminster could not help changing the expression, Abbey, and as the curious original from the worn and thoughtful face preserved monument and bust of that incomparable by Dugdale, to the plumped-out foundation poet, erected above the tomb that enshrines he made in some 'material' convenient for his dust in the Church of Stratford-upon- his re-beautifying colours.... I myself Avon, Warwickshire, is through length of consider Dugdale and his draughtsmen years and other accidents become much wonderfully careful for their period. Those impaired and decayed, an offer has been tombs which have not been altered are made by the judicious and much esteemed remarkably faithful representations. See, for Mr. John Ward and his company to act one instance, the tomb of Sir Thomas Lucy at of Shakespeare's plays, vist., Othello; or, Charlecote. Now Dugdale was a The Moor of Venice (in the Town Hall) at Warwickshire man, born only a Stratford on Tuesday, the ninth of this comparatively short distance from Stratford, instant, September, 1746, the receipts arising eleven years before Shakespeare died. He from which representation are to be solely was an admirer of Shakespeare, and knew appropriated to the repairing of the original the bust he engraved. He was in Stratford in monument aforesaid." [The italics in the attendance on Queen Henrietta Maria when, above quotation are mine.] at the outbreak of the Civil War, she stayed in Shakespeare's house as the guest of his Mrs. Stopes sums up as follows: "I may now daughter, Mrs. Hall. [This sentence conveys remind my readers that by 1746 the 'curious the idea that Mrs. Hall was so kind as to original' was 'much impaired and decayed,' a invite the Queen to stay with her at New decay so serious as to rouse the actively Place "as her guest"! Sir Sidney Lee writes:

132 The George Greenwood Collection

"The Queen and her escort reached Stratford The Times of September 12, 1925, as on the firth (1643), and Mrs. Hall was mentioned in the note below. compelled to entertain her for three days at New Place." The Queen had "left Newark 14, SERJEANT'S INN, with an army of 2,000 foot, 1,000 horse, FLEET ST., E.C. some 100 wagons, and a train of artillery." 6th July, 1912. Lee's Life of Shakespeare, p. 509. To talk of the Queen thus billeting herself, and her "THE MYSTERY OF SHAKESPEARE'S entourage, on Mrs. Hall as "no small MONUMENT." 'honour'" to Shakespeare's daughter, and a "high compliment" paid to her by the Queen DEAR SIR,—In yesterday's Morning Post of England, as does Sir Richard Barnett, in a Mr. Andrew Lang has an article under the letter to The Times of September 12, 1925, is above title in which I notice your name is manifestly absurd.] There was every reason mentioned. In case you may think of sending to believe that he would be more careful in a reply I would suggest as an important regard to representing Shakespeare's tomb point for your consideration that Mr. Lang [sic] (instead of less careful) than he was omitted to deal with perhaps the most with others." important feature of the revelations unearthed by Mrs. Stopes from the Wheler "The second edition of Dugdale's Collection at Stratford. Warwickshire was revised, corrected, expanded, the illustrations checked, and This is that the Rev. Mr. Kenwrick, the then added to by Dr. Thomas, who was also a Vicar and who may be regarded as perfectly Warwickshire man, residing very near disinterested, contended for two years with Stratford-on-Avon. And he produced the the Rev. Joseph Greene, the Master of the representation of the original tomb [sic] Free School, the former insisting upon the from the same unaltered block which extremely important and significant point Dugdale used. There is, therefore, little that John Hall, limner, the person entrusted reason to doubt that Dugdale was fairly with the so-called "restoration" in 1748/9, correct both in the face and figure of the should be tied down by express instructions 'curious monument,' and that the alterations in writing signed by him, upon due made in 1748-9, great as they are, did not compliance with which his pay was to strike the gentlemen of Stratford-on-Avon as depend, "that the monument shall BECOME anything worse than 'beautifying.' The dates as like as possible to what it was when first and verses were left as they were, and the erected." Greene strenuously opposed the monument, thus strengthened, survives to honest Vicar and ultimately unfortunately preserve the memory of the 'Sweet Swan of carried his point, so that no such writing was Avon'!" (See also p. 122 of the same work.) signed by Hall, and he and Greene were in The following letter addressed to me in July, consequence left to do as they pleased with 1913, by Mr. W. L. Goldsworthy, solicitor, the monument. from 14 Serjeant's Inn, is, I think, of sufficient interest to be added to this final It is quite impossible to believe that note, to which I have also added some Kenwrick would have quarrelled for two further comments on the letter by Sir years with an important person in his Richard Barnett, M.P., which appeared in congregation over such a question as the mere restoration of a broken finger; and

133 The George Greenwood Collection moreover the effect of the work done was to Blackfriars, as a purchaser of land, houses, totally destroy the evident allegorical and tithes, as a moneylender, and, perhaps, meaning of the original design as given by as an "honest broker" of plays, and, it may Dugdale, which was doubtless what Greene be, as agent for men in high position who desired. wished to preserve anonymity, that William Shakspere (who, as we are told, wrote "for It is extremely likely that the famous Jordan gain, not glory!") raised the money which was a pupil of Greene's at the Free School, enabled him to buy New Place and his and he may even have drawn his ideas with property in Blackfriars. Then again, asks Sir regard to forgery from this transaction, and Richard Barnett, "how did it come that in an followed the example set by his master. At age when players were anathema to all right- all events if we may rely upon Dugdale the thinking people [which statement is so far present monument may be regarded as the from the truth that it can hardly have been first Shakespearian forgery. penned seriously] Shakespeare the actor and his wife were buried before the high altar of Yours faithfully, the glorious collegiate church of the Holy Trinity?" Whereupon Sir Richard himself W. LANSDON GOLDSWORTHY. supplies the answer, viz. that "Shakespeare G. G. GREENWOOD, Esq., M.P. the capitalist" had bought the tithes of Stratford and two other parishes, and was P.S.—It is a curious and sinister fact that entitled to burial in the chancel "as lay Dugdale and the Wheler Collection should rector." One is reminded of the old epitaph: have been successfully boycotted by all Shakespearians prior to Mrs. Stopes.—W. L. "Here lies I at the church door, G. Here lies I because I'm poor. At the further end the more you pay, Sir Richard Barnett, in his letter to The But here lies I as warm as they!" Times of September 12, 1925, to which I have already alluded, asks, with reference to William Shakspere's widow was also buried William Shakspere the player, "How many in the chancel of "that glorious church," but of our jeunes premiere today have made not in the same grave as her husband, their fortunes at 33, and can return to their although we are told she wished to be buried native town and buy the best house in it?" with him. Why was this? Because of that But does Sir Richard really think that "Will" vulgar curse which, so little to his credit, he made his money as an actor? What says had ordered to be inscribed upon the stone Nicholas Rowe, his earliest biographer? under which he is supposed to lie (Lee's "His name is printed, as the custom was in Life, pp. 486-7). I noted with some those times, amongst those of the other amusement that although Sir Sidney Lee, in players, before some old plays, but without a letter to The Times of September 14, 1925, any particular account of what sort of parts complimented Sir R. Barnett on his he used to play, and, though I have inquired, enthusiastic contribution of two days I could never meet with any further account previously, he preserved a judicious silence of him this way, than that the top of his with regard to the Honourable Member's performance was the Ghost in his own supposed facts! Hamlet!" No, it was not as an actor, but as owner of shares in the Globe and the

134 The George Greenwood Collection

admit that Dugdale's sketch, and the engraving taken from it, are erroneous in Postscript & Supplementary Note respect of these little urchins, "perched insecurely," as Mr. Spielmann says, "on the edge of the cornice." We will admit, therefore, that the "details" are defective. But this is really not a question of "details." POSTSCRIPT The whole question hinges upon the central figure of the monument. Here we see both in BY the kindness of Mr. W. F. S. Dugdale, of Dugdale's original drawing and in the Merevale Hall, the "lineal descendant" of Sir engraving, an elderly man, with drooping William Dugdale, to whom Mr. Spielmann moustache, and hair under and surrounding alludes in the footnote to page 21 of his his chin, resting both his hands upon a recent work, I have once more (viz. on cushion very much in the form of a bolster. October 21, 1925) had an opportunity of Mr. Spielmann waxes humorous over this. inspecting and comparing Dugdale's original He tells us that the engraving "shows us a drawing of the Stratford Bust, and the sickly decrepit old gentleman, with a falling engraving thereof in the first edition of his moustache, much more than fifty-two years Antiquities of Warwickshire. That the old." Now it is true that the figure has a original drawing is by Dugdale himself is falling—i.e., drooping—moustache, and that not disputed, either by Mr. Spielmann or any the face leaves an impression of melancholy, other critic. It is in his own notebook which but there is nothing whatever to show that contains many other drawings by him of the original was either "sickly" or "decrepit," monuments, heraldic designs, armorial and unless Mr. Spielmann, among his other bearings, etc., and is surrounded by notes in great gifts, which we so much admire, is his own handwriting. Mr. Spielmann who, endowed with some special power of as already mentioned, dismisses this diagnosing the age of a man, or rather of a important fact in a curt footnote, writes that graven image, it is extremely difficult to see "the plate departs in details from the sketch," how he can take it upon him to pronounce and that both the sketch and the engraving that Dugdale's original, as he appears in the "are libels on the original." That last sketch and the engraving, must have been statement, of course, begs the question of "much more than fifty-two years old," at what Dugdale's "original" really was. With which age, of course, William Shakspere of regard to the "details" there is really very Stratford departed this life in his native little difference between the plate and the town. sketch. In both the monument is surmounted by two little nude boys, one holding an But Mr. Spielmann waxes still more hour-glass, and the other a spade, but it may humorous over the Dugdale engraving. "Do be noted that these figures are better placed sculptors," he facetiously asks, "in their and poised in Dugdale's original than in the monuments, represent the great departed in engraving. They certainly differ in toto from their dying state, pressing pillows to their the small boy figures which are now seen on stomachs? Yet both hands are here upon a the monument at Stratford, and, as I wrote cushion which, for no reason, except many years ago, they are placed "as no perhaps abdominal pains, is hugged against monumental sculptor would be likely to what dancing-masters euphemistically term place them." [The Shakespeare Problem 'the lower chest!'" Restated (1908), p. 247 n.] Let us therefore

135 The George Greenwood Collection

It is really delightful to find Mr. Spielmann Church? I assert with absolute confidence as a humorist, and not for worlds would we that no reasonable man could entertain such deprive him of his little jokes. One might a belief, unless, indeed, his judgment was just observe, however, if it be permissible to distorted by the dementia Stratfordiana, or quit the region of farce for that of fact, that unless he assumes that Dugdale, Dugdale has not represented his model, fraudulently and of malice prepense, and for whoever that model may have been, in a no conceivable motive, concocted such a "dying state" at all. It is true that his figure travesty of the figure which was before him, differs very materially from the smirk, self- and which he was supposed to copy. But this satisfied, fat-cheeked, well-fed, dandified latter hypothesis will, I take it, be accepted figure that now does duty for "the immortal by no man or woman of sound mind and bard" in the monument at Stratford, but understanding. The conclusion, therefore, is Dugdale's figure, as any unprejudiced obvious; namely, that the bust which observer can see, might well be that of a Dugdale copied, whatever may have been man between forty and fifty, nor is it true the mistakes that he made with regard to the that the figure is "hugging" the cushion on "details" of the Monument, was altogether which his hands are resting, for, again as any different from the effigy which we now see unprejudiced observer can see, the hands are in the Church at Stratford-upon-Avon. resting quite lightly on that cushion, and there is no suggestion in the figure that the G. G. October, 1925. original is suffering pain, whether abdominal " or otherwise. All this, though MODERN EDITORS AND THE when Mr. Spielmann reads it to an admiring DROESHOUT ENGRAVING audience it will, no doubt, be followed by (SUPPLEMENTARY NOTE) the word "laughter" (in brackets), is mere prejudice, and has really nothing whatever SINCE the above pages were in print my to do with the question at issue. attention has been directed to the new and improved version of the Droeshout What is that question? It is this. Can any engraving which appears as frontispiece to reasonable man believe that Sir William The Tempest, edited by Sir A. Quiller-Couch Dugdale, a Warwickshire man, a practised and Mr. J. Dover Wilson. This frontispiece draughtsman, well-acquainted with is subscribed "The Droeshout Portrait from Stratford, and its Church, and the the First Folio 1623," and purports to be a Monuments therein, and engaged in the reproduction of the picture as seen on the preparation of a great book which was to be, "Title Page" of that immortal work, but it as Mr. Spielmann writes (p. 14), "his really seems as if one of Mr. Spielmann's masterpiece (up to that time) and to stand at inaccurate seventeenth-century engravers the head of all county histories," could sit had been summoned from the vasty deep to down—or stand, for the matter of that—to alter the plate and make it more presentable copy the effigy of "Shakespeare" as it now to the public. appears in the Church at Stratford, and produce as a copy a figure so preposterously In order to explain my meaning I would ask unlike his model as that which appears in his the reader to look at the numerous sketch that it could only excite the άσβεστος reproductions of the Droeshout engraving— γέλως—the jeers and laughter of all there are some fifteen in all very usefully Warwickshire men, and of all visitors to that provided by Mr. Spielmann for our

136 The George Greenwood Collection edification. On plate 18 he will find the There is—and it clearly appears in all these "Title page of the First Folio as issued" in fifteen copies—a very distinct and deeply 1623, of course with the well-known print. marked line, descending around the jaw On plate 21 he will find again "The almost to the chin, and thus cutting off, as it Droeshout Print (First Folio)," On plate 22 were, the flesh that lies behind it. It is indeed we are confronted with "The Halliwell- a unique feature of portraiture which has Phillips 'Unique Proof ' of the Droeshout suggested to some critical observers that Portrait." On plate 23 we find a photograph "the figure" which we here "see put" was of the same "Unique Proof," showing, supposed to be wearing a mask, and, indeed, however, little more than the head it can hardly be denied that such an considerably enlarged, which adds to its impression is produced. I do not assert, utility for the critical observer. On plate 24 however, that any such suggestion was we see "The Malone Proof (by permission of intended by the original "graver," but I do the Bodleian Library)." And we have other say that any pretended reproduction of the reproductions on plates 25, 27, 28, 29 and Droeshout engraving which omits these 30, of this astonishing portrait, wherein, as remarkable features, to wit, the bit of the Jonson tells us, "the Graver had a strife with pendulous auricle, and this curious strongly- Nature to out-do the Life"—a strife in which marked and almost inexplicable dividing the Graver seems to have been eminently line—ought not to be put before the public successful! as a true copy of that portentous print.

But let the reader consider any one of these And now let us examine the supposed copy "portraits" so generously exhibited by Mr. as presented to us by Sir A. Quiller-Couch Spielmann for choice I think I would select and Mr. Dover Wilson. The observer will his plate 22 and plate 23—and he will notice find that the lower part of the left side of the a remarkable characteristic in which they all head—on the observer's right—has been agree. On the left side of this very high- thrown into deep shade, thereby differing brow head (the right-hand side as seen by from all the plates provided for our the spectator) he will see peeping out under inspection by Mr. Spielmann. It is true that a our Shakespeare's lank hyacinthine locks the tiny morsel of the pendulous lobe is allowed tip of the lobe of the poet's ear. It really to appear, though so softened down as to be seems a pity that the hair was not prolonged almost, if not quite, inoffensive, but quite by the artist so as to hide this portion of the inexcusably the strongly marked "dividing auricle, for not even the most enthusiastic line" to which I have alluded, and which is admirer of the engraving could say that it is such a remarkable feature in the original a beautiful object, being indeed somewhat engraving, has been omitted altogether, or, quaintly reminiscent of an appendix what comes to the same thing, rendered vermiformis; but the fact seems to be that entirely invisible. There is just one other our great poet had a very pendulous ear, observation to be made concerning this though hardly, one would say, an ear misleading picture. The engraver, or his suitable for ear-rings such as are depicted in employers, seem to have been, very the "Chandos" portrait! naturally, dissatisfied with that "hairy nothing" which in the original "portrait" But now let the spectator look at the very does duty for Shakespeare's moustache, so end of this not very inviting piece of flesh. they would appear to have referred to the Here he will see a very remarkable feature. "Flower Portrait," miscalled the Droeshout

137 The George Greenwood Collection original (Spielmann, plate 20), which was painted at a later date by way of a much- needed improvement on that original, and though they have not endowed the immortal bard with quite such a luxuriant crop of hair on the upper lip as appears in that soi-disant portrait, they have given their figure-head quite a respectable moustache, albeit a moustache which is, of course, entirely different from that which we see so curiously fashioned in the "Stratford Bust."

In a word, the supposed reproduction of the Droeshout Engraving provided for us by the Editors of this new so-called " Cambridge" edition of the Tempest is just an artificially improved version of the original, and quite untrustworthy. Needless to say I make no suggestion that the distinguished and honourable editors had any desire to present their readers with a picture so altered that it might give them a better impression of the (supposed) poet than that which is generally conveyed to all beholders by the stupefying Droeshout print, but, nevertheless, one is left to wonder by what inadvertence they came to sanction the publication of this very inaccurate—if less disagreeable— frontispiece.

138 The George Greenwood Collection

TABLE OF CONTENTS

SHAKESPEARE'S Chapter I: Introduction KNOWLEDGE OF LAW Searching for Refutations A Journey through the History of Methods of Argument the Argument The Satan Maneuver Chapter II: The Early Advocates by Mark Andre Alexander William Rushton Lord Campbell Richard Grant White Other Early Writers Chapter III: Shakespeare's Supposed Misuse of Legal Terms Devecmon's "Bad Law" Charles Allen's "Bad Law" Arthur Underhill's "Bad Law" Clarkson and Warren's "Bad Law" Chapter IV: Sir George Greenwood and the "Lost" Debate Fine and Recovery Purchase The Devil's Law Case Chapter V: The Selective-Amnesia Decades The Law of Property Chapter VI: Shakespeare's Legal Mind A Mature Metaphorical and Legal Mind Hale V. Petit Chapter VII: Conclusions Works Cited End Notes

139 The George Greenwood Collection

Chapter I: Introduction I was curious about how Greenwood had been refuted. I knew that Mark Twain had been so taken with Greenwood's book and In 1996 I acquired a copy of Sir George the argument that Shakespeare had to have Greenwood's 1908 book, The Shakespeare had formal legal training, that he had written Problem Restated.1 I was surprised at the in Is Shakespeare Dead?, "If I had under my clarity and force of his arguments. The superintendence a controversy appointed to chapter on "Shakespeare as a Lawyer" decide whether Shakespeare wrote struck me as particularly well argued, even Shakespeare or not, I believe I would place though much of the argument was based on before the debaters only the one question, authority. Was Shakespeare ever a practicing lawyer? and leave everything else out" (66). I A noted barrister and Member of assumed that there would be a rich history of Parliament, Greenwood claimed that thoughtful refutations, especially since Shakespeare's plays and poems "supply someone with the stature of Twain had ample evidence that their author…had a advanced the proposition with such resolve. very extensive and accurate knowledge of So I went in search of counter arguments. law" (371). He then cites several noted lawyers and judges, many of whom do not I first turned to Samuel Schoenbaum's concern themselves with the authorship Shakespeare's Lives. I recalled that he had debate. explored many of the lives of people behind the authorship debate and had singled out He quotes Lord Campbell: "While novelists Twain for ridicule. But to my dismay, and dramatists are constantly making Schoenbaum dwells on personality (not mistakes as to the laws of marriage, of wills surprising given the title of the book) and and inheritance, to Shakespeare's law, avoids substantive arguments. He never lavishly as he expounds it, there can neither mentions Twain's remarks on Shakespeare's be demurrer, nor bill of exceptions, nor writ law, though he does mention that Twain of error" (371); Edmond Malone: "His read Greenwood's book, "in which the knowledge of legal terms is not merely such talented attorney showed the plays to be the as might be acquired by casual observation work of a talented attorney" (410). When of even his all-comprehending mind" (373); Schoenbaum mentions Shakespeare's legal and Richard Grant White: "No dramatist of knowledge, it is only to ridicule Lord the time . . . used legal phrases with Campbell (260-1, 332-3), not to supply Shakespeare's readiness and exactness. . . arguments and evidence. Apparently, legal phrases flow from his pen as part of his Schoenbaum both respected Greenwood and vocabulary, and parcel of his thought" (373). chose not to grapple with his arguments I was impressed that this judge and these directly. lawyers used penetrating qualitative I next turned to Ian Wilson's Shakespeare: statements rather than mere quantitative The Evidence. Wilson only mentions Twain ones. long enough to say, "Even Mark Twain and Searching for Refutations Sigmund Freud became sucked into such Baconian fervour" (15). The Baconians Greenwood goes on to argue compellingly needed to prove that Shakespeare possessed against those who claim that Shakespeare the kind of legal expertise that Francis made mistakes in his use of legal terms. Bacon as Lord Chancellor possessed. Much Finding his arguments generally persuasive, of the 19th controversy over Shakespeare's

140 The George Greenwood Collection knowledge of law might otherwise never Shakespeare had a formal legal education have arisen. and used legal terms accurately. The passage Wilson ignores Greenwood entirely, but he is worth quoting in full: does mention that some believe Shakespeare What, then, of his use of legal terms? may have been a lawyer, or at least Shakespeare toys with these with the employed as an attorney's clerk. Then with jaunty familiarity of an irreverent startling logic Wilson states: lawyer. The question of his legal But this sort of clue-searching from knowledge has been most recently the plays has more than a few [sic] tackled by O. Hood Phillips, a dangers. . . . Other authors have had jurist, legal scholar and educator, in Shakespeare conscripted into the Shakespeare and the Lawyers. In the civil guard when the Armada chapter, "Did Shakespeare have a threatened in 1588. According to Legal Training?" he gathered and canoeing expert William Bliss he ran summarized the varying opinions away from home in 1577 when he that have been handed down. The was just thirteen to sail around the most reliable assessment of the world on Sir Francis Drake's famous dramatist's knowledge of law, in his voyage on the Golden Hind. This is opinion, is that of P. S. Clarkson and apparently proved by a reference in C. T. Warren, "whose reading of As You Like It to 'remainder biscuit', Elizabethan drama revealed that a variety purportedly carried only on about half of Shakespeare's fellows very long voyages. On the grounds employed on the average more of Shakespeare's plays' extraordinary legalisms than he did, and some of political insights, former government them a great many more. Most of minister Enoch Powell has insisted them also exceed Shakespeare in the that Shakespeare must either have detail and complexity of their legal been very close to politics or been a problems and allusions, and with few politician himself. Overall, civil exceptions display a degree of servant Sir Edmund Chambers' accuracy at least no lower than his." advice is safest: 'it's no use guessing'. Clarkson and Warren's verdict is that (60-1) Shakespeare's references "must be Wilson's argument that argument is explained on some grounds other pointless, that we could only be reduced to than that he was a lawyer, or an "guessing" about Shakespeare's legal apprentice, or a student of the law." knowledge, struck me as astonishing in its What separates him from the others absurdity and telling in its avoidance of is his knack for making legal terms Greenwood. I began to suspect that such serve his drama, in the opinion of Justice Dunbar Plunket Barton. avoidance was not accidental. "Where Shakespeare's legal allusions I next turned to Irvin Leigh Matus's surpassed those of his Shakespeare, IN FACT, a book dedicated to contemporaries," he said, ". . . was in refuting Oxfordians. Strangely, Matus their quality and their aptness rather makes no mention of Twain, and only than in their quantity or mentions Greenwood in the context of technicality." (272) copyright. However, Matus does present the "facts" to dispose of any notions that

141 The George Greenwood Collection

Though he advances an implied argument other writers on Shakespeare and the law, I that Shakespeare is guilty of "bad law" by found that not only was Greenwood one of using legal terms inaccurately, Matus speaks only a handful of eloquent, discriminating, ex cathedra, failing to give examples and and razor-edged writers on Shakespeare's merely relying on the authority of Mr. law, he was also a devastating opponent in a Phillips. Indeed, that authority is debate. Much of his later writings are secondhand since Mr. Hood Phillips in his responses to his critics, and in almost all book only presents the authority of Messrs. cases he effectively and methodically Clarkson and Warren and quotes none of destroys their credibility. I began to see why their examples2 (159-161, 191). Charlton Ogburn, Jr. would write, "One The Law of Property seems to have crossed swords with Sir George at one's impressed others as well. In The Elizabethan peril" (298). Review (Autumn 1997, Vol. 5, No. 2), the Two things readily became apparent as I co-editor of the Internet's "Shakespeare examined closely the history of this Authorship Page," David Kathman, Ph.D., argument on Shakespeare's knowledge of claimed that "Paul Clarkson and Clyde law: 1) That a whole segment of the debate Warren, in an exhaustive study of legalisms has been ignored, a debate between Sir in the work of seventeen Elizabethan George Greenwood and his major critic, J. dramatists (The Law of Property in M. Robertson, that spans almost 12 years Shakespeare and Elizabethan Drama), (from 1905 to 1916) and comprises some the found that Shakespeare was average at best best arguments favoring Shakespeare's in the number and accuracy of his legal formal education in law; and, 2) That much allusions" (22). The concept of "average of the argument against Shakespeare's accuracy" is found nowhere in the source formal legal education rests upon William text.3 I asked Dr. Kathman on the Internet Devecmon's 1899 monograph IN RE newsgroup Shakespeare's 'Legal Acquirements', J. M. humanities.lit.authors.shakespeare, "What Robertson's 1913 book The Baconian can Kathman possible mean by *average Heresy, Arthur Underhill's 1916 essay on accuracy*? It's rather an impenetrable "The Law" in Shakespeare's England, Sir concept, but it sure seems to imply less than Dunbar Plunket Barton's 1929 book Links perfect accuracy. And why introduce the Between Shakespeare and the Law, and term *accuracy* anyway, if there is no Clarkson and Warren's 1942 book The Law attempt to assert or imply less than 100% of Property in Shakespeare. This book accuracy?" He responded. "What I meant examines that lost debate, the claims made was that these other dramatists were in these books, and the grounds for generally accurate in their use of legal terms, supposing a legal education for the writer just as Shakespeare was. I'm not sure why Shakespeare. this is such an 'impenetrable concept'."4 He Methods of Argument was telling me that "average accuracy" means "generally accurate," which simply Let me state clearly that I do not claim to begs the question. prove that Shakespeare had a formal legal education. Instead, I claim that the argument I found this pattern of ignoring favoring a formal legal education is Greenwood—or mentioning him without significantly stronger than the argument revealing his legal arguments— rather against a formal legal education. This fascinating. As I began acquiring distinction is important, and the critical Greenwood's works, as well as the works of

142 The George Greenwood Collection principle it embodies illuminates the The Satan Maneuver differing methods of argument that lawyers I first noticed the Satan Maneuver some and academics bring to bear on this debate. years ago while watching a televised By "formal legal education" I mean a interview of an evangelical minister. The serious, long-term, and applied study of law, minister claimed that the earth was created legal history, and legal philosophy while 6,000 years ago. The interviewer asked the participating in associations and interactions minister about scientific discoveries of with other students or masters of law, fossils that were undoubtedly millions of whether in one of the Inns of Court or in years old. How could the minister account some other environment saturated with legal for those age-old fossils? The minister conversation. replied simply, "Satan put them there." For simplicity's sake, I note two classes of We can imagine the nonplussed look on the advocates: on the one hand, advocates of face of the interviewer. Where could he go absolutism, who take a position, claim that it from there? It is important to understand stands by default, and then advise that only what the minister accomplished with this absolute and convincing proof of the answer. He had introduced a magical contrary will dissuade them from their explanation into a forum that was assumed, position; and on the other hand, advocates of up to that point, to be one where arguments relative merits, who take no initial stand, were supported by evidence and reason. By who weigh the relative strengths of introducing this Satan Maneuver, the competing arguments, and who minister destroyed that forum and replaced it acknowledge when, in terms of reason and with one that precluded, by its very nature, evidence, one argument or position is any argument based on evidence and reason. stronger than another, even acknowledging when a stronger argument stands against the In fairness to the minister, he may very well position they hold. constantly dwell in a forum based on magic and faith, with no desire to ever be involved In examining the history of this debate, I in a forum of evidence and reason. have found advocates on both sides However, scholars and others who enter into deserving of each appellation. The advocates a debate that implicitly promises a forum of of absolutism, when standing by a weaker evidence and reason have an obligation to position, tend to avoid the stronger avoid any introduction of any form of Satan arguments of their opponents. Instead, they Maneuver—that is, any explanation that tend to focus on weaker arguments, using introduces a magical explanatory element tactics to shift the focus away from that negates arguing from evidence and arguments that expose their own reason, especially when they become weaknesses. Such tactics can include a uncomfortable with evidence and arguments simple failure to mention the strongest of an that threaten to weaken or overthrow their opponent's arguments, a piling on of red closely held arguments or positions. herrings (overemphasizing with a list a trivial data, for example), a discrediting of The Satan Maneuver appears in Shakespeare circumstantial data (since each item can be studies. When confronted with internal isolated and dismissed as coincidence, evidence that Shakespeare may have had a without taking into account a mass of high-level education, whether in law or the "coincidences" that tell a compelling story), classics, some scholars produce a rabbit out and a tactic I call the Satan Maneuver. of the hat by falling back on Shakespeare's genius, or some other form of magical

143 The George Greenwood Collection aptitude based on nothing but sheer Knowledge." When confronted with the speculation. enigma of Shakespeare's knowledge of law, For example, A. L. Rowse in his Italy, foreign languages, or anything else Shakespeare The Man explains that could possibly require unusual study or Shakespeare's comprehensive and wide- physical access, some may argue that ranging experience with classical and "Shakespeare would have picked such things contemporary literature and history thus: up by visiting a tavern and querying "He had a marvellous capacity from the travelers or lawyers or multilingual scholars outset for making a little go a long way; his or…" fill-in-the-blank. Again, such an real historical reading came later—he was argument based on the second-hand very much a reading man, and he read acquisition of knowledge would harm any quickly" (28). How he has grasped ability to rely on evidence and reason to Shakespeare's "marvellous capacity" or make a case that the plays show the kind of knows his reading ability, Rowse does not knowledge that would require direct say. But his meaning is clear; Shakespeare experience. gleaned his incredible wealth of knowledge Most scholars do not explicitly invoke the by having a capacious mind that magically Satan Maneuver. However, when launching (through the mystery of "genius") grasped an attempt to evaluate the dramatist's knowledge quickly and easily. knowledge as revealed in the poems and British Shakespearean scholar Allardyce plays, all participants who intend to argue in Nicoll makes a similar claim in his book a forum based on evidence and reason must Shakespeare: "In the wonder of his genius avoid any form of Satan Maneuver and be he was able to grasp in lightning speed what called to account when they do. Any could be attained only after dull years of worthwhile discussion of Shakespeare's work by ordinary minds" (68). Thus can education, training, and experience must be scholars magically explain away the lack of conducted outside the magical specter of his high education and the absence of leisure "genius" or any supposed extraordinary that would seem to be needed for a writer of "aptitude." Shakespeare's accomplishments to refine his Certainly there is merit in using skills and accommodate the range and depth Shakespeare's genius to discuss how he of his accomplishments. applied his knowledge and craft. There is By introducing such statements, these something concrete (the text) to use for scholars destroy the possibility of presenting comparison. But that is quite apart from arguments in favor of a university education, using his genius to explain how he acquired or the kind of experience and access that his knowledge and craft. As we move comes with the aristocratic and noble through this history of the arguments, I will classes. The forum of reason, argument, and point out when any of the participants evidence dissolves. Genius in the form of a engage in such tactics of avoidance. quick mind and capacious memory explains Because there is a mass of books and articles all, the magical ability to immediately and on the subject of Shakespeare and the law, photographically apprehend everything, sans bringing coherence to the history of the education, sans experience, merely from arguments presents quite a challenge. Do we reading books. stick to a strict chronology? Do we choose a Another form of the Satan Maneuver is the certain argument and trace its history? Do "Universal Tavern of Second-Hand

144 The George Greenwood Collection we choose instead a pair of debaters and Table One: The Golden Age of trace their back-and-forth arguments? Shakespeare's Law No coherent history can be constructed Writers skeptical of Shakespeare's legal strictly along one of these methods. Instead, knowledge appear in Bold. I will present a variety of methods, hoping 1778 Edmond Malone, "Essay on the that in the end, the reader will acquire a Chronological Order of Shakespeare's Plays" reasonably coherent history of the 1780 Edmond Malone, Life of William arguments and their relative strengths. Shakespeare 1830 Anonymous, "Shakspeare a First, I lay some groundwork by exploring Lawyer" The Legal Observer "The Early Advocates" of both arguments, 1858 William Rushton, Shakespeare a Lawyer focusing on the works of William Rushton, 1859 Lord Campbell, Shakespeare's Lord Campbell, and their critics up through Legal Acquirements 1898. Then I take a close look at 1859 William Rushton, Shakespeare's "Shakespeare's Supposed Misuse of Legal Legal Maxims Terms," which brings to the fore William 1863 R. F. Fuller, "Shakspere as a Lawyer" Upper Canada Law Journal Devecmon's major critique of Lord 1865 Richard G. White, William Campbell, as well as works by Arthur Shakespeare Attorney at Law Underhill, J. M. Robertson, and Clarkson 1865 Richard G. White, Memoirs of the and Warren. Next I outline "Sir George Life of Shakespeare Greenwood and the Lost Debate" between 1869 William Rushton, Shakespeare's Testamentary Language him and Robertson, before examining "The 1870 William Rushton, Shakespeare Selective-Amnesia Decades," where later Illustrated by the Lex Scripta skeptics characteristically avoid revealing 1877 George Wilkes, Shakespeare: certain categories of arguments and an American Point of View refutations. Then, I explore "Shakespeare's 1883 Franklin Fiske Heard, Shakespeare as a Lawyer Legal Mind," in which the major evidence in 1883 Cushman K. Davis, The Law in support is discussed. Finally, I draw some Shakespeare "Conclusions." 1885 R.S. Guernsey, Ecclesiastical Law in Hamlet 1897 Edward James Castle, Shakespeare, Bacon, Jonson & Greene Chapter II: The Early 1899 William Devecmon, In Re Advocates Shakespeare's 'Legal Acquirements' The first mention appears to have been made by the lawyer and Shakespeare editor Readers relying solely on Mr. Matus's Edmond Malone in his 1778 Essay on the "facts" would remain unaware of the nearly Chronological Order of Shakespeare's 200-year history of arguments over Plays, in a footnote to Hamlet. Two years Shakespeare's legal knowledge in over 35 later in his "Prolegomena" to The Life of books and numerous articles. The 19th William Shakespeare, he states that century saw a Golden Age of books Shakespeare's "knowledge and application supporting the proposition that Shakespeare of legal terms, seems to me not merely such possessed an extensive and unerring as might have been acquired by casual knowledge of the law. observation of his all-comprehending mind; it has the appearance of technical skill; and he is so fond of displaying it on all

145 The George Greenwood Collection occasions, that there is, I think, some ground the universality of his genius, the for supposing that he was early initiated in at strength, vigour, and magnitude of least the forms of law" (II, 107-9). his intellectual faculties and powers It seems that by 1830 the idea had taken of investigation, enabled him to root, since in November of that year, a law acquire a more profound knowledge journal published an anonymous article of a greater variety of subjects than entitled "Shakspeare [sic] a Lawyer," in ever yet seems to have been which the writer makes reference to a possessed by the same individual, number of authorities who support various and that the legal knowledge he has notions of how Shakespeare came by his displayed in the correct use of law legal knowledge. Although the writer is terms is not more remarkable than critical of a number of theories, he himself his intimate acquaintance with human nature, and accurate finds the internal evidence persuasive: observation of the habits and The question of Shakspeare's customs of mankind, or than the connexion with the law must, after knowledge of seamanship, and the all, be decided by the internal correct use of nautical terms he has evidence afforded by his writings; displayed in the Tempest. To attempt and in them we find the author to account for the frequent recurring continually to the language occurrence and correct use of law of the law. He uses it with minute terms in Shakespeare's Works, by propriety, and like a man accustomed attributing to him knowledge of a to it. The passages which might be great variety of subjects, is not produced to prove this are almost satisfactory; for, Shakespeare's innumerable, and those which have knowledge, it is generally admitted, been brought forward are neither few was more intuitive than acquired, nor inconclusive. (1 Legal Observer consisting more in an extensive and 28) profound intimacy with human But it was not until 1858-1859 that the idea nature, with the animal and began to flourish, after the publication of inanimate world,—which he has two books, William L. Rushton's displayed with a truthfulness and Shakespeare a Lawyer and Lord Chief inanimate power, and sublimity Justice John Campbell's Shakespeare's unapproached, if not Legal Acquirements Considered. unapproachable, rather than in a familiarity with the writings of William Rushton authors and science in general,—and Rushton opens his work with his main if that master mind could possibly propositions and addresses potential have possessed double the objections, and with an implied awareness unequalled genius which exalted him of the Satan Maneuver: far above the generality of his fellow creatures, he would not have been The works of William Shakespeare able to use and apply law terms of a contain a remarkable quantity of law purely technical character in the terms, whose significances are manner appearing in his naturally unknown to the generality compositions, without considerable of readers. Some of the admirers of knowledge of that abstruse and our great dramatist may assert that

146 The George Greenwood Collection

mighty science, the law of England. introduction, Rushton advances two primary Nor will it be satisfactory to state propositions: that the legal knowledge he has 1. Quantity: Shakespeare's works displayed in the correct use of law contain a remarkable quantity of terms affords no more evidence of law terms. his having been a lawyer than the correct use of nautical terms and the 2. Accuracy: Shakespeare's works knowledge of seamanship are display a correct use of law peculiar to the Tempest,—those terms. phrases are not of frequent How does the quantity of legal terms make a occurrence, and that knowledge is case for more than a general knowledge of not displayed in any other portion of law? Rushton makes no quantitative his works. Moreover, if it can be comparisons with Shakespeare's fellow proved, as there seems reason to dramatists, so we are left to wonder if believe, that the principles and Shakespeare's use of legal terms is unusual. practice of the law of real property Exactly what establishes a "remarkable were more generally understood by quantity"? Rushton's presentation is by no unprofessional people in means exhaustive, as later writers reveal. Shakespeare's time than at the present day, that circumstance will Rushton's second proposition seems to be on not satisfactorily account for all firmer ground. But if Rushton is not Shakespeare's legal knowledge, exhaustive in his study of Shakespeare's because his works contain passages legal terms, how do we know that displaying not merely a knowledge Shakespeare's use is unerring? Furthermore, of the principles and practice of the Rushton attributes Shakespeare's accuracy to law of real property, but also of the a personal understanding of their technical common law, and of the criminal meaning. But since Shakespeare used law, and a thorough intimacy with sources such as Holinshed's Chronicles, how the exact letter of the Statute Law. do we know that Shakespeare's accuracy and (3-5) correct usage is not merely that of his sources? Again, Rushton fails to make the What follows then are 45 pages of examples necessary comparisons to support his of legal terms found in the works, a propositions. discussion of their meanings, and an explanation of why they are significant. Rushton also points our three possible Afterwards, Rushton concludes: objections that he attempts to refute: … whether William Shakespeare 1. Some may say his genius enabled was or was not a member of the legal him to acquire a more profound profession, sufficient has probably knowledge of law, but that been stated to prove that he had cannot explain how he came "to acquired a general knowledge of the use and apply law terms of a laws of England. (50) purely technical character." (Rushton correctly points out a The alert reader, however, will immediately possible weakness of relying on question both Rushton's propositions and the Shakespeare's "genius"—a Satan means he uses to support them. In his Maneuver—but he does nothing to convince us that Shakespeare's

147 The George Greenwood Collection

technical usage is not merely terms in other legal branches is copied from his sources.) indeed unusual, then that may go 2. Some may say that "the legal a long way towards supporting a knowledge he has displayed in larger case that Shakespeare had the correct use of law terms some formal legal training. But affords no more evidence of his Rushton does not adequately having been a lawyer than the support the lesser case. He does correct use of nautical terms and not properly catalog terms apart the knowledge of seamanship are from real property, nor does he peculiar to the Tempest." But law bring in the necessary terms appear far more frequently, comparative data.) and his knowledge of seamanship Spotting Rushton's weak arguments, "is not displayed in any other reviewers were quick to jump on his small portion of his works." (Indeed, book. In a magazine edited by Charles one may be able to support a case Dickens, an anonymous reviewer, assuredly that Shakespeare's use of law Dickens himself, writes an extended satirical terms is unusually frequent, essay that parodies men of a particular especially when compared to his profession who have a penchant to read into use of other technical Shakespeare's use of their technical terminology, but Rushton still terminology indications that Shakespeare fails to compare Shakespeare's was a master or serious student of that usage to his fellow dramatists, a profession. Dickens humorously takes to critical blunder when arguing task both Rushton and a clergyman who unusual frequency.) praises Shakespeare's vast biblical 3. Some may say that "the knowledge. Dickens begins: principles and practice of the law MY OWN private belief is that W. of real property were more Shakespeare was a hydropathic generally understood by doctor, as I mean to prove from his unprofessional people in works, and display to the world in a Shakespeare's time." But his work of considerable magnitude that works contain passages has been lately sent to press. In the "displaying not merely a mean time I interest myself about the knowledge of the principles and opinions of others, and have just practice of the law of real been buying two new publications on property, but also of the common the subject of our mutual friend. One law, and of the criminal law, and is by a clergyman, M.M. of Corpus a thorough intimacy with the Christi College, Cambridge, and exact letter of the Statute Law." displays from Shakespeare's works (Rushton is probably right to "the vastness of his Bible lore." The agree that real property had more other is by an able lawyer, who general application and believes that Shakespeare was a man understanding among English of his own cloth, and that, if not gentlemen. And if a lesser case actually in practice as an attorney, he can be made that Shakespeare's was a man who could have passed a personal knowledge and correct stiff examination in the common, application of unusual technical criminal, and statue law. I, myself,

148 The George Greenwood Collection

being a hydropathist, declare that if on very shaky ground arguing that an author he were living now, and paid me a must have had legal training, or shows an sufficient sum for the good will, I unusual knowledge of law and legal terms, should feel more than confidence in merely because he or she is able to construct entrusting to him my establishment an accurate legal situation or a compelling and making it Shakespeare late courtroom scene with all legal terms Slush, in Brash House, Drenchmore. properly used. Good writers, with study and I need hardly observe that the very the help of a few professional friends, can first play in our friend's works, the accomplish such feats without proving Tempest, is the story of a great themselves legal experts or having legal water-cure worked in an exceedingly training.6 bad case by one Prospero, and we all Rushton received good reviews as well. A know how much in another play the decade later, a reviewer in a law journal very soul of the Duke of Clarence approves of Rushton's research. By that time was benefited by the bare dreaming Rushton had published three works on about a cold water bath. What a fine Shakespeare's law, including the one knowledge of the efficacy of a cold reviewed, Shakespeare's Testamentary douche in the excitement of mania is Language: expressed in Lear's request, made instinctively to the descending flood Mr. Rushton has proved himself an of rain—as dogs when sick able legal commentator of the works instinctively apply themselves to of Shakespeare. In addition to the certain grasses—"Pour on, I will above little book of comparison he endure!" Undoubtedly the has contributed largely to illustrate unfortunate gentleman who showed by old authors the language used by this knowledge of what was proper the immortal bard in his plays and to his case, would be represented on poems. In this way he has the stage by any really subtle actor as satisfactorily explained many placing his head carefully under the obscure expressions of doubtful drip from the rood of the hovel, in meaning, and has offered order that he might the better secure explanations and suggestions of his a sustained stream upon the occiput." own for the consideration of his (Household Words, Oct. 23, 1858, p. readers. His "Shakespeare a 454) Lawyer," and "Shakespeare's Legal Maxims," unmistakably show that if Dickens sustains his satire for another 2400 Shakespeare was not at one time words. By the end, the reader is not left in connected with the law, as has been doubt about his stand: Writers like Rushton attempted to be shown by some of are simply projecting their own interests his biographers, yet by some onto Shakespeare's plays, and seeing in them unaccountable means he acquired the expertise that they themselves enjoy. extensive familiarity with technical Since Dickens was not a lawyer, and he legal phraseology. Shakespeare's successfully supplied correct legal terms in plays abound with instances of much legal contexts in his own works, including more than ordinary knowledge of Great Expectations, David Copperfield, and law terms for a civilian, and in order Bleak House, we can easily appreciate his to use these in the way he did, his impulse to mock Rushton.5 Certainly, one is acquaintance with the written and

149 The George Greenwood Collection

unwritten law of his period, attorney's office in Stratford, and combined with a tolerable display of which he could have acquired in no legal jargon, must have been other way, we are justified in remarkable. There is no doubt believing the fact that he was a clerk sufficient internal evidence in his in an attorney's office at Stratford, plays to warrant the belief that without any direct proof of the fact. Shakespeare must at least have Logicians and jurists allow us to served in an attorney's office, and infer a fact of which there is no Lord Campbell and other direct proof, from facts expressly commentators have laboured to proved, if the fact to be inferred may support this inference. (27 Law have existed, if it be consistent with Magazine and Review 162) all other facts known to exist, and if The reviewer refers to Chief Justice John facts known to exist can only be Campbell's book Shakespeare's Legal accounted for by inferring the fact to Acquirements, which came out soon after be inferred. Ruston's first book. But, my dear Mr. Payne Collier, you must not from all this suppose that I Lord Campbell have really become an absolute Shakespeare's Legal Acquirements covers convert to your side of the question. much of the same territory as Shakespeare a (136-137) Lawyer and follows Rushton's method of citing a series of legal terms used in the Lord Campbell's book proved very plays. In fact, some reviewers—and Rushton influential, given his position as Chief himself—thought that Campbell plagiarized Justice. Researchers spent years looking for Rushton's work. But some examples legal documents that would necessarily have obviously lend themselves to similar been signed by Shakspere of Stratford if he interpretations, and Campbell does discuss had indeed been a clerk in an attorney's office. No such documents have yet been examples not mentioned by Rushton. found, which has for most scholars lay to Campbell groups his examples by plays. In rest the notion that he held such a position.7 his introductory letter of some 30 pages to John Payne Collier, Campbell outlines his But Campbell's book was not a work of theory that Shakespeare was likely an scholarship. He admits in his introductory letter that he had a little leisure time during attorney's clerk before going on with over 80 pages of examples of Shakespeare's his vacation, that he is limiting the frame of knowledge of law. Then Campbell spends his research to terms that may have been several pages on Shakespeare's will, positing used by a professional lawyer, and that he is that Shakespeare himself drafted it. setting out to do less than a thorough job: Campbell ends with a "Retrospect" of a In The Two Gentlemen of Verona, dozen pages where he presents his Twelfth Night, Julius Caesar, uncommitted conclusions: Cymbeline, Timon of Athens, The To conclude my summing up of the Tempest, King Richard II., King evidence under this head, I say, if Henry V., King Henry VI. Part I., Shakespeare is shown to have King Henry VI. Part III., King possessed a knowledge of law, which Richard III., King Henry VIII., he might have acquired as clerk in an Pericles of Tyre, and Titus Andronicus—fourteen of the

150 The George Greenwood Collection

thirty-seven dramas generally lost my edifice by mistaking the place attributed to Shakespeare—I find where I erected it. nothing that fairly bears upon this Now this shows in Shakespeare a controversy. Of course I had only to knowledge of law, not generally look for expressions and allusions possessed. The unlearned would that must be supposed to come from suppose that if, by mistake, a man one who has been a professional builds a fine house on the land of lawyer. Amidst the seducing beauties another, when he discovers his error of sentiment and language through he will be permitted to remove all which I had to pick my way, I may the materials of the structure, and have overlooked various specimens particularly the marble pillars and of the article of which I was in quest, carved chimney-pieces with which which would have been accidentally he has adorned it; but Shakespeare valuable, although intrinsically knew better. He was aware that, worthless. (37-38) being fixed to the freehold, the Indeed, even in the works where he says he absolute property in them belonged finds nothing that bears upon the to the owner of the soil… (39-40) controversy, he has overlooked significant Despite examples such as this, Lord passages, particularly in the Henry plays. Campbell generated harsh criticism, much of Lord Campbell's book suffers from many of it deserved. In fact, the best articulated the same faults as Rushton's. He does not critique of his work, and that of Rushton, attempt to prove a thesis much more came from a non-practicing lawyer— complicated than "Shakespeare used lots of Richard Grant White. legal terms correctly, a use which therefore Richard Grant White goes to show, given his biographical background, that he was likely an attorney's In July 1859, Atlantic Monthly printed a 21- clerk in Stratford." He does show how page article by Richard Grant White, Shakespeare uses terms from many courts "William Shakespeare – Attorney at Law and categories of law; i.e., the Court of and Solicitor in Chancery," three-fourths of Exchequer (49), the Courts of Common Law which he spends castigating Lord (52), the Court Leet (63), the Court of Campbell's mistakes, stylistic errors, and Common Pleas (66), the Court of Wards generally lousy scholarship. He gives (68), Real Property Law (39), Admiralty Rushton more credit for the modesty of his Law (114), and with "some of the most writing and the organization of his abstruse proceedings in English examples, but overall White finds both jurisprudence" (44-45). works lacking in the kinds of arguments needed to argue that Shakespeare was a And he does present examples that appear to practicing attorney or had some kind of legal grant Shakespeare a certain depth in the law. education. His first example is from The Merry Wives of Windsor: Furthermore, Grant White seems to be the first writer to point out an uncomfortable Fal. Of what quality was your love, truth for advocates of Shakespeare's legal then? training: Shakespeare's use of legal terms in Ford. Like a fair house built upon his histories often mirrors their use in his another man's ground; so that I have source material, mainly Holinshed's

151 The George Greenwood Collection

Chronicles. Any writer who embarks on 2. Direct contemporary testimony exists making the case for Shakespeare's legal that at the time of Shakspere of training must avoid the error of crediting Stratford's arrival in England it was a Shakespeare's legal knowledge based on common practice for lawyers to turn to passages rewritten from Holinshed. writing plays. This testimony is from After perusing many pages of Grant White's Nashe in the Preface to Greene's article, the reader would think that he does Menaphon: "It is a common practice not believe that support exists for nowadays, amongst a sort of shifting Shakespeare's legal training, but in the latter companions that run through every art and thrive by none, to leave the trade part of the article, he delivers a surprise: of Noverint whereto they were born, "For we object not so much to the and busy themselves with the conclusion at which Lord Campbell endeavours of art, that could scarcely arrives as to his mode of arriving at Latinize their neck-verse if they should it. His method of investigation, have need." (Nashe 474) The trade of which is no method at all, but the "Noverint" is that of a lawyer. Grant mere noting of passages in the order White claims that the case is further in which he found them in looking, strengthened because "among all the through Shakespeare's works, is the dramatic writers of that period, whose rudest and least intelligent that could works have survived, not one uses the have been adopted…." (99) phraseology of the law with the Grant White then explores what he believes frequency, the freedom, and the are "the very considerable grounds for the correctness of Shakespeare" (102). option that Shakespeare had more than a 3. Although the argument is made that layman's acquaintance with the technical lay people commonly attended the language of the law" (99). He makes several London courts, and that Shakespeare significant points: could have easily picked up his 1. Legal phrases frequently appear in the terminology during such proceedings, literature of that age and Shakespeare's White points out that many of the law use of legal terminology is remarkably terms used by him are not normally pervasive and accurate even when heard at such proceedings, especially compared to other dramatists. Grant terms having to due with real property White explicitly denies that the mere and the technical language of appearance of such terminology conveyancers. Shakspere of Stratford's indicates early training (as Lord arrival in London coincides with early Campbell and Rushton would have it). plays that already contain such Rather, many dramatists had such language, "before he had had much training, and for many, like George opportunity to haunt the courts of law Wilkins, we do not have enough in London, even could he have made biographical material to determine such legal acquirements in those whether they were trained in the law. schools" (103). Furthermore, with Still, Shakespeare's pervasive and Shakspere's arrival in London, there is accurate use of legal terminology no general increase in the frequency of strengthens the argument that he had terms used in the plays, which may be such training. expected if Shakspere were then to acquire a greater legal vocabulary.

152 The George Greenwood Collection

4. Grant White's strongest argument is Stratford worked as an attorney's clerk or that while Shakespeare correctly uses studied law formally. But he expresses no the technical language of many doubt about the writer Shakespeare: The professions—physicians, actors, poems and plays demonstrate some kind of soldiers— primarily on special formal legal training. occasions, he exhibits a pervasive Other Early Writers reliance on legal terms throughout his works, demonstrating an accuracy and Following Rushton and Lord Campbell propriety that transcends his came several books exploring Shakespeare's contemporaries: use of legal terms, and one that included a dissenting view—George Wilkes' 1877 book Must we believe, that the Shakespeare from an American Point of man, who, among all the View. He is also among the early writers lawyer-dramatists of his responding against the claim that Francis day, showed—not, be it Bacon wrote the Shakespeare plays. noticed (as we are at Believing firmly that Shakspere wrote present regarding his Shakespeare, Wilkes reveals that he is not works) the profoundest taken in by the Satan Maneuver: knowledge of the great principles of law and Some critics, whose brows were equity, although he did more rainbowed than the rest, that too—but the most suggested that any extent of complete mastery of the scholastic accomplished might fairly technical phrases, the be attributed to the vivid, lambent jargon, of the law and of quick-breeding conception of such a its most abstruse miracle of genius as was the poet of branch—that relating to our race; but this exceptional theory real estate—and who made but little headway with more used it very much the sober reasoners, mainly for the want oftenest of them all, and of precedents that any man was ever with an air of as entire known to have learned his letters, or unconsciousness as if it attained to the art of making boots or were a part of the watches by mere intuition. The fact language of his daily life, is, that the true difficulty with this making no mistakes that portion of the inquiry has been, that can be detected by a too much erudition and legal learned professional comprehension has been attributed to critic—must we believe Shakespeare for what his law phrases that this man was indicate; or, in plainer words, they distinguished among have been paraded at a great deal those play-writing more than they are really worth." lawyers, not only by his (72) genius, but his lack of Thus does Wilkes lay down the central particular acquaintance contention between the advocates: On one with the law? (104) side, Rushton, Lord Campbell, and Grant Grant White concedes that there is no White, who are impressed by Shakespeare's biographical proof that Shakspere of technical range, accuracy, and application.

153 The George Greenwood Collection

On the other, Dickens, Wilkes, and many with every evidence of the right and others to come, who do not see an unusual knowledge of commanding. Over technical range, who claim inaccuracies, and and over again, where such who do not see any extraordinary knowledge is unexampled in writers application of the law. Wilkes clearly lays unlearned in the law, Shakespeare down the means by which Shakspere of appears in perfect possession of it. In Stratford could have acquired his legal the law of real property, its rules of knowledge: a) by reading elementary works tenure and descents, its entails, its of law, b) by attending the courts of record fines and recoveries, and their held semi-monthly in Stratford, and courts- vouchers and double vouchers; in the leet and view of frankpledge held semi- procedure of the courts, the methods annually in Stratford, c) through his of bringing suits and of arrests, the experience as a property owner, d) through nature of actions, the rules of lawsuits. pleading, the law of escapes, and of Furthermore, Wilkes claims that where contempt of court; in the principles Shakespeare deals with the philosophy of of evidence, both technical and law—in The Merchant of Venice, Comedy of philosophical; in the distinction Errors, Winter's Tale, Two Gentlemen of between the temporal and the Verona, and Measure for Measure—he fails spiritual tribunals; in the law of in ways that should be obvious to readers. attainder and forfeiture; in the Wilkes gives one example in support, requisites of a valid marriage; in the criticizing the Duke in Two Gentlemen for presumption of legitimacy; in the appointing to high government posts the learning of the law of prerogative; in gang who kidnapped his daughter. However the inalienable character of the ineffective such an example serves as crown,—this mastership appears support, Wilkes' argument has merit, that with surprising authority. (4-5) Shakspere had the means to learn some of Edward James Castle advances the cause of the technical terms of property law. Bacon as Shakespeare in his 1897 Later writers, such as Franklin Fiske Heard Shakespeare, Bacon, Jonson, and Greene, and Edward J. White, offer little more than which is poorly argued, especially in its catalogs of Shakespeare legal terms, with approach to the question of Shakespeare's explications of their meanings.8 The best of legal knowledge. The only other worthwhile the catalogers, Cushman K. Davis, in his argument after Grant White and before 1899 1883 book The Law in Shakespeare, is in R. S. Guernsey's small book expands the claims for Shakespeare's Ecclesiastical Law in Hamlet, which is best knowledge of law, based on the accumulated addressed in a later section of the essay, work of cataloging and explicating hundreds "Shakespeare's Legal Mind." of terms in his book: The next phase of the argument, an We seem to have here something increasing reaction against the rising tide of more than a sciolist's temerity of Baconian advocates, arrives with William C. indulgence in the terms of an Devecmon in 1899. unfamiliar art. No legal solecisms will be found. The abstrusest elements of the common law are impressed into a disciplined service

154 The George Greenwood Collection

Chapter III: Shakespeare's whom and to whom the words are spoken, and the dramatic effect involved" (135). Supposed Misuse of Legal Phillips is exactly right. When evaluating Terms Shakespeare's work, we must keep in mind that his stance is primarily dramatic or literary. We must keep a vigilant eye out for The first claim that Shakespeare erred in the context in which a term is used. If the using legal terms appears to have been context is strictly a dramatization of a legal leveled in 1863 by R.F. Fuller writing in the situation with characters supposed to be Upper Canada Law Journal: knowledgeable in law, then we may more strictly hold Shakespeare to the legal "And summer's lease hath all too meaning rather than the conventional short a date." meaning of a word. If a legal term is Here the word "date" is not misused by a comedic character, then we accurately used; as it signifies cannot say that the dramatist was guilty of commencement and not continuance. misuse. Indeed, if it can be shown that (95) comedic characters typically misused such This claim by Fuller is a bit baffling. During terms, while the non-comedic characters, or the 16th century, "date" was known to those who should know better, correctly signify continuance. The OED gives the used such terms, that fact would strengthen following definition and examples: the case favoring Shakespeare's legal training. 4. The time during which something lasts; period, season; duration; term Devecmon's "Bad Law" of life or existence. In 1899, Devecmon attacked the reasoning 13.. Chron. Eng. 972 in Ritson Met. of both Lord Campbell and Cushman Davis Rom. II. 310 Thah the sone croune in his book In Re Shakespeare's 'Legal 9 bere The fader hueld is date here. Acquirements'. His was the first extensive argument against Shakespeare having any c1386 Chaucer Can. Yeom. Prol. & special training in the law. J. M. Robertson T. 858 Neuere to thryue were to long later supported these attacks without a date. providing any examples of supposed errors. c1440 Lydg. Secrees 421 So to Devecmon's main argument focused on a list perseuere and lastyn a long date. of 14 "gross errors" in Shakespeare's use of legal terms. He presents a compelling (OED CD-ROM, date n 2, definition proposition that he feels safe in advancing: 4.) "Though the frequent use of legal terms, Even O. Hood Phillips, in Shakespeare and with their proper technical meanings, has a the Lawyers, points to this claim by Fuller cumulative effect, and tends strongly to saying "Criticism of this kind may be prove a legal training; yet a very few errors carping" and "Such criticism also has often in such use, if glaring and gross, would been misguided" (135). After giving several absolutely nullify that effect and proof" (33). examples from other critics, Phillips states, Since the fact of Shakespeare's complete "But these criticisms ignore the supposed accuracy is widely unknown, it is worth place and time of the action, the persons by exploring all 14 claims in detail, as well as the refutations put forward by Sir George

155 The George Greenwood Collection

Greenwood, in The Shakespeare Problem Devecmon states that the plaintiff makes his Restated, and by Homer B. Sprague, in his demand on the defendant, the defendant 1902 article "Shakespeare's Alleged replies by a plea, and then the plaintiff's Blunders in Legal Terminology" published reply is to this plea is a "replication." His in the Yale Law Journal. This examination point is that Hamlet's role is that of a will also reveal the common errors and defendant, whose reply is never a replication narrow-mindedness that critics can slip into. but always a plea. Greenwood agrees that in "Demise." Richard III (IV. 4. 247- pleading, a replication answers a reply, and is put in by the plaintiff. He goes on to cite 8):10 an example where the defendant puts in a Eliz. Tell me what state, what replication to the plaintiff's plea. Greenwood dignity, what honor then says, "But the fact is that 'replication' Canst thou demise to any child of was constantly used in ordinary parlance in mine? the sense of 'reply.'… Mr. Devecmon must Devecmon simply states that dignities and really try again" (401-2). Sprague quotes honors cannot be demised and cites Comyn's Glower and Chaucer to demonstrate that Digest in support. Greenwood quotes they used "replication" in its simple sense of Comyn's Digest, which states that "a dignity "reply," demonstrating that such usage had or nobility cannot be aliened or transferred long been practiced (305). to another." "Not a very unreasonable "Indenture." Pericles (I. 3. 7-8): proposition!" says Greenwood. "If the king grants a title or 'dignity' to a subject, it is Thal. For if a king bid a man be a natural enough that the grantee should not villain, he is bound by the indenture have the power to assign it away to another of his oath to be one." (perhaps for a round sum down), or to put it Here Devecmon says that the oath of up to auction. Therefore the Queen is right, allegiance is referred to, and that use of prima facie at any rate, when she suggests to "indenture" is entirely out of place, since Richard that he has no power to 'demise' any one has nothing to do with the other, and dignity or honour to a child of hers" since "indenture" must be a written (Problem 399-400). conveyance, bargain, or contract. Greenwood goes further, pointing out that in Greenwood passes on this one, affirming his fact it was possible for Richard, as king, to belief that Pericles was not authored by Shakespeare, but this example is also easily demise such dignities or honours. Comyn's Digest even states that a subject could make refuted. a grant of such things 'with the king's The OED, unavailable to the literal-minded licence.' Sprague adds that even if it were a Devecmon, illustrates that before mistake, would it not be a natural one in the Shakespeare's time, "indenture" was already mouth of a queen unlearned in law? It is used figuratively for oral contracts and natural for a dramatist to "impart mutual agreements: "d. fig. Contract, mutual verisimilitude" by having ignorant engagement. 1540 Morysine Vives' Introd. characters err in their knowledge (304). Wysd. G vij, We haue by indenture of Jesu…that they shall lacke nothinge whiche "Replication." Hamlet (IV. 2. 11-2): seke...the kyngdome of God." Oaths of Ham. Besides, to be demanded of a allegiance are contracts in which, in sponge! What replication should be exchange for the oath, the oath-taker made by the son of a king? receives the benefits generally conferred by

156 The George Greenwood Collection the King to all his subjects. Furthermore, center's around a portion "north from Sprague points out that Shakespeare uses Burton." Shakespeare uses the legal term "indenture" in its strict legal sense in Hamlet correctly. Sprague points to one translation and I Henry IV, demonstrating that he was of Caesar's Commentaries, "All Gaul is fully aware of its technical meaning (306). quartered into three halves!" to demonstrate "Moiety." 1 Henry IV (III. 1. 66-9, that portions were once more flexibly used. He quotes and authority, Moberly, "The 91-2): work 'moiety,' like 'halb' or 'half,' originally Glend. Come, here's the map; shall means only a part" (306). Furthermore, this we divide our right? passage reveals the danger of assuming too According to our threefold order much regarding Shakespeare's use of legal ta'en? terms. The legal form is taken directly from Mort. The archdeacon hath divided it Holinshed's Chronicles. Shakespeare's Into three limites very equally. sources for his histories must always be […] checked for legal form and terminology. Hot. Methinks my moiety, north "Challenge." Henry VIII (II. 4. 73- from Burton here, 6,116): In quantity equals not one of yours." Kath. I do believe, Devecmon points out that "moiety" means a Induced by potent circumstances, half, not a third. He fails to point out that that Shakespeare does use it correctly both You are my enemy, and make my legally and figuratively in All's Well That challenge. Ends Well (III. 2. 66), The Winter's Tale (III. You shall not be my judge. 2. 39), Henry V (V. 2. 212), Richard III (I. 2. […] 254; and II. 2. 60), Henry VIII (I. 2. 12), I do refuse you for my judge… Antony and Cleopatra (V. 1. 19), and Cymbeline (I. 5. 105). In several other plays Devecmon points out that "challenge" is he uses the term figuratively to mean simply applicable only to jurors, and that a judge is "a portion" rather than "a half." But it may not subject to challenge. Greenwood replies: be objected that in the case of Hotspur, the Here the same curious idea is strict legal usage is called for. A close apparent, viz. that a dramatist cannot reading reveals that in fact Hotspur uses the be a lawyer unless he makes his term correctly. Devecmon and other critics ladies and laymen speak in the want to yoke Hotspur's "moiety" reference language that a trained lawyer would to the tripartite division mentioned over 20 employ. But, apart from this, it really lines earlier. seems to me no better than solemn In fact Hotspur is speaking, not of his third, trifling to argue from such an as compared to the other two men, but a expression put into the Queen's smaller section of his third, which he is mouth that the writer had no accurate comparing to a smaller section belonging to knowledge of law. 'Challenge' was Mortimer only. If Hotspur were comparing constantly used in the sense of his third to the two other men's, he would be 'objection,' and even though the poet speaking of the whole compared to the might have had the legal significance whole of theirs. He does not. His land in his mind, it certainly does not borders Mortimer's, and the argument argue the absence of legal training on his part that Catherine should apply,

157 The George Greenwood Collection

by a very natural analogy, to one of nor a jointure in Denmark." But it takes little the Cardinals who were to act as imagination to recognize that Shakespeare is judges in the case, a term which, in using the term in a royal context that strict legal usage, was properly enlarges its meaning (a common applicable only to a juror." (400) Shakespearean practice, which is Sprague also points out that Shakespeare responsible for giving us our flexible uses "challenge" in the sense of to "claim as language). The two have just married, and a right" 18 times throughout the plays, and Shakespeare plays on the idea of that royal that it is used appropriately here in the same joining. The context also suggests irony, in that such a marriage should bar the King's sense (306). brother from the "dower" of the kingdom. "Well ratified by." Hamlet (I. 1. 87- Devecmon fails once again to look at the 91): literary context, assuming that every use Hor. In which our valiant Hamlet— that appears to deviate from strict legal For so this side of our world usage represents an error that no one trained esteemed him— in the law would commit. As we shall see, Did slay this Fortinbras; who by a Clarkson and Warren criticize Devecmon sealed compact, for over-literalizing this speech. Well ratified by law and heraldry, "Common/Several." Love's Labour's Did forfeit his life… Lost (II. 1. 221-223)" Devecmon states that "well ratified by" means "strictly in accordance with" and is Boyet. So you grant pasture for me. out of place here as a legalism. Once again, Kath. Not so, gentle beast; he is being too absolute. Devecmon thinks My lips no common are, though the term can only be used in a strict legal several they be. meaning, but he is wrong. According to the This passage is commonly cited as an error. OED, by Shakespeare's time "ratify" had a Devecmon admits that Shakespeare long history of meaning "confirmed" or understood that one cannot both hold a thing "approved" in a non-legal context. Sprague in common and in severalty; he believes that demonstrates that Skelton in Colin Clout, Shakespeare sacrifices his knowledge for a Levins in Manipulus Vocabulorum, and mere play on words, something that one Bacon in Political Fables, all used the term with legal training would not do. in this non-technical sense. (307) Greenwood responds: "Jointress." Hamlet (I. 2. 8-9): Common of pasture is, of course, a Claud. Therefore our sometime right of common with which lawyers sister, now our queen, are very familiar. Boyet desires a The imperial jointress to this warlike grant of pasture on Maria's lips, but she replies that there is 'no common' State. there. This suggests the distinction Devecmon sites Co. Litt. 46 to define between tenancy in common and jointress as "a woman who has an estate 'severally' or individual ownership, settled on her by her husband." Referencing and Maria, bethinking her that her Blake's Commentaries he states that a lips are 'several,' or severed one from "jointure" was used for barring dower, and the other, adds 'though several they that "Gertrude could have neither a dower

158 The George Greenwood Collection

be.' The same idea appears in the 'body' or some other words of procreation Sonnets. are necessary to make it a fee tail. A gift to a "Why should my heart think that a man and his heirs, male or female, is an several plot, estate in fee simple and not in fee tail." Which my heart knows the world's Greenwood avoids this play also, believing wide common place?" that it was not Shakespeare's. In the play there seems, at first sight, Once again, we have an instance where the to be some little confusion involved literal-minded lawyer assumes that only the by the use of the word 'though,' for strict legal definition was in common usage. things which are 'several' would A quick check of the OED reveals that both naturally not be 'common,' but I Davis and Devecmon err. According to the think the explanation is to be found OED "entail" was used apart from its strict in a note of William Hazlitt's to Sir legal usage: "2. transf. and fig. To bestow or John Oldcastle, Part I, Act III, Sc. 1, confer as if by entail; to cause to descend to a designated series of possessors; to bestow where the Earl of Cambridge says: as an inalienable possession." Thus, in 1513 "Of late he broke into a several Sir Thomas More in Edward V, 3 writes Which cloth belong to me;" "The Crowne of the Realme [was] entayled and the note explains 'several' here as to the Duke of Yorke and his Heires." meaning 'portions of common land (OED) Perhaps Shakespeare was following assigned for a time to particular Sir Thomas in this usage of appointing an proprietors.' Thus 'severals' could be hereditary possessor, but Shakespeare uses part of common lands, and so Maria "entail" in its stricter legal usage in All's might say that her lips, though Well That Ends Well (IV, 3, 270), showing 'several' are 'no common,' though, that he understood both definitions even so, the conjunction seems rather precisely. forced. (417) "Statutes." Love's Labour's Lost (I. 1. Sprague explains that this passage reflects a 15-19): matter of taste. That Shakespeare as a King. You three, Berowne, Dumain, lawyer would certainly not perpetuate such and Longaville, puns. But as a dramatist, these terms invite Have sworn for three years' term to this kind of punning in such a scene. "No live with me, blunder here," states Sprague (308). My fellow-scholars, and to keep "Entail." 3 Henry VI (I. 1. 200-3): those statutes That are recorded in this schedule King H. I here entail here: The crown to thee, and to thine heirs Your oaths are pass'd; and now forever; subscribe your names Conditionally that thou here take an oath Here is another supposed error commonly To cease this civil war… cited. Devecmon thinks "statutes" is misused here to mean merely "articles of agreement," Devecmon quotes Senator Davis: "The use since there is no such meaning in law. of the word entail here seems to be According to Greenwood, Shakespeare uses inaccurate, for, though the use of the word "statutes" in the sense of "ordinances," as is heirs is necessary to create a fee, so the word usual in a college (404). In this one case,

159 The George Greenwood Collection

Mr. Robertson, pausing in his constant the writer be set down as no lawyer? assaults in The Baconian Heresy, explicitly But really this is but another example agrees with Greenwood (175n). in support of the proposition that a "On the case." The Comedy of Errors little learning is a dangerous thing. 'A testament is the true declaration of (IV. 2. 41-2): our last Will; of that wee would to be Adr. Why, man, what is the matter? done after our death,' says the Dro. S. I do not know the matter: he learned author of that famous old is 'rested on the case. book Termes de la Ley. A 'testament' Devecmon points out that there are two includes a 'will,' said the Court in kinds of civil actions: those growing out of Fuller v. Hooper (2 Vesey Senior breach of contract and those for the recovery 242). Nay, more, Littleton, the great of wrongs independent of a contract. "On and learned Littleton, uses 'testament' the case" applies to the former, but the as applicable to a devise of lands and statement here applies to the latter. tenements; and all Coke has to say However, Devecmon neglects to notice that about it is that 'in law most this is a comedy with comedic characters commonly "ultima voluntas in who will, like Dogberry in Much Ado About scriptis" is used where lands or Nothing, mix their legal terms. Dromio is tenements are devised, testamentum mixing up the usage. when it concerneth chattels.' But we know that 'testator' is used of a man For Devecmon and anyone else to cite such who has made a will, whether it be misuse as indicating Shakespeare's of lands or of personal property. So ignorance simply ignores the fact that it that again Mr. Devecmon's attempt takes technical knowledge to have his fails. (402) clowns make such humorous blunders. Sprague goes further, stating that the clown Sprague catches Devecmon shifting ground may simply be using "on the case" as in a by showing that later in his book on page 47 suit or matter of law, rather than in an action Devecmon says, "Will or testament (which of tort (309). This interpretation works well latter word is essentially identical in since the passage can then participate in the meaning with 'will')" (310). wordplay on "suit" in the next few lines. "To your heirs forever." Julius "Testament." Henry V (I. 1. 9-11): Caesar (III, ii, 249-252): Cant. For all the temporal lands, Antony. Moreover he hat left you all which men devout his walks, By testament have given to the His private arbors, and new-planted church, orchards Would they strip from us. On this side Tiber, he hath left them you Devecmon claims that "testament" is used And to your heirs forever. incorrectly since it bequeaths personal property. A "will" is used for devising real Again Devecmon quotes Cushman Davis, estate. Greenwood responds: who remarks that Shakespeare did not use the appropriate legal term "devise" and 'How absolute the knave is! We must instead used "to your heir forever." speak by the card'! Must the Devecmon wants to extend the remark and Archbishop speak by the card too, or make it a criticism, saying, "Shakespeare

160 The George Greenwood Collection nowhere uses the word in connection with a legal sense. It is not. The bond is properly will. It was also unnecessary for Caesar's defined as a single bond. Once again, the will to have contained the expression 'to error lies with Devecmon, rather than with your heirs forever' in order to give the Shakespeare. people a perpetual estate in the reality" (41). Devecmon mentions a 15th error to which Although Shakespeare's usage may be neither Greenwood nor Sprague respond. In "remarked" upon, for that usage to call for his discussion of The Merchant of Venice criticism and as more proof that Shakespeare Devecmon mentions that the court awards did not know the legal meaning of the word all Shylock's property, "and all that he might "devise," which he does not use, seems at afterward acquire, (for he was required to minimum petty. The poetry of Antony's record in court a deed of gift of all he died speech calls for Shakespeare's usage, not possessed)….And, by the way, this deed of strict legal usage. Devecmon has dipped gift is another blunder of the law. It is a here into an extreme silliness. fixed principle of the common law that a "Single bond." Merchant of Venice man cannot convey a thing which he has not, though he afterward acquire it. Only (I. 3. 140-6): things in esse, having an actual or potential Shy. Go with me to a notary; seal me existence, were subjects capable of gift or there grant (Comyn's Dig. Tit. Grant (D))." Your single bond, and in a merry sport The response is actually given by Clarkson If you replay me not on such a day, and Warren in their book: "It has been In such a place, such a sum as are pointed out [by Devecmon (note)] that such Expressed in the condition, let the an instrument would be quite inoperative to forfeit transfer after-acquired property; only that Be nominated for an equal pound which was in esse at the time the deed was delivered would pass. This observation, Of your fair flesh… however, seems largely beside the point Devecmon says, "It is hardly conceivable because this deed was not intended at the that any lawyer, or anyone who had spent time of delivery to pass even the property considerable time in a lawyer's office, in which was in esse" (183). Shakespeare's age, could have been guilty of the egregious error of calling a bond with a Thus has every supposed error raised by Devecmon been roundly refuted. What then collateral condition a 'single bond.'" In Shakespeare's Law Greenwood quotes both of those claims by other writers? the Encyclopaedia of the Laws of England Charles Allen's "Bad Law" and Stephens Commentaries to point out that Charles Allen's Notes on the Bacon- single bonds include those where people are Shakespeare Question also has a chapter on bound to pay at a certain time and place with Shakespeare's bad law (Chapter VII). Allen's a penalty attached in the event of failure to examination of legal terms is simplistic and pay. Payment of a pound of flesh is the denies Shakespeare the possibility of "penalty" and not a "condition"(24-26). figurative usage, as does Devecmon before In other words, Devecmon sees that him. Greenwood devotes much of his book Shakespeare has used the words "Expressed Shakespeare's Law to refuting Allen.11 in the condition" and wants to immediately Allen's methods of argument are so poor that translate that as a conditional bond in the he is censured for his errors by later writers,

161 The George Greenwood Collection such as Clarkson and Warren (219). Here is neither profound nor accurate"12 (I.381). In a a passage that reveals Allen's headache- paper presented at the 20th Annual inducing methods: Conference, October 10-13, 1996, entitled "Recent Developments in the Case for In King John is found the line,— Oxford as Shakespeare," Peter Moore deftly 'As seal to this indenture of my love.' refutes the three instances where Underhill 'Indenture' seems to be used for accuses Shakespeare of using legal terms 13 assurance, or promise, or contract,— incorrectly. an untechnical use of the word. 1. Underhill resurrects Devecmon's claim In Winter's Tale, 'land-damn' that in Love's Labour's Lost apparently refers to some mode of Shakespeare incorrectly uses legal punishment; but the term is "common" and "several" saying that unknown in the law. It has been the "allusion is not technically conjectured that this term is a accurate, for it attributes the 'several' corruption; but it appeared in all the and 'common' to the lips rather than to Folios. the right to kiss them, and uses the word 'though' incorrectly, in place of 'Rejoin' for 'adjourn,' in Coriolanus, 'but', which rather suggests that he is believed to be unknown in legal considered common rights to be in use, though in Richardson's some way connected with, instead of Dictionary instances of its use are opposed to, several ones. Greenwood's cited for Wotton, Burton, and North's response to this "error" stands, and Plutarch. again we note that Devecmon admitted 'Fee-grief,' in Macbeth, is a that Shakespeare knew the difference. combination which is not found Moore points out that any annotated elsewhere. edition explains how Maria is playing on the two meanings. 'Crazed title,' in Midsummer's Night's Dream, is not a legal epithet 2. Underhill cites Hamlet's graveyard for a doubtful title. remarks on buying land in Hamlet (V. 1. 101-110), where he dashes off 'Enfoeffed himself to popularity,' in almost a dozen legal terms, including 1 King Henry IV, is a violent and "statutes and recognizances." untechnical straining of the sense of Underhill says: "What 'statutes and the legal term. (125-126) recognizances' had to do with the Enough! Suffice it to say that no later critic buying of land is not evident to a of Shakespeare's law is comfortable citing lawyer, and may suggest that Allen as support. Shakespeare's knowledge of the law of property was neither accurate nor Arthur Underhill's "Bad Law" extensive" (I.406). Moore accurately In Shakespeare's England: An Account of points out that "any annotated, the Life & Manners of his Age, Arthur university-level edition of Hamlet, Underhill lets the reader know exactly where such as Arden, Oxford, or Cambridge, he stands by opening the section on "The will explain exactly what statutes and Law" with the statement, "Despite recognizances had to do with buying Shakespeare's frequent use of legal phrases land." and allusions his knowledge of law was

162 The George Greenwood Collection

3. Underhill finally turns to All's Well all together, That Ends Well where he accomplishes Would quite confound distinction, what can only be described as an yet stands off intentional misrepresentation in order In differences so mighty. to plant in the reader's mind another Bertram directly addresses the unequalness "inaccuracy." First, Underhill states in rank between him and Helena. The King that "the King of France insists upon responds that he can raise her in rank, and his highborn ward Bertram marrying then proceeds to reflect on how strange it is Helena, a poor physician's daughter, that people can in every other respect be the who was of inferior rank to him." He same, yet so different in rank. In Peter then quotes a passage (II. 3. 52-3) Moore's words, "Shakespeare was perfectly where the King has Helena choose a well aware of the requirement." And husband. Underhill then informs us Underhill knew that Shakespeare knew. One that "when Bertram, whom Helena must wonder if Underhill has been chooses, protests, the King informs intentionally deceptive. him peremptorily that Clarkson and Warren's "Bad Law" It is in us to plant thine honour where Now we finally turn to Clarkson and Warren We please to have it and The Law of Property in Shakespeare grow. Check thy and the Elizabethan Drama. The authors contempt: labored long and hard to cross-catalog all of Obey our will, which the legal references to property law used by travails in thy good. 17 Elizabethan dramatists. What did they actually say that persuaded O. Hood Underhill skips over 100 lines to quote this Phillips, who persuaded Irvin Leigh Matus, passage (II. 3. 156-8). He then quotes a who persuaded Dr. David Kathman that passage from Jonson's Bartholomew Fair, Shakespeare "was average at best" in the which he says alludes "to the condition that accuracy of his legal allusions? the spouse must be of equal rank with the ward, which Shakespeare has ignored." Yet, "Not only do half of the dramatists employ between the two passages that Underhill legalisms more freely than Shakespeare, but quotes, is this (II, 3, 112-21): most of them also exceed him in the detail and complexity of their legal problems and Ber. But follows it, my lord, to bring allusions, and with few exceptions display a me down degree of accuracy at least no lower than Must answer for your raising? I his. Proceeding from the general to the know her well: particular, about the same comparative She had her breeding at my father's average is maintained among the dramatists charge— in their allusions to property law…" (285). A poor physician's daughter my wife! Disdain Perhaps Dr. Kathman did consult the source Rather corrupt me ever! text, since that second sentence is not quoted King. 'Tis only title thou disdain'st in by Matus or Phillips.14 But he misconstrues her, the which and misapplies a quantitative average as a I can build up. Strange it is that our qualitative average. The point is that bloods, Clarkson and Warren fail to demonstrate Of colour, weight, and heat, pour'd

163 The George Greenwood Collection even one real error in Shakespeare's use of important distinction between the two (197- legal terms. 9). The heir apparent's succession was Using the index or the table of contents, a contingent only upon his outliving his researcher would be hard-pressed to ancestor, such as an eldest son. This is the discover Shakespeare's alleged inaccuracies. only circumstance that could deprive him of One who knows the history of the debate his inheritance. Thus, the heir apparent is in would eventually seek out Devecmon's the direct line of succession. name in the index. Although there are only The heir presumptive, on the other hand, two listings, there are at least three actual would be like a brother to a King, one whose mentions in the text, all criticizing succession could be displaced by the birth of Devecmon for erring in his criticism of a child to the King. Thus, Clarkson and Shakespeare. Warren reveal Shakespeare's error: The authors also criticize Charles Allen for Shakespeare uses the phrase 'heir erroneously pointing out errors in apparent' incorrectly when Cardinal Shakespeare's use of legal terms (219, 224, Beaufort says of Humphrey, Duke of 246). Strangely, although the authors admit Gloucester [2 Henry VI (I. 1. 150- a liking for Allen's book, they do not quote a 1)], single one of his "bad law" examples. "Consider, lords, he is the next of Perhaps this is because they have read blood Greenwood's Shakespeare's Law, which And heir apparent to the English they make only one reference to in a crown." footnote (246), as a counter to a claim of Allen's.15 Gloucester was not Henry VI's eldest son, of course, but his uncle, and The Law of Property in Shakespeare and therefore heir presumptive. Elizabethan Drama appears to contain only Shakespeare did not adopt this three examples of Shakespeare's inaccurate 16 language from Holinshed, and did use of legal terms. First, the authors repeat not have here the excuse of metric Devecmon's discovery of a "technical error" requirements, since either word fits in Shakespeare's use of "entail" in 3 Henry the iambic pentameter equally well. VI (59). They repeat Devecmon's mistake in We have here just another example assuming that the term has only a technical of Shakespeare's being interested not usage. Second, they cite the Host in The so much in correctly stating a legal Merry Wives of Windsor (II. 1. 206-7) for proposition, as in putting into the misusing "egress" and "regress" (70). There mouth of his character words which is little point in belaboring the obvious—that to the laymen-groundling sounded to quote such a character in such a play as an like good law, and at any rate example of Shakespeare's error is beyond conveyed the desired information. highly questionable. This is, of course, the essence of Clarkson and Warren's third error is good theatre. (199) different. It actually promises to be a If this is an error, it indeed qualifies as one significant discovery. They begin their that a man trained in law would not commit. second chapter of Part III setting the stage Clarkson and Warren then proceed to give for a discussion of the use of the term "heir," examples of contemporary dramatists who particularly in "heir apparent" and "heir display a knowledge of the distinction—and presumptive," noting that there is an

164 The George Greenwood Collection these examples present a problem: They Chapter IV: Sir George contain only the concept of the distinction, not the use of the phrase "heir presumptive." Greenwood and the "Lost" Would this not set off an alarm of warning Debate to the authors? A quick check of a concordance reveals that Shakespeare never used "heir presumptive" Table Two: The Robertson/Greenwood or even "presumptive." A quick check of the Debates OED reveals that the first public use of Writer's skeptical of Shakespeare's legal "presumptive" occurs in 1609, and that "heir knowledge appear in Bold. presumptive" is not used until 1628. Could this mean that the term was not in use during 1899 William Devecmon, In Re Shakespeare's 'Legal Acquirements' Shakespeare's time? Yes! Under the third 1900 Charles Allen, Notes on the Bacon- listing under "presumptive" the OED Shakespeare Question provides this example: 1902 H. B. Sprague, "Shakespeare's Alleged Blunders" Yale Law Journal 1683 Brit. Spec. 272 Apparent (or 1902 Judge Webb, The Mystery of William according to the new-coyned Shakespeare Distinction, Presumptive) Heir of the 1902 Lord Penzance, The Bacon-Shakespeare Crown is His Royal Highness Controversy 1904 J. Churton Collins, Studies in Shakespeare James[etc.]. 1905 J. M. Robertson, Did Shakespeare Write In other words, "heir presumptive" was Titus Andronicus? regarded as a newly-coined term in the late 1908 George Greenwood, The Shakespeare Problem Restated 17th century, and that "heir apparent" was 1911 Edward J. White, The Law in Shakespeare commonly used for both distinctions! 1913 J. M. Robertson, The Baconian Heresy 1916 George Greenwood, Is There a Once again, the critics of Shakespeare's law Shakespeare Problem? are themselves proven to be the ones in 1916 J. M. Robertson, Letters in The Nation error. and Literary Guide 1916 George Greenwood, Shakespeare's Law In a passage referring to Shakespeare's Law, and Latin Sir Plunkett Barton states, "Some critics 1916 Arthur Underhill, "Law" in have gone to the opposite extreme, and have Shakespeare's England dwelt upon what they call 'the bad law' in 1920 George Greenwood, Shakespeare's Law the plays of Shakespeare. He, like other dramatists, probably cared very little Despite the efforts of Devecmon and Allen, whether this law was strictly accurate, so the tide of Baconian books continued to rise, long as it helped the plot or the dialogue. Sir including two by distinguished Judges. George Greenwood, with whom this writer Judge Webb in his The Mystery of William does not always agree, has disposed of this Shakespeare is the first to make the explicit subject in a recent book" (149). point that "In the Plays every one of the characters talk law" (167). He then proceeds It can still be truly said—over 150 years to give a couple of pages of examples. Judge later and despite Lord Campbell's other Webb contributes little else to the argument failings—that as to Shakespeare's use of other than this absolute generalization, legal terms "there can neither be demurrer which is defensible when applies to almost nor bill of exceptions, nor writ of error."

165 The George Greenwood Collection all major characters and a majority of minor divergent from forensic subjects. characters. (85-86, italics added) That same year Lord Penzance's book The Lord Penzance makes a crucial distinction, Bacon-Shakespeare Controversy devoted later echoed by Greenwood, that fails to over a dozen pages to the argument, mostly impress the literal-minded critics of quoting Lord Campbell, Grant White, and Shakespeare's legal knowledge: The fact that Cushman Davis, and covering similar Shakespeare used legal terms accurately in terrain. However, Lord Penzance adds his those places requiring accurate forensic voice to the building chorus that usage should not be the base on which to Shakespeare's usage indicates a solid legal build an argument supporting Shakespeare's mind, and is the first to clearly articulate a legal training. Rather, that base would best proposition that has yet to be acknowledged be one of legal metaphors and similes and and countered: puns that arise in places where one does not The mode in which this knowledge expect forensic terminology. In other words, was pressed into the service on all Shakespeare's mind exhibits the kind of occasions to express his meaning and training in law that comes with deep, long- illustrate his thought, was quite term study—a mind that naturally views the unexampled. He seems to have had a world in legal metaphors. special pleasure in his complete and This distinction is lost on many later writers. ready mastership of it in all its In 1905 J. M. Robertson, a noted British branches. As manifested in the plays Member of Parliament (but not a lawyer), this legal knowledge and learning published his book Did Shakespeare Write had therefore a special character "Titus Andronicus"? In a brief four-page which places it on a wholly different passage with the sic heading "Alleged footing from the rest of the Shakespearean Legal Allusions" (nobody multifarious knowledge which is has questioned that Shakespeare's works exhibited in page after page of the contain legal allusions, only what may be plays. At every turn and point at inferred from them), Robertson criticizes a which the author required a non-lawyer, Churton Collins, for merely metaphor, simile, or illustration, his listing in his 1904 book, Studies in mind ever turned to the law. He Shakespeare, the legal terms in Titus seems almost to have thought in Andronicus. legal phrases—the commonest of legal expressions were ever at the Robertson counters that Shakespeare was end of his pen in description or not the only one who used legal terms. He illustration. That he should have then cites Devecmon's statement that descanted in lawyer language when Webster's The Devil's Law Case displays he had a forensic subject in hand, "more legal expressions (some of them such as Shylock's bond, was to be highly technical, and all correctly used) than expected. But the knowledge of law are to be found in any single one of in "Shakespeare" was exhibited in a Shakespeare's works" (Titus 54). He goes on far different manner: it protruded to present his own list of legal terms in three itself on all occasions, appropriate plays by Peele—Arraignment in Paris, or inappropriate, and mingled itself Battle of Alcazar, and Edward I—and in The with strains of thought widely Spanish Tragedy.

166 The George Greenwood Collection

Robertson is right to point out that mere use intervening distractions of more tenuous of legal terms fails to prove legal training, arguments positing the real author. and that other dramatists at that time used The book was also a landmark in its them. But he is wrong to state that "The profound influence on a number of famous general thesis as to Shakespeare's legal writers, lawyers, and other professionals, knowledge or proclivities…was most notably Mark Twain, Sigmund Freud, exhaustively dealt with…by Mr. Devecmon" and J. Thomas Looney, the author of (54). Devecmon's treatment fell far short of Shakespeare "Identified", who based some exhaustive. If Robertson had known what he of the criteria he used to search for a likely would trigger with his brief treatment of author on Greenwood's book. Shakespeare's legal allusions, he may have skipped the entire question. In a long chapter "Shakespeare as a Lawyer," Greenwood finds fault with In 1908 Sir George Greenwood published Robertson's brief foray into the legal his landmark 560-page The Shakespeare question. Greenwood reminds the reader of Problem Restated. The book was a landmark Lord Campbell's statement warning of the for two reasons. On the one hand, it was the danger for a layman to tamper with the first anti-Stratfordian book that examined lawyer's craft: "The layman is certain to the evidence of authorship dispassionately. betray himself by using some expression How can this be? Because Greenwood had which a lawyer would never employ" (371). yet to decide on exactly who was the author. In the Preface, he indicates that "it is no part After pointing to such an error made by Sir of my plan or intention to defend that Sidney Lee, the noted Shakespearean theory," (vii) "I am quite free to admit that biographer, Greenwood reveals in a footnote some of the extreme advocates of the that Robertson had also made such an error: 'heresy' have done much harm putting "I find yet another instance in Mr. J. M. forward wild, ridiculous, and fantastic Robertson's Did Shakespeare Write 'Titus theories," (xv-xvi) and Andronicus'? (p. 59). Mr. Robertson writes: 'Let us formulate all the tests that the I have endevoured to avoid all problem admits of, first putting a few fantastic theories, and although of necessary caveats.' No lawyer would speak course, a certain amount of of 'putting a caveat.' The legal term is to hypothesis is unavoidable…my wish 'enter a caveat'" (372). has been to depart as little as possible from the realm of fact, so Robertson answers Greenwood on this17 far as we can ascertain it, and of ¾and on Greenwood's reliance on Lord legitimate argument founded Campbell, Richard Grant White, and others thereon. I have made no attempt to as authorities¾five years later in his book, deal with the positive side of the The Baconian Heresy. Greenwood responds question. I leave it to others to say, if to Robertson's remarkable assertions three they can, who the great magician years after that in Is There a Shakespeare really was. (xviii-xix) Problem? That same year, Robertson and This stance is truly dramatic and goes far in Greenwood exchange a series of letters in helping to clarify the arguments surrounding The Literary Guide and in The Nation, and the man Shakspere and his relationship to some months later Greenwood publishes his the author Shakespeare, without the side of that exchange in Shakespeare's Law and Latin, to which Robertson does not respond.

167 The George Greenwood Collection

In fact, in 1924 Robertson updates Did legal education, Robertson unwittingly Shakespeare Write 'Titus Andronicus'?, supports Lord Campbell's argument that retitling it An Introduction to the Study of "Shakespeare's head was so full of the the Shakespeare Canon, leaving the section recondite terms of the law, that he makes a on "Alleged Shakespearean Legal lady thus pour them out, in a confidential Allusions" in tact with additional examples, tête-à-tête conversation with another lady" and with one mention of Greenwood, while (40). The second example involves Lord referring the reader back to The Baconian Campbell's pointing out a passage in The Heresy. Merry Wives of Windsor (IV, ii, 193-199) in A closer examination of the debate between which two ladies have a conversation Robertson and Greenwood is important for regarding Falstaff: two reasons: later writers, into the 1990s, Mrs. Ford: What think you: may we, directly or indirectly rely on Robertson as with the warrant of womanhood and support for their arguments;18 furthermore, the witness of a good conscience, the debate itself clearly reveals the two pursue him with an further revenge? domains of the argument that later writers Mrs. Page: The spirit of wantonness fail to acknowledge—a primarily is sure scared out of him; if the devil quantitative case versus a primarily have him not in fee-simple, with fine qualitative case. and recovery, he will never, I think, in the way of waste attempt us Because of the voluminous exchange (over 19 300 pages almost evenly divided between again. the two debaters), it's best to trace three Robertson then gives over three pages of exchanges: 1) Robertson's criticism of Lord examples where other contemporary writers Campbell's assertion that Shakespeare's use use the terms "fine" and "recover." of "fine and recovery" in Merry Wives of Robertson quotes from Greene's Card of Windsor indicates how he had the "recondite Fancy: terms of law' constantly running in his head; Yet Madame (quoth he) when the 2) Robertson's criticism of Grant White's debt is confest there remaineth some assertion that Shakespeare's use of the legal hope of recovery. … The debt being term "purchase" is remarkable; and 3) due, he shall by constraint of law and Robertson's criticism of Greenwood's his own confession (maugre his face) assertion that Webster's The Devil's Law be forced to make restitution. Case "shows no knowledge of law whatever on the part of its author." I quote extensively Truth, Garydonius (quoth she), if he so that the reader can get a clearer sense of commence his action in a right case, the manner in which both men apply reason. and the plea he puts in prove not imperfect. But yet take this by the Fine and Recovery way, it is hard for that plaintiff to In The Baconian Heresy, after nine pages recover his costs where the attacking Greenwood, Robertson consumes defendant, being judge, sets down almost 50 pages attacking 43 evidentiary the sentence. (41) examples discussed by Lord Campbell. Robertson then exclaims: "The 'debt' in Although Robertson and others may be right question is one of unrequited love. Shall we in attacking Lord Campbell for any then pronounce that Greene wrote as he did implication that the mere use of legal terms because 'his head was full of the recondite constitutes proof that Shakespeare has had a

168 The George Greenwood Collection terms of the law?'…Greene was no lawyer." analogy between the passage cited Robertson presses the point in the fourth from The Merry Wives and the example, where "fine" and "recover" are quotation above set forth from The used again in The Comedy of Errors (II, ii, Card of Fancy? Shakespeare uses 71-75): the legal expressions (and whether Syr. Dro. There's no time for a man "recondite" or not, they are, to recover his hair that grows bald by certainly, highly technical nature. expressions) "fee simple with fine Syr. Ant. May he not do it by fine and recovery." What does Mr. and recovery? Robertson triumphantly produce as a Syr. Dro. Yes, to pay a fine for a parallel passage? A quotation from periwig, and recover the lost hair of Greene in which, certainly, there is mention of an "action" and of a another man. "plea," and in which, moreover, there Lord Campbell comments upon the passage, is talk of "recovery," viz. the "[These jests] show the author to be very recovery of a debt, and the recovery familiar with some of the most abstruse of costs. And Mr. Robertson would proceedings in English jurisprudence. really appear to think that this "'Fine' as it happens, is a common figure in ordinary use of the word is the drama of Shakespeare's day," Robertson equivalent to the very technical use replies. " Bellafront in Dekker's Honest of the word "recovery" as used in Whore (Part II, iv, 1) speaks of 'an easy fine, connection with a "fine"! It would be For which, me thought, I leased away my as much to the point to cite a passage soul.'….There is nothing more technical in in which a patient is stated to have the Comedy of Errors" (41). made a good "recovery" from an illness. But of course the ordinary Indeed, Robertson gives many more reader, glancing rapidly through Mr. examples of contemporary dramatists (Mall, Robertson's countless parallels (so Jonson, Roye, Massinger, and Webster), called), and knowing nothing of law, who were not legally trained, using the or legal terms, thinks that in the terms "fine" to mean a money payment, and multitude of instances there is "recovery" to mean the reacquisition of that necessarily wisdom….[I]f Mr. which was taken or lost. What possible Robertson had submitted his proofs reason could Greenwood have to object? to any young law student preparing Simply the very good reason that, since for his "exam," it would have been Robertson himself is not a lawyer, he failed pointed out to him that he had been to recognize the technical legal meaning of guilty of a ridiculous blunder. "fine and recover" and supplied equivocal "Fine," as used in the expression parallels that have absolutely no application. "fine and recovery," means a method In Is There a Shakespeare Problem?, (now obsolete) of transferring land Greenwood writes: by means of a fictitious lawsuit. It Amazement seizes me as I read has nothing to do with a money passages like this. Is this, I ask, the payment. But Mr. Robertson adduces strong reasoner, the great logician, as parallel passages to that cited from the doughty controversialist? And The Comedy of Errors lines from does he really think that there is any Dekker and Porter respectively,

169 The George Greenwood Collection

where the word "fine" is used in a common terms italicized by totally different sense, viz. as Campbell are freely paralleled. Your meaning the premium on the grant of reviewer has raised an imaginary a lease! No better example could be issue, and has thus wholly ignored found of Mr. Robertson's the one really raised at this particular qualifications for instructing us on point. On his and Campbell's the subject of Shakespeare's principles Greene was a trained knowledge of law. (59-61) lawyer if Shakespeare was. (510) In the November 13, 1915, issue of The Is Robertson a Sophist? The reader may well Nation, a reviewer of Greenwood's book ask, "How can Robertson create a 'parallel' writes, "When Mr. Robertson avows the with words that do not have parallel belief that any intelligent man could pick up meanings?" With more unusual "reasoning" this vocabulary, as it were, in the streets, he Robertson responded to Greenwood directly delivers himself into the enemy's hand. in the January 1, 1916, issue of The Literary When he quotes from Greene a passage Guide. Here is his complete response: about the 'recovery' of a debt as a parallel to Here I will merely remark that his Shakespeare's reference to a 'fine and attempt to convict me of identifying recovery,' he puts himself on a level with the simple "fine" with "fine and index-marker who wrote on 'Mill on Liberty recovery"—a blunder made before and ditto on the Floss" (263). him by a reviewer in this journal, and With unusual "reasoning" Robertson copied thence by him—is worthy of responded to this reviewer in the January 1, the rest. The wording of my text 1916, issue of The Nation: explodes the pretence. Again and It seems brutal to cancel out this again I have "paralleled" legal pretty piece of wit; but the statement phrases with absolutely different is sheer hallucination. There is not ones. The point is that the one set is the remotest suggestion in my book as much evidence for legal that the non-technical term knowledge or training as the other. "recovery" is a parallel to the (10) technical term "fine and recovery." No, Mr. Robertson, it's not. The point made Till I read your reviewer's by Lord Campbell is that Shakespeare used pronouncement it had never dawned "recondite terms of the law" and showed on me that such an inference could evidence of being "familiar with some of the be drawn. The passage from Greene most abstruse proceedings in English was avowedly cited as showing jurisprudence." He cites Shakespeare's "another lady" talking in the legal technical use of "fine and recovery" as an vein which Campbell declared to be example. None of Robertson's "parallels" are proof of the author's "legal technical. Robertson might as well be citing acquirements" when put in a as "parallels" such words as "arrest" and woman's dialogue by Shakespeare. "case" and "judge," terms that are not In the passage cited by Campbell recondite at all. several words are italicized, some of We can appreciate Greenwood's incredulity them occurring thousands of times in at Robertson's response in the March 1, Elizabethan drama and ordinary 1916, issue of The Literary Guide: literature. In later passages the

170 The George Greenwood Collection

He now asks us to believe that he did between a really technical legal not cite the passage in question as expression, such as might, possibly, showing that the word "fine" in the be evidentiary of the "legal technical sense (as in "fine and acquirements" of the writer, and a recovery") was "a common figure in phrase which, though it may have the drama of Shakespeare's day," but some legal flavour about it, is yet but only as showing that the word, in its a commonplace every-day ordinary meaning, was such "a expression, from which no such common figure"! In other words, he inference can be drawn. (17) asks us to believe that he was guilty We see here a stark contrast in the of the futility of citing the occurrence intellectual rigor between Robertson and of the word "fine," in its common Greenwood. Where Greenwood holds to meaning of a money-payment, in principled intellectual integrity, Robertson writers contemporary with willingly embarks on the exploitative Shakespeare, as an example of their rhetoric of the politician caught with his use of highly technical legal hand in the cookie jar. expressions! But "fine," a money- payment, is not a technical Purchase expression at all. Thus, on Mr. Robertson's inability to distinguish between Robertson's own showing, his technical legal expressions and their pronouncement, "There's nothing commonplace counterparts is not limited to more technical in The Comedy of "fine and recovery." Robertson (who is not a Errors," becomes an absurdity…. lawyer, remember) attacks Grant White Well did Lord Campbell write: "Let (who is a lawyer) for his claim that a non-professional man, however Shakespeare's use of the legal term acute, presume to talk law, or to "purchase" is remarkable (103): draw illustrations from legal science, The philological fact is that the sense and he will very speedily fall into of "acquisition," "a thing got," is the some laughable absurdity." (44) fundamental meaning of the word The same may be true of Shakespeare, a "purchase," of which the starting- point that further supports Shakespeare's point is the idea of the chase (Fr. having legal training. Robertson, a non- Pourchasser), the product of hunting lawyer and Member of Parliament with or foraging. It is the idea of buying access to a dozen books on Shakespeare's that is secondary, thought that is now knowledge of law and legal dictionaries, and become the normal force of the to many associates who are lawyers, is word. (101) caught in an absurdity of legal ignorance "So far so good," responds Greenwood in trying to prove that Shakespeare's Shakespeare's Law and Latin (31).20 But knowledge is not extraordinary. In fact, it is. Robertson goes further: In his 1916 monograph Shakespeare's Law That is to say, the so-called "legal" and Latin, Greenwood puts the cap on this meaning of "acquisition" of property episode: by one's personal action as distinct But such are Mr. Robertson's from inheritance" is the original parallelisms. Having no knowledge meaning, and is the likely sense of of law, he cannot discriminate

171 The George Greenwood Collection

the word in the whole feudal period. Law Lexicon: "An acquisition of (101) land in any lawful manner, other Robertson presents ten pages of examples than by descent or the mere act of where other dramatists use "purchase" in the law, and includes escheat, simple sense of "to buy." But Greenwood occupancy, prescription, forfeiture, and alienation"; and under exposes Robertson's sloppiness: "purchaser" he would have found Now, I was at first puzzled to know this quotation from Blackstone's whence Mr. Robertson takes his Commentaries: "The first definition of "the so-called 'legal' purchaser...is he who first acquired meaning" of the word "purchase," the estate to his family, whether the which he marks as a quotation. I same was transferred to him by sale, find, however, in the Oxford or by gift, or by any other method, Dictionary, under the word except only that of descent...If I give "purchase," the following: "(5) Law. land freely to another, he is in the The acquirement of property by one's eye of the law a purchaser." Or, personal action as distinct from turning to Williams on Real Property inheritance." So that perhaps I (21st edition, p. 227), he might have should not be wrong in assuming that read: "The word purchase has in law Mr. Robertson has taken his a meaning more extended than its definition from that source. Now, the ordinary sense: it is possession to Oxford Dictionary is generally a which a man cometh not by title of pretty safe guide; but in this instance descent: a devisee under a will is it is not so, for the definition is accordingly a purchaser in law." (31- obviously inadequate. In the first 32) place, for "property" we ought to read "real property," or "land," Greenwood alludes here that Robertson's seeing that the term "purchase," in literary mind may be in play, but that is no the "legal" sense, has no application substitute for a legal mind. Robertson's to "personal" property. And, simple reliance on, and mistaken use of, the secondly, one may take land by OED betrays him. Like his "parallels" for "purchase," in the "legal" sense, "fine and recovery," Robertson tries to without any "personal action" of parallel Shakespeare's use of the technical one's own, for "purchaser," in the legal meaning of "purchase" with dozens of "legal" sense, includes those who examples of other dramatists' use of the have received land as a gift, or upon word's common meaning. This from of whom it has been settled before they equivocation is de rigueur for Robertson. were born, and even heirs-at-law, The Devil's Law Case who would otherwise have inherited, What's important to note in the previous two if they take by a devise not in examples is that Robertson throws out accordance with the course of dozens of examples of contemporary writers descents. If Mr. Robertson had using the same terms (even when used in looked further down in the Oxford other than their technical legal sense) Dictionary, under the word expecting to make a case that Shakespeare's "purchase," supposing he consulted knowledge of law is nothing unusual—that it on this point, he would have found in fact, other dramatists who were not the following quoted from Wharton's

172 The George Greenwood Collection lawyers used more law terms more practically no law at all in Webster's technically. play! There are, indeed, a few legal In Did Shakespeare Write Titus Andronicus? terms such as "livery and seisin," "a Robertson writes: "Mr. Devecmon points caveat," "tenements," "executors," out that in Webster's The Devil's Law Case thrown in here and there, and there is there are 'more legal expressions (some of an absurd travesty of a trial where them highly technical, and all correctly each and everybody—judge, used) than there are to be found in any counsel, witness, or spectator— single one of Shakespeare's works'" (54). seems to put in a word or two just as Neither critic provides support for that it pleases him; but to say that there statement, but decades later, it is still are "more legal expressions" in the advanced in virtually identical words by O. play "(and some of them highly Hood Phillips: "Webster's The Devil's Law technical and all correctly used) than Case contains more legal expressions, some are to be found in any single one of of them highly technical and all correctly Shakespeare's works" is an used, than are to be found in any single one astounding perversion of the fact, as any reader can see who chooses to of Shakespeare's works" (187). peruse Webster's not very delicate Greenwood responds to Devecmon and drama. I cannot but think that Mr. Robertson in The Shakespeare Problem Robertson had either not read the Restated: play, or had forgotten it when he Now if this statement were true, the quoted this amazing passage. (397- answer would be that the subject of 398) the play is a "Law Case," and that, Strong words. And they evoked a strong therefore, the work was naturally full reaction from Robertson, who declares up of legal expressions, and, further, front: that doubtless the brilliant author had well got up his subject for the I am quite willing to stake the entire purposes of the drama; whereas the question upon this issue. Mr. proposition concerning Shakespeare Greenwood might, I think, have is that his knowledge not only of taken the trouble to collate the legal legal terminology, but of legal references in The Devil's Law Case, principles and of the habits and and compare them with Lord customs of lawyers, had become so Campbell's citations from any one much a part of his life and character Shakespearean play: it would have and mental equipment that it was been more to the purpose than any always showing itself even when amount of simple asseveration, very little appropriate to the subject however emphatic. He would thus have learned that the "few" legal on hand. terms which he dismisses as of no But the fact is that the statement as to account are exactly on a par with The Devil's Law Case is not only not most of those cited by Campbell true, but so preposterously contrary from Shakespeare (only more to the truth that one can hardly realistic), and with those cited by believe that Mr. Devecmon had read Grant White in a passage which he the drama in question. There is, himself has quoted with approbation. incredible as it may sound, Having read Webster's play thrice—

173 The George Greenwood Collection

which is more, I fear, than Mr. Lord Campbell can cite on the Greenwood had done by Campbell's average only two or three legal book—I will make good his allusions apiece: Webster's one play omission. The following "legal" yields over thirty. I do not for a phrases are cited as they come, Act moment pretend that they exhibit by Act. (Heresy 157-158) "deep" or "accurate" knowledge: I And Robertson does precisely that for two leave these follies to the other side, pages. The terms are those of property law, who profess to certify a dramatist's and 30 years later Clarkson and Warren lawyership on grounds that would compile a list of only 14 distinct property move a policeman to derision. The law terms in Webster's play. (They cite three question is whether Webster's plays from Shakespeare that exceed that multitude of "legalisms" do not, by number, including Hamlet.) So in strict every principle on which Lord numbers, Greenwood is proved right. But Campbell proceeded in his extracts the number is not really Greenwood's point, and his comments, exhibit tenfold more preoccupation with legal which Robertson has missed completely: matters than do Shakespeare's, and, How Mr. Greenwood, in the face of by mere variety of allusion, far more all this matter, can say that Mr. "knowledge." (Heresy 161-162) Devecmon's assertion "is an astounding perversion of the fact," I Greenwood's response presses home his cannot understand.…I am not original point that Robertson either fails to concerned to go into the question of grasp or purposefully avoids, the fact that the accuracy of Webster's or the question is best dealt with qualitatively: Massinger's phraseology: that is Presuming that by "the entire neither here nor there. Even question" he means the question Campbell, in flat contradiction of his whether or not Shakespeare's works own claims, admitted inaccuracies in (Plays and Poems) show, as a whole, Shakespeare; and Mr. Greenwood, in and speaking generally, more turn, fatally pressed by Mr. knowledge of law than the works of Devecmon, makes further other poets and dramatists, his admissions, forgetting that they contemporaries, for whom we are not absolutely destroy his own case, justified in assuming any special which rested not upon mere citation legal training or opportunity for of legal matter in Shakespeare, but acquiring legal knowledge, I am upon the repeated claim that quite content to accept this Shakespeare's law was impeccable, challenge. I repeat that The Devil's never open to demurrer or writ of Law Case shows no knowledge of error, and therefore possible only to law whatever on the part of its one within the freemasonry of the author. On the contrary, one might profession. It may be left to either be astonished that in a play the lawyers or laymen to judge for subject of which is a "law case" there themselves whether there is not should be such a dearth of anything much more show of legal knowledge that a lawyer can recognise as "law," and recourse to legal phraseology in were it not for the fact that the whole Webster than in Shakespeare. From thing is, of course, in the nature of an twenty-three of Shakespeare's plays, extravaganza. A clever writer like

174 The George Greenwood Collection

Webster, if he had been seriously phrases and expression, maxims and engaged in writing a legal drama, metaphors, on occasions when they would no doubt have got up his law would not suggest themselves to an beforehand, and in that case we ordinary layman, or where he might might, certainly, have been treated to think them actually mal à propos. many "legal expressions, some of (Problem 79-80) them highly technical and all […] correctly used." As it is, considering the nature of the play in question, it And here let me commend to Mr. is not surprising that such Robertson's consideration words expressions are conspicuous by their which I have recently lighted upon in absence. a little book entitled Was Shakespeare a Lawyer? by a Here I must advert to what seems to barrister who contents himself with me a very naïve observation made by the initials "H. T." Shakespeare, Mr. Robertson with reference to the writes this author (p. 4), shows that works of dramatists contemporary he was well acquainted with law, with Shakespeare, viz. "Where because "when he allows any of his Shakespeare merely uses legal characters to speak law, they not phrases, as often as not being professional lawyers, he makes metaphorically, the other dramatists them talk nonsense. In this he introduce actual matters of evinces a professional pride—a litigation." My comment here is: sentiment which is common to men "Exactly so." When "the other of all professions; hence dramatists" introduce "actual matters non-professionals are allowed to lay of litigation," they, as a natural and down bad law and to misuse legal inevitable consequence, introduce words. On the contrary, when his also legal terms and expressions, lawyers speak, their doctrine is more or less correctly used. The always sound, and their technical contention with regard to terms are correct." Shakespeare is that he introduces such expressions (whether This criticism well illustrates the "metaphorically" or otherwise) point I have endeavoured to make where there is no necessity for them, clear. A lawyer writing in his own and sometimes where they seem not personal capacity will use correct a little out of place, or even legal terms. A lawyer dramatist will "inartistic,"—pace Mr. Robertson. A make legal characters use correct man who puts on the stage "matters legal terms; but, if he is a skilful and of actual litigation" must talk law as artistic dramatist, he certainly will well as he can, and, doubtless, if a not make his lay characters speak in clever man, though no lawyer, he can the technical language of the trained get up his law well enough to avoid lawyer. (Problem 89-90) making many mistakes, or he may Robertson is silent after this response from get a lawyer friend to help him. But Greenwood. the man who is himself a lawyer, or who has had some legal training, is What are we to make of this debate, keeping frequently apt to bring in legal in mind that there are dozens of other issues

175 The George Greenwood Collection on which these two men debate, each with once, and that as support for the claim that the same revelation of Greenwood's clarity Shakespeare's use of legal terms were and Robertson's inability to grasp accurate (149-150). He only acknowledges Greenwood's points? At the very least we reading Shakespeare Law, in which would suspect that later writers would deal Greenwood deals with critics other than with Greenwood's qualitative points and Robertson. acknowledge that Robertson had been Barton cites Robertson for his "industry and bested. But we find nothing of the sort. research" in demonstrating that "Shakespeare's legal allusions were less numerous and far less technical than those Chapter V: The Selective- of Ben Jonson and other dramatists of that Amnesia Decades time." (10) He gives no indication that Robertson's "industry and research" contained marvelous flaws and were extensively critiqued by Greenwood. Table Three: The Selective Amnesia Another 13 years pass (one gets the feeling Decades that the Greenwood-Robertson debates were Writer's skeptical of Shakespeare's legal so decisive and embarrassing that time had knowledge appear in Bold. to pass in order for certain skeptics to count 1929 Sir Plunket Barton, Links Between on public forgetfulness) before Clarkson and Shakespeare and the Law Warren publish their book. Greenwood's 1942 Clarkson & Warren, The Law of name does not appear in the index, but he is Property in Shakespeare mentioned once in a footnote as support for 1954 Louis Marder, "Law in Shakespeare" their critique of Charles Allen's example of Renaissance Papers 1958 R. C. Churchill, Shakespeare and His supposed bad law in Shakespeare. Their Betters bibliography only lists one of Greenwood's 1962 H. N. Gibson, The Shakespeare books, Shakespeare's Law, while Robertson Claimants only gets three glancing mentions in 1967 George Keeton, Shakespeare's Legal & footnotes. Political Background 1972 O. Hood Phillips, Shakespeare and the In 1954 Louis Marder used Clarkson and Lawyers Warren to support his conclusion that 1991 S. Schoenbaum, Shakespeare's Lives 1993 Ian Wilson, Shakespeare: The Evidence "Shakespeare, therefore, was no lawyer" in a 1994 Daniel Kornstein, Kill All the Lawyers? short essay "Law in Shakespeare" that 1994 Irvin Matus, Shakespeare, IN FACT appeared in the booklet Renaissance Papers (41). In his brief history of the argument, In order to determine how later writers, Marder skips over any mention of critical of Shakespeare's having had legal Greenwood or Robertson. training, deal with Greenwood, I surveyed In 1958, R. N. Churchill wrote Shakespeare their works for references to Greenwood and and His Betters, an attempt to quell the new Robertson. life given to the Shakespeare authorship In 1929, 13 years after the final salvo in the controversy by the book This Star of Greenwood-Robertson debate, Sir Plunket England, written by Dorothy Ogburn and Barton wrote Links Between Shakespeare Charlton Ogburn, Sr., a lawyer. Churchill's and the Law. He only mentions Greenwood index gives 12 listings for Greenwood, 11 of which are incidental (for example, he twice

176 The George Greenwood Collection mentions that Greenwood and Robertson while himself supporting no were friends, and that he was president of particular alternative candidate and the Shakespeare fellowship and friends with always vigorously denying that he Thomas Looney, and so on). was a Baconian, delivered a But one reference stands out in its side- trenchant attack on the authorship of swiping effort: "Gilbert Standen's more the Stratford actor. This work J. M. recent Shakespeare Authorship: A Summary Robertson, with his wealth of of the Evidence is written from the point of Elizabethan scholarship, subjected to view of a Group Theorist who believes such a merciless criticism in The Oxford to be the leading figure. Neither this Baconian Heresy that it was left nor Slater's Seven Shakespeares nor the incapable of supporting anything, various works of Greenwood can truly claim even the wreckage of itself. (11-12, to be unbiased towards the traditional original italics) authorship. It would be surprising if they What is remarkable here is that Gibson lists were" (219-220). In other words, the only in his bibliography Is There a Shakespeare time Churchill finds Greenwood worth Problem?, which devotes several hundred mentioning is indirectly in a sweeping, pages to refuting The Baconian Heresy. He unsupported claim of bias. Robertson on the does not mention Shakespeare's Law and other hand gets several approving mentions Latin, which finalizes the refutation (160, 163-4, 219), but the reader still gets no regarding Shakespeare's knowledge of law sense that their was a detailed debate. and the classics. However, in the 1962 book The Shakespeare The next time he mentions Greenwood, he Claimants, H. N. Gibson mentions presents the reader with a promise to reveal Greenwood five times, does acknowledge Greenwood's arguments: the debate, giving the upper hand to Unlike all the other theorists, Robertson, and gives the kind of direct however, he had no particular attention to The Baconian Heresy that other candidate to put in the actor's place, writers before and after seem to avoid. The and he always indignantly repudiated reader gets a hint of how Gibson will handle the suggestion that he was a Greenwood early on: Baconian. The real author for him The classic work on this subject from was an unknown lawyer. There is no the Stratfordian viewpoint is The need to say anything about his Baconian Heresy by that very great arguments here – except that they Elizabethan scholar, J. M. Robertson. showed great forensic skill and an In the course of my investigations I equally great lack of Elizabethan have noticed a remarkable fact. Not a scholarship – for his work has single one of the theorists21 whose provided the exponents of each works I have read – and I have read theory in turn with most their many – ever mentions this important ammunition for bombarding the book.… I can conjecture only one Stratfordian defences. His arguments explanation for this strange therefore can be most conveniently suppression. One of the main props dealt with where they occur in the on all the theories is a book entitled various theories. (19) The Shakespeare Problem Restated, The reader patiently waits for those in which Sir George Greenwood, arguments. Then, as the book begins delving

177 The George Greenwood Collection into the argument over Shakespeare's legal less accurately" (34). He cites no examples, knowledge, he has reason to expect some as and he also makes no mention of Gibson brings in Robertson. Gibson admits Greenwood. that "As I can lay claim to no legal expertise But Milward W. Martin does, in his 1965 myself, I rely very largely for my criticism book Was Shakespeare Shakespeare? A of this part of the Baconian case on J. M. Lawyer Reviews the Evidence. Using words Robertson, who was not only a great suspiciously like Gibson's, he makes great Elizabethan scholar, but spent five years of claims for The Baconian Heresy: "Mr. his life in a lawyer's office" (49). He then Robertson, a great scholar of Elizabethan spends six pages summarizing Robertson's literature and himself with five years' legal arguments. experience in a lawyer's office, devotes over And what of Greenwood? He is never one hundred pages to listing citation after mentioned—precisely in the one area that citation from the Shakespearean plays (on would demand his presence. In fact, the which our anti-Stratfordian friends rely), reader must wade through another 220 pages following each with citation after citation before Gibson comes back to Greenwood in from many other contemporary authors the middle of a discussion of the First Folio using identical or equally legalistic where he states: language" (89-90). Of the arguments [the theorists] use Later Milward informs us, "In that manner only a few are original; many are Mr. J. M. Robertson utterly slaughters The borrowed from the writings of Sir Shakespeare Problem Restated with his The George Greenwood, whose whole Baconian Heresy" (114). We are expected to case, as we have already noted (see take on his authority that Robertson is a p. 49), was so roughly handled by J. reliable authority. Milward also approvingly M. Robertson in The Baconian quotes Clarkson and Warren, but he never Heresy that the name of this latter presents any notion that Greenwood work is never mentioned by the successfully refuted Robertson claims. theorists, and is carefully omitted Among other writers who address the from their bibliographies. (269) question of Shakespeare's legal knowledge Readers may be forgiven for not seeing is legal scholar George W. Keeton, who Greenwood's real arguments clearly stated— writes in his 1967 book Shakespeare's Legal they aren't. Gibson has pulled a sleight-of- and Political Background. The bibliography hand, promising to show something to come, lists five of Greenwood's books (including and then later, stating that it was shown. The the notoriously ignored Shakespeare's Law reader looks in vain. Rather, the reader only and Latin), but not The Shakespeare gets Robertson's arguments. For Gibson, Problem Restated, oddly enough. Keeton presenting only one side of a case is enough. seems not to have noticed Greenwood's James G. McManaway's, in his 1962 booklet refutations: The Authorship of Shakespeare (published [T]he writings of J. M. Robertson by The Folger Shakespeare Library), seems (who received a legal education in a to allude to Clarkson and Warren's The Law Scottish law office) and Sir Dunbar of Property without citation when he writes, Plunket Barton (an Irish judge of "Research has shown that Shakespeare uses high literary attainments) are acute, legal terms and situations less frequently and go far towards demolishing the than some of the other dramatists, and often assertion that Shakespeare's law is

178 The George Greenwood Collection

impeccable, and Sir Arthur how so many lawyers writing on this Underhill's verdict was in similar question can get so many facts wrong. In terms. Almost alone among modern any event, there is plenty of evidence that a English legal writers, Sir George critical reader must treat all authoritative Greenwood (who, like Robertson, statements with skepticism, especially those was deeply interested in the Bacon- that do not provide examples. Shakespeare controversy, although In 1972, the next skeptic, O. Hood Phillips, with a different viewpoint) is in the bibliography of his Shakespeare and inclined to accept the accuracy of the Lawyers lists four books by Greenwood, Shakespeare's use of legal but not Shakespeare's Law and Latin.22 terminology. (20) While mentioning Robertson several times Furthermore, in a footnote Keeton cites with implicit approval, Phillips mentions Greenwood as support for his contention Greenwood six times, twice as support for that critics who say Shakespeare erred in arguments concerning the single bond in The Shylock's having Antonio sign a single bond Merchant of Venice (104) and Charles (136). Allen's specious claims in Notes on the Keeton goes further: Bacon-Shakespeare Question. (135n) It is also necessary to compare Apart from inconsequential mentions Shakespeare's work with that of regarding Shakspere's will (18-20) and contemporary writers. This has Julius Caesar (137), two mentions are shown that Shakespeare's knowledge noteworthy. Phillips writes, "With regard to is not remarkable, wither in extent or Mariana's right to dower on Angelo's death accuracy, for the other Elizabethan for treason (Measure for Measure, V. I.), dramatists showed a similar Shakespeare gets the subtle point of law disposition to use legal terms. This right, apparently by accident." (134) Phillips point is made with clarity in Sir does not say why the correct usage must be Dunbar Plunket Barton's Links qualified as "apparently by accident," but he Between Shakespeare and the Law, does supply a note that points out that and more fully investigated in The "Greenwood suggest on the contrary that the Law of Property in Shakespearian passage may indicate the dramatist's [sic] and Elizabethan Drama by P. S. knowledge of law: Is There a Shakespeare Clarkson and C. T. Warren. These Problem? pp. 98-101." (134n) inquiries show that the frequent Phillips can't help but follow the tradition of references to fines and recoveries in side-swiping Greenwood without support: Shakespeare have their counterparts "Greenwood's early studies of Shakespeare's in plays by other Elizabethan law led him to disbelieve that the man of authors, and they seem to have been Stratford wrote the works, but later his fixed present to the minds of Elizabethan anti-Stratfordianism coloured his studies of writers almost as much as they were Shakespeare's law. Although a competent to Elizabethan lawyers. (15) lawyer, he sometimes misquoted But an examination of relevant section of Shakespeare" (166). If misquoting The Law of Property (128-133) reveals that Shakespeare had a bearing on Greenwood's precisely one other dramatist used the term legal arguments, Phillips doesn't supply any "fine and recovery"—Middleton, who did examples. study law at Gray's Inn. One has to wonder

179 The George Greenwood Collection

Finally, Daniel J. Kornstein, in his highly research that proves Shakespeare's praised 1994 book Kill All the Lawyers?, knowledge of law is not unusual when quotes approvingly both Mr. Phillips (232-3) compared to other dramatists. Clarkson and and Messrs. Clarkson and Warren (237-8).23 Warren studied 17 dramatists other than Kornstein does take Twain to task (properly Shakespeare. Four were members of the so) for claiming that only a "practicing" or Middle Temple, the Inner Temple, or Gray's trained lawyer can use legal terms Inn, and therefore would be eliminated from accurately, since Twain himself proves the the comparison:24 opposite by using legal terms accurately in Francis Beaumont (son of a judge, Pudd'nhead Wilson (230-232). Kornstein and a member of the Inner Temple) asserts that "Elizabethan dramatists often used legal allusions in their plays, and some John Ford (attended Middle Temple, used them more frequently and more friends at Gray's Inn) accurately than Shakespeare" (232). But he John Marston (member of the fails to give any evidence, simply pointing Middle Temple) the reader to other sources. Furthermore, he fails to mention Greenwood anywhere, Thomas Middleton (member of while Robertson's The Baconian Heresy Gray's Inn) does appear in the bibliography. John Fletcher would be eliminated What is to be made of this pattern of because of his connection to ignoring Greenwood and the debate, or Beaumont. Therefore, twelve citing him primarily as support for other dramatists remain: arguments? Clearly, there must be a problem George Chapman (no known with putting too much attention on connection to law, although he wrote Greenwood. As a writer, Greenwood "Memorable Maske of the two exhibits a level of clarity and persuasiveness Honorable Houses or Inns of Court, that simply overwhelms the kind of the Middle Temple and Lyncoln's opposition put up by Robertson. Inne", 1614, for the Princess Furthermore, Greenwood raises the difficult Elizabeth's nuptials.) specter of qualitative arguments. The Thomas Dekker skeptics focus on quantitative arguments. Furthermore, when the issue of Robert Greene Shakespeare's knowledge of law is far from Thomas Heywood the skeptic's mind, a few will occasionally Ben Jonson make an admission that reveals how deeply they actually regard Shakespeare's Thomas Kyd (a 'noverint' …a knowledge. Again, this knowledge appears notary… but never a member of an qualitatively, in ways that the skeptics Inn) apparently believe is inconsequential to the John Lyly argument. Christopher Marlowe The Law of Property Philips Massinger Many skeptics avoid the Greenwood- Robertson debates and hold up Clarkson and George Peele Warrens The Law of Property in Shakespeare and Elizabethan Drama as the

180 The George Greenwood Collection

Cyril Tourneur (no known Warren do not arrange their study to support connection to law…some question any of their propositions regarding his existence) Shakespeare's knowledge of law and possible legal training. They expect the John Webster reader to believe their authoritative Narrowing the scope to Property Law, propositions. How they expect to use a Clarkson and Warren cite examples from all quantitative methodology to refute the these. However, several dramatists are proposition that Shakespeare had legal deficient in the number and technicality of training is unclear. Just because one person the examples. Those with fewer than 50 uses more legal terms than another in no examples in a special index include: way establishes anything. John Ford (16 examples, 2 repeated) And the fact that they limit their study to Robert Greene (20 examples, 4 Property Law is telling: Since real property repeated) was closely connected to an Englishman's sense of self, social standing, and clout, it Thomas Kyd (2 examples) behooved him to know about the legal John Lyly (11 examples) aspects of acquiring, inheriting, possessing, distributing, defending, willing, and selling Christopher Marlowe (14 examples, property. It's safe to say most intelligent 2 repeated) Englishmen made some study of real John Marston (33 examples, 6 property and its legal terms, even when they repeated) had no legal training. George Peele (4 examples) The fact is, Clarkson and Warren unknowingly imply that there is evidence Cyril Tourneur (10 examples, 2 that Shakespeare had a far-reaching repeated) knowledge of law that transcended his John Webster (43 examples, 8 contemporaries: repeated) Long ago we realized that the subject Clarkson and Warren list six pages of of the law in the drama was so broad examples from Shakespeare covering quite a that it had best be treated in range (almost 280 examples, about 130 installments. References will be repeated). Of the remaining four non- noted throughout this book to later lawyers: treatises on the law pertaining to George Chapman (50 examples, Equity, Marriage and Divorce, about 12 repeated) Criminal Law, etc. For these our materials have already been Thomas Dekker (60 examples, about collected, and we hope to continue 14 repeated) this work with a series of volumes on Thomas Heywood (80 examples, those subjects. (xxvi) about 18 repeated) The authors never followed up with any Ben Jonson (124 examples, about 35 later volumes, but their willingness to repeated) propose such volumes possibly speaks volumes about the extent of Shakespeare's Quantitatively, Shakespeare overwhelms all law, for surely Shakespeare would remain dramatists, even Ben Jonson. Clarkson and

181 The George Greenwood Collection the centerpiece of later volumes. But still, were able to construct a legally accurate there quantitative method would be weak. trial. They stick to the landscape of Like most skeptics, Clarkson and Warren literalness. avoid a qualitative approach to resolving the The case for Shakespeare having had some debate. Let us now turn to some qualitative kind of extensive legal training, formal or evidence for Shakespeare's legal learning. informal, must rest on three kinds of qualitative arguments: 1) His extensive use of legal terms is completely accurate. Chapter: VI Shakespeare's 2) He uses legal terms, not only in their Legal Mind applicable technical use, but also in instances that have no bearing on the drama. In other words, he uses legal terms as metaphors, demonstrating the Table Four: Shakespeare's Legal kind of deeper grasp of their use that Mind generally arises from deep and long- term study, and that tends to develop a Writer's skeptical of Shakespeare's legal knowledge appear in Bold. mature metaphorical legal mind. 1942 Clarkson & Warren, The Law of 3) He demonstrates in his dramas a Property in Shakespeare historical and philosophical grasp of 1965 Mark Andrews, Law v. Equity in The law that transcends the mere rewriting Merchant of Venice of Holinshed's Chronicles. He exhibits 1967 George Keeton, Shakespeare's Legal & the kind of deep and searching Political Background 1972 O. Hood Phillips, Shakespeare and the understanding of law and legal Lawyers questions that is the domain of one 1973 W. Nicholas Knight, Shakespeare's Hidden who has had legal training, who has Life read legal works extensively and 1982 Jack Benoit Gohn, "Richard II: thoughtfully, and who has engaged in Shakespeare's Legal Brief on the Royal Prerogative and the Succession to the Throne" The Georgetown extensive legal conversations with Law Review like-minded students of law. In short, 1994 Daniel Kornstein, Kill All the Lawyers? he exhibits a mature philosophical 1995 Eric Sams, "The Law-Clerk" The Real legal mind. Shakespeare 2000 Sokal and Sokal, Shakespeare's Legal This section focuses on the latter two Language - A Dictionary arguments. And in the process, we will see Skeptics of Shakespeare's legal knowledge that when skeptics are not thinking about the tend strongly to rely on quantitative data: question of Shakespeare's legal training, counting the number of legal terms used, they inadvertently supply evidence for the and comparing the number of technical legal supporters. In fact, all the authorities cited as terms used among dramatists. In those rare support in this section are skeptics. cases where they address qualitative A Mature Metaphorical and Philosophical arguments, their response is perfunctory. For Legal Mind example, they will point to Shakespeare's trial scenes and then supply examples of Supporters tend to cite Hamlet's famous other dramatists who were not lawyers yet speech in the grave-digging scene as an

182 The George Greenwood Collection example that only a trained lawyer could himself, have written the speech: Maker of marriage, He that hath Ham. There's another: Why may not seal'd the deed, that be the skull of a lawyer? Where As a firm lease unto you during life, be his quiddities now, his quillets, Sits now as Judge of your his cases, his tenures, and his tricks? transgression: why does he suffer this rude knave, The world informs against you with now, to knock him about the sconce this voice, with a dirty shovel, and will not tell If such sins reign, what mortals can him of his action of battery? Humph! rejoice? This fellow might be in's time a great Scarborow. What then ensues to me? buyer of land, with his statutes, his Doctor. A heavy doom, whose recognizances, his fines, his double execution's vouchers, his recoveries: Is this the Now served upon your conscience. fine of his fines, and the recovery of (99) his recoveries, to have his fine pate As much as I hate to disagree with Grant full of fine dirt? will his vouchers White, I believe these two passages are not vouch him no more of his purchases, parallel. Wilkes uses legal terms that are and double ones, too, than the length much more likely to be generally known: and breadth of a pair of indentures? oath, bond, seal, contracts, forfeiture, suit, The very conveyances of his lands jurors, witnesses, seal'd, deed, lease, Sits, will hardly lie in this box; and must Judge, informs, doom, execution, served. the inheritor himself have no more? The metaphors tend to be simple and ha? (Act V. Sc. 1. 96-110, italics obvious, even to a modern layman so that added) they would hardly need annotating. Grant White points out that "the hunting of a Now compare those terms to Shakespeare's: metaphor or conceit into the ground is a quiddities, quillets, cases, tenures, action, fault characteristic of Elizabethan literature." battery, statutes, recognizances, fines, He supplies a parallel in George Wilkins's double vouchers, recoveries, vouchers, The Miseries of Enforced Marriage, purchases, double ones, indentures, claiming that this kind of piling on of conveyances, inheritor. figurative of law phrases supplies little Both use 17 law terms. But the modern support and that Hamlet's speech is not reader of Hamlet will be driven to the much use as evidence: footnotes to grasp the humor of this opaque Doctor. Now, Sir, from this your passage. Let's look at how the Arden editor oath and bond, glossed these: Faith's pledge and seal of quiddities . . . quillities] quibbling conscience, You have run, arguments. The second word appears Broken all contracts, and the to be a mere variant of the first, forfeiture which referred originally to the Justice hath now in suit against your sophistical arguments of the schools soul: concerning the quidditas or essential Angels are made the jurors, who are nature of a thing and afterwards to witnesses fine legal distinctions.25 Unto the oath you took; and God

183 The George Greenwood Collection

tenures] terms on which property is terminology, but one capable of exploiting held. the nuances of the meanings to superb and his action of battery] i.e. his liability razor-sharp effect. Take for example the passage on fines: "Is this the fine of his fines, to an action for assault. and the recovery of his recoveries, to have his statutes, his recognizances] Often his fine pate full of fine dirt?" The four coupled together, the recognizance meanings of "fine" here are worth being a bond acknowledging a debt explicating. The fine of his fines means the or obligation, the statute (statute final result (Latin fine as in "the end") of his merchant or state staple, according to fines (the legal term for an action leading to the manner of record) securing the an agreement). Shakespeare then plays those debt upon the debtor's land. meanings into "fine pate full of fine dirt" (a fines . . . recoveries] A fine (an handsome head full of finely powdered dirt). action leading to an agreement But even the Arden editors have missed an calling itself finalis concordia) and a even deeper pun. Over 100 years earlier in recovery (a suit for obtaining Shakespeare a Lawyer, Rushton pointed out possessions) were procedures for that the final fine could also mean "the end," effecting the transfer of estates when and that "his fine pate is filled, not with fine an entail or other obstacle prevented dirt, but with the last dirt that will ever simple sale. A voucher in a recovery occupy it, leaving a satirical inference to be suit was the process of summoning a drawn, that even in his lifetime his head was third party to warrant the holder's filled with dirt" (10). title, and the customary double voucher involved a second These kinds of wordplay on legal terms would not be the kind of wordplay you warrantor. would find in a Stratford tavern. These are the fine] the final result. This begins the wordplay of law students attending one a series of four different meanings of the Inns of Court, like Gray's Inn, where for the same word (handsome pate, would-be lawyers are trained. Passages like powdered dirt).26 these point to a legal mind that has the recovery] the whole gain. associated with other legal minds. pair of indentures] a deed duplicated In Antony and Cleopatra, Lepidus speaks of on a single sheet which was then Antony's faults, and uses the legal term divided by a zigzag (indented) cut so "purchase" as a metaphor (used properly to that the fitting together of the two mean real estate acquired in a manner other parts would prove their genuineness. than descent—that is, other than by All the land the purchaser finally has hereditary): (his grave) is no bigger than the His faults, in him, seem as the spots indentures which convey it. of heaven, inheritor] acquirer (382, 383) More fiery by night's blackness; hereditary Now the reader may be excused for thinking Rather than purchas'd. that even these notes need to be glossed. (Act I, Sc. IV, 12-14) What immediately becomes clear is that we are dealing here with a deep and penetrating Robertson cites over 120 examples of other mind, one that is not only well-versed in the dramatists who used the term "purchase,"

184 The George Greenwood Collection and not one of them is an example of a procedure of which the dramatist so metaphorical use of "purchase" in its effortlessly avails himself. (29, italics technical legal meaning. Furthermore, since added) Robertson was apparently trying to be Writing in 1967, Keeton demonstrates that thorough, it is rather astonishing that he he is familiar with the early history of the would not stumble upon a single example of argument, citing Campbell, Rushton, Grant its technical legal meaning even in a non- White, Devecmon, Robertson, Greenwood, metaphorical usage. Plunket Barton, and Clarkson and Warren. Clarkson and Warren find only one other And although he comes down on the side of dramatist, Fletcher, who uses the technical Robertson, and Clarkson and Warren, he can term as a metaphor, but Fletcher always still say this: collaborated. He framed the larger issues of Those [legal allusions] collected by his dramas and collaborated with others to Campbell are by no means supply the details. His collaborators (as cited exhaustive, but they are nevertheless by Clarkson and Warren) all had legal extremely impressive. Some of them training: Francis Beaumont, of the Inner were near the surface of Temple; John Ford, of the Middle Temple; Shakespeare's inventive brain. There and James Shirley, of Gray's Inn. Clarkson are numerous references to bonds, and Warren leave the impression that since often with a clear appreciation of only one other playwright (who collaborated their legal consequences. References with lawyers) used the word in the way to leases are frequent, both in the Shakespeare did, there is nothing unusual 27 Plays and in the Sonnets. Indeed, it is about Shakespeare's knowledge of law. a striking fact that the Sonnets George W. Keeton also points out (written by Shakespeare as a youth) Shakespeare's use of "purchase" in Henry are possible the richest in such IV, Part II, saying, "Again, the reader is references, and the lawyer can only impressed by Shakespeare's accurate use of admire the richness of the imagery the term 'purchase.'" (30) Although Keeton which these allusions create. (29, takes the orthodox position that italics added) Shakespeare's use of legal terms is nothing Notice that Keeton is not saying that unusual, he cannot help but reveal his Shakespeare merely used technical legal discomfort with that notion: terms. He is saying that he used them in There are, however, many allusions such a way that demonstrate their being in the plays which cannot be so "near the surface" of his brain, and that the readily explained. The interesting richness of the imagery are worthy of problems presented by The Merchant admiration by other lawyers. This is the kind of Venice, and by Shakespeare's of language that Lord Campbell and Lord knowledge of the famous case of Penzance used decades earlier. Are we then Hales v. Petit, will be discussed to expect that the creator of such richness of later. These are major matters. No legal imagery, who demonstrates such "clear close reader of the plays can fail to appreciation," such invention near the be impressed by the number of "surface of his brain," whose allusions are extraordinarily apt, and usually "extremely impressive," especially to incidental, references to incidents lawyers, was not himself legally trained? (sometimes quite minor) of legal The mind boggles.

185 The George Greenwood Collection

But there's more. Keeton points to lines in edifice by mistaking the place where Sonnet XIII: I erected it." "So should that beauty which you What a sudden flash of legal hold in lease knowledge, to appear in such a Find no determination" context!28 (31) In legal parlance, a lease is always Again, what impresses Keeton in this determined, when it is brought to an passage is how apparently irrelevant the end. Admittedly, Shakespeare as a legal allusion is to the context. Keeton property-owner knew something of implies that Shakespeare must have this kind leases, but would he automatically, of knowledge imprinted on his brain to be and so felicitously, have spoken of a able to access it in such a context. And how lease's determination, had he been does one acquire such imprinting? Through completely innocent of legal training, through skilled associations, education? For anyone less than through long-term and deep study. Shakespeare, "determination" would Daniel Kornstein also finds the Shakespeare be an awkward word to use in a plays full of law, with over 20 of them sonnet. (29-30, italics added) containing trial scenes: Keeton wants to believe that Shakespeare Several other plays have many had a legal education, but he is constrained comments on the problems of law, by the conventional biography that fairly lawyers, revenge, equity, clearly admits no legal education for government, the nature of the state, Shakspere of Stratford. So what does Keeton the nature and transfer of power, do? With the phrase "For anyone less than inheritance, and contracts. Shakespeare" he supplies an escape using a form of the Satan Maneuver. Shakespeare's Taken together, the plays reflect genius allows him to do without training much knowledge of legal intricacies. what others could only do with training. Legal themes of one kind or another run throughout. And woven all Among many more examples, Keeton finds though, liked barbed wire sewn into a particularly noteworthy one, previously a tapestry, are deftly cutting mentioned, in The Merry Wives of Windsor: observations about law and lawyers, Scattered though the plays there are each glinting shard designed to draw frequent references to the fee simple, just a little blood from the legal and a number also to fines and profession. Even where there are no recoveries, both of which were legal terms and allusions, the plays common modes of establishing title have a style of philosophical debate to freehold land in Shakespeare's and discourse aimed at lawyers. Law day; but in The Merry Wives of is essential to our understanding and Windsor (Act II, Scene ii) we have a interpretation of Shakespeare's striking simile from Ford. When works: great art is often inspired by a asked the quality of his love, he passion for justice. (xii) replies: He goes on to paraphrases William Carlos "Like a fair house built on another Williams: "Shakespeare is the greatest law man's ground; so that I have lost my school of them all" (xiii). Kornstein then exhibits the split consciousness of one who

186 The George Greenwood Collection acknowledges Shakespeare's extraordinary So when the clowns argue over Ophelia's and deeply rooted legal knowledge, but burial, they are parodying the arguments of excuses it as something that could easily be Hale v. Petit: acquired "by common reading, conversation, Grave. Is she to be buried in and life experience in legal London" (xiii). Christian burial, when wilfully seeks But he does not seriously examine the her own salvation? implied questions he raises: Is there Other. I tell you she is, therefor evidence in Shakespeare the writer of make her grave straight. The crowner uncommon legal reading? Did Shakspere the hath sat on her, and finds it Christian man have the kind of legally trained burial. associates who would spend extraordinary Grave. How can that be, unless she time educating and discussing technical drowned herself in her own defence? matters of law and legal philosophy? Does Other. Why, 'tis found so. Shakspere's legal experience cover the law Grave. It must be se offendendo; it in the plays? cannot be else. For here lies the point: if I drown myself wittingly, it Hale v. Petit argues an act; and an act hath three Lord Campbell, Keeton, and many other branches—it is to act, to do, to writers have mentioned that the graveyard perform; argal, she drowned herself scene in Hamlet reveals that Shakespeare wittingly. had read Plowden's report on the case of Other. Nay, but hear you, Goodman Hale v. Petit. The case involved the action Delver— by Hale's widow on a lease that was granted Grave. Give me leave. Here lies the by the Crown to Petit. Sir James Hale, a water—good: here stands the man— Judge of the Common Pleas, was good. If the man go to this water and imprisoned for participating in a conspiracy drown himself, it is, will he, nill he, to make Lady Jane Grey queen. He was he goes; mark you that. But if the released after being induced to renounce his water come to him and drown him, Protestant principles. he drowns not himself. Argal, he that Apparently the episode deeply affected him, is not guilty of his own death for he first attempted to commit suicide by shortens not his own life. opening his veins with a knife, and later Other. But is this law?Z succeeded by drowning himself in a river. Grave. Ay' marry is't, crowner's The inquest ruled felo de se (a murderer of quest law. himself), he was buried at a crossroads, and (Act V. Sc. 1. 1-22) all his lands were forfeited to the crown. The The humor of this passage would only be property in question was granted jointly to caught by those who were familiar with the him and his wife by the Archbishop. The Hale v. Petit case. The gravediggers mangle widow tried to argue that, since forfeiture the terms (argal for ergo, crowner's quest can only occur for an event during Hale's for coroner's inquest). But there are two lifetime, that the property was not forfeit. problems with assuming that this passage Suicide was an act of a person killing would be understood by a general audience. himself, and therefore it was not an act that First, the case was decided in 1561. could occur during his lifetime. The widow Therefore, while such a case would stay lost. with students of law for many decades to

187 The George Greenwood Collection come, it is unlikely that such a case would completely as is done in Hamlet. I be in the public mind 40 years later when have mentioned this fact in my Hamlet was published. Second, Plowden's recently published "History of the Reports are not written in English. They are Penal Laws against Suicides," but as written in Norman French, or "law French," all the parallels and allusions an uncommon technical language restricted contained in the play were not there to lawyers, judges, and law students. They pointed out, I will now attempt to were not translated. So this passage fully give them. constitutes evidence that Shakespeare read Shakespeare has accurately stated the law French, as students of law would, and laws of the Church and of the furthermore supports the view that he Statutes in England, at the time he associated with other students of law. wrote, and not the laws of Denmark, Keeton, for one, recognizes Shakespeare's in Hamlet's time. (6) acuity in this passage: Keeton also points out that evidence exists That Shakespeare was familiar with for Shakespeare's command of international the reasoning in this highly law. interesting decision is scarcely open to question, but it should be noticed In mediaeval warfare [heralds] had that the gravedigger correctly takes a an exceedingly important function, further point. In Hales' case, it was and must necessarily be of gentle not disputed that he threw himself birth. They are obsolete in modern into the water. He was therefore International Law, and were rightly found guilty of suicide; but becoming so in Shakespeare's time. the core of the first gravedigger's Nevertheless, where Shakespeare argument is that, in Ophelia's case, makes use of them he does so with the water came to her, that is, that strict accuracy. (87) she accidentally drowned or, at the And in King John Keeton discusses how very least, she could not be proved to Shakespeare shows that he understands the have deliberately drowned herself. law of bastardy in ways that go beyond the (188) source play, The troublesome Reigne of But Keeton fails to mention that the case John, King of England. For the trial scene, was not available in English. Keeton takes issue with a note by Furness in his edition of the play where he claims that Almost 100 years earlier, another lawyer, R. "Shakespeare was 'out on his law.' On the A. Guernsey in Ecclesiastical Law in contrary, John's judgment is strikingly Hamlet: The Burial of Ophelia, saw the accurate." (127-8) But Keeton does not stop entire scene as strong evidence that there: Shakespeare had mastered the ecclesiastical law regarding suicide. Acknowledging that From first to last, this lengthy trial the gravedigger's dialogue is always scene abounds with legal absurdities, discussed by writers, Guernsey points out and possibly no other of that none note all the law present in the Shakespeare's plays illustrates so scene, law that goes beyond the case of Hale clearly the nature of his art as v. Petit. applied to legal topics. If it would be putting it too high to say that No law writer has yet stated the Shakespeare had fully mastered the English law relating to suicides so

188 The George Greenwood Collection

law of bastardy, as it existed in his the historical sophistication to grapple with day, it is nevertheless true that he these problems" (955).29 showed the same close and (in Shakespeare's mind is comprehensive general) accurate observation on indeed, and many writers have commented legal topics as on many others, and on it, to the point that the reader wonders that this accurate observation is one how such an individual could have acquired of the distinguishing features of such a range and depth of topics. But there is Shakespeare's dramatic art. (130- another interesting aspect to Shakespeare's 131, italics added) mind. One writer recently wrote: Again, the mind boggles that Keeton would The filaments of his thought are align himself with the skeptics. Page after astonishing in their variety....one can page, Keeton gives evidence for find pragmatism, atheism, Shakespeare's legal education and deep (nineteenth-century) liberalism, study, and time after time he uses the Satan materialism, aestheticism, Maneuver to get out of what is otherwise utilitarianism, militarism, biological, clear: Shakespeare was more than just an social, and historical Darwinism, observer of law. He was trained. skepticism, nihilism, Nietzschean Where Hale v. Petit and King John vitalism and 'will to power,' demonstrate not only a knowledge of Calvinism, logical positivism, technical law but also the philosophy of law, stoicism, behaviorism, and another lawyer has found greater evidence existentialism, together with the of Shakespeare's command of the history explicit rejection of most of these and philosophy of law pertaining to the 'isms'.... (Posner xix-xx) succession to the throne. Lawyer Jack Sound familiar? Such a description has often Benoit Gohn wrote a 1982 article for The been noted about Shakespeare's mind. But Georgetown Law Journal on Richard II and this passage was not written about the way that the play could be presented as a Shakespeare. The author, a Federal Circuit legal brief. Gohn points out how Court judge, wrote that passage about Shakespeare grasped the importance of law, Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell especially as it affected human history. By Holmes. In other words, the description examining the legal arguments in Richard II, above opens the door to an intriguing he demonstrates that "Shakespeare used the probability—that the Shakespearean mind historical overthrow of King Richard II to was not that of a lawyer, but rather was that justify the absolute power of the monarch of a judge. How so? and also provide for a method of choosing the monarch's successor when the rules of The Shakespeare mind displays a succession failed" (943). remarkable objectivity, the kind of objectivity and equipoise that allows the Furthermore, Gohn contends that reader to find a variety of philosophies and Shakespeare used the play as an example of positions in the writings. As stated by Russ how to resolve the problem of succession McDonald in Shakespeare and the Arts of regarding Queen Elizabeth, by depicting a Language, "[T]he dramatist encourages in nation in a midst of constitutional crisis, and his audience a receptiveness to multiple the consequent breakdown of the legal points of view, a refusal of absolutes, an order. Gohn's judgment of the author is awareness of the competing claims of strong: "Shakespeare had both the legal and incompatible interpretations" (49).

189 The George Greenwood Collection

The consciousness of a lawyer is that of an would absolutely nullify that effect and advocate, one who takes sides, one who proof" (33). From this skeptic's statement argues for or against something. The we can infer that a writer who frequently consciousness of an experienced judge is uses legal terms, with their proper technical quite different. The judge examines all sides, meanings, is likely one who has had legal tries to understand and argue for and against training. But there is more. all sides. A judge who responds to the What distinguishes the formally learned complexity of human action and experience from the unlearned (or those who acquire often distrusts the easy fix, the quick information from second-hand sources) is solution, the thoughtless procedure or rule or how information transforms into a deeper custom. Judges experience over time how understanding. Anyone who has studied both sides of a case can be valid. And how a long and deeply any field of study knows the case can uncover deeper related issues. The experience of deeper mastery—how mastery profession of a judge molds a thoughtful of a subject begins to work on the mind into one of remarkable and profound consciousness in such a way that it objectivity, depth, and range—Exactly what transforms and informs one's view of the we find in Shakespeare. world. Chief Justice John C. Wu in Fountain of The master of mathematics sees a different Justice, in an essay discussing "Natural Law world than the savvy student who knows the in Shakespeare," presents a series of mere definitions, and who can memorize examples punctuated by summary and correctly use advanced equations. And a statements that support the notion that master mathematician does not need much Shakespeare has the mind of a judge: time to determine whether the pretender to "Shakespeare… know[s] his common law mathematical mastery actually is a master. and natural law pretty well. He knows the Furthermore, a master mathematician who psychological reason for case law….He reads an author whose series of literary knows the importance of tempering the works use mathematical terms, not only with rigours of the law with equity…He knows perfect accuracy, but also metaphorically in the importance of observing degree, contexts outside of mathematics—such a proportion, form and order, which to him are master mathematician will gradually objective standards of right and wrong presume that the author is also a master. because they have an ontological basis….No Like minds respond to and recognize each one has painted more vividly 'the majesty other. and power of law and justice'" (86-87). Mastery makes the terminology a part of one's world view. A master of legal studies Chapter VII: Conclusions and the history of law, and the philosophical implications of differing systems of justice, goes far beyond mere technical usage. Such Shakespeare used legal terminology with a master begins to see the hidden similarities perfect accuracy. William C. Devecmon between the objects of the world and the stated that "Though the frequent use of legal distinctions that form the foundation of the terms, with their proper technical meanings, master's discipline. Legal terms enter the has a cumulative effect, and tends strongly realm of metaphor. to prove a legal training; yet a very few What distinguishes Shakespeare's use of errors in such use, if glaring and gross, legal terms has nothing to do with the

190 The George Greenwood Collection quantity of terms or mere technical usage in containing these terms and concepts fills 40 legal matters: Shakespeare had a wide- pages with approximately 1600 references ranging legal understanding integrated into using over 200 distinct terms and concepts his consciousness, the kind of consciousness (dramatically displaying the inadequacy of that would draw on legal terms in non-legal Clarkson and Warren's efforts). contexts, where the apt legal metaphor of The authors acknowledge in the introduction excellent understanding and quality is that, even though the bare statistics supports applied. It is this mastery and integration a case that Shakespeare was law-obsessed, that judges and lawyers have responded to other dramatists were law-obsessed as well; over the last two centuries. Malone, and that legal language "was common Rushton, Campbell, White, Greenwood, and currency in Shakespeare's litigious age…" others have all recognized a like-minded (1). They warn against "legal word-spotting" individual, a man of the craft, possessing as a reliable indicator that "Shakespeare even a greater understanding than theirs. took a precise or detailed account of Stratfordians bent on quantitative analysis substantive English law" (3). Nevertheless: have acknowledged Shakespeare's [T]he overall impression given by metaphorical usage without realizing its this Dictionary may well contradict implications. Irvin Matus in his frequently reiterated claims that Shakespeare, IN FACT unwittingly lets it Shakespeare's interest in law was at slip through in praising Clarkson and best superficial, and that Warren: Shakespeare exploited legal ideas, Clarkson and Warren's verdict is that circumstances, and language with no Shakespeare's references "must be regard for any factor aside from explained on some grounds other 'poetic' effect. It is our view, derived than that he was a lawyer, or an from cumulative evidence, that on apprentice, or a student of the law." the contrary Shakespeare shows a What separates him from the others quite precise and mainly serious is his knack for making legal terms interest in the capacity of legal serve his drama, in the opinion of language to convey matters of social, Justice Dunbar Plunket Barton. moral, and intellectual substance. "Where Shakespeare's legal allusions (3)31 surpassed those of his Although it's still academically dangerous to contemporaries," he said, ". . . was in say so, the authors clearly imply that this their quality and their aptness rather conveying of such matters, this deep and than in their quantity or abiding interest in law as it relates to "social, technicality." (272) moral, and intellectual substance," indicates Exactly. legal mastery. Perhaps the tide is turning. Finally, in 2000 as part of its Athlone Shakespeare Dictionary Series, The Athlone Press published Shakespeare's Legal Language: A Dictionary by Sokal and Sokal.30 The comprehensive dictionary fills over 400 pages of detailed discussion of Shakespeare's legal terms and concepts. Furthermore, an index of passages

191 The George Greenwood Collection

Greenwood, George. The Shakespeare Problem Restated. London: John Lane, 1908. Works Cited ______Shakespeare's Law and Latin. London, Watts & Co., 1916. ______Is There a Shakespeare Problem? Books and Monographs London: John Lane, 1916. (Multiple works by one author are listed ______Shakespeare's Law. London: Cecil chronologically.) Palmer, 1920. Andrews, Mark Edwin. The Law versus Guernsey, R. S. Ecclesiastical Law in Equity in The Merchant of Venice. Boulder: Hamlet: The Burial of Ophelia. New York: University of Colorado Press, 1965. The Shakespeare Society of New York, Allen, Charles. Notes on the Bacon- 1885. Shakespeare Question. Boston: Houghton, Heard, Franklin Fiske. Shakespeare as a Mifflin and Co., 1900. Lawyer. Buffalo: William S. Hein Co., Barton, Sir Dunbar Plunket. Links Between 1987. the Law and Shakespeare. Boston: Keeton, George W. Shakespeare's Legal and Houghton, Mifflin and Co., 1929. Political Background. London: Sir Isaac Campbell, Lord. Shakespeare Legal Pitman & Sons Ltd., 1967. Acquirements. New York: D. Appleton and Knight, W. Nicholas. Shakespeare's Hidden Company, 1859. Life: Shakespeare at the Law 1585-1595. Castle, Edward James. Shakespeare, Bacon, New York: Mason & Lipscomb, 1973. Jonson and Greene. London: Sampson Low, Kornstein, Daniel J. Kill All the Lawyers? Marston, & Co., 1897. Shakespeare's Legal Appeal. Princeton: Clarkson, Paul S. & Warren, Clyde T. The Princeton University Press, 1994. Law of Property in Shakespeare and the McDonald, Russ. Shakespeare and the Arts Elizabethan Drama. Baltimore: The John of Language. Oxford: Oxford University Hopkins Press, 1942. Press, 2001. Collins, J. Churton. Studies in Shakespeare. McManaway, James G. The Authorship of Westminster: Archibald Constable & Co., Shakespeare. Washington: The Folger 1904. Shakespeare Library, 1962. Devecmon, William C. IN RE Shakespeare's Malone, Edmond (ed.). The Plays and 'Legal Acquirements': Notes by an Poems of William Shakespeare. 2 volumes. Unbeliever Therein. New York: The London: 1790. Shakespeare Press, 1899. Matus, Irvin Leigh. Shakespeare, IN FACT. Fuller, R. F. "Shakspere as a Lawyer." New York: Continuum Publishing Upper Canada Law Journal. 9. (1863): 91- Company, 1994. 97. Milward, Martin W. Was Shakespeare Gibson, H. N. The Shakespeare Claimants. Shakespeare? New York: Cooper Square New York: Barnes & Noble Inc., 1962. Publishers, Inc., 1965

192 The George Greenwood Collection

Nashe, Thomas. The Unfortunate Traveller Saunders, J. W. A Biographical Dictionary and Other Works. New York: Penguin of Renaissance Poets and Dramatists, 1520- Books, Ltd., 1972. 1650. Brighton: The Harvester Press, 1983. Nicoll, Allardyce. Shakespeare. London: Schoenbaum, S. Shakespeare's Lives. New Methuen, 1952. edition. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1991. Ogburn, Charlton. The Mysterious William Twain, Mark. Is Shakespeare Dead? New Shakespeare. 2nd ed. McLean: EPM York: Harper & Brothers, 1909. Publications, Inc., 1992. Ward, B. M., The Seventeenth Earl of Penzance, Lord. (Sir James Plaisted Wilde.) Oxford. London: John Murray, 1929. The Bacon-Shakespeare Controversy: A Webb, Judge. The Mystery of William Judicial Summing Up. London: Sampson Shakespeare. London: Longmans, Green Low, Marston & Co., 1902. and Co., 1902. Phillips, O. Hood, Shakespeare and the White, Edward J. Commentaries on the Law Lawyers. London: Methuen & Co Ltd., in Shakespeare. St. Louis: The F. H. 1972. Thomas Law Book Co., 1911, 1913. Posner, Richard A., ed. The Essential White, Richard Grant. Memoirs of the Life Holmes. Chicago: The University of of Shakespeare. Boston: Little, Brown, and Chicago Press, 1992. Co., 1865. Robertson, J. M. Did Shakespeare Write Wilkes, George. Shakespeare, From and Titus Andronicus? London, Watts & Co., American Point of View. London: Sampson 1905. Low, Marston, & Co., 1877, 1882. ______The Baconian Heresy. New York: E. Wilson, Ian. Shakespeare: The Evidence. P. Dutton, 1913. New York, St. Martin's Press, 1993. ______An Introduction to the Shakespeare Wu, John C. H. Fountain of Justice. Canon. New York: E. P. Dutton, 1924. London: Sheed and Ware, 1959. Rowse, A. L. Shakespeare The Man. New York: Harper & Row, 1973. Articles from Periodicals, Law Journals, Rushton, William Lowes. Shakespeare A and Other Sources Lawyer. London: Longmans, Green, and Alexander, Mark. "Shakespeare's 'Bad Co.,1858. Law'". The Shakespeare Oxford Newsletter. ______Shakespeare's Legal Maxims. 36.2. (Summer 2000): 1, 9-13. Liverpool: Henry Young & Sons, 1859, Anon. Household Words. (1858): 454-456. 1907. Anon. "Shakspeare a Lawyer." Legal ______Shakespeare's Testamentary Observer. 1. (1830): 27-29. Language. London: Longmans, Green, and Co.,1869. Anon. Review of Shakespeare's Testamentary Language. Law Magazine and Sams, Eric. The Real Shakespeare. New Review. 27. (1869):162-163. Haven: Yale University Press, 1995. Gohn, Jack Benoit. "Richard II: Shakespeare's Legal Brief on the Royal Prerogative and the Succession to the

193 The George Greenwood Collection

Throne". The Georgetown Law Journal. "an exhaustive study of legalisms." The 70.3. (1982): 943-973. book's title confines the scope to "The Law "Hales v. Petit". Plowden I. (1561): 253- of Property," and the authors admit the need to narrow the scope: "Long ago we realized 265. that the subject of the law in the drama was Hughes, Stephanie Hopkins. "'Shakespeare's' so broad that it had best be treated in Tutor: Sir Thomas Smith (1513-1577)." The installments. References will be noted Oxfordian. III. (2000): 19-44. throughout this book to later treatises on the Jolli, Eddi. "'Shakespeare' and Burghley's law pertaining to Equity, Marriage and Library." The Oxfordian. III. (2000): 3-18. Divorce, Criminal Law, etc." (xxvi) The authors have yet to deliver the promised Kathman, David. Letter to The Elizabethan installments (which must necessarily include Review. 5.2. (Autumn 1997): 21-23. International, Maritime, and Commercial Marder, Louis. "Law in Shakespeare," Law, as well as the law administered by the Renaissance Papers 1954. University of Privy Council and the Star Chamber). Mr. South Carolina. (1954): 40-44. Phillips points much of this out in Shakespeare & the Lawyers. A quick scan of Sprague, Homer B, "Shakespeare's Alleged Holdsworth's History of English Law, Vol. V Blunders in Legal Terminology." Yale Law reveals that the percentage of English Law Journal. II. (1902): 304-316. covered by Clarkson and Warren can be no White, Richard Grant. "William more than a single digit. Shakespeare – Attorney at Law and Solicitor 4 Available on the Web. Search in Chancery." Atlantic Monthly. 4. (1859): http://groups.google.com. The post is dated 84-105. 08/24/1999, the Subject line "Re: Wright, Daniel L. "'He was a scholar and a Shakespeare's Misuse of Legal Terms" and ripe and good one': The Education of the the Author "David Kathman." Or go directly Seventeenth Earl of Oxford, Mirrored in the to: Shakespeare Canon." The Oxfordian. I. http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr= (1998): 64-85. &safe=off&th=8e945ace88338ebd&rnum=2 &ic=1&selm=37C37A2C.3B37%40ix.netco m.com End Notes 5 For an extended discussion of non-lawyers who accurately portray the law in fiction, 1 Portions of many pre-1925 texts mentioned see Kornstein's Kill All the Lawyers? p. 236. in this essay are available free on the Web at 6 Because trial scenes are easily created by The Shakespeare Law Library. non-lawyers, those scenes in The Merchant 2 Whatever shortcomings I find with O. of Venice and Measure for Measure are not Hood Phillips, his book Shakespeare & the discussed in this essay. Andrews' The Law Lawyers is an indispensable aid to anyone of Equity in The Merchant of Venice is often researching this argument. With remarkable cited as a good argument for Shakespeare's exceptions (noted later), Phillips provides a mastery of the law of equity, but whatever comprehensive review of the literature. the merits of that case, Andrews' argument is weak, in my opinion. I may address these 3 Kathman is plainly wrong in claiming that two plays when this essay is expanded into a Messrs. Clarkson and Warren's 1942 book is book.

194 The George Greenwood Collection

7 The one notable holdout is Eric Sams in Underhill won't say, but the point is that his 1995 book The Real Shakespeare. Francis Bacon was a specialist in equity who 8 Heard's Shakespeare as a Lawyer (1883), ended up achieving his goal of becoming Davis's The Law in Shakespeare (1883), and Lord Chancellor, that is, the head of equity. White's Commentaries on the Law in In other words, Underhill is arguing the case against Francis Bacon." O. Hood Phillips, by Shakespeare (1911). the way, holds up Underhill as an authority. 9 Before turning to Shakespeare's "errors," (188-9) Devecmon spends the first 30 page of his 14 book repeating the arguments of Dickens Dr. Kathman's statement: "Shakespeare and Grant White (that Shakespeare was not was average at best in the number and necessarily a lawyer just because he used accuracy of his legal allusions." legal terminology) and presenting similar 15 Phillips also holds up Allen as an attacks on Lord Campbell. The list of 'errors' authority of Shakespeare's "bad law," but he distinguishes Devecmon from other writers. cites only one example (135) and that only 10 All citations are from The Arden to shoot it down with a reference to Greenwood! This use of Greenwood as a Shakespeare. supporting authority is strangely typical of 11 Shakespeare's Law is available for Kindle several critics of Shakespeare's law and of from Amazon. some critics of Oxfordian arguments. When 12 Although Shakespeare's England was discussing Shakespeare's law, Schoenbaum published in 1916, Underhill only shows in Shakespeare's Lives avoids addressing knowledge of the some of the arguments Greenwood's legal arguments, but does draw through 1900. He only lists Campbell, on him as support for other arguments. And Davis, and Allen in his bibliography, and Matus, who knows perfectly well that neglects to mention Devecmon. It appears Greenwood still stands as one of the finest that the essay was already out of date when anti-Stratfordian defenders, avoids bringing it was finally published. up his name when discussing law, and many other key topics, but does mention him in a 13 Moore's paper is available online: couple of other contexts, one for support. http://www.shakespeare-oxford.com/?p=81 16 I have made every effort to find all of Moore also exposes Underhill's hidden Clarkson and Warren's examples of agenda: "King Lear orders law to sit with Shakespeare's misuse of legal terms, despite equity (III.vi.39-41), and Underhill remarks an index that fails to provide references. I that '[b]ut for [this] passage, Shakespeare admit it is possible, but improbable, that I gives no hint that he knew of the existence missed one or two. of Courts of Equity as distinguished from 17 Courts of Law' (I.395). We might just as Robertson replies: "In an amusing well say that, but for one remark in 1 Henry footnote he quotes from my book on Titus IV (I.iii.60-62), we would have no idea that Andronicus the phrase 'putting a few Shakespeare knew that saltpeter is used in necessary caveats.' 'No lawyer,' he making gunpowder. But the remark is there, comments, 'would speak of "putting a and so obviously Shakespeare did know that caveat." The legal term is to 'enter a caveat.'' saltpeter is used in gunpowder, just as he And the compiler of his index sternly knew about the judicial system called clinches the matter by the entry, 'Robertson, equity. So what's Underhill's point? Mr. J. M., betrays his ignorance of law, 372, note.' the most amusing matter of all,

195 The George Greenwood Collection perhaps, is that I happen to have spent four processes, based on legal fiction, by which and a half years of my youthful life in a law an entailed estate is transferred. Mistress office. But it was a Scotch office…and in Page would thus mean, in short, that unless Scotch law they do not, to my recollection, the devil's title to Falstaff is now final, speak of 'caveats,' which word is therefore beyond any possibility of change, Falstaff for me simple English, and not 'jargon.' will not err in this way again." And then in 'Enter a caveat' is a phrase well-entitled to parentheses, without any supporting the latter label." (175) evidence, the editor states, "(Elizabethans Greenwood replies in Is There a were particularly interested in legal Shakespeare Problem?: "I do not quite procedure, and Shakespeare's knowledge of understand the reference to 'jargon,' but I law is not exceptional.)" Au contraire. note that 'caveat' is for Mr. Robertson 20 Although Greenwood responds to 'simple English,' though for most others it is Robertson's attack in Is There a Shakespeare simple Latin. I will not controvert Mr. Problem?, with more back and forth Robertson's statement that this is 'the most between the two in The Literary Guide, amusing item of all,' though whether the Greenwood is most cogent in his response in humour be 'English' or 'Scotch' I do not quite Shakespeare's Law and Latin. know; but I fear Mr. Robertson must have 21 By "theorists" Gibson means anti- 'smiled a sort of sickly smile' at the joke of Stratfordians. his having spent four and a half years of his youthful life in a Scotch law office with 22 This is a significant omission, not only results rather literary than legal, and, though because Shakespeare and the Lawyers I deplore the unfortunate language made use attempts to be a comprehensive survey of of by my indexer, I must still assert that the the topic and Shakespeare's Law and Latin instance I selected from Mr. Robertson's is the significant conclusion to the book on Titus is an extremely appropriate Greenwood-Robertson debate, but also one, and that 'no lawyer would speak of because Phillips knows the book exists. He "putting a caveat"" (39). This exchange cites it in his 1964 article "The Law Relating typifies Robertson's willingness to avoid his to Shakespeare, 1564-1964" in The Law own faults and attempt to misdirect the Quarterly Review, volume 80. (421n) reader. 23 While the book's jacket boasts several 18 Clarkson and Warren, 1945, The Law of examples of advance praise, it is Property; James McManaway, 1962, The unfavorably reviewed in Brooklyn Law Authorship of Shakespeare; H. N. Gibson, Review, Winter 1995, pp. 1517-1534. 1962, The Shakespeare Claimants; Milward 24 Biographical information is drawn from Martin, 1965 Was Shakespeare Saunders' A Biographical Dictionary of Shakespeare?; George Keeton, 1967, Renaissance Poets and Dramatists, 1520- Shakespeare's Legal and Political 1650. Background; O. Hood Phillips, 1972, 25 Shakespeare & the Lawyers; Daniel J. I cannot help but note how amusing it is Kornstein, 1994, Kill All the Lawyers?. that so many skeptics argue that Shakespeare did not have an unusual degree 19 The Arden editor's note for with fine and of learning, especially in the Latin and the recover: "Both 'fine' and 'recovery' have classics, while any perusal of the notes to more than one meaning in law, but almost almost any Shakespeare play will reveal the certainly the reference here is to the

196 The George Greenwood Collection incredible learning required of the learned 30 Other dictionaries include Military editors who attempt to explicate the plays. Language in Shakespeare, Shakespeare's 26 Mr. Robertson's ghost, and all those later Theatre, Music and Musical Imagery in writers who approve of Robertson, please Shakespeare, and Literature in Shakespeare. take note that not one of the four meanings 31 For example, the authors note under of fine need have anything to do with a "bastard/bastardy" that one particularly money payment. bawdy reference in The Merchant of Venice, 27 Clarkson and Warren spend five pages where Launcelot Gobbo's mentions "the trying to explain away Shakespeare's use of getting up of the Negro's belly," relates "to "purchase" (102-106). These are worth an obscure and repulsive English law against reading to see how skeptics use convoluted miscegenation, and to a theme of prejudice logic to avoid a logical, but politically central to the play" (27). References to bastards and bastardy are so common in uncomfortable, conclusion. Shakespeare's plays that the authors' 28 This passage is cited by Campbell, who discussion of this topic fills almost eight says, "Now this shows in Shakespeare a pages. knowledge of the law of real property, not generally possessed. The unlearned would suppose that if, by mistake, a man builds a About the Author fine house on the land of another, when he Mark Andre Alexander has taught Legal discovers his error he will be permitted to Writing to paralegals, and has a B.A. in remove all the materials of the structure, and English and an M.A. in Organization and particularly the marble pillars and carved Management Development. He works in the chimney-pieces with which he has adorned semiconductor industry and lives in Silicon it; but Shakespeare knew better." Robertson Valley with his wife. ridicules Campbell mercilessly claiming that literally millions know this law (Heresy 40), and Greenwood follows by demonstrating Robertson's faulty reasoning (Shakespeare's Law and Latin 19-20). 29 In order to suck from the reader's mind any notion that Shakespeare might have had legal training (as his entire article implicitly argues), Gohn immediately supplies the vacuum: "The source of Shakespeare's legal knowledge might have been his personal background. John Shakespeare, his father, had been a party to over fifty lawsuits, and Shakespeare himself was ether a litigant, witness, or party to a number of real estate conveyances. But beyond that the level of legal sophistication in Elizabethan England seems to have been high." The mind boggles, especially considering the high literacy rate of the population.

197 The George Greenwood Collection

the animal and inanimate world—which he has displayed with a truthfulness and Shakespeare A Lawyer inanimate power, and sublimity unapproached, if not unapproachable, rather by William Rushton than in a familiarity with the writings of authors and science in general—and if that 1858 master mind could possibly have possessed edited by Mark Andre Alexander double the unequalled genius which exalted him far above the generality of his fellow

creatures, he would not have been able to "Sometimes like a lawyer." use and apply law terms of a purely Timon of Athens technical character in the manner appearing in his compositions, without considerable "And still they gazed, and still the wonder knowledge of that abstruse and mighty grew, science, the law of England. Nor will it be That one small head could carry all he satisfactory to state that the legal knowledge knew." he has displayed in the correct use of law Goldsmith terms affords no more evidence of his having been a lawyer than the correct use of The works of William Shakespeare contain a nautical terms and the knowledge of remarkable quantity of law terms, whose seamanship are peculiar to the Tempest— significances are naturally unknown to the those phrases are not of frequent occurrence, generality of readers. Some of the admirers and that knowledge is not displayed in any of our great dramatist may assert that the other portion of his works. Moreover, if it universality of his genius, the strength, can be proved, as there seems reason to vigour, and magnitude of his intellectual believe, that the principles and practice of faculties and powers of investigation, the law of real property were more generally enabled him to acquire a more profound understood by unprofessional people in knowledge of a greater variety of subjects Shakespeare's time than at the present day, than ever yet seems to have been possessed that circumstance will not satisfactorily by the same individual, and that the legal account for all Shakespeare's legal knowledge he has displayed in the correct knowledge, because his works contain use of law terms is not more remarkable passages displaying [5] not merely a than his intimate acquaintance with human knowledge of the principles and practice of nature, and accurate observation of the the law of real property, but also of the habits and customs of mankind, or than the common law, and of the criminal law, and a knowledge of seamanship, and the correct thorough intimacy with the exact letter of use of nautical terms he has displayed in the the Statute Law. Tempest. To attempt to account for the frequent occurrence and correct use of law SUFFOLK. Lord cardinal, the King's further terms in [4] Shakespeare's Works, by pleasure is, attributing to him knowledge of a great Because all those things you have done of variety of subjects, is not satisfactory; for, late Shakespeare's knowledge, it is generally By your power legatine within this kingdom, admitted, was more intuitive than acquired, Fall into the compass of a præminure, consisting more in an extensive and That, therefore, such a writ be sued against profound intimacy with human nature, with

198 The George Greenwood Collection you, Of my whole course of love; what drugs, To forfeit all your goods, lands, tenements, what charms, Chattels, and whatsoever, and to be What conjuration, and what mighty magic, Out of the King's protection. This is my (For such proceeding I am charged withal,) charge. I won his daughter with. Henry VIII, Act 3, Scene 2. The 8th cap. 33rd Henry VIII, against A Præmunire (so called from the words of conjuration, witchcraft, sorceries, and the write Præmunire facis, or Præmoneri enchantments, enacts "It shall be felony to facias, signifying the writ of the offence on practice, or cause to be practised, which the writ is grounded) is an offence conjuration, witchcraft, enchantment, or whereby one shall incur the same sorcery, to get money; or to consume any punishment which is inflicted upon those person in his body, members, or goods; or to who transgress the 16th Richard II, chap. 5, provoke any person to unlawful love; or for commonly called the Statute of Præmunire, despight of Christ, or lucre of money, to pull which enacts that "If any purchase or down any cross; or to declare where goods pursue, or cause to be purchased or pursued stolen be." (See also 5th Eliz., cap. 5.) These in the Court of Rome, or elsewhere, any passages sufficiently prove that translation, process, sentence of Shakespeare's knowledge of the English law excommunication, bulls, instruments, &c., was not confined to the lex non scripta, for which touch the King; or if any do bring he uses almost the exact language of the them within the realm, or receive them, they statutes. It may, however, be asserted that shall be put out of the King's protection, and probably chance made Shakespeare familiar their lands, tenements, goods and chattels, with law terms; but chance would not have forfeited to the King." (See exposition of this enabled him to apply them with such statute, 3rd Inst., 126, and see 28th Henry correctness. Moreover, why should VIII, chap. 16, which is a general law, and Shakespeare make use of law terms in strictly penned against pleading any bull, preference to the technical terms of the dispensation, &c., from Rome, which is not medical, clerical, or any other profession? It warranted by the act. Wood's Institute, 2nd will also be perceived, in the passages about ed., p. 408.) This offence originated from to be selected, that the great dramatist, in the power claimed and exercised by the addition to a frequent use of law terms and Pope, which [6] even in the days of blind law phraseology, makes constant reference zeal was too exorbitant for our ancestors to [7] to lawyers in his allusions to mankind, in endure. apparent preference to members of any other profession. Why should Hamlet, in his DUKE. Whoe'er he be, that in this foul reflections on a skull, suppose that it proceeding, belonged to a lawyer, in preference to a Hath thus beguiled your daughter or herself, doctor or a divine? But let the reader notice And you of her, the bloody book of law how many law terms are made us of in this You shall read in the bitter letter, passage: After your own sense; yes, though our proper son HAMLET. Why may not that be the skull of Stood in your action. a lawyer? Where be his quiddets now, his OTHELLO. I will a round unvarnish'd tale quillets, his cases, his tenures, and his deliver tricks? Why does he suffer this rude knave,

199 The George Greenwood Collection now, to knock him about the sconce with a staple, in the presence of the two constables dirty shovel, and will not tell him of his of the same staple, founded upon the statute action of battery? Humph! This fellow anno 27th Edward III., cap. 9. A statute might be in's time a buyer of land, with his staple improper, was a bond of record, statutes, his recognizances, his fines, his founded upon the statute anno 23rd Henry double vouchers, his recoveries. Is this the VIII., cap. 6, of the nature of a proper statute fine of his fines, and the recovery of his staple, as touching the forces and execution recoveries, to have his fine pate full of fine thereof, and acknowledged before the mayor dirt? Will his vouchers vouch him no more of the staple and the recorder of London. of his purchases, and double ones, too, than The statutes referred to by Hamlet are the length and breadth of a pair of doubtless statutes merchant and statutes indentures? The very conveyance of his staple, and not acts of parliament; because lands will hardly lie in this box; and must between these statutes and recognizances the inheritor himself have no more? there exists a reciprocal relation. Statutes staple, statutes merchant, and recognizances, Quiddets and quillets, cases and tenures, are in the nature of a statute staple, are now terms with which many persons, who are not obsolete. The term fine, as used by familiar with the laws of England, are Shakespeare in this passage, signified an perfectly well acquainted. But statutes and amicable agreement or composition of a recognizances, fines, double vouchers, and suit, whether real or fictitious, between the recoveries are somewhat more technical and demandant and tenant, with the consent of abstruse. Recognizance, (recognitio), though the judges, and enrolled among the records in special signification it only acknowledges of the court where the suit was commenced, a certain debt, and is executed upon all the by which lands and tenements were goods and half of the lands of the transferred from one person to another, or recogniser, yet by extension it is drawn also any other settlement was made respecting to bonds, commonly called statute merchant them. This assurance was called finis, or and statute of the staple. A statute merchant finalis concordia, from the words with (so called from the 13th Edward I., De which it began, and also from its effect, mercatoribus), was a bond acknowledged which was to put [9] an end to all suits and before one of the clerks of the statutes contentions. Thus, Glanville says: "Et nota merchant, and mayor, or chief warden of the quod dicitur talis concordia finalis, eo quod city of London, or two merchants of the said finem imponit negotio, adeo ut neuter city, for that purpose assigned; or before the ligitantium ab eâ de cetera poterit recedere;" mayor, [8] chief warden, or master of other and Bracton says: "Finis est extremitas unius cities or good towns, or other sufficient men cujusque rei, et ideo dicitur finalis for that purpose appointed, sealed with the concordia, quia imponit finem litibus." A seal of the depter and of the King, which recovery, in its most extensive sense, was a was of two pieces, the greater was kept by restoration of a former right, by the solemn the said mayor, chief warden, &c., and the judgment of a court of justice; and lesser piece thereof by the said clerks. judgment, whether obtained after a real Statute staple was either properly so called, defence made by the tenant, or upon his or improperly. A statute staple, properly so default, or feint plea, had the same force and called, was a bond of record, acknowledged efficacy to bind the right of the land so before the mayor of the staple, in the recovered, and to vest a free and absolute presence of the two constables of the same estate in fee-simple in the recoverer. A

200 The George Greenwood Collection common recovery was a judgment obtained the 28th August, 1833, and came into in a fictitious suit, brought against the tenant operation on the 1st January, 1834. of the freehold in consequence of a default made by the person who was last vouched to Shakespeare displays his acquaintance with warranty in such suit. The end and effect of the custom of conveyancing lawyers in this this recovery was to discontinue and destroy passage: estates tail, remainders, and reversions, and to bat the former owners thereof, and in this "The very conveyance of his lands will formality three parties were required, hardly lie in this box; and must the inheritor namely the defendant, he that brought the himself have no more?" writ of entry, and might be termed the recoverer; the tenant, he against whom the Why should Hamlet compare the grave to a write was brought, and might termed the box? Not because there is any resemblance recoveree; and the vouchee, he whom the between a box and a grave, but because tenant vouched, or called to warranty for the conveyancers and attorneys keep their deeds land in demand. in wood or tin boxes. If the reader, recollecting the explanations that have been PASANIO. Here's a voucher made, will take the trouble to dwell a short Stronger than ever law could make. time on these reflections of Hamlet, he will Cymbeline, Act 2, Scene 2. perceive that the word fine there made us of is intended to signify, not a penalty, but an CORIOLANUS. Why in this wolfish gown end. The fine of his fines means the end or should I stand here, termination of his fines. That his fine pate is To beg of Hob and Dick, that do appear, filled, not with fine dirt, but with the last dirt Their needless vouches? Custom calls me to that will ever occupy it, leaving a satirical 't. inference to be drawn, that even in his Corialanus, Act 2, Scene 3. lifetime his head was filled with [11] dirt. From the following passages it appears that [10] A recovery might be, and was, Shakespeare uses the term fine in that sense: frequently suffered with double, treble, or further voucher, as the exigency of the case HELENA. All's well that ends well; still the required, in which case there were several fine's the crown; judgments against the several vouchees. Whate'er the course, the end is the renown. All's Well That Ends Well, Act 4, Scene 4. The reader will from this explanation perceive that Shakespeare has used the terms BENEDICT. And the fine is (for the which I recovery and double voucher not may go the finer) I will live a bachelor. indiscriminately, but in a relative sense, as Much Ado About Nothing, Act 1, Scene 1. the mention of one term suggest the idea of the other, with which it is inseparably Time's office is the fine the hate of foes; connected. Fines and recoveries were To eat up errors by opinion bred, abolished by the 3rd and 4th William IV., c. Not spend the dowry of a lawful bed." 74, which contains provisions enabling The Rape of Lucrece. tenants in tail to dispose of their estate so as to create a fee-simple absolute, or any less IAGO. Poor and content, is rich and rich estate. This act received the royal assent on enough;

201 The George Greenwood Collection

But riches fineless is as poor as winter proclaimed on two market days in two To him that fears he shall be poor. several towns next adjoining, and the owner Othello, Act 3, Scene 3. doth not claim them within a year and a day, they belong to the Lord of the Liberty."— MRS. PAGE. The spirit of wantonness is Finch,177; Kitch, 80, 81; Bacon Elem, 76, sure scared out of him; if the devil have him 77; Wood's Institute, 2d edition, p. 213. not in fee-simple, with fine and recovery, he will never, I think, in the way of waste, My woeful self, that did in freedom stand, attempt us again. And was my own fee-simple, (not in part,) Merry Wives of Windsor, Act 4, Scene 2. What with his art in youth, and youth in art, Threw my affections in his charmed power, Tenant in fee-simple, in the language of Reserved the stalk, and gave him all my Littleton, is he which hath lands or flower. tenements to hold to him and to his heirs for A Lover's Complaint. ever. And it is called, in Latin, feodum simplex, for feodum is the same that DROMIO OF SYRACUSE. There's no time inheritance is, and simplex is as much to say for a man to recover his hair that grows bald lawful or pure; and so feodum simplex by nature. signifies a lawful or pure inheritance; and ANTIPHOLUS OF SYRACUSE. May he fine and recovery was formerly the strongest not do it by fine and recovery! assurance known to the English law. DRO. S. Yes, to pay a fine for a peruke, and recover the last hair of another man. "Non in regno Angliae providetur vel est Comedy of Errors, Act 2 Scene 2. aliqua securitas major seu solennior per quam aliquia statum certiorem habere posit, THERSITES. Incurable boneache, and the vel ad statum suam verificandum aliquod rivaled fee-simple of the tetter. solennius testimonium producere, quam Troilus and Cressida, Act 5 Scene 1. finem in curia domini Regis levatum; qui quidem finis sic vocatur, eo finis at BENVOLIO. An I were so apt to quarrel as consummatio omnium placitorum esse thou art, any man should buy the fee-simple debet; et quod hoc de causâ providebatur.— of my life for an hour and a quarter. 2 Roll Ab. 13, 18th Edward I. MERCUTIO. The fee-simple? O simple. Romeo and Juliet, Act 3, Scene 3. [12] Mrs. Page means to say that the devil had as absolute power over Falstaff as a man [13] PAROLLEES. For a quart d'écu he will has over an inheritance of which he is seized sell the fee-simple of his salvation, the in fee-simple in possession. inheritance of it; and cut the entail from all reminders, and a perpetual succession for it CADE. Here's the lord of the soil come to perpetually. seize me for a stray, entering his fee-simple All's Well That Ends Well, Act 4, Scene 3. without leave. Henry VI, Act 4, Scene 10. An estate in fee-tail (from tailler, to cut or limit) is that inheritance whereof one is "Stray, Estrays (Extrahurae) are cattle that seized to him and the heirs of his body, stray into another man's ground and not begotten or to be begotten.—Litt, s. 18; own'd by any man. In this case, if they are Wood's Institute, 2nd edition, p. 120.

202 The George Greenwood Collection

An estate in remainder is the residue of an STEWARD. One who I will best into estate, in land, depending upon a particular clamorous whining, if thou deny'st the least estate, and created together with the same. A syllable of thy addition. particular estate is that which is derived King Lear, Act 2, Scene 2. from a general and greater estate.-Wood's Institute, 2nd edition, p. 149. ALEXANDER. This man, lady, hath robbed The difference between a remainder and a many beasts of their particular additions. reversion is, that a remainder is something Troilus and Cressida, Act 1, Scene 2. limited over to a third person on the creation of an estate less than that which the grantor ULYSSES. Bull-bearing Milo his addition has; whilst a reversion is that part which yield, remains in the grantor himself, on such a To sinewy Ajax. grant of a less estate.—Co. Litt, 22b.; Watk's Troilus and Cressida, Act 2, Scene 3. Prin. Conv., ch. 18; Burton's Comp., pp. 28, 29, 30; Noy's Dial, p. 13. AJAX. A great addition earned in thy death. Troilus and Cressida, Act 4, Scene 5. QUEEN. 'Tis in reversion that I do possess. Richard II, Act 2, Scene 2. LEAR. Only we still retain The name and all the additions to a king. KING RICHARD. As were our England in reversion his, The description of an individual in a legal And he our subject's next degree I hope. document, as esquire, gentleman, yeoman, Richard II, Act 1, Scene 4. &c., is called his addition.

DOUGLAS. Where now remains a sweet CADE. Thou hast appointed justices of the reversion: peace, to call poor men before them about We may boldly spend upon the hope of what matters they were not able to answer. Is to come in: Moreover, thou hast put them in prison; and A comfort of retirement lives in this. because they could not read, thou hast First Part Henry IV, Act 2 Scene 2. hanged them; when, indeed, only for that cause they have been most worthy to live. TROILUS. No perfect in reversion shall Second Part Henry VI, Act 4 Scene 7. have a praise in present; we will not name desert, before his birth, and, being born, his In the days of Jack Cade few could read, addition shall be humble. except those who were actually in orders, or Troilus and Cressida, Act 3, Scene 3. educated for that purpose:

[14] An estate in reversion (from reverto, to [SMITH. The Clerk of Chatham; he can return) is where any estate is derived, by write and read, and cast accompt. [15] grant or otherwise, out of a larger one, CADE. O monstrous! leaving in the original owner an ulterior SMITH. We took him setting of boys' estate immediately expectant on that which copies. is so derived; the latter interest is called the CADE. Here's a villain! particular estate, (that is only a small part or SMITH. H'as a book in his pocket, with red particula of the original one), and the letters in't. ulterior interest the reversion. CADE. Nay, then, he is a conjurer.

203 The George Greenwood Collection

DICK. Nay, he can make obligations, and whose favour, therefore, a further distinction write court-hand. was made, by stat. 4th Henry VII, chap. 13, CADE. Dost thou use to write thy name? Or in the year 1487, "Whereas upon trust of the hast thou a mark to thyself, like an honest, privilege of the church, divers persons plain dealing man? lettered have been the more bold to commit CLERK. Sir, I thank God, I have been so murder, rape, robbery, theft, and all other well brought up that I can write my name. mischievious deeds, because they have been Second Part Henry VI, Act 4 Scene 2.] continually admitted to the benefit of the clergy as oft as they did offend in any of the so that if a person was arraigned before a premises; it is enacted, ordained, and temporal judge for any crime (the established, by the authority of this present punishment whereof was death) he might parliament, that every person, not being pray his clergy; that was, to have a Latin within orders, which once hath been Bible in a black Gothic character delivered admitted to the benefit of his clergy, to him; and if he could read a passage where eftsoons arraigned of any such offence, be the judge appointed, which was generally in not admitted to have the benefit or privilege the Psalms, the ordinary, or his deputy, who of his clergy; and that every person so stood near, said, legit ut clericus, that is, he convicted for murder, to be marked with an could read like a clerk or scholar, and the M upon the braun of the left thumb; and if criminal was acquitted as being a man of he be for any other felony, the same person learning, who might therefore be useful to to be marked with a T in the same place of the public; if, however, he could not read, he the thumb, and those marks to be made by suffered death. This privilege was granted in the gaoler openly in the court before the all offences, except high treason and judge, before that such person be delivered sacrilege, until after the year 1530; and it to the ordinary." was carried to such an extent, that if a criminal was condemned at one assize, and DICK. But, methinks, he should stand in was reprieved to the subsequent assize, fear of fire, being burnt i' the hand for because he could not read, he might again stealing of sheep. claim this benefit, either at that time, or even Second Part Henry VI, Act 4 Scene 2. under the gallow's tree, and if he could then read, he was pardoned, of which there was Hence, probably, the origin of the request an instance in the reign of Queen Elizabeth. made even at the present time, when a prisoner is arraigned, "Prisoner at the bar, Although this privilege was originally hold up your hand," in order, if he was a enjoyed only by those who had the habitum [17] layman, that it might thereby be et tonsuram clericalem, who wore the ascertained whether he had been admitted to clerical habit and were trimmed with the this privilege before. The benefit of clergy clerical [16] tonsure; yet the ability to read first legally recognized by stat. 3rd Edward being formerly a mark of great erudition, I, A.D. 1274, modified in 1530, in the time every one thus qualified, in course of time, of Henry VIII, was wholly repealed by the was considered a clerk, or clericus, and 7th and 8th Geo. IV, June, 1827. allowed the benefit of clergy, although not in holy order. So that, ultimately, as many MORTIMER. And our indentures tripartite laymen as clergy men enjoyed this privilege, are drawn, which excited the jealousy of the clergy, in

204 The George Greenwood Collection

Which being sealed interchangeably… AUSTRIA. Upon thy cheek I lay this First Part Henry IV, Act 3, Scene 1. zealous kiss, As seal to this indenture of my love. A deed indented consists of two or more King John, Act 2, Scene 1. parts: for there are deeds Bipartate, of two parts; Tripartate, of three; Quadrupartate, of Let him but copy what in you is writ, four; Quinquepartate, of five; and Not making worse what nature made so Sextipartate, of six, &c. In which respective clear, deeds it is expressed, that the parties And such a counterpart shall fame his wit, thereunto have interchangeably set their Making his style admired everywhere. hands and seals. Sonnet LXXXIV

PANDARUS. Words pay no debts, giver her When the several parts of an indenture are deeds; but she'll bereave you of the deeds, interchangeably executed by the several too, if she call your activity in question. parties, that part or copy which is executed What, billing again? Here's IN WITNESS by the grantor is usually called the original, WHEREOF THE PARTIES and the rest are counterparts; though, of INTERCHANGEABLY. late, it is most frequent for all the parties to Troilus and Cressidus, Avt 3, Scene 1. execute every part, which renders them all originals. An indenture is so called because each part used formerly to be cut or indented in acute ROSALIND. With bills on their necks, Be it angles (instar dentium, or like the teeth of a known unto all men by these presents. saw) on the top, or side, to tally or As You Like It, Act 1, Scene 2. correspond with the other,?(Vide Co. Litt., 47 b; Litt., s. 371.) The history of the The bills Rosalind mentions are deeds poll, practice of indenting is given in Co. Litt., by which commonly being Know all men by Butler, 269, A.N. (1.) Formerly, when deeds these presents, or To all whom these were more concise than at present, it was presents shall come, and are made by one usual to write both parts on the same piece partly only, and not indented, but polled or of parchment, with same word or letters of shaved quite even, and therefore called a the alphabet written between them, through deed poll, or single deed.—Mirror, c. 2, s. which the parchment was cut, either in a 27; Litt., s. 371, 372; Gardiner v. Lachlan. straight or indented line, so as to leave half the word on one part and half on the other. SLENDER. A gentleman born master But for a long time past the practice [18] of parson, who writes himself armigero; in a cutting through any letters has, in all other bill, warrant, quittance, or obligation, instances, been disused; and even of armigero. indenting saw-wise, the modern method being to cut the top of the parchment in a An obligation, according to our common waving line. Neither this, however, nor any law, is a bond containing a penalty, with a other method of indenting is in general condition for payment [19] of money; or to necessary to the legal validity of the do or suffer some act or thing, c. If it is instrument. without condition, it is called a bill, which is sometimes with a penalty, and then it is called a penal bill, or simple bond. (1 Inst.,

205 The George Greenwood Collection

172a; 3 Cro., 515; 2 Roll, abr., 146; wood's which, when forfeited, double the principal Institute, 2nd ed., p. 288.) sum was recoverable.

An obligation, or bond, is a deed whereby Your assent is somewhat finer than you the obligor obliges himself, his heirs, could purchase in so removed a dwelling. executors, or administrators, to pay a certain As You Like It, Act 3, Scene. sum of money to another at a day appointed. If this be all, the bond is a single one, OCTAVIUS CAESAR. A man, who is the simplex obligatio. abstract of all faults, That all men follow. SHYLOCK. Go with me to a notary, seal me LEPIDUS. I must not think there are there Evils enough to darken all his goodness; Your single bond. His faults, in him , seem as the spots of heaven, But a condition is generally added, that if More fiery by night's blackness?hereditary the obligor does some particular act, the Rather than purchased. obligation shall be void, as performance of Antony and Cleopatra, Act 1, Scene 4. covenants, or repayment of a principal sum borrowed of the obligee, with interest, which Purchase (perquisitio) has in law a meaning sum is usually one-half of the penal sum more extended than its ordinary named in the bond. significance. It is possession to which a man cometh not by title of descent. (Litt., s. 12.) Say for non-payment that the debt should It is contradistinguished from acquisition by double. right of blood, and includes every other Venus and Adonis. method of coming to an estate whatever, than that by inheritance, wherein the title is PORTIA. What sum owed the Jew? vested in a person by single operation of the BASSANIO. For me, three thousand ducats. law. (1 Inst. 18.) Accordingly, a devisee PORTIA. What, no more? under a will is now a purchaser in law. In Pay him six thousand and deface the bond. these passages the word purchase is used by Merchant of Venice, Act 3, Scene 4. Shakespeare in its strict legal sense, in contradistinction to an acquisition by Bonds, with conditions of this kind annexed, descent, although purchase was, in have been long in use, and in former times Shakespeare's day, sometimes used to on a conditional bond becoming forfeited for signify robbery, and also the thing stolen: non-payment of the money borrowed, the whole penalty, usually double the principal They will steal anything and call it sum lent by the obligee, was recoverable. purchase. (Litt., S. 40.) So Macbeth says: Twelfth Night, Act 4, Scene 1.

But yet I'll make assurance double sure, PETRUCHIO. What dower shall I have with And take a bond of fate. her to wife? Act 4, Scene 1. BAPTISTA. After my death, the one-half of my lands; [20] Referring not to a single, but to a And, in possession, twenty thousand crowns. conditional bond, under or by virtue of [21]

206 The George Greenwood Collection

PETRUCHIO. And, for the dowry, I'll LUCEBTIO. And then? [22] assure her of BION. The old priest at Saint Luke's Church Her widowhood—be it that she survive is at your command at all hours. me— LUCENTIO. And what of all this? In all my lands and leases whatsoever; BION. I cannot tell, except they are busied Let specialties be, therefore, drawn between about conterfeit assurance. Take your us, assurance of her, cum privilegio ad That covenants may be kept on either hand. imprimendum solum, to the church; take the Taming the Shrew, Act 2, Scene 1. priest, clerk, and some sufficient honest witnesses. "Tenant in dower is where a man is seized of Taming of the Shrew, Act 4, Scene 4. lands or tenements in fee-simple, fee-tail general, or as heir in special tail, and taketh Dowment at the church door (dower ad a wife, and dieth; the wife, after the decease ostium ecclesiae) is where a man of full age of her husband, shall be endowed of the seized in fee-simply who shall be married to third part of such lands and tenements as a woman, and when he cometh to the church were her husband's at any time during the door to be married, there, after affiance and coverture, to have and to hold to the same troth plighted between them, he endoweth wife in severalty, by metes and bounds, for the woman of his whole land, or of the half, term of her life, whether she hath issue by or other lesser part thereof, there openly her husband or no, and of what age soever doth declare the quantity and the certainty of the wife be, so as she be past the age of nine the land which she shall have for her dower. years at the time of the death of her husband, In this case the wife, after the death of which otherwise she shall not be endowed." (Litt., her husband, may enter into the said quantity s. 36.) "And note, that by the common law of land of which her husband endowed her the wife shall have for her dower but the without other assignment of any.—Litt. s. third part of the tenements which were her 39. husband's during the espousals; but, by the custom of some country, she shall have the BAPTISTIA. I must confess your offer is half, and, by the custom in some town or the best; borough, she shall have the whole; and in all And let your father make her the assurance, these cases she shall be called tenant in She is your own; else you must pardon me: dower." (Litt., s. 37.) Widowhood, a term If you should die before him, where's her only used now as descriptive of the state of dower? being a widow, signified the estate settled on Taming of the Shrew, Act 2, Scene 1. a widow. Petruchio says he will assure Katherina of a widow's portion in all his Baptista seems to refer to dowment by the "lands and leases," and not "bar dower" by father's assent (dower ex assensu patis) fine and recovery. "Also, there be two other which is where the father is seized of kinds of dower, viz., dower called dowment tenements in fee, and his son and heir at the church door, and dower called apparent, when he is married, endoweth his dowment by the father's assent."—Litt., s. wife at the monastery or church door, of 38. parcel of his father's lands or tenements with the assent of his father, and assigns the BION. His daughter is to be brought by you quantity and parcels. In this case, after the to supper. death of the son, the wife shall enter into the

207 The George Greenwood Collection same parcel without the assignment of POSTHUMUS. I embrace this condition; let any—Litt. s. 40. us have articles betwixt us. Cymbeline, Act 1, Scene 5. [23] O, brother Montague, give me thy hand; this my daughter's jointure, for no There may be articles of agreement, or more can I demand. covenants, framed according to the case, by Romeo and Juliet. mutual and reciprocal covenants, only to be performed by the parties, and this is good, if A jointure is thus defined by Sir Edward in writing and sealed and delivered by the Coke: "A competent livelihood of freehold [24] parties, without the other formal parts for the wife, of lands and tenements, to take of the deed. ?Wood's Inst., 2nd ed., p. 230. effect presently, in possession or profit, after the decease of the husband, for the life of the BUCKINGHAM. The law I bear no malice wife at least." This description corresponds for my death, with the purview of the Statute of Uses, 27th It hath done, upon the premises, but justice. Henry VIII, c. 10. Henry VIII, Act 2, Scene 1.

POSTUMUS. Let there be covenants drawn Premises in law signify that part of between us. beginning of a deed the office of which is to SACHIMO. Your hand; a covenant. We will express the grantor, and grantee, and the have these things set down by lawful land or thing granted or conveyed: and also counsel, and straight away for Britain, lest the houses, lands, or places, c., mentioned the bargain catch cold, and starve; I will before. fetch my gold, and have our two wagers recorded. PROSPERO. Now the condition. Cymbeline, Act 1, Scene 5. This King of Naples, being an enemy To me inveterate, hearkens to my brother's The covenants Shakespeare refers to in these suit; passages are, according to the quaint Which was that he, in lieu o' the premises, description of Thomas Wood, (Institute of Of homage, and I know not how much the Laws of England, 2nd ed., p. 228) tribute, "agreements made by the deed in writing, by Should presently extirpate me and mine the consent of two or more, to do, or not to Out of the kingdom. do," and not the covenants (conventiones) Tempest, Act 1, Scene 2. which are clauses of agreement contained in a deed. The premises of homage, the circumstances of homage mentioned before. BOLINGBROKE. My heart this covenant makes, my hand thus seals it. "Homage is the most honourable service, Richard II, Act 2, Scene 3. and most humble service of reverence, that a frank tenant may do to his lord, he shall be Covenants by deed poll are as effectual as ungirt, and his head uncovered, and his lord those made by deed indented, if the party shall sit, and the tenant shall kneel before hath the deed to show. (1 Roll. Abr., 517; him on both his knees, and hold his hands Wood's Inst., 2nd ed., p. 230.) Bolingbroke jointly together between the hands of his seems to refer to a covenant by deed poll. lord, and shall say thus: I become your man

208 The George Greenwood Collection from this day forward, and unto you shall be am now in ward, evermore in subjection. true and faithful, and bear to you faith for All's Well That End's Well, Act 1, Scene 1. the tenements that I claim to hold of you, saving the faith that I owe unto our Tenure by homage, fealty, and escuage, is to Sovereign Lord the King; and then the lord, hold by knight service, and it draweth to it so sitting, shall kiss him."—Litt. S. 85. ward, marriage, and relief. "For when such tenant dieth, and his heir male be within the VALENTINE. This is the gentleman I told age of twenty-one years, the lord shall have your ladyship the land holden of him until the age of the Had come along with me, but that his heir of twenty-one years; the which is called mistress full age, because such heir, by intendement Did hold his eyes lock'd in her crystal looks. for the law, is not able to do such knight's [25] service before his age of twenty-one years. SILVIA. Belike, that now she hath And, also, if such heir be not married at the enfranchis'd them time of the death of his [26] ancestor, then Upon some other pawn the fealty. the lord shall have the wardship and Two Gentleman of Verona, Act 2, Scene 5. marriage of him."—Litt. s. 103. Wardship was abolished by the 12th Char. II, cap. 24. "Fealty is the same that fidelitas is in Latin. And when a freeholder doth fealty to his PISANIO. O! damn'd paper! lord, he shall hold his right hand upon a Art thou a feodary for this act, and look'st book, and shall say thus: Know ye this, my So virgin like without? lord, that I shall be faithful and true unto Cymbeline, Act 2, Scene 2. you, and faith to you shall bear for the lands which I claim to hold of you, and that I shall Feodary was ancient officer in the Court of lawfully do to you the customs and services Wards, (which was not instituted until 32nd which I ought to do, at the terms assigned, Henry VIII, cap. 36, 33rd Henry VIII, so help me God and his saints; and he shall cap.22) who was appointed by the master of kiss the book. But he shall not kneel when that court, to be present with the escheator in he maketh fealty, nor shall he make such every county at the finding of offices of humble reverence as is aforesaid in lands; and to give evidence for the crown as homage."—Litt. s. 91. well as for the value of the tenure; and his office was also to survey the lands of the CADE. Men shall hold of me in capite. ward after the office found, and to rate the Henry VI, Act IV, Scene 7. value thereof into court; and likewise to assign dower to the king's widow, and to When the tenure was of the Sovereign, receive the rents of wards lands within his immediately it was said to be in capite, or in circuit, for which he was answerable to the chief. receiver of the court. It seems to be used by Shakespeare in this passage in the sense of COUNTESS. In delivering my son from me, confederate, or associate. I bury a second husband. BERTRAM. And I, in going, madam, weep YORK. Seek you to seize and gripe into o'er my father's death anew; but I must your hands attend his Majesty's command, to whom I The royalties and rights of banish'd Hereford?

209 The George Greenwood Collection

Is not Gaunt dead? And doth not Hereford KING RICHARD. Be the attorney of my live? love to her; Was not Gaunt just? And is not Harry true? Plead what I will be, not what I have been. Did not the one deserve to have an heir? Richard III, Act 4, Scene 4. Is not his heir a well-deserving son? Take Hereford's rights away, and take from STANLEY. I, by attorney, bless thee from time thy mother. His charters and his customary rights; Richard III, Act 5, Scene 3. Let not to-morrow, then, ensue to-day; Be not thyself, for how art thou a king. DUKE. Not changing heart with habit, I am But by fair sequence and succession? still Now, afore God, (God forbid, I say true), Attorney'd at your service. If you do wrongfully seize Hereford's rights, Measure for Measure, Act 5, Scene 1. [27] Call in the letters patent that he hath By his attornies-general to sue CLOWN. As fit as ten groats for the hand of His livery, and deny his offer'd homage, an attorney. You lose a thousand well-disposed hearts, All's Well That Ends Well, Act 2, Scene 3. And prick my tender patience to those thoughts [28] Why should calamity be full of words? Which honour and allegiance cannot think. Windy attorneys to their clients' woes. KING RICHARD. Think what you will, we Richard III seize into our hands His plate, his goods, his money, and his But when the heart's attorney once is mute, lands. The client breaks, as desperate in his suit. King Richard II, Act 2, Scene 1. Venus and Adonis.

When the male heir arrived to the age of The heart's attorney, the heart's tongue. twenty-one, or the heir female to that of sixteen, they might sue out their livery, or DESDEMONA. For thy solicitor shall rather ousterlemain, (Co. Litt. 77A.) that is the die delivery of their hands out of their Than give thy cause away. guardian's hands. For this they were obliged Othello, Act 3, Scene 3. to pay a fine, namely, half-a-year's profits of the land. An attorney is either general or HOTSPUR. To sue his livery and beg his special. A general attorney is he that is peace. appointed by a general authority to manage First Part, Henry IV, Act 4, Scene 3. all affairs or suits, as the Attorney-General of the king, who is usually one of the most BOLINGBROKE. I am denied to sue my learned of barristers. He and the Solicitor- livery here, General are made by letters patent, Quam And yet my letters patent give me leave: diu se bene gesserint.—(Terms of the Law, My father's goods are all distrain'd and sold, v. Attorney, 4 Inst. 117. Vent. 1. Wood's And these, and all, are all amiss employ'd. Inst., 2nd edition, p. 449.) Bolingbroke had What would you have me do? I am a appointed attornies to execute this office for subject, him, if his father died during his And challenge law. Attorneys are denied banishment. me,

210 The George Greenwood Collection

And, therefore, personally I lay my claim scribbled o'er, should undo a man? Some To my inheritance of free descent. say, the bee stings; but I say, the bee's wax, King Richard II, Act 2, Scene 3. for I did but seal once to a thing, and I was never mine own man since. Royal grants, whether of lands, honours, Second Part, Henry VI, Act 4, Scene 2. liberties, franchises, or aught besides, are contained in charters, or letters patent, that HAMLET. How in my words soever she be is, open letters, literae patentes; so called shent, because they are no sealed up, but exposed To give them seals never, my soul, consent. to open view, with the great seal pendant at Act 2, Scene 2. the bottom, and are usually directed or addressed by the sovereign to all subjects of What wax so frozen but dissolves with the realm. And therein they differ from tempering, certain other letters of the sovereign, sealed And yields at last to every light impression. also with his great seal, but directed to Venus and Adonis. particular persons, and for particular purposes; which, therefore, not being proper The soft wax attached to a legal instrument for public inspection, are closed up and upon which the seal was impressed, required sealed on the outside, and are thereupon to be tempered before the impression was called writs close, literae clauses, and are made upon it, so Falstaff says: "I have him recorded in the close rolls, in [29] the same already tempering between my finger and manner as the others in the patent rolls.— my thumb, and shortly will I seal with him." Black Com. As to exemplification of letters patent see 3d and 4th Edw. VI, c. 4; 13th KING. Now must your conscience my Elizabeth, c. 6. acquittance seal. Hamlet, Act 4, Scene 7. Set thy seal manual on my wax red lips. Venus and Adonis. [30] IMOGEN. Good wax, thy leave; Blest the bees that make these locks of Grants or letters patent must pass by bill, counsel; which is prepared by the Attorney and Lovers and men in dangerous bonds, pray Solicitor General, in consequence of a not alike; warrant from the Crown, and is then signed, Though forfeiters you cast in prison, yet that is, superscribed at the top with the You clasp young Cupid's tables. sovereign's own sign manual, and sealed Cymbeline, Act 3, Scene 2. with the privy signet, which is always in the custody of the principal Secretary of State; The forfeitors had sealed to dangerous and then sometimes it immediately passes bonds; and in those times the seal was as under the great seal, in which case the patent binding as the signature, if not more so. is subscribed in these words, "per ipsam reginam," by the Queen herself.—2 Rep. 17 ANTONY. Seal then and all is done. b. Black Com. Antony and Cleopatra, Act 4, Scene 12.

CADE. Is not this a lamentable thing, that of The neglect of signing, and resting only the skin of the innocent lamb should be upon the authenticity of seals, remained very made parchment? That parchment, being long among us, for it was held in all our

211 The George Greenwood Collection books that sealing alone was sufficient to MACBETH. Rebellious head, rise never, till authenticate a deed; and so the common the wood form of attestating deeds, "sealed and Of Birnam rise, and our high-placed delivered," continues to this day. Macbeth Shall live the lease of nature, pay his breath But my kisses being again To time and mortal custom. SEALS of love but sealed in Act 4, Scene 1. vain. Song. HAMLET. A combination and a form, "The lease of nature," lease for term of life. indeed, Every one which hath an estate in any lands Where every god did seem to set his seal, or tenements for term of his own or another To give the world assurance of a man. man's life (pur untre vie) is called tenant of Act 3, Scene 4. freehold, and none other of a lesser estate can have a freehold; but they of a greater They seemed to give the world assurance of estate have a freehold, for he in fee-simple a man, in the most solemn form, that was, by hath a freehold, and tenant in tail hath a setting their seals. freehold, &c.—Litt. s. 57.

Poor soul, the center of my sinful earth, CADE. These five days have I hid me in Fool'd by those rebel powers that thee array, these woods, and durst not peep out, for all Why dost thou pine within, and suffer the country is lay'd for me; but now am I so dearth, hungry that, if I might have a lease of my Painting thy outward walls so costly gay? life for a thousand years, I could stay no Why so large cost, having so short a lease, longer. Dost thou upon thy fading mansion spend? Shall worms, inheritors of this excess, Tenant for term of years is where a man Eat up thy charge? Is this the body's end? letteth lands or tenements to another for Then, soul, live thou upon thy servant's loss, term of certain years after the number of [31] And let that pine to aggravate thy store years that is accorded between the lessor and But terms divine, in selling hours of dross; the lessee. (Litt., s. 58.) Therefore, an estate Within be fed, without be rich no more; of freehold, liberum tenementum, is an So shalt thou feed on death, that feeds on interest in lands, or other [32] property, held men, by a free tenure for the life of the tenant, or And, death, once dead, there's no more that of some other person, for some dying then. uncertain term; (Vide Britt., c. 32; St. Sonnet CXLVI Germyn, D. & S. b. 3, d. 22) but an estate for a thousand years, being a certain term, is A lease (from laisser, dimittere, to part with) not a freehold, but only a chattel, and is a demise or letting of lands, tenements, or considered part of the personal estate.—Vide herediments unto another for term of life, or Co. Litt., 45, 46. years, or at will, upon a reserved rent, but always for a less time than the lessor hath in GHOST. I am thy father's spirit; the premises; for, if it be for the whole Doom'd for a certain term to walk the night; interest, it is more properly an assignment And, for the day, confined to fast in fires, than a lease. Till the foul crimes, done in my days of

212 The George Greenwood Collection nature, Have I not seen dwellers on form and favour Are burn'd and purg'd away. Lose all and all by paying too much rent.

Not mine own fears, nor the prophetic soul PRINCE HENRY. Five years! By 'r lady, a Of the wide world dreaming on things to long lease for the clinking of pewter. But, come, Francis, darest thou be so valiant as to play Can yet the lease of my true love control, the coward with thy indenture, and to show Suppos'd as forfeit to a confin'd doom. it a fair pair of heels, and run from it. Sonnet CVII First Part, Henry IV, Act 2, Scene 4.

From the explanations the reader may To what state, what dignity, what honour, perceive that Shakespeare does not Canst thou demise to any child of mine? confound a freehold estate with an estate Richard III. less than freehold: for Cade does not mean to say "if I might have a lease for life (which The usual words of operation in a lease are is an uncertain term, or freehold estate), for ("demisi concessi et ad firmam tradidi"), a term of a thousand years, (which is a "demise, grant, and to farm let."—Co. Litt., certain term or estate less than freehold), but 45 b.; Wood's Inst., 2nd ed., p. 264. "if I might have a lease of my life, as I might have a lease of a tenement for a thousand 1. GENTLEMAN. I'll tell you in a little. The years, I could stay no longer." But a lease great duke for twenty or more years, if J. S. shall so Came to the bar; where, to his accusations, long live, or if he should so long continue He pleaded still, not guilty, and alleged parson, is good: for there is a certain period Many sharp reasons to defeat the law. fixed, beyond which it cannot last; though it The king's attorney, on the contrary, may determine sooner, on the death of J. S. Urg'd on the examinations, proofs, or his ceasing to be parson.—Co. Litt., 45. confessions Of divers witnesses; which the duke desir'd THURIO. What says she to my birth? To him brought, viva voce, to his face. PROTEUS. That you are well deriv'd. Henry VIII, Act 2, Scene 1. JULIA. True, from a gentleman to a fool. THURIO. Considers she my possessions? Since brass, nor stone, nor earth, nor [33] PROTEUS. O, ay, and pitites them. boundless sea, THURIO. Wherefore? But sad mortality o'er sways their power, JULIA. That such an ass should own them. How with this rage shall beauty hold a plea, PROTEUS. That they are out by lease. Whose action is no stronger than a flower. Two Gentlemen of Verona, Act 5, Scene 2. Sonnet LXV.

By his possessions Thurio means his [34] The liberty to hold pleas (tenere placita) hereditaments. Proteus alludes to his is to have a court of one's own, and to hold it faculties, which he says are out by lease. before a mayor, bailiffc., in such a place according to the course of the common It fears not policy, that heretic, law.—(C. Finch, 166, 1 Inst., 114 b., 2 Inst., Which works on leases of short-number'd 71, 4 Inst., 87, 224, 2 Danv. Abr., 161.) hours. Sonnet CXXV.

213 The George Greenwood Collection

BASSANIO. In law, what plea so tainted defendant, consisting regularly of an and corrupt affirmative and negative, to be tried by But, being seasoned with a gracious voice, twelve men.—1 Inst., 126 a 11, Rep. 10, Obscures the show of evil. Finch, Book 4, ch. 35.

Plea denotes what either party in a court Mine eye and heart are at a mortal war, alleges in a cause depending there; and plea How to divide the conquest of the sight; or pleading, in a more extensive sense, Mine eye my heart thy picture's sight would comprehends all the points or matters that bar, follow the declaration, both on the My heart mine eye the freedom of that right. defendant's and plaintiff's side, till issue be My heart doth plead that thou in him dost joined; though a plea in its ordinary lie, acceptance signifies the defendant's answer (A closet never pierc'd with crystal eyes), to the plaintiff's declaration. but the defendant doth that plea deny, And says in him thy fair appearance lies. TIMON. Crack the lawyer's voice To 'cide this title is impaneled That he may never more false title plead, A quest of thoughts, all tenants to the heart; Nor sound his quillets shrilly. And by their verdict is determined. Timon of Athens, Act 4, Scene 2. The clear eye's moiety, and the dear heart's part: HOLOFERNES. Most barbarous intimation! As thus; mine eye's due is thine outward Yet a kind of insinuation, as it were, in via, part, in a way of explication; facere, as it were And my heart's right, thine inward love of replication. heart. Love's Labour's Lost, Act 4, Scene 2. Sonnet XLVI.

HAMLET. What replication should be made 'To 'cide,' to decide. 'A quest of thoughts,' an by the son of a king? inquest or jury. The process to bring in the jury in the Common Pleas is by venire facias Replication (replication) is an exception of and Habeas Corpora Juratorum. A the second degree made by the plaintiff Distringas juratorum goes out of the King's upon the answer of the defendant. Bench to the same intent. Upon this write of venire the sheriff shall return a jury in a DON JOHN. Grow this to what adverse panel, a little piece of parchment, annexed issue it can, I will put it in practice. Be to the writ; on which account the jury is said cunning in the working this, and thy fee is a to be impanelled.—Wood's Inst., 2nd ed., p. thousands ducats. 590. Much Ado About Nothing, Act 2, Scene 2. HAMLET. For who would bear the whips When the parties by plea, replication, and scorns of time, rejoinder, &c., are come to something The oppressor's wrong, the proud man's affirmed by one, and denied by the [35] contumely, other, they are at issue. Issue (from issuer, The pangs of despised love, the law's delay, emanare, to flow, exitus) is a single certain The insolence of office, and the spurns and material point issuing out of the [36] That patient merit from the unworthy allegations and pleas of the plaintiff and takes,

214 The George Greenwood Collection

When he himself might his quietus make FALSTAFF. Go, hang thyself in thine own With a bare bodkin. heir apparent garters. Act 3, Scene 1. First Part Henry IV, Act 2, Scene 2.

Quietus, is the same as to say freed or [37] CLEON. One sorrow never comes, but acquitted, and is used by the Clerk of the brings an heir, Pipe, and auditors in the Exchequer, in their That may succeed as his inheritor. discharges given to the accountants, which Pericles, Prince of Tyre, Act 1, Scene 4. usually conclude with these words, Abinde recessit quietus, generally termed a Quietus KING. When sorrows come they come not est. There is a Roll in the Exchequer called single spies, the Pipe, otherwise the Great Roll. The But in battalions! Clerk of the Pipe is one in whose custody Hamlet, Act 4, Scene 5. are conveyed, out of the offices of the King's and Treasurer's Remembrances, &c. (as HASTINGS. To bar my master's heirs in water through a pipe into a cistern) all true descent. accounts and debts due to the king; so as Richard III, Act 3, Scene 2. whatsoever is in charge in this Roll, or Pipe, is said in the law to be duly charged. (See So now I have confess'd that he is thine, Cowel's Interpreter v. Clerk of the Pipe.) And I myself am mortgag'd to thy will; The Controller of the Pipe is the Chancellor Myself I'll forfeit, so that other mine of the Exchequer.—Wood's Inst., 2nd Thou wilt restore, to be my comfort still; edition, p. 470. But thou wilt not, nor he will not be free, For thou art covetous, and he is kind; DAVY. Those precepts cannot be served. He learn'd but, surety-like, to write for me, Henry IV, Act 5, Scene 1. Under that bond that him as fast doth bind. The statute of thy beauty thou wilt take, Precepts here signify commandments, in Thou usurer, that putt'st forth all to use, writing, issued out of a justice of the peace, And sue a friend, came debtor for my sake; &c., for bringing a person or records before So him I lose through my unkind abuse. him. Him have I lost; thou hast both him and me; He pays the whole, and yet am I not free. FALSTAFF. Was it for me to kill the heir Sonnet CXXXIV. apparent. Merry Wives of Windsor, Act 2, Scene 2. "The statute of thy beauty," "The bond or obligation of thy beauty." Statutes merchant Heirs apparent are such whose right of and statutes staple have been explained. inheritance is indefeasible, provided they outlive the ancestor; as the eldest son, who LADY MACBETH. What need we fear who must by the course of the common law be knows it, when none can call our power to heir apparent to the father whenever he account. happens to die; and Falstaff refers to Prince Act 5, Scene 1. Henry, who was the heir apparent to the king, his father. LEAR. No, they cannot touch me for coining;

215 The George Greenwood Collection

I am king himself. Or you deny me right. King Lear, Act 4, Scene 6. Hamlet, Act 4, Scene 5.

GONERIL. Say, if I do; the laws are mine, MARIA. My lips are no common though not thine; several they be. Who shall arraign me for 't. Love's Labour's Lost, Act 1, Scene 1. King Lear, Act 5, Scene 3. A common is unapportioned land; a several, [38] Lady Macbeth, Lear, and Goneril seem land or an estate in severalty, is where an to refer to the ancient and fundamental estate is held by one person in his own principal of the English Constitution, that exclusive right, without any other person the king can do no wrong. Rex non potest being interested therein. But several, or peccare.—2 Roll. R. 304; Jenk. Cent. 9, severell, in Shakespeare's native county, 308. Warwick, signified, it is said, the common field, common to a few proprietors, but [39] EDEUS. I beg the ancient privilege of not common at all; so that the term used or Athens. taken in this sense would prevent the As she is mine, I may dispose of her, "though" appearing contradictory. Which shall be either to this gentleman Moreover, in Sonnet CXXXVII, Or to her death; according to our law, Shakespeare seems to have been well aware Immediately provided in that case. of the distinction existing between these Midsummer Night's Dream, Act 1, Scene 1. terms, for he there uses the word several in its usual legal acceptation: CADE. Contrary to the king, his crown, and dignity. Why should my hear think that a several Second Part, Henry VI, Act 4, Scene 7. plot, Which my heart knows the world's wide "Contrary to the form of the statute in that common place. case made and provided" is the allegation COSTARD. The matter is to me, sir, as which concludes indictments for offences concerning Jaquetta. which are contrary to the statute; if the The manner of it is, I was taken with the offence is indictable at common law, the manner. concluding words are, "against the peace of BIRON. In what manner. our said lady the Queen, her crown, and COSTARD. In manner and form following. dignity." Love's Labour's Lost, Act 1, Scene 1.

CADE. All the realm shall be in common. PRINCE HENRY. O villain, thou stolest a Second Part, Henry VI, Act 4, Scene 2. cup of sack eighteen years ago, and wert taken with the manner, and ever since thou CADE. Henceforward all things shall be in hast blushed extempore. common. First Part, Henry IV, Act 2, Scene 4. Second Part, Henry VI, Act 4, Scene 7. CLOWN. If you had not taken yourself with KING. Laertes, I must common with your the manner. grief, Winter's Tale, Act 4, Scene 3.

216 The George Greenwood Collection

Mainour, old French manoevre, meinor, else by refusing to stand a verdict upon Latin a manu, from the hand, or in the work. trial.—Wood's Inst., 2nd edition, p. 583. The old law phrase, to be taken as a thief with the mainour, signifies to be taken in the But be contented, when that fell arrest very act of killing venison, or stealing wood, Without all bail shall carry me away. or in preparing so to do; or it denotes the Sonnet. being taken with the thing stolen in his hands or possession. HAMLET. As this fell sergeant death is strict in his arrest. AARON. He, that had wit, would think that Act 5, Scene 2. I had none, To bury so much gold under a tree, Serjeant, or sergeant, is applied to divers And never after to inherit it. offices and callings; but Hamlet refers to serjeant-at-arms or mace, whose office is to In this passage Shakespeare probably refers attend the king's person, to arrest traitors or to treasure trove (tresor trouve) treasure persons of conditions, and to attend the lord found, which signifies in our common law, and high steward, when sitting in judgment. as it does in the civil law, id est veterm depositionem pecuniae, cujus non extat DROMIO OF EPHESUS. That you beat me memoria, ut jam dominium non habeat. This at the mart, I have your hand to show. treasure found, thought the [40] law gives it If the skin were parchment, and the blows to the finder according to the law of nature, you gave were ink, yet the law of England fives it to the crown Your own handwriting would tell you what I by prerogative, if the owner be unknown. think.

THALIARD. If a king bid a man be a [41] HAMLET. Is not parchment made of villain, he is bound by the indenture of his sheepskins? oath to be one. HORATIO. Ay, my lord, and of calves' Pericles of Tyre, Act 1, Scene 2. skins, too. HAMLET. They are sheep, and calves MARINA. Serve by indenture to the which seek out assurance in that. common hangman. Act 5, Scene 1. Pericles of Tyre, Act 4, Scene 6. They are (the players) the abstract and brief LEAR. This is nothing, fool. chronicles of the time. FOOL. Then 'tis like the breath of an unfed Hamlet, Act 2, Scene 2. lawyer. King Lear, Act 1, Scene 4. He hath an abstract for the remembrance of such places. IAGO. And, in conclusion, nonsuits Merry Wives of Windsor, Act 4, Scene 2. My mediators. PAULINA. The child was prisoner to the A nonsuit (from the Norman-French ne suit womb; and is, pas) is when the plaintiff upon demand By law and process of great nature, thence should appear in court, and he makes default Freed and enfranchis'd. by not prosecuting his suit with effect, or Winter's Tale, Act 2, Scene 2.

217 The George Greenwood Collection

Pray in aid for kindness. DUKE F. And let my officers of such a Antony and Cleopatra. nature Make an extent upon his house and lands. Aid prier, to pray or crave assistance; and is As You Like It. a word used in pleading, for a petition to call in help from another person that has interest Extent is directed to the sheriff to seize and in land, or other thing contested. Aid of the value lands and goods to the utmost extent. king is where the king's tenant prays aid of The execution upon a statute or the king on account of rent demanded of recognizance, pursuant to the 23rd Henry others. The aid of the king may be prayed by VIII, c. 6, is called an extent.—Wood's Inst., a city or borough that holds a fee-farm of the 2nd ed., p. 287, 566. king where anything is demanded of them that belongs thereto. HOSTESS. Master Fang, have you entered the action? PANDARUS. How now, a kiss in fee-farm. FANG. It is entered. Troilus and Cressida, Act 3, Scene 3. HOSTESS. I pray ye, since my exion is entered, and my case so openly known to the Fee-farm is where a tenant holds of his lord world, let him be brought in to his answer. in fee, paying annually the value, at least of Henry IV, Act 2, Scene 1. a fourth part of the land, without homage, fealty, or other services to be done, more Humbly complaining to your highness. than are especially comprised in the King Richard III. feoffment. Bills in Chancery commence "Humbly FALSTAFF. I will devise matter enough out complaining to your lordship," &c. of this Shallow to keep Prince Harry in continued laughter, the wearing out of six YORK. This is the day appointed for the fashions (which is four terms, or two combat. actions) and he shall laugh without And ready are the appellant and defendant. intervallums. Second Part Henry VI, Act 2, Scene 3. Second Part, Henry IV, Act 5, Scene 1. Combat, in our ancient law, denoted a [42] Formerly the law terms regulated what formal trial of a doubtful cause or quarrel by is now called the season, the swords or bastons of two champions. There was a trial by combat in the sixth year ORLANDO. Who stays it [time] withal? of the reign of King Charles I, between two ROSALIND. With lawyers in the vacation; Scotchmen, [43] Donald Rey, appellant, and for they sleep between term and term, and David Ramsey, Esq., defendant; but, after then they perceive not how time moves. many formalities, the matter was referred to As You Like It, Act 3, Scene 2. the king's pleasure.

OLIVIA. Let thy fair wisdom, not thy ARCITE. I've a good title, passion, sway I am persuaded: this question, sick between In this uncivil and unjust extent us, Against thy peace; That to your sword you will bequeath this Twelfth Night, Act 4, Scene1. plea,

218 The George Greenwood Collection

And talk of it no more. depth Two Noble Kinsmen, Act 3, Scene 1. To those that, without heed, do plunge into it. FIRST SERVANT. And say, you would Timon of Athens, Act 3, Scene 5. present her at the leet, Because he brought stone jugs and no seal'd KING. Offence's gilded hand may shove by quarts. justice; Taming of the Shrew, Induc. Scene 2. And oft 'tis seen the wicked prize itself Buys out the law. But 'tis not so above: Sealed quarts, licensed quarts. At the court There is no shuffling, there the action lies leet of a manor, the jury presented those In his true nature; and we ourselves who made use of false weights and compell'd, measures. Even to the teeth and forehead of our faults, To give in evidence. FALSTAFF. I say to you, I do desire Hamlet, Act 2, Scene 2. deliverance from these officers, being upon hasty employment in the king's affairs. SECOND FISHERMAN. Help, master, Second Part, Henry IV, ct 2, Scene 1. help; here's a fish hangs in the net, like poor man's right in the law: it will hardly come Protection, "cum clausula volumes," is an out. immunity given by the king to a person in Pericles of Tyre, Act 2, Scene 2. his service to be free against suits at law for one year; and so from year to year. Thus, the The laws have been satirically composed to king may grant a protection to his debtor spiders' webs, which catch the small flies, that he be not sued till the king is paid his and let the great ones through. debt.—Vide 25th Edward III., c. 19, and Wood's Inst., 2nd ed., p. 571. I weep for thee, and yet no cause I have; For why? Thou left'st me nothing in thy will. I may be straight, though they themselves be And yet thou left'st me more than I did bevel. crave; Sonnet CXXI. For why/ I craved nothing of thee still; Thy discontent thou didst bequeath to me. An angle, except a right angle, is called a The Passionate Pilgrim, 8. bevel angle, whether it be acute or obtuse. In deeds it is usual, in the description of "Poor dear," quoth he, "thou makest a property, to make use of the words "beveling testament, as worldlings do, giving thy sum line" to signify the inclination of a surface of more to that which had too much." from a right line. As You Like It, Act 2, Scene 1.

ALCIABIADES. I am a humble suitor to VIOLA. 'Tis beauty truly blent, whose red your virtues; and white For pity is the virtue of the law, Nature's own sweet and cunning hand laid [44] And non but tyrants use it cruelly. on; It pleases time and fortune to lie heavy Lady, you are the cruel'st she alive, Upon a friend of mine, who, in hot blood, If you will lend these graces to the grave, Hath stepp'd into the law, which is past And leave the world no copy.

219 The George Greenwood Collection

[45] OLIVIA. O. sir, I will not be so hard- Old forms of wills often contained hearted; I will give out divers schedules of appointments of overseers, as well as my beauty. It shall be inventoried; and every executors. particle and utensil labeled to my will: as, item, two lips indifferent red; item, two grey And so espous'd to death, with blood he eyes, with lids to them; item, one neck, one seal'd shin, and so forth." A testament of noble-ending love. Twelfth Night, Act 1, Scene 5. Henry V.

Inventory is generally used to signify a [46] SLENDER. My will? Ods, heartlings, schedule, containing a full description of all that's a pretty jest, indeed! I ne'er made my the goods and chattels of a testator at the will yet. I thank heaven, I am not such a time of his death, together with the value of sickly creature; I give heaven praise. the same as apprised by two indifferent Merry Wives of Windsor, Act3, Scene 4. person. (Vide 2nd Henry VIII, c. 5.) Viola by copy means issue; Olivia plays upon the ROMEO. Bid a sick man in sadness make word. his will: Ah! word ill urged to one that to one that is KING RICHARD. Let's choose executors, so ill! and talk of wills; Romeo and Juliet, Act 1, Scene 1. And yet not so, for what can we bequeath, Save our deposed bodies to the ground? ELIZABETH. Thou unadvised scold, I can Richard II, Act 3, Scene 2. produce A will that bars the title of thy son. This brief abridgement of my will I make; King John, Act 2, Scene 1. My soul and body to the skied and ground. The Rape of Lucrece. COUNT. Of six preceding ancestors, that you The old forms of wills, commonly Conferr'd, by testament, to the sequent issue, commenced by the testator commending his Hath been owed and word. soul into the hands of God, his Creator, and All's Well That Ends Well, Act 5, Scene 3. his body to the earth, whereof it was made, Shakespeare's will commences in this PAINTER. To promise is most courtly and manner: fashionable: performance is a kind of will or testament which argues a great sickness in "First, I commend my soul into the hands of his judgment that makes it. God, my Creator, hoping and assuredly Timon of Athens, Act 5, Scene 1. believing, through the only merits of Jesus Christ, my Saviour, to be made partaker of The words will and testament, though life everlasting, and my body to the earth generally used indiscriminately, are not, whereof it is made." strictly speaking, synonymous. A will relates, properly, to real estate, and a Thou, Collatine, shall oversee this will. testament to personal property requiring The Rape of Lucrece. executors.

220 The George Greenwood Collection

I have now quoted most of the passages in Shakespeare and Sophocles, Jocasta, after the works of William Shakespeare delivering the lines— containing law terms, law customs, legal allusions, and legal phraseology, my [Greek text.] memory ahs enabled me to refer to, excepting those which are incident to the leave the stage in the silence of her plot of the play in which they occur, such as unutterable anguish; and Shakespeare the passage in Henry V, act 5, scene 1, after frequently in one line, often even with a [48] the line "In terram salicam mulieres ne few words or short exclamations, expresses succedant," that portion of scene 2, act 3, of the most acute mental suffering. Julius Caesar referring to Caesar's Will and Testament, and the Court of Justice scene, LEAR. O me, my heart! My rising heart; but act w of the [47] Merchant of Venice; and down. although many of them would be intelligible Act 2, Scene3. without sufficient explanation, excepting to those who have acquired a general LEAR. Wilt break my heart! knowledge of the various branches of the Act 3, Scene 4. laws of England—some of them have been afforded merely as examples of the frequent After contemplating the misery of Edgar, use the poet makes of the language of the Lear says: law, though he may not always intend, in so doing, to convey a legal meaning. Thou wert better in thy grave than to answer with thy uncover'd body this extremity of Although ignorance of the theory and the skies. Is man no more than this? practice of the laws of England may have Consider him well. Thou owest the worm no prevented many of Shakespeare's silk, the beast no hide, the sheep no wool, commentators from explaining or even the cat no perfume: Ha! here's three of us are perceiving the meaning of passages sophisticated! Thou art the thing itself: containing legal terms, &c., it will not unaccommodated man is no more but such a account for the absurdity of some of their poor, bare, forked animal as thou art. Off, observations and emendatory criticisms. off, you lendings: Come, unbutton here. Persons of literary taste, familiar with the Act 3, Scene 4. finest productions of the greatest authors of ancient and modern times, are not probably A commentator, in a note on this passage, more grieved by the neglect of what is truly observes, "The words unbutton here are excellent in literature, and the preference probably only a marginal direction crept into given to the inferior writings of the day, than the matter!" Shakespeare, however, makes by the apparent incapacity of some men of use of the same expression in another part of acknowledged ability and profound learning King Lear. to appreciate the fine touches of genius. In the plays of Seneca, Corneille, and LEAR. Pray you, undo this button. Thank Dryden, when Jocasta discovers that you, sir, Oedipus was the murderer of her husband, Do you see this! Look on her, look, her lips. she continues to lament her affliction in the Look there, look there! [Dies. tedious and "set phrase of speech." But Act 5, Scene 3.

221 The George Greenwood Collection

Moreover, such expressions, intended to FALSTAFF. Well, thou has called her to a describe the anguish of the "o'er fraught reckoning many a time and oft. heart," are not peculiar to this play. First Part, Henry IV, Act 1, Scene 2.

QUEEN ELIZABETH. Ah, cut my lace WIFE. Most true, forsooth; and many a time asunder, and oft myself have heard a voice to call That my pent heart may have some scope to him so. beat, Second Part, Henry VI, Act 2, Scene 1. Or else I swoon with this dead, killing news. King Richard III, Act 4, Scene1. [50] LUCULLUS. Many a time and oft I have dined with him, and told him on't. [49] PAULINA. Woe the while! Timon of Athens, Act 2, Scene 1. O, out my lace, lest my heart, cracking it, Break too! MARCELLUS. Knew you not Pompay? Winter's Tale, Act 3, Scene 2. Many a time and oft Have you climb'd up to walls and In the third scene of the first act of the battlements, Merchant of Venice, Shylock says, To towers and windows, yes, to chimney tops, "Signior Antonio, many a time and oft Your infants in your arms, and there have In the Rialto, you have rated me sat About my monies and my usances." The live long day, with patient expectation, To see Great Pompey pass the streets of The actor who first made this alteration, Rome; And when you saw his chariot but appear, "Signior Antonio, many a time—and oft Have you not made an universal shout, In the Rialto, you have rated me That Tyber trembled underneath her banks About my monies and my usances," To hear the replication of your sounds, Made in her concave shores? was considered to have exercised much Julius Caesar, Act 1, Scene 1. ingenuity, and his example has been very generally followed, both on and off the To conclude, whether William Shakespeare stage, it being stated that the expression was or was not a member of the legal "many a time and oft" is tautological, and profession, sufficient has probably been could never have been intended by so great a stated to prove that he had acquired a master of the English language. Now, general knowledge of the laws of England— although in this passage the expression is so the accumulated wisdom of ages, the situated as to admit of a double reading, it is stronghold of freedom, of civil and religious not certain that the poet intended such liberty—the wisest, the noblest, the most fair reading to be adopted; for, contrary to the and equitable system of jurisprudence ever statement generally made, that the respected and obeyed by the just, or expression is peculiar to the Merchant of calumniated and violated by the evil, or that Venice, it occurs in several other portions of the human race in any age or any clime has Shakespeare's works, where it is so situated ever yet beheld! as not to admit of such alteration.

222 The George Greenwood Collection

hope of making any addition, even if infinitesimally small, to this great national Shakespeare’s Legal monument, is enough to induce me to follow my friend’s advice, although I am aware that Acquirements by the attempt I shall be exposed to some by Lord Campbell peril. In [4] pointing out Shakespeare’s frequent use of law-phrases, and the strict 1859 propriety with which he always applies them, the CHIEF JUSTICE may be likened edited by Mark Andre Alexander to the COBBLER, who, when shown the masterpiece of a great painter, representing the Pope surrounded by an interesting Preface historical group, could not be prevailed upon to notice any beauty in the painting, except [3] WHEN my old and valued friend, Mr. the skilful structure of a slipper worn by his Payne Collier, received the following Letter, Holiness. which I wrote with a view to assist him in his Shakespearian lucubrations, he Nevertheless I may meet with kinder critics, forthwith, in terms which I should like to and some may think it right to countenance copy if they were not so complimentary, any effort to bring about a "fusion of Law strongly recommended me to print and and Literature," which, like "Law and publish it in my own name—intimating that Equity," have too long been kept apart in I might thus have "the glory of placing a England. STRATHEDEN HOUSE, Jan. 1, stone on the lofty CAIRN of our immortal 1859. bard." If he had said a "pebble," the word would have been more appropriate. But the of the Chancellors, and in my Lives of the Chief Justices, I have glanced at the subject of Shakespeare’s legal acquirements, you SHAKESPEARE’S LEGAL demand rather peremptorily my opinion ACQUIREMENTS upon the question keenly agitated of late years, whether Shakespeare was a clerk in [7] To J. Payne Collier, Esq., an attorney’s [8] office at Stratford before he joined the players in London? Riverside, Maidenhead, Berks. From your indefatigable researches and your HARTRIGGE, JEDBURGH, N. B. critical acumen, which have thrown so much new light upon the career of our unrivalled September 15th, 1858. dramatist, I say, with entire sincerity, that there is no one so well qualified as yourself MY DEAR MR. PAYNE COLLIER, to speak authoritatively in this controversy, and I observe that in both the editions of Knowing that I take great delight in your Life of Shakespeare you are strongly Shakespeare’s plays, and that I have paid inclined to the belief that the author of some attention to the common law of this Hamlet was employed some years in realm, and recollecting that both in my Lives engrossing deeds, serving writs, and making out bills of costs.

223 The George Greenwood Collection

However, as you seem to consider it still an jury of Fellows of the Society of open question, and as I have a little leisure Antiquaries) that, after they had been some during this long vacation, I cannot refuse to hours in deliberation, I should receive a communicate to you my sentiments upon the message from them—"there is no chance of subject, and I shall be happy if, from my our agreeing, and therefore we wish to be professional knowledge and experience, I discharged;" that having sent for them into can afford you any information or throw out court, and read them a lecture on the duty any hints which may be useful to you imposed upon them by law of being hereafter. I myself, at any rate, must derive unanimous, I should be obliged to order some benefit from the task, as it will for a them to be locked up for the night; that while drive from my mind the recollection having sat up all night without eating or of the wranglings [9] of Westminster Hall. drinking, and "without fire, candle-light In literary pursuits should I have wished excepted," [These are the words of the oath ever to be engaged: administered to the bailiff into whose custody the jurymen are delivered. I had "Me si fata meis paterentur ducere vitam lately to determine whether gas-lamps could be considered "candle-light." In favorem Anspiciis, et sponte mea componere curas." vitae, I ventured to rule in the affirmative; and, the night being very cold, to order that Having read nearly all that has been written the lamps should be liberally supplied with on Shakespeare’s ante-Londinensian life, gas, so that, directly administering light and carefully examined his writings with a according to law, they might, contrary to view to obtain internal evidence as to his law, incidentally administer heat.] they education and breeding, I am obliged to say would come into court next [11] morning that to the question you propound no pale and ghastly, still saying "we cannot positive answer can very safely be given. agree," and that, according to the rigour of the law, I ought to order them to be again Were an issue tried before me as Chief locked up as before till the close of the Justice at the Warwick assizes, "whether assizes, and then sentence them to be put William Shakespeare, late of Stratford- into a cart, to accompany me in my progress upon-Avon, gentleman, ever was clerk in an towards the next assize town, and to be shot attorney’s office in Stratford-upon-Avon into a ditch on the confines of the county of aforesaid," I should hold that there is Warwick. evidence to go to the jury in support of the affirmative, but I should add that the Yet in the hope of giving the gentlemen of evidence is very far from being conclusive, the jury a chance of escaping these horrors, and I should tell the twelve gentlemen in the to which, according to the existing state of box that it is a case entirely for their the law, they would be exposed, and decision—without venturing even to hint to desiring, without departing from my them, for their guidance, any [10] opinion of impartiality, to assist them in coming to a my own. Should they unanimously agree in just conclusion, I should not hesitate to state, a verdict either in the affirmative or with some earnestness, that there has been a negative, I do not think that the court, sitting great deal of misrepresentation and delusion in banco, could properly set it aside and as to Shakespeare’s opportunities when a grant a new trial. But the probability is youth of acquiring knowledge, and as to the (particularly if the trial were by a special knowledge he had acquired. From a love of

224 The George Greenwood Collection the incredible, and a wish to make what he neighbourhood. [I am aware of your afterwards accomplished actually suggestion in your Life of Shakespeare, that miraculous, a band of critics have conspired the first grant of arms to the father was at a to lower the condition of his father, and to subsequent time, when the son, although he represent the son, when [12] approaching had acquired both popularity and property, man’s estate, as still almost wholly illiterate. was, on account of his profession (then We have been told that his father was a supposed to be unfit for a gentleman), not butcher in a small provincial town; that qualified to bear arms. But the "pleasant Willy" was bred to his father’s "Confirmation" in 1596 recites that a patent business; that the only early indication of had been before granted by Clarencieux genius which he betrayed was his habit, Cooke to John Shakespeare, when chief while killing a calf, eloquently to harangue magistrate of Stratford, and, as a ground for the bystanders; that he continued in this the Confirmation, that this original patent occupation till he was obliged to fly the had been sent to the Heralds' Office when country for theft; that arriving in London a Sir William Dethick was Garter King-at- destitute stranger, he at first supported Arms. Against this positive evidence we himself by receiving pence for holding lawyers should consider the negative gentlemen’s horses at the theatre; that he evidence, that, upon search, an entry of the then contrived to scrape an acquaintance first grant is not found, to be of no avail: and with some of the actors, and being first there could be no object in forging the first employed as prompter, although he had grant, as an original grant in 1596 would hardly learned to read, he was allowed to have been equally beneficial both to father play some very inferior parts himself—and and son.] That he [14] was, as has been that without any further training he produced recently asserted, a glover, or that he ever Richard III, Othello, Macbeth, and King sold wool or butcher’s meat, is not proved Lear. But, whether Shakespeare ever had by anything like satisfactory evidence—and, any juridical education or not, I think it is at any rate, according to the usages of established beyond all doubt that his father society in those times, occasional dealings was of a respectable family, had some real whereby the owner of land disposed of part property by descent, married a coheiress of of the produce of it by retail were reckoned an ancient [13] house, received a grant of quite consistent with the position of a squire. armorial bearings from the Heralds with a At this day, and in our own country, recognition of his lineage, was for many gentlemen not unfrequently sell their own years an Alderman of Stratford, and, after hay, corn, and cattle, and on the Continent being intrusted by the Corporation to the high nobility are well pleased to sell by manage their finances as Chamberlain, the bottle the produce of their vineyards. served the office of Chief Magistrate of the town. There are entries in the Corporation It is said that the worthy Alderman could not books supposed to indicate that at one write his own name. But the facsimile of the period of his life he was involved in document formerly relied upon to establish pecuniary difficulties; but this did not this [an order, dated 29th Sept., 7 Eliz., for detract from his gentility, as is proved by the John Wheeler to take upon himself the subsequent confirmation of his armorial office of Bailiff, signed by nineteen bearings, with a slight alteration in his aldermen and burgesses] appears to me to quarterings—and he seems still to have lived prove [15] the contrary, for the name of respectably in Stratford or the John Shacksper subscribed in a strong,

225 The George Greenwood Collection clear hand, and the mark, supposed to be his, supplied by a succession of competent evidently belongs to the name of Thomas masters to teach Greek and Latin: and here Dyrun in the line below. [See that most the sons of all [17] the members of the elaborate and entertaining book, Knight's corporation were entitled to gratuitous Life of Shakspere, 1st ea., p. 16.] You tell us, instruction, and mixed with the sons of the in your latest edition, of the production of neighbouring gentry. At such grammar two new documents before the Shakespeare schools, generally speaking, only a Society, dated respectively 3rd and 9th Dec., smattering of Greek was to be acquired, but 11 Eliz., which, it is said, if John the boys were thoroughly grounded in Latin Shakespeare could have written, would have grammar, and were rendered familiar with been signed by him—whereas they only the most popular Roman classics. bear his mark. But in my own experience I Shakespeare must have been at this school at have known many instances of documents least five years. His father’s supposed bearing a mark as the signature of persons pecuniary difficulties, which are said to have who could write well, and this was probably interrupted his education, did not occur till much more common in illiterate ages, when William had reached the age of 14 or 15, documents were generally authenticated by when, according to the plan of education a seal. Even if it were demonstrated that which was then followed, the sons of John Shakespeare had not been "so well tradesmen were put out as apprentices or brought up that he could write his name," clerks, and the sons of the more wealthy and that "he had a mark to himself like an went to the university. None of his school honest, plain-dealing man"—considering compositions are preserved, and we have no that he was born not very long after [16] the authentic account of his progress; but we wars of the Roses, this deficiency would not know that at these schools boys of industry weigh much in disproving his wealth or his and genius have become well versed in gentility. Even supposing him to have been a classical learning. Samuel Johnson said that genuine marksman, he was only on a par in he acquired little at Oxford beyond what he this respect with many persons of higher had brought away with him from Lichfield rank, and with several of the most influential Grammar School, where he had been taught, of his fellow townsmen. Of the nineteen [18] like Shakespeare, as the son of a Aldermen and burgesses who signed the burgess; and many from such schools, order referred to, only seven subscribe their without further regular tuition, have names with a pen, and the High Bailiff and distinguished themselves in literature. Senior Alderman are among the marksmen. It is said that "the boy is the father of the Whatever may have been the clownish man;" and knowing the man, we may form a condition of John Shakespeare, that the notion of the tastes and habits of the boy. "Divine Williams" (as the French call our Grown to be a man, Shakespeare certainly great dramatist) received an excellent school was most industrious, and showed an education can hardly admit of question or insatiable thirst for knowledge. We may doubt. We certainly know that he wrote a therefore fairly infer that from early infancy beautiful and business-like hand, which he he instinctively availed himself of every probably acquired early. There was a free opportunity of mental culture: grammar school at Stratford, founded in the reign of Edward IV., and reformed by a What time, where lucid Avon charter of Edward VI. This school was stray’d,

226 The George Greenwood Collection

To him the mighty mother did unveil engrossed during this interval by labouring Her awful face: the dauntless child as a mechanic, is a supposition which I at Stretched forth his little arms, and once dismiss as absurd. smiled. Aubrey asserts that from leaving school till The grand difficulty is to discover, or to he left Warwickshire Shakespeare was a conjecture with reasonable probability, how schoolmaster. If this could be believed, it Shakespeare was employed from about would sufficiently accord with the 1579, when he most likely left school, till phenomena of Shakespeare’s subsequent about 1586, when he is supposed to have career, except the familiar, profound, and gone to London. That during this interval he accurate knowledge he displayed of juridical was merely an operative, earning his bread principles and practice. Being a by [19] manual labour, in stitching gloves, schoolmaster in the country for some years sorting wool, or killing calves, no sensible (as Samuel Johnson certainly was), his man can possibly imagine. At twenty-three mental cultivation would have certainly years of age, although he had not become advanced, and so he might have been regularly learned as if he had taken the prepared for the arena in which he was to degree of M. A. at Oxford or Cambridge, appear on his arrival in the metropolis. after disputing in the schools de omni scibili et quolibet ente—there can be no doubt that, Unfortunately, however, the pedagogical like our Scottish BURNS, his mind must theory is not only quite unsupported by have been richly cultivated, and that he had evidence, but it is not consistent with laid up a vast stock of valuable knowledge established [21] facts. From the registration and of poetical imagery, gained from books, of the baptism of Shakespeare’s children, from social intercourse, and from the survey and other well authenticated circumstances, of nature. Whoever believes that when we know that he continued to dwell in Shakespeare was first admitted to play a part Stratford, or the immediate neighbourhood, in the Blackfriars Theatre his mind was as till he became a citizen of London: there was unfurnished as that of the stolid ‘Clown’ in no other school in Stratford except the the Winter’s Tale, who called forth a wish endowed grammar school, where he had from his own father that "there were no age been a pupil; of this he certainly never was between ten and three and twenty," will master, for the unbroken succession of readily give credit to all the most masters from the reign of Edward VI. till the extravagant and appalling marvels of reign of James I. is on record; none of the mesmerism, clairvoyance, table-turning, and mob who stand out for Shakespeare being spirit-rapping. quite illiterate will allow that he was qualified to be usher; and there is no trace of Of Shakespeare’s actual occupations during there having been any usher employed in these important years, when his character this school. [20] was formed, there is not a scintilla of contemporary proof; and the vague It may likewise be observed that if traditionary evidence which has been Shakespeare really had been a schoolmaster, resorted to was picked up many years after he probably would have had some regard for his death, when the object was to startle the the "order" to which he belonged. In all his world with things strange and supernatural dramas we have three schoolmasters only, respecting him.— That his time was and he makes them all exceedingly

227 The George Greenwood Collection ridiculous. First we have Holofernes in held a court feet and view of frankpledge Love’s Labour’s Lost, who is brought on the there, to which a jury was summoned, and at stage to be laughed at for his pedantry and which constables were appointed and his bad verses; then [22] comes the various presentments were made. Welshman, Sir Hugh Evans, in the Merry Wives of Windsor, who, although in holy If Shakespeare had been a clerk to one of orders, has not yet learned to speak the these attorneys, all that followed while he English language; and last of all, Pinch, in remained at Stratford, and the knowledge the Comedy of Errors, who unites the bad and acquirements which he displayed when qualities of a pedagogue and a conjuror. he came to London, would not only have been within the bounds of possibility, but By the process of exhaustion, I now arrive at would seem almost effect from cause—in a the only other occupation in which it is well natural and probable sequence. [24] possible to imagine that Shakespeare could be engaged during the period we are From the moderate pay allowed him by his considering—that of an attorney’s clerk— master he would have been able decently to first suggested by Chalmers, and since maintain his wife and children; vacant hours countenanced by Malone, yourself and would have been left to him for the others, whose opinions are entitled to high indulgence of his literary propensity; and respect, but impugned by nearly an equal this temporary attention to law might have number of biographers and critics of almost quickened his fancy—although a systematic, equal authority—without any one, on either lifelong devotion to it, I fear, may have a side, having as yet discussed the question very different tendency. Burke eloquently very elaborately. descants upon the improvement of the mental faculties by juridical studies; and It must be admitted that there is no Warburton, Chatterton, Pitt the younger, established fact with which this supposition Canning, Disraeli, and Lord Macaulay are a is not consistent. At Stratford there was, by few out of many instances which might be royal charter, a court of record, with cited of men of brilliant intellectual career jurisdiction over all personal actions to the who had early become familiar with the amount of 30£., equal, at the latter end of the elements of jurisprudence. reign of Elizabeth, to more than l00£ in the reign [23] of Victoria. This court, the Here would be the solution of Shakespeare’s records of which are extant, was regulated legalism which has so perplexed his by the course of practice and pleading which biographers and commentators, and which prevailed in the superior courts of law at Aubrey’s tradition leaves wholly Westminster, and employed the same unexplained. We should only have to barbarous dialect, composed of Latin, recollect the maxim that "the vessel long English, and Norman-French. It sat every retains the flavour with which it has been fortnight, and there were belonging to it, once imbued." Great as is the knowledge of besides the Town-clerk, six attorneys, some law which Shakespeare’s [25] writings of whom must have practiced in the Queen’s display, and familiar as he appears to have Bench and in Chancery, and have had been with all its forms and proceedings, the extensive business in conveyancing. An whole of this would easily be accounted for attorney, steward of the Earl of Warwick, if for some years he had occupied a desk in lord of the manor of Stratford, twice a year the office of a country attorney in good

228 The George Greenwood Collection business—attending sessions and assizes— give their attendance here again on the first keeping leets and law days—and perhaps day of the ensuing term." An old lady very being sent up to the metropolis in term time lately deceased, a daughter of Mr. Justice to conduct suits before the Lord Chancellor Blackstone, who was a puisne judge of the or the superior courts of common law at Common Pleas and lived near Abingdon, Westminster, according to the ancient used to relate that the day after term ended, practice of country attorneys, who would not the family coach, with four black long-tailed employ a London agent to divide their fees. horses, used regularly to come at an early hour to Serjeants' Inn to conduct them to [If Shakespeare really was articled to a their country house; and there the Judge and Stratford attorney, in all probability during his family remained till they travelled to the five years of his clerkship he visited London in the same style on the session-day London several times on his master's of the following term. When a student of business, and he may then have been law, I had the honour of being presented to introduced to the green room at Blackfriars the oldest of the judges, Mr. Justice Grose, by one of his countrymen connected with famous for his beautiful seat in the Isle of that theatre. Wight, where he leisurely spent a Even so late as Queen Anne's reign there considerable part of the year, more majorem. seems to have been a prodigious influx of all To his question to me, "Where do you live?" ranks from the provinces into the metropolis I answered, "I have chambers in Lincoln's in term time. During the preceding century Inn, my Lord." "Ah!" replied he, "but I Parliament sometimes did not meet at all for mean—when term is over."] a considerable number of years; and being summoned rarely and capriciously, the On the supposition of Shakespeare having "London season" seems to have been been an attorney’s clerk at Stratford we may regulated, not by the session of Parliament, likewise see how, when very young, he but by the law terms— contracted his taste for theatricals, even if he had never left that locality till the unlucky "—and prints before Term ends."—Pope. [27] affair of Sir Thomas Lucy’s deer. It [26] appears from the records of the Corporation of Stratford, that nearly every year the town While term lasted, Westminster Hall was was visited by strolling companies of crowded all the morning, not only by players, calling themselves "the Earl of lawyers, but by idlers and politicians, in Derby’s servants," "the Earl of Leicester’s quest of news. Term having ended, there servants," and "Her Majesty’s servants." seems to have been a general dispersion. These companies are most graphically Even the Judges spent their vacations in the represented to us by the strolling players in country, having when in town resided in Hamlet and in the Taming of the Shrew. The their chambers in the Temple or Inns of custom at Stratford was for the players on Court. The Chiefs were obliged to remain in their arrival to wait upon the Bailiff and town a day or two after term for Nisi Prius Aldermen to obtain a licence to perform in sittings; but the Puisnes were entirely the town. The Guildhall was generally liberated when proclamation was made at allotted to them, and was fitted up as a the rising of the court on the last day of theatre according to the simple and rude term, in the form still preserved, that "all notions of the age. We may easily conceive manner of persons may take their ease, and that Will Shakespeare, son of the chief

229 The George Greenwood Collection magistrate who granted the licence, now a employed, from the cleverness he displayed, bustling attorney’s clerk, would actually to correct, alter, and improve dramas written assist in these proceedings when his by others, he went on to produce dramas of master’s office was closed for the day; and his own, which were applauded more loudly [28] that he might thus readily become than any that had before appeared upon the intimate with the manager and the English stage. performers, some of whom were said to be his fellow-townsmen. He might well have "Envy does merit as its shade pursue; officiated as prompter, the duty said to have " been first assigned to him in the theatre at the Blackfriars. The travelling associations and rivals whom he surpassed not only of actors at that period consisted generally envied Shakespeare, but grossly libelled of not more than from five to ten members; him. Of this we have an example in ‘An and when a play to be performed in the Epistle to the Gentlemen Students of the Guildhall at Stratford contained more Two Universities, [30] by Thomas Nash,’ characters than individuals in the list of prefixed to the first edition of Robert strollers, it would be no great stretch of Greene’s MENAPHON (which was imagination to suppose that, instead of subsequently called Greene’s ARCADIA)— mutilating the piece by suppression, or according to the title-page, published in awkwardly assigning two parts to one 1589. The alleged libel on Shakespeare is in performer, "pleasant Willy’s" assistance was the words following, viz.: called in; and our great dramatist may thus have commenced his career as an actor in I will turn back to my first text of his native town. studies of delight, and talk a little in friendship with a few of our trivial To prove that he had been bred in an translators. It is a common practice attorney’s office, there is one piece of direct now-adays, amongst a sort of evidence. This is an alleged libel upon him shifting companions that run through by a contemporary—published to the world every art and thrive by none, to leave in his lifetime—which, if it do actually refer the trade of Noverint whereto they to him, must be considered as the foundation were born, and busy themselves with of a very strong inference of the fact. [29] the endeavours of art, that could scarcely Latinize their neck-verse if Leaving Stratford and joining the players in they should have need; yet English London in 1586 or 1587, there can be no Seneca, read by candle-light, yields doubt that his success was very rapid; for, as many good sentences, as blood is a early as 1589, he had actually got a share in beggar, and so forth; and if you the Blackfriars Theatre, and he was a partner intreat him fair, in a frosty morning, in managing it with his townsman Thomas he will afford you whole Hamlets; I Green and his countryman Richard should say handfuls of tragical Burbadge. I do not imagine that when he speeches. But O grief! Tempus edax went up to London he carried a tragedy in rerum—what is that will last always? his pocket to be offered for the stage as The sea exhaled by drops will in Samuel Johnson did IRENE. The more continuance be dry; and Seneca, let probable conjecture is, that he began as an blood, line by line, and page by page, actor on the London boards, and being at length must needs die to our stage.

230 The George Greenwood Collection

Now, if the innuendo which would have Arcadia, the work to which Nash’s Epistle been introduced into the declaration in an was appended, were very intimate. In this action, "Shakespeare v. Nash," for this libel very epistle Nash calls Greene "sweet [31] ("thereby then and there meaning the friend." It is well known that this Robert said William Shakespeare") be made out, Greene (who, it must always be there can be no doubt as to the remaining remembered, was a totally different person innuendo "thereby then and there meaning from Thomas Green, the actor and part that the said William Shakespeare had been proprietor of the Blackfriars Theatre) was an attorney’s clerk, or bred an attorney." one of the chief sufferers from Shakespeare being engaged by the Lord Chamberlain s In Elizabeth’s reign deeds were in the Latin players to alter stock pieces for the tongue; and all deeds poll, and many other Blackfriars [33] Theatre, to touch up and law papers, began with the words improve new pieces proposed to the "NOVERINT universi per presentes"—"Be managers, and to supply original pieces of it known to all men by these presents that, his own. Robert Greene had been himself &c." The very bond which was given in employed in this department, and he felt that 1582, prior to the grant of a licence for his occupation was gone. Therefore, by Shakespeare’s marriage with Ann publishing Nash’s Epistle in 1589, when Hathaway, and which Shakespeare most Shakespeare, and no one else, had, by the probably himself drew, commences display of superior genius, been the ruin of "NOVERINT universi per presentes." The Greene, the two must have combined to business of an attorney seems to have been denounce Shakespeare as having abandoned then known as "the trade of NOVERINT." "the trade of Noverint" in order to "busy Ergo, "these shifting companions" are himself with the endeavours of art," and to charged with having abandoned the legal furnish tragical speeches from the profession, to which they were bred; and, translation of Seneca. although most imperfectly educated, with trying to manufacture tragical speeches from In 1592 Greene followed up the attack of an English translation of Seneca. 1589 in a tract called The Groatsworth of Wit. Here he does not renew the taunt of For completing Nash’s testimony (valeat abandoning "the trade of NOVERINT," [32] quantum) to the fact that Shakespeare which with Nash he had before made, but he had been bred to the law, nothing remains pointedly upbraids Shakespeare by the but to consider whether Shakespeare is here nickname of Shake-scene, as "an upstart aimed at? Now, independently of the crow beautified with our feathers," having expressions "whole Hamlets" and "handfuls just before spoken of himself as "the man to of tragical speeches," which, had whom actors had been previously Shakespeare’s HAMLET certainly been beholding." He goes on farther to allude to written and acted before the publication of Shakespeare as one who [34] "supposes he Nash’s letter, could leave no doubt as to the is as well able to bombast out a blank verse author’s intention, there is strong reason to as the best of his predecessors," as "an believe that the intended victim was the absolute Johannes Factotum," and "in his young man from Warwickshire, who had own conceit the only SHAKE-SCENE in a suddenly made such a sensation and such a country." In 1592 Robert Greene frankly revolution in the theatrical world. Nash and complains that Shake-scene had Robert Greene, the author of Menaphon or undeservedly met with such success as to be

231 The George Greenwood Collection able to drive him (Greene) and others pains, making [36] them at last sometimes similarly circumstanced from an nearly twice as long as they were when employment by which they had mainly originally represented. subsisted. [You no doubt recollect that Robert Greene actually died of starvation With respect to these dates it is remarkable before his Groatsworth of Wit, in which he that an English translation of Seneca, from so bitterly assailed Shakepeare as "Shake- which Shakespeare was supposed to have scene" was published.] This evidence, plagiarised so freely, had been published therefore, seems amply aufficient to prove several years before Nash’s Epistle—and in that there was a conspiracy between the two the scene with the players on their arrival at libellers, Nash and Robert Greene, and that Elsinore (if this scene appeared in the first Shakespeare was the object of it. sketch of the tragedy, as it probably did, from being so essential to the plot), But I do not hesitate to believe that Nash, in Shakespeare’s acqaintance with this author 1589, directly alludes to HAMLET as a play was proclaimed by the panegyric of of Shakespeare, and wishes to turn it into Polonius upon the new company, for whom ridicule. I am aware that an attempt has been "SENECA could not be too heavy nor made to show that there had been an edition Plautus too light." of Menaphon before 1589; but no copy of any prior edition of it, with Nash’s [35] Therefore, my dear Mr. Payne Collier, in Epistle appended to it, has been produced. I support of your opinion that Shakespeare am also aware that Hamlet, in the perfect had been bred to the profession of the law in state in which we now behold it, was not an attorney’s office, I think you will be finished till several years after; but I make justified in saying that the fact was asserted no doubt that before the publication of publicly in Shakespeare’s lifetime by two Nash’s Epistle Shakespeare’s first sketch of contemporaries of Shakespeare, who were his play of Hamlet, taken probably from engaged in the same pursuits with himself, some older play with the same title, had who must have known him well, and who been produced upon the Blackfriars stage were probably acquainted with the whole of and received with applause which generated his career. [37] envy. I must likewise admit that this assertion is From the saying of the players, recorded by strongly corroborated by internal evidence BEN JONSON, that Shakespeare never to be found in Shakespeare’s writings. I blotted a line, an erroneous notion has have once more perused the whole of his prevailed that he carelessly sketched off his dramas, that I might more satisfactorily dramas, and never retouched them or cared answer your question, and render you some about them after. So far from this (contrary assistance in finally coming to a right to modern practice), he often materially conclusion. altered, enlarged, and improved them subsequently to their having been brought In The Two Gentlemen of Verona, Twelfth out upon the stage and having had a Night, Julius Caesar, Cymbeline, Timon of successful run. There is clear proof that he Athens, The Tempest, King Richard II., King wrote and rewrote Hamlet, Romeo and Henry V., King Henry VI. Part I., King Juliet, The Merry Wives of Windsor, and Henry VI. Part III., King Richard III., King several other of his dramas, with unwearied Henry VIII., Pericles of Tyre, and Titus

232 The George Greenwood Collection

Andronicus—fourteen of the thirty-seven Fal. Of what quality was your love, dramas generally attributed to then? Shakespeare—I find nothing that fairly Ford. Like a fair house built upon bears upon this controversy. Of course I had another man’s ground; so that I have only to look for expressions and allusions lost my edifice by mistaking the place that must be supposed to come from one where I erected it. who has been a professional lawyer. Amidst the seducing beauties of sentiment and Now this shows in Shakespeare a knowledge language through which I had to pick my of the law of real property, not generally way, I may have overlooked various possessed. The unlearned would suppose specimens of the article of which I was in that if, by mistake, a man builds a fine house [38] quest, which would have been on the land of another, when he discovers accidentally valuable, although intrinsically his error he will be permitted to remove all worthless. the materials of the structure, and particularly the marble pillars and carved However, from each of the remaining chimney-pieces with which he has adorned twenty-three dramas I have made extracts it; but Shakespeare knew better. He was which I think are well worth your attention. aware that, being fixed to the freehold, the These extracts I will now lay before you, absolute property in them belonged to the with a few explanatory remarks—which owner of the soil, and he recollected the perhaps you will think demonstrably prove maxim, Cujus est solum, ejus est usque ad that your correspondent is a lawyer, AND coelum. NOTHING BUT A LAWYER. Afterwards, in writing the second scene of I thought of grouping the extracts as they Act IV., Shakespeare’s head was so full of may be supposed to apply to particular the recondite terms of the law, that he makes heads of law or particular legal phrases, but a lady thus pour them out, in a confidential I found this impracticable; and I am driven tete-a-tete conversation with another lady, to examine seriatim the dramas from which while discoursing of the revenge they two the extracts are made. I take them in the should take upon an old gentleman for order in which they are arranged, as having made an unsuccessful attempt upon "Comedies," "Histories," and "Tragedies," in their virtue: the folio of 1623, the earliest authority for the whole collection. [39] Mrs. Page. I’ll have the cudgel hallowed, and hung o’er the altar: it ______hath done meritorious service.

The Merry Wives of Windsor Mrs. Ford. What think you? May we, with the warrant of womanhood, In Act II, Sc. 2, where Ford, under the name and the witness of a good of Master Brook, tries to induce Falstaff to conscience, pursue him with any assist him in his intrigue with Mrs. Ford, and farther revenge ? states that from all the trouble and money he Mrs. Page. The spirit of wantonness had bestowed upon her he had had no is, sure, scared out of him: if the beneficial return, we have the following devil have him not in fee simple, with question and answer: fine and recovery, he will never, I

233 The George Greenwood Collection

think, in the way of waste, attempt us thou wicked Hannibal, or I’ll have again. [41] mine action of battery on thee. Escal. If he took you a box o’ th’ ear, This Merry Wife of Windsor is supposed to you might have your action of know that the highest estate which the devil slander too. could hold in any of his victims was fee simple, strengthened by fine and recovery. The manner in which, in Act III, Sc. 2, Shakespeare himself may probably have Escalus designates and talks of Angelo, with become aware of the law upon the subject, whom he was joined in commission as when it was explained to him in answer to Judge, [43] is so like the manner in which questions he put to the attorney, his master, one English Judge designates and talks of while engrossing the deeds to be executed another, that it countenances the supposition upon the purchase of a Warwickshire estate that Shakespeare may often, as an attorney’s with a doubtful title. clerk, have been in the presence of English Judges: Measure For Measure Escal. Provost, my brother Angelo In Act I, Sc. 2, the old lady who had kept a will not be altered; Claudio must die lodging-house of a disreputable character in to-morrow. * * * If my brother the suburbs of Vienna being thrown into wrought by my pity, it should not be despair by the proclamation that all such so with him. * * * I have laboured houses in the suburbs must be plucked for the poor gentleman to the down, the Clown thus comforts her: extremest shore of my modesty; but my brother justice have I found so Clo. Come; fear not you: good severe, that he hath forced me to tell cousellors lack no clients. [42] him, he is indeed—JUSTICE.

This comparison is not very flattering to the Even where Shakespeare is most solemn and bar, but it seems to show a familiarity with sublime, his sentiments and language seem both the professions alluded to. sometimes to take a tinge from his early pursuits—as may be observed from a In Act II, Sc. 1, the ignorance of special beautiful [44] passage in this play—which, pleading and of the nature of actions at law lest I should be thought guilty of betrayed by Elbow, the constable, when irreverence, I do not venture to comment slandered, is ridiculed by the Lord Escalus upon: in a manner which proves that the composer of the dialogue was himself fully initiated in Angelo. Your brother is a forfeit to these mysteries: the law. Isabella.—Alas! alas! Elbow. Oh, thou caitiff! Oh, thou Why, all the souls that were, were varlet! Oh, thou wicked Hannibal! I forfeit once; respected with her, before I was And He that might the vantage best married to her?—If ever I was have took respected with her, or she with me, Found out the remedy: How would let not your worship think me the you be poor duke’s officer.—Prove this, If He, which is the top of judgment,

234 The George Greenwood Collection

should draws dry-foot well; But judge you as you are? O, think One that before the judgment carries on that; poor souls to hell. And mercy then will breathe within Adr. Why, man, what is the matter ? your lips, Dro. S. I do not know the matter; he Like man new made. (Act II, Sc. 2.) is ‘rested on the case. Adr. What, is he arrested ? tell me at The Comedy of Errors whose suit. [46] Dro. S. I know not at whose suit he The following is part of the dialogue is arrested, well, between Antipholus of Syracuse and his But he’s in a suit of buff which man Dromio, in Act II, Sc. 2: ‘rested him, that can I tell. * * * Adr. * * * This I wonder at: Dro. S. There’s no time for a man to That he, unknown to me, should be recover his hair, that grows bald by in debt. nature. Tell me, was he arrested on a bond? Ant. S. May he not do it by fine and Dro. S. Not on a bond, but on a recovery? stronger thing: A chain, a chain! Dro. S. Yes, to pay a fine for a periwig, and recover the lost hair of Here we have a most circumstantial and another man. [45] graphic account of an English arrest on mesne process ["before judgment"], in an These jests cannot be supposed to arise from action on the case, for the price of a gold anything in the laws or customs of Syracuse; chain, by a sheriff’s officer, or bum-bailiff, but they show the author to be very familiar in his buff costume, and carrying his with some of the most abstruse proceedings prisoner to a sponginghouse—a spectacle in English jurisprudence. which might often have been seen by an attorney’s clerk. A fellow-student of mine In Act IV, Sc. 2, Adriana asks Dromio of (since an eminent Judge), being sent to an Syracuse, "Where is thy master, Dromio? Is attorney’s office, as part of his legal he well?" and Dromio replies: education, used to accompany the sheriff’s officer when making captions on mesne No, he’s in Tartar limbo, worse than process, that he might enjoy the whole feast hell: of a law-suit from the egg to the apples— A devil in an everlasting garment and he was fond of giving a similar account hath him, of this proceeding—which was then One whose hard heart is button’d up constantly occurring, but which, like "Trial with steel; by Battle," may now be considered obsolete. A fiend, a fairy, pitiless and rough; [47] A wolf; nay worse, a fellow all in buff; As You Like It A back-friend, a shoulder-clapper, one that countermands In Act I, Sc. 2, Shakespeare makes the lively The passages and alleys, creeks, and Rosalind, who, although well versed in narrow lands: poesy and books of chivalry, had probably A hound that runs counter, and yet never seen a bond or a law-paper of any sort

235 The George Greenwood Collection in her life, quite familiar with the more commencement of all deeds poll, which in To that which hath too much. [49] Latin was, Noverint universi per presentes, in English, "Be it known to all men by these And again where the careless herd, jumping presents:" by him without greeting him, are compared to "fat and greasy citizens," who look Le Beau. There comes an old man and his three sons— Upon that poor and broken bankrupt Cel. I could match this beginning there, with an old tale. without pitying his sufferings or Le Beau. Three proper young men, attempting to relieve his necessities. of excellent growth and presence;— Ros. With bills on their necks—"Be It may perhaps be said that such language it known unto all men by these might be used by any man of observation. presents,"— But in Act III, Sc. 1, a deep technical knowledge of law is displayed, howsoever it This is the technical phraseology referred to may have been acquired. by Thomas Nash in his ‘Epistle to the Gentlemen Students of the two The usurping Duke, Frederick, wishing all Universities,’ in the year 1589, when he is the real property of Oliver to be seized, supposed to have [48] denounced the author awards a writ of extent against him, in the of Hamlet as one of those who had "left the language which would be used by the Lord trade of Noverint, whereto they were born, Chief Baron of the Court of Exchequer: for handfuls of tragical speeches"—that is, an attorney’s clerk become a poet, and Duke Fred. Make an extent upon his penning a stanza when he should engross. house and lands

As You Like It was not brought out until an extendi facias applying to house and shortly before the year 1600, so that Nash’s lands, as a fieri facias would apply to goods Noverint could not have been suggested by and chattels, or a capias ad satisfaciendum it. Possibly Shakespeare now introduced the to the person. [50] "Be it known unto all men," &c., in order to show his contempt for Nash’s sarcasm. So in King Henry VIII. we have an equally accurate statement of the omnivorous nature In Act. II. Sc. 1, there are illustrations which of a writ of Praemunire. The Duke of would present themselves rather to the mind Suffolk, addressing Cardinal Wolsey, says: of one initiated in legal proceedings, than of one who had been brought up as an Lord Cardinal, the King’s further apprentice to a "lover, or an assistant to a pleasure is, butcher or a woolstapler: for instance, when Because all those things you have it is said of the poor wounded deer, weeping done of late in the stream: By your power legatine within this kingdom — thou makest a testament Fall into the compass of a As worldlings do, giving thy sum of praemunire, That therefore such a writ be sued

236 The George Greenwood Collection

against you, intercede with her in his favour, To forfeit all your goods, lands, says: Be the attorney of my love to tenements, her. Again in the same play (Act V, Chattels, and whatsoever, and to be Sc. 3) Lord Stanley, meeting Out of the King’s protection. Richmond on the field at Bosworth, says: I by attorney bless thee from In the next scene of As You Like It, thy mother.] [52] Shakespeare shows that he was well acquainted with lawyers themselves and the I am sorry to say that in our time the once vicissitudes of their lives. Rosalind having most respectable word "attorney" seems to told "who Time ambles withal, who Time have gained a new meaning, viz. "a trots withal, who Time gallops withal," disreputable legal practitioner;" so that being asked, "Who Time stands still attorneys at law consider themselves treated withal?" answers: discourteously when they are called "Attorneys." They now all wish to be called With lawyers in the vacation; for Solicitors, when doing the proper business they sleep between tem and term, and of attorneys in the Courts of Common Law. then they perceive not how Time Most sincerely honouring this branch of our moves. [51] profession, if it would please them, I am ready to support a bill "to prohibit the use of Our great poet had probably observed that the word attorney, and to enact that on all some lawyers have little enjoyment of the occasions the word Solicitor shall be used vacation after a very few weeks, and that instead thereof." they again long for the excitement of arguing demurrers end pocketing fees. Near the end of the same scene Shakespeare again evinces his love for legal phraseology In the first scene of Act IV. Shakespeare and imagery by converting Time into an gives us the true legal meaning of the word aged Judge of Assize, sitting on the Crown "attorney," viz. representative or deputy. side: [53] [Celui qui vient à tour d’autrui; Qui alterius vices subit; Legatus; Vakeel.] Ros. Well, Time is the old Justice that examines all such offenders, and Ros. Well, in her person I say—I will let Time try. not have you. Orl. Then, in my own person, I die. As in Troilus and Cressida (Act IV, Sc. 5) Ros. No, faith, die by attorney. The Shakespeare makes Time an Arbitrator: poor world is almost six thousand years old, and in all this time there And that old common Arbitrator, was not any man died in his own Time, person, videlicet, in a love cause. Will one day end it. [So in Richard III., Act IV, Sc. 4, the crook-backed tyrant, after murdering Much Ado About Nothing the infant sons of Edward IV., audaciously proposes to their mother It has been generally supposed that to marry the Princess Elizabeth, their Shakespeare, in the characters of Dogberry sister, and wishing the queen to and Verges, only meant to satirize the

237 The George Greenwood Collection ignorance and folly of parish constables—a Dogb. If you meet a thief, you may race with which we of this generation were suspect him, by virtue of your office, familiar till the establishment of the to be no true man; and for such kind metropolitan and rural police; but I cannot of men, the less you meddle or make help suspecting that he slyly aimed at higher with them, why, the more is for your legal functionaries—Chairmen at Quarter- honesty. sessions, and even judges of assize—with 2 Watch. If we know him to be a whose performances he may probably have thief, shall we not lay hands on him? become acquainted at Warwick and Dogb. Truly, by your office you elsewhere. may; but, I think, they that touch pitch will be defiled. The most There never has been a law or custom in peaceable way for you, if you do [54] England to "give a charge" to take a thief, is to let him show constables; but from times immemorial there himself what he is, and steal out of has been "a charge to grand juries" by the your company. presiding judge. This charge, we are bound to believe, is nowadays always characterised Now there can be no doubt that Lord Coke by simplicity, pertinaence, and correctness, himself could not more accurately have although, according to existing etiquette, in defined the power of a peace-officer. order that it may not be too severely criticised, the barristers are not admitted into I cannot say as much for the law laid down the Crown Court till the charge is over. But by Dogberry and Verges in Act IV, Sc. 2, when Justice Shallow gave the charge to the that it was "flat perjury" to call a prince’s grand jury at sessions in the county of brother villain; or "flat burglury as ever was Gloucester, we may conjecture that some of commited" to receive a thousand [56] ducats his doctrines and directions were not very "for accusing a lady wrongfully." But the wise; and Judges of the superior courts in dramatist seems himself to have been well former times made themselves ridiculous by acquainted with the terms and distinctions of expatiating, in their charges to grand juries, our criminal code, or he could not have on vexed questions of manners, religion, rendered the blunders of the parish officers politics, and political economy. Dogberry so absurd and laughable. uses the very words of the oath administered by the Judges’ marshal to the grand jury at Love’s Labour’s Lost the present day: In Act I, Sc. 1, we have an extract from the Keep your fellows’ counsels end Report by Don Adriano de Armado of the your own. infraction he had witnessed of the King’s (Act III, Sc. 3.) [55] proclamation by Costard with Jaquenetta; and it is drawn up in the true lawyerlike, If the different parts of Dogberry’s charge tautological dialect—which is to be paid for are strictly examined, it will be found that at so much a folio: the author of it had a very respectable acquaintance with crown law. The problem Then for the place where; where, I was to save the constables from all trouble, mean, I did encounter that obscene danger, and responsibility, without any and most preposterous event that regard to the public safety: draweth from my snow-white pen

238 The George Greenwood Collection

the ebon-coloured ink, which here The precise formula—"In such case made thou viewest, beholdest, surveyest, and provided"—would not have stood in the and seest. * * * Him I (as my ever- verse. There is certainly no nearer approach esteemed duty pricks me on) have in heroic measure to the technical language sent to thee to receive the meed of of an indictment; and there seems no motive [57] punishment, by thy sweet for the addition made to the preceding line, Grace’s officer, Antony Dull, a man except to show a familiarity with legal of good repute, carriage, bearing, and phraseology, which Shakespeare, whether he estimation. ever were an attorney’s clerk or not, is constantly fond of displaying. [59] The gifted Shakespeare might perhaps have been capable, by intuition, of thus imitating The Merchant of Venice the conveyancer’s jargon; but no ordinary man could have hit it off so exactly, without In Act I, Sc. 3, and Act II, Sc. 8, Antonio’s having engrossed in an attorney’s office. bond to Shylock is prepared and talked about according to all the forms observed in Midsummer Night’s Dream an English attorney’s office. The distinction between a "single bill" and a "bond with a Egeus makes complaint to Theseus, in Act I, condition" is clearly referred to; and Sc. 1, against his daughter Hermia, because, punctual payment is expressed in the while he wishes her to marry Demetrius, she technical phrase—"Let good Antonio keep prefers Lysander; and he seeks to enforce his day." the law of Athens, that a daughter, who refuses to marry according to her father’s It appears by Act III, Sc. 3, between directions, may be put to death by him: Shylock, Salarino, Antonio, and a Jailer, that the action on the bond had been And, my gracious duke, commenced, and Antonio had been arrested Be it so, she will not here, before on mesne process. The trial was to come on your grace, before the Doge; and the question was, Consent to marry with Demetrius whether Shylock was entitled to judgment I beg the ancient privilege of Athens, specifically for his pound of flesh, or must [58] be contented with pecuniary damages. [60] As she is mine, I may dispose of her, Which shall be either to this Shylock threatens the Jailer with an action gentleman, for "escape" for allowing Antonio to come Or to her death, according to our law for a short time beyond the walls of the Immediately provided in that case. prison:

Commenting on this last line, Steevens I do wonder, observes, "Shakespeare is grievously Thou naughty Jailer, that thou art so suspected of having been placed, while a fond boy, in an attorney’s office. The line before To come abroad with him at his us has an undoubted smack of legal request. commonplace: Poetry disclaims it." Antonio is made to confess that Shylock is entitled to the pound of flesh, according to

239 The George Greenwood Collection the plain meaning of the bond and condition, blood;" and the result was that Shylock, to and the rigid strictness of the common law save his own life, was obliged to consent to of England: [62] make over all his goods to his daughter Jessica and her Christian husband Lorenzo, Salarino. I am sure the Duke and himself to submit to Christian baptism. Will never grant this forfeiture to hold. Shakespeare concludes this scene with an Antonio. The Duke cannot deny the ebullition which might be expected from an course of law. English lawyer, by making Gratiano exclaim: All this has a strong odour of Westminster Hall. In christening thou shalt have two godfathers: The trial comes on in Act IV, Sc. 1, and it is Had I been judge, thou shouldst have duly conducted according to the strict forms had ten more, of legal procedure. Portia, the PODESTA or To bring thee to the gallows, not the judge called in to act under the authority of font— the Doge, [61] first inquires if there be any plea of non est factum. meaning a jury of twelve men, to find him guilty of the capital offence of an attempt to She asks Antonio, "Do you confess the murder;—whereupon he must have been bond?" and when he answers, "I do," the hanged. judge proceeds to consider how the damages are to be assessed. The plaintiff claims the I may further observe that this play, in the penalty of the bond, according to the words last scene of the last act, contains another of the condition; and Bassanio, who acts as palpable allusion to English legal procedure. counsel for the defendant, attempting on In the court of Queen’s Bench, when a equitable grounds to have him excused by complaint is made against a person for a paying twice the sum of money lent, or "ten "contempt," the practice is that before times o’er," judgment is given: sentence is finally pronounced, he is sent into the Crown Office, and being there Portia. It must not be. There is no "charged upon interrogatories," [63] he is power in Venice made to swear that he will "answer all things Can alter a decree established. faithfully." Accordingly, in the moonlight Twill be recorded for a precedent, scene in the garden at Belmont, after a And many an error by the same partial explanation between Bassanio, example Gratiano, Portia, and Nerissa, about their Will rush into the state. * * * rings, some farther inquiry being deemed This bond is forfeit, necessary, Portia says: And lawfully by this the Jew may claim Let us go in, A pound of flesh to be by him cut off And charge us there upon Nearest the merchant’s heart. inter’gatories. And we will answer all things However, oyer of the bond being demanded, faithfully. the judge found that it gave "no jot of

240 The George Greenwood Collection

Gratiano assents, observing: Courts, and also copies a passage from a work with which I am not acquainted— Let it be so: the first inter’gatory Characterismi, or Lenton’s Leasures, 12mo. That my Nerissa shall be sworn on 1631—which [65] runs thus: "He [an is, informer] transforms himselfe into several Whether till the next night she had shapes, to avoid suspicion of inneholders, rather stay, and inwardly joyes at the sight of a blacke Or go to bed now, being two hours to pot or jugge, knowing that their sale by day. sealed quarts spoyles his market."

The Taming of the Shrew In Act I, Sc. 2, the proposal of Tranio that the rival lovers of Bianca, while they eagerly In the "Induction" Shakespeare betrays an in her presence should press their suit, yet, intimate knowledge of the matters which when she is absent, should converse freely may be prosecuted as offences before the as friends, is illustrated in a manner to Court Leet, the lowest court of criminal induce a belief that the author of Tranio’s judicature [64] in England. He puts this speech had been accustomed to see the speech into the mouth of a servant, who is contending counsel, when the trial is over, trying to persuade Sly that he is a great lord, or suspended—on very familiar and friendly and that he had been in a dream for fifteen terms with each other: years, during which time he thought he was a frequenter of alehouses: Tra. Sir, I shall not be slack: in sign wherof For though you lay here in this Please ye, we may contrive this goodly chamber, afternoon, Yet would you say, ye were beaten And quaff carouses to our mistress’ out of door, health; And rail upon the hostess of the And do as adversaries do in law, house, Strive mightily, butt eat and drink as And say you would present her at friends. the leet, Because she brought stone jugs, and This clearly alludes not to the parties no sealed quarts. litigating, who, if they were to eat and drink [66] together, would generally be disposed Now, in the reigns of Elizabeth and James I., to poison each other but to the counsel on there was a very wholesome law, that, for opposite sides, with whom, notwithstanding the protection of the public against "false the fiercest contests in court, when they measures," ale should be sold only in sealed meet in private immediately after, it is "All vessels of the standard capacity; and the hail, fellow, and well met." violation of the law was to be presented at the "Court Leet," or "View of Frankpledge," In the first encounter of wits between held in every hundred, manor, or lordship, Katherine and Petruchio, Shakespeare shows before the steward of the leet. that he was acquainted with the law for regulating "trials by battle" between Malone, in reference to this passage, cites champions, one of which had been fought in the well-known treatise of Kitchen on

241 The George Greenwood Collection

Tothill Fields before the judges of the Court use to inquire whether the law upon these of Common Pleas in the reign of Elizabeth. subjects was the same in France as in England, "for Shakespeare gives to all Kath. What is your crest? a nations the manners of England." coxcomb? Pet. A combless cock, so Kate will According to the plot on which this play is be my hen. constructed, the French King laboured under Kath. No cock of mine: you crow too a malady which his physicians had declared like a craven. (Act II, Sc. 1.) incurable; and Helena, the daughter of a deceased physician of great eminence, knew This all lawyers know to be the word spoken of a cure for it. She was in love with by a champion who acknowledged that he Bertram, Count of Rousillon, still a minor, was beaten, and declared that he would fight who held large possessions as tenant in no more: whereupon judgment was capite under the crown, and was in ward to immediately given against the side which he the King. Helena undertook the cure, [67] supported, and he bore the infamous making this condition: name of Craven for the rest of his days. Hel. Then shalt thou give me with We have like evidence in Hamlet (Act IV, thy kingly hand Sc. 4) of Shakespeare’s acquaintance with What husband in thy power I will the legal meaning of this word, where the command. hero says— Adding, however: [69] Now, whether it be Bestial oblivion’ or some craven Exempted be from me the arrogance scruple To choose from forth the royal blood Of thinking too precisely on th’ of France * * * event. But such a one, thy vassal, whom I know All’s Well That Ends Well Is free for me to ask, thee to bestow. (Act II, Sc. 1.) In this play we meet with proof that Shakespeare had an accurate knowledge of She effects the cure, and the King, showing the law of England respecting the incidents her all the noble unmarried youths whom he of military tenure, or tenure in chivalry, by then held as wards, says to her: which the greatest part of the land in this kingdom was held till the reign of Charles Fair maid, send forth thine eye: this II. The incidents of that tenure here dwelt youthful parcel upon are "wardship of minors" and "the Of noble bachelors stand at my right of the guardian to dispose of the minor bestowing * * * in marriage at his pleasure." The scene lies thy frank election make: in [68] France, and, strictly-speaking, the Thou hast power to choose, and they law of that country ought to prevail in none to forsake. (Act II, Sc. 3.) settling such questions: but Dr. Johnson, in his notes on All’s Well that Ends Well, justly intimates his opinion that it is of no great

242 The George Greenwood Collection

Helena, after excusing herself to several of the obligation of the ward to take the wife the others, comes to Bertram, and, covered provided for him by his guardian, with blushes, declares her election: Shakespeare drew from his own knowledge of the common law of England, which, Hel. I dare not say I take you; but I though now obsolete, [71] was in full force give in the reign of Elizabeth, and was to be Me and my service, ever whilst I found in Littleton. [However, according to live, Littleton, it is doubtful whether Bertram, Into your guiding power.—This is without being liable to any penalty or the man. forfeiture, might not have refused to marry King. Why then, young Bertram, Helena—on the ground that she was not of take her: she’s thy wife. noble descent. The lord could not "disparage" the ward by a mesalliance.— Bertram at first strenuously refuses, saying: Co. Litt. 80a.] The adventure of Parolles’s drum and the other comic parts of the drama In such a business give me leave to are quite original, and these he drew from use his own inexhaustible fancy. The help of mine own eyes. [70] The Winter’s Tale But the King, after much discussion, thus addresses him: In this play, Act I, Sc. 2, there is an allusion to a piece of English law procedure, which, It is in us to plant shine honour although it might have been enforced till where very recently, could hardly be known to any We please to have it grow. Check thy except lawyers, or those who had contempt. themselves actually been in prison on a Obey our will, which travails in thy criminal charge—that, whether guilty or good. * * * innocent, the prisoner was liable to pay a fee —Take her by the hand, on his liberation. [72] Hermione, trying to And tell her she is thine. * * * persuade Polixenes, King of Bohemia, to Bert. I take her hand. (Act II, Sc. 3.) prolong his stay at the court of Leontes in Sicily, says to him: The ceremony of marriage was immediately performed, and no penalty or forfeiture was You put me off with limber vows; incurred. But the law not extending to a but I, compulsion upon the ward to live with the Though you would seek t’ unsphere wife thus forced upon him, Bertram escapes the stars with oaths, from the church door, and abandoning his Should yet say, "Sir, no going." * * * wife, makes off for the wars in Italy, where Force me to keep you as a prisoner, he unconsciously embraced the deserted Not like a guest; so you shall pay Helena. your fees When you depart, and save your For the cure of the King by the physician’s thanks. daughter, and her being deserted by her husband, Shakespeare is indebted to I remember when the Clerk of Assize and Boccaccio; but the wardship of Bertram, and the Clerk of the Peace were entitled to exact

243 The George Greenwood Collection their fee from all acquitted prisoners, and King John were supposed in strictness to have a lien on their persons for it. I believe there is now no In Shakespeare’s dramas founded upon tribunal in England where the practice English history, more legalisms might have remains, excepting the two Houses of been expected; but I have met with fewer Parliament; but the Lord Chancellor and the than in those which are taken from the Speaker of the House of Commons still say annals of foreign nations, or which, without to prisoners about to be liberated from the depending on locality, "hold the mirror up to custody of the Black Rod or the Serjeant-at- nature." This paucity of reference to law or Arms, "You are discharged, paying your to law proceedings may, perhaps, in part be fees." accounted for by the fact that, in these "Histories," as they are called, our great When the trial of Queen Hermione for high dramatist is known to have worked upon treason comes off in Act III, Sc. 2, although foundations already laid by other men who [73] the indictment is not altogether had no technical knowledge, and in several according to English legal form, and might instances he appears only to have introduced be held insufficient on a writ of error, we additions and improvements into stock lawyers cannot but wonder at seeing it so pieces to revive their popularity. Yet we find near perfection in charging the treason, and in several of the "Histories," Shakespeare’s alleging the overt act committed by her fondness for law terms; and it is still "contrary to the faith and allegiance of a true remarkable, that whenever he indulges this subject." propensity he uniformly lays down good law. [75] It is likewise remarkable that Cleomenes and Dion, the messengers who brought back the Thus in the controversy, in the opening response from the oracle of Delphi, to be scene of King John, between Robert and given in evidence, are sworn to the Philip Faulconbridge, as to which of them genuineness of the document they produce was to be considered the true heir of the almost in the very words now used by the deceased Sir Robert, the King, in giving Lord Chancellor when an officer presents at judgment, lays down the law of legitimacy the bar of the House of Lords the copy of a most perspicuously and soundly—thus record of a court of justice: addressing Robert, the plaintiff:

You here shall swear * * * Sirrah, your brother is legitimate: That you, Cleomenes and Dion, have Your father’s wife did after wedlock Been both at Delphos; and from bear him; thence have brought And if she did play false, the fraud The seal’d-up oracle, by the hand was hers, delivered Which fault lies on the hazards of all Of great Apollo’s priest; and that husbands since then That marry wives. Tell me, how if You have not dar’d to break the holy my brother, seal, Who, as you say, took pains to get Nor read the secrets in ‘t. [74] this son, Had of your father claim’d this son for his?|

244 The George Greenwood Collection

In sooth, good friend, your father In a subsequent part of this play, the true might have kept ancient doctrine of "the supremacy of the This calf, bred from his cow, from crown" is laid down with great spirit and all the world: force: and Shakespeare clearly shows that, In sooth, he might: then, if he were whatever his opinion might have been on my brother’s, speculative dogmas in controversy between My brother might not claim him, nor the Reformers and the Romanists, he your father, spurned the ultramontane pretensions of the Being none of his, refuse him. This Pope, which some of our Roman Catholic concludes— fellow subjects are now too much disposed My mother’s son did get your to countenance, although they were stoutly father’s heir; resisted before the Reformation by our Your father’s heir must have your ancestors, who were good Catholics. King father’s land. John declares, Act III, Sc. 1:

This is the true doctrine, "Pater est quem No Italian priest nuptiae demonstrant." [The father is he Shall tithe or toll in our dominions; whom the marriage points out.] But as we under heaven are supreme head, It was likewise properly ruled that the So, under heaven, that great father’s will, in favour of his son Robert, supremacy, had [76] no power to dispossess the right Where we do reign, we will alone heir. Philip might have recovered the land, if uphold, he had not preferred the offer made to him Without th’ assistance of a mortal by his grandmother, Elinor, the Queen hand. Dowager, of taking the name of Plantagenet, So tell the Pope; all reverence set and being dubbed Sir Richard. apart To him and his usurp’d authority. In Act II, Sc. 1, we encounter a metaphor King Philip. Brother of England, you which is purely legal, yet might come blaspheme in this. naturally from an attorney’s clerk, who had King John. Though you and all the often been an attesting witness to the kings of Christendom [78] execution of deeds. The Duke of Austria, Are led so grossly by this meddling having entered into an engagement to priest, support Arthur against his unnatural uncle, Dreading the curse that money may till the young prince should be put in buy out, possession of the dominions in France to And by the merit of vile gold, dross, which he was entitled as the true heir of the dust, Plantagenets, and should be crowned King Purchase corrupted pardon of a man, of England, says, kissing the boy to render Who in that sale sells pardon from the covenant more binding, himself— Though you and all the rest, so Upon thy cheek I lay this zealous grossly led, kiss, This juggling witchcraft with As seal to this indenture of my love. revenue cherish, Yet I alone, alone do me oppose

245 The George Greenwood Collection

Against the Pope, and count his And my good Lord of Worcester, friends my foes. will set forth.

At the same time, it is clear, from It may well be imagined, that in composing Shakespeare’s portraiture of Friar Lawrence this speech Shakespeare was recollecting and other Roman Catholic ecclesiastics, who how he had seen a deed of partition tripartite do honour to their church, that he was no drawn and executed in his master’s office at bigot, and that he regarded with veneration Stratford. all who seek to imitate the meek example of the divine founder of the Christian religion. Afterwards, in the same scene, he represents [80] that the unlearned Hotspur, who had King Henry the Fourth, Part I such an antipathy to "metre ballad-mongers" and "mincing poetry," fully understood this In Act III Sc. 1, we have the partition of conveyancing proceeding, and makes him England and Wales between Mortimer, ask impatiently, Glendower, and Hotspur, and the business is [79] conducted in as clerk-like, attorney-like Are the indentures drawn? shall we fashion, as if it had been the partition of a be gone? manor between joint tenants, tenants in common, or coparceners. Shakespeare may have been taught that "livery of seisin" was not necessary to a Glend. Come, here’s the map; shall deed of partition, or he would probably have we divide our right, directed this ceremony to complete the title. According to our three-fold order ta’en? So fond was he of law terms, that Mort. The archdeacon hath divided it afterwards, when Henry IV. is made to Into three limits very equally. lecture the Prince of Wales on his England, from Trent and Severn irregularities, and to liken him to Richard II., hitherto, who, by such improper conduct, lost the By south and east is to my part crown, he uses the forced and harsh figure, assign’d: that Richard And westward, Wales, beyond the Severn shore: Enfeoffed himself to popularity (Act And all the fertile land within that III, Sc. 2). bound, To Owen Glendower:and, dear Coz, I copy Malone’s note of explanation on this to you, line: "Gave himself up absolutely to The remnant northward, lying off popularity. A feoffment was the ancient from Trent; mode of [81] conveyance, by which all lands And our indentures tripartite are in England were granted in fee-simple for drawn, several ages, till the conveyance of lease and Which being sealed interchangeably, release was invented by Serjeant Moor about (A business that this night may the year 1630. Every deed of feoffment was execute,) accompanied with livery of seisin, that is, To-morrow, cousin Percy, you and I, with the delivery of corporal possession of the land or tenement granted in fee."

246 The George Greenwood Collection

To "sue out livery" is another law term used illustrious Judge, Lord Chief Justice Holt, in this play (Act IV, Sc. 3)—a proceeding to acted as a police magistrate, quelling riots, be taken by a ward of the crown, on coming taking depositions against parties accused, of age, to obtain possession of his lands, and, where a prima facie case was made out which the king had held as guardian in against them, committing them for trial. chivalry during his minority. Hotspur, in Lord Chief Justice Coke actually assisted in giving a description of Henry the Fourth’s taking the Earl and Countess of Somerset beggarly and suppliant condition when he into custody when charged with the murder landed at Ravenspurg, till assisted by the of Sir Thomas Overbury, and examined not Percys, says, less than three hundred witnesses against them— writing the depositions with his own And when he was not six-and-twenty hand. It was quite in course that those strong, charged with the robbery at Gadshill should Sick in the world’s regard, wretched be "had up" before Lord Chief Justice and low, Gascoigne, and that he should take notice of A poor unminded outlaw, sneaking any of them who, having disobeyed a home, summons to appear before him, happened to My father gave him welcome to the come casually into his presence. shore: [82] And when he heard him swear, and His Lordship is here attended by the tip-staff vow to God, (or orderly), who, down to the present day, He came but to be Duke of follows the Chief Justice, like his shadow, Lancaster, wherever he officially appears. On this To sue his livery, and beg his peace, occasion the Chief Justice meeting Sir John, With tears of innocency and terms of naturally taxes him with having refused to zeal, obey [84] the summons served upon him to My father, in kind heart and pity attend at his Lordship’s chambers, that he mov’d, might answer the information laid against Swore him assistance. him; and Sir John tries to excuse himself by saying that he was then advised by his King Henry the Fourth, Part II "counsel learned in the laws," that, as he was marching to Shrewsbury by the king’s Arguments have been drawn from this orders, he was not bound to come. drama against Shakespeare’s supposed great legal acquirements. It has been objected to Again, it is objected that a Chief Justice the very amusing interview, in Act I, Sc. 2, could not be supposed, by any person between Falstaff and the Lord Chief Justice, acquainted with his station and functions, to that if Shakespeare had been much of a use such vulgar language as that put into the lawyer, he would have known that this great mouth of Sir William Gascoigne when magistrate could not examine offenders in Falstaff will not listen to him, and that this the manner supposed, and could only take rather smacks of the butcher’s shop in which notice of offences when they were regularly it is alleged that young Shakespeare prosecuted before him in the Court of fling’s employed himself in killing calves. Bench, or at the assizes. But although such is the practice in our days, so recently as the Ch. Just. To punish yon by the heels beginning [83] of the eighteenth century that would amend the attention of your

247 The George Greenwood Collection

ears; and I care not if I do become Newgate to answer for the robbery at your physician. Gadshill, is contented with admonishing him to be honest, and dismisses him with a But to "lay by the heels" was the technical blessing;—upon which Sir John is expression for committing to prison, and I emboldened to ask the Chief Justice for the could produce from the Reports various loan of a thousand pounds. To lower the law instances of its being so used by still further, my Lord Chief Justice is made distinguished [85] judges from the bench. I to break off the conversation, in which will content myself with one. A petition Falstaff’s wit is so sparkling, with a very being heard in the Court of Chancery, before bad pun. Lord Chancellor Jeffreys, against a great City attorney who had given him many Ch. Just. Not a penny, not a penny: briefs at the bar, an affidavit was read, you are impatient to bear crosses. swearing that when the attorney was [So bad is this pun that perhaps it threatened with being brought before my may not be useless to remind you Lord Chancellor, he exclaimed—"My Lord that the penny and all the royal coins Chancellor! I made him!" Lord Chancellor then had impressed upon them the Jeffreys: "Then will I lay my MAKER by the sign of the cross.] [87] heels." A warrant of commitment was instantly signed and sealed by the Lord The same superiority is preserved in the Chancellor, and the poor attorney was sent subsequent scene (Act II, Sc. 1), where off to the Fleet. Falstaff being arrested on mesne process for debt at the suit of Dame Quickly, he gains I must confess that I am rather mortified by his discharge, with the consent of the Chief the advantage given to the fat knight over Justice, by saying to his Lordship—"My my predecessor in this encounter of their Lord, this is a poor mad soul; and she says, wits. Sir John professes to treat the Chief up and down the town, that her eldest son is Justice with profound reverence, interlarding like you:" and by insisting that although he his sentences plentifully with your owed the money, he was privileged from Lordship—"God give your Lordship good arrest for debt, "being upon hasty time of day: I am glad to see your lordship employment in the king’s affairs." abroad: I heard say your Lordship was sick: I hope your Lordship goes abroad by advice. In Act V, Sc. I, Falstaff, having long made Your Lordship, though not clean past your Justice Shallow his butt daring a visit to him youth, [86] hath yet some smack of age in in Gloucestershire, looks forward with great you, some, relish of the saltness of time; and delight to the fun of recapitulating at the I most humbly beseech your Lordship to Boar’s Head, East Cheap, Shallow’s have a reverend care of your health." Yet absurdities; and, meaning to intimate that Falstaff’s object is to turn the Lord Chief this would afford him Opportunities of Justice into ridicule, and I am sorry to say amusing [88] the Prince of Wales for a that he splendidly succeeds—insomuch that twelvemonth, he says: after the party accused of felony has vaingloriously asserted that he himself had I will devise matter enough out of done great service to the state, and that his this Shallow to keep Prince Henry in name was terrible to the enemy, the Chief continual laughter the wearing out of Justice, instead of committing him to six fashions (which is four terms, or

248 The George Greenwood Collection

two actions), and he shall laugh literal meaning of his words. In the natural without intervallums. and usual course of things he was to become (as it was then called) "favourite" (or, as we Dr. Johnson thus annotates on the two call it, Prime Minister) to the new king, and actions: "There is something humorous in to have all the power and patronage of the making a spendthrift compute time by the crown in his hands. Then, why might not operation of an action for debt." The critic Ancient Pistol, who had seen service, have supposes, therefore, that in Shakespeare’s been made War Minister? And if Justice time final judgment was obtained in an Shallow had been pitchforked into the [90] action of debt in the second term after the House of Peers, he might have turned out a writ commencing it was sued out; and as distinguished Law Lord.—By taking "any there are four terms in the legal year— man’s horses" was not meant stealing them, Michaelmas Term, Hilary Term, Easter but pressing them for the king’s service, or Term, and Trinity Term—this is a legal appropriating them at a nominal price, circumlocution for a twelvemonth. It would which the law would then have justified seem that the author who dealt in such under the king’s prerogative of pre-emption. phraseology must have been early initiated Sir W. Gascoigne was continued as Lord in the mysteries of terms and actions. Chief Justice in the new reign; but, according to law and custom, he was Shakespeare has likewise been blamed for removable, and he no doubt expected to be an extravagant perversion of law in the removed, from his office. promises [89] and threats which Falstaff throws out on hearing that henry IV. was Therefore, if Lord Eldon could be supposed dead, and that Prince Hal reigned in his to have written the play, I do not see how he stead. would be chargeable with having forgotten any of his law while writing it. Fal. Master Robert Shallow, choose what office thou wilt in the land, ‘tis It is remarkable that while Falstaff and his thine.—Pistol, I will double charge companions, in Act V, Sc. 5, are standing in thee with dignities. * * * Master Palace Yard to see the new king returning Shallow, my Lord Shallow, be what from his coronation in Westminster Abbey, thou wilt, I am Fortune’s steward. * Pistol is made to utter an expression used, * * Come, Pistol, utter more to me; when the record was in Latin, by special and withal devise something to do pleaders in introducing a special traverse or thyself good.—Boot, boot, master negation of a positive material allegation of Shallow: I know the young King is [91] the opposite side, and so framing an sick for me. Let us take any man’s issue of fact for the determination of the horses; the laws of England are at jury—absque hoc, "without this that"—then my commandment. Happy are they repeating the allegation to be negatived. But which have been my friends, and there is often much difficulty in explaining woe unto my Lord Chief Justice!— or accounting for the phraseology of Ancient Act V, Sc. 4. Pistol, who appears "to have been at a great feast of languages and stolen the scraps;"— But Falstaff may not unreasonably be so that if, when "double charged with supposed to have believed that he could do dignities," he had been called upon to speak all this, even if he were strictly kept to the in debate as a leading member of the

249 The George Greenwood Collection government, his appointment might have Thou hast most traitorously been carped at. corrupted the youth of the realm m erecting a grammar-school: and King Henry VI, Part II whereas, before, our forefathers had no other books but the score and the In the speeches of Jack Cade and his co- tally, thou hast caused printing to be adjutors in this play we find a familiarity used; and contrary to the King, his with the law and its proceedings which crown and dignity, thou hast built a strongly indicates that the author must have paper-mill. It will be proved to thy had some professional practice or education face that thou hast men about thee [92] as a lawyer. The second scene in Act that usually talk of a noun and a IV. may be taken as an example. verb, and such abominable words as no Christian ear can endure to hear. Dick. The first thing we do, let’s kill ["Inter Christianos non nominand."] all the lawyers. Thou hast appointed justices of Cade. Nay, that I mean to do. Is not peace, to call poor men before them this a lamentable thing, that the skin about matters they were not able to of an innocent lamb should be made answer. Moreover thou hast put them parchment?—that parchment, being in prison; and because they could not scribbled o’er, should undo a man? read, thou hast hanged them, when Some say the bee stings; but I say indeed only for that cause they have ‘tis the bee’s wax, for I did but seal been most worthy to live. once to a thing, and I was never mine own man since. How acquired I know not, but it is quite certain that the drawer of this indictment The Clerk of Chatham is then brought in, must have had some acquaintance with ‘The who could "make obligations and write Crown Circuit Companion,’ and must have court hand," and who, instead of "making had a full and accurate knowledge of that his mark like an honest plain-dealing man," rather obscure and intricate subject— had been "so well brought up that he could "Felony and Benefit of Clergy." [94] write his name." Therefore he was sentenced to be hanged with his pen and ink-horn Cade’s proclamation, which follows, deals about his neck. with still more recondite heads of jurisprudence. Announcing his policy when Surely Shakespeare must have been he should mount the throne, he says: employed to write deeds on parchment in court hand, and to apply the wax to them in The proudest peer in the realm shall the form of seals: one does not understand not wear a head on his shoulders how he should, on any other theory of his unless he pay me tribute: there shall bringing up, have been acquainted with not a maid be married but she shall these details. [93] pay me her maidenhead ere they have it. Men shall hold of me in Again, the indictment on which Lord Say capite; and we charge and command was arraigned, in Act IV, Sc. 7, seems that their wives be as free as heart drawn by no inexperienced hand: can wish, or tongue can tell.

250 The George Greenwood Collection

He thus declares a great forthcoming change executing deeds. When Pandarus (Act III, in the tenure of land and in the liability to Sc. 2) has brought Troilus and Cressida taxation: he is to have a poll-tax like that together in the Orchard to gratify their warm which had raised the rebellion; but, instead inclinations, he advises Troilus to give of coming down to the daughters of Cressida "a kiss in fee-farm," which Malone blacksmiths who had reached the age of explains to be "a kiss of a duration that has fifteen, it was to be confined to the nobility. no bounds—a fee-farm being a grant of Then he is to legislate on the mercheta lands in fee, that is for ever, reserving a rent mulierum. According to Blackstone and certain." other high authorities this never had been known in England; although, till the reign of The advice of Pandarus to the lovers being Malcolm III., it certainly appears to have taken, he exclaims: been established in Scotland; but Cade intimates his determination to adopt it—with What! billing again? Here’s—In this alteration, that instead of conferring the witness the parties interchangeably [95] privilege on every lord of a manor, to — be exercised within the manor, he is to assume it exclusively for himself all over the the exact form of the testatum clause in an realm, as belonging to his prerogative royal. indenture—"In witness whereof the parties interchangeably have hereto set their hands He proceeds to announce his intention to and seals." abolish tenure in free soccage, and that all men should hold of him in capite, To avoid a return to this figure of speech concluding with a licentious jest, that [97] I may here mention other instances in although his subjects should no longer hold which Shakespeare introduces it. In Measure in free soccage, "their wives should be as for Measure, Act IV, Sc. l free as heart can wish, or tongue can tell." Strange to say, this phrase, or one almost But my kisses bring again identically the same, "as free as tongue can Seals of love, but seal’d in vain: speak or heart can think," is feudal, and was known to the ancient law of England. In the and in his poem of Venus and Adonis: tenth year of King Henry VII., that very distinguished judge, Lord Hussey, who was Pure lips, sweet seals in my soft lips Chief Justice of England during four reigns, imprinted, in a considered judgment delivered the What bargains may I make, still to be opinion of the whole Court of King’s Bench sealing? as to the construction to be put upon the words, "as free as tongue can speak or heart King Lear can think." See YEAR BOOK, Hil. Term, 10 Hen. VII., fol. 13, pl. 6. [96] In Act I, Sc. 4 the Fool makes a lengthy rhyming speech, containing a great many Troilus and Cressida trite but useful moral maxims, such as:

In this play the author shows his insatiable Have more than thou showest, desire to illustrate his descriptions of kissing Speak less than thou knowest, &c., by his recollection of the forms used in

251 The George Greenwood Collection which the testy old fling found rather flat legal phraseology. Edmund, the wicked and tiresome. illegitimate son of the Earl of Gloster, having succeeded in deluding his father into Lear. This is nothing, fool. the belief that Edgar, the legitimate son, had Fool. Then, ‘tis like the breath of an attempted to commit parricide, and had been unfeed lawyer: prevented from accomplishing the crime by you gave me nothing for it. [98] Edmund’s tender solicitude for the Earl’s safety, the Earl is thus made to express a This seems to show that Shakespeare had determination that he would disinherit Edgar frequently been present at trials in courts of (who was supposed to have deaf from justice, and now speaks from his own justice), and that he would leave all his recollection. There is no trace of such a possessions to Edmund: [100] proverbial saying as "like the breath of an unfeed lawyer"—while all the world knows Glo. Strong and fasten’d villain! the proverb, "Whosoever is his own counsel * * * has a fool for his client." All ports I’ll bar; the villain shall not ‘scape. How unfeed lawyers may have comported * * * themselves in Shakespeare’s time I know Besides, his picture not; but I am bound to say, in vindication of I will send far and near, that all the "my order," that in my time there has been kingdom no ground for the Fool’s sarcasm upon the May have due note of him; and of bar. The two occasions when "the breath of my land, an unfeed lawyer" attracts notice in this Loyal and natural boy, I’ll work the generation are when he pleads for a party means suing in formâ pauperis, or when he defends To make thee capable. a person prosecuted by the crown for high [One would suppose that treason. It is contrary to etiquette to take a photography, by which this mode of fee in the one case as well as in the other; catching criminals is now practised, and on all such occasions counsel, from a had been invented in the reign of regard to their own credit, as well as from King Lear.] conscientious motives, uniformly exert themselves with extraordinary zeal, and put In forensic discussions respecting forth all their learning and eloquence. [99] legitimacy, the question is put, whether the individual whose status is to be determined I confess that there is some foundation for is "capable," i.e. capable of inheriting; but it the saying that "a lawyer’s opinion which is only a lawyer who would express the idea costs nothing is worth nothing;" but this can of legitimising a natural son by simply only apply to opinions given off-hand, in the saying: course of common conversation—where there is no time for deliberation, where there I’ll work the means is a desire to say what will be agreeable, and To make him capable. where no responsibility is incurred. Again, in Act III, Sc. 5, we find Edmund In Act II, Sc. 1, there is a remarkable trying to incense the Duke of Cornwall example of Shakespeare’s use of technical against his father for having taken part with

252 The George Greenwood Collection

Lear [101] when so cruelly treated by I here take my oath before this Goneril and Regan. The two daughters had honourable assembly, she kicked the become the reigning sovereigns, to whom poor king, her father. Edmund professed to owe allegiance. Cornwall having created Edmund Earl of But the trial could not be carried on with Gloster says to him: perfect regularity on account of Lear’s madness, and, without waiting for a verdict, Seek out where thy father is, that he he himself sentences Regan to be may ready for our apprehension. anatomized:

On which Edmund observes aside: Then, let them anatomize Regan; see what breeds about her heart. [103] If I find him comforting the King, it will stuff suspicion more fully. Hamlet

Upon this Dr. Johnson has the following In this tragedy various expressions and note: "He uses the word [comforting] in the allusions crop out, showing the substratum juridical sense, for supporting, helping." of law in the author’s mind—e.g., the description of the disputed territory which The indictment against an accessory after was the cause of the war between Norway the fact, for treason, charges that the and Poland: accessory ‘‘comforted" the principal traitor after knowledge of the treason. We go to gain a little patch of ground, In Act III, Sc. 6, the imaginary trial of the That hath in it no profit but the two unnatural daughters is conducted in a name. manner showing a perfect familiarity with To pay five ducats, five, I would not criminal procedure. [102] farm it, Nor will it yield to Norway or the Lear places the two Judges on the bench, Pole viz., Mad Tom and the Fool. He properly A ranker rate, should it be sold in addresses the former as "the robed man of fee. (Act IV, Sc. 4.) justice," but, although both were "of the commission," I do not quite understand why Earlier in the play (Act I, Sc. 1) Marcellus the latter is called his "yokefellow of inquires what was the cause of the warlike equity," unless this might be supposed to be preparations in Denmark: a special commission, like that which sat on Mary, Queen of Scots, including Lord And why such daily cast of brazen Chancellor Audley. cannon, And foreign mart for implements of Lear causes Goneril to be arraigned first, war? and then proceeds as a witness to give Why such impress of shipwrights, evidence against her, to prove an overt act of whose sore task high treason: Does not divide the Sunday from the week?

253 The George Greenwood Collection

Such confidence has there been in verdict of felo de se was returned. Under this Shakespeare’s accuracy, that this passage finding his body was to be buried in a cross- has been [104] quoted, both by text writers road, with a stake thrust through it, and all and by Judges on the bench, as an authority his goods were forfeited to the crown. It so upon the legality of the press-gang, and happened that at the time of his death he was upon the debated question whether possessed of a lease for years of a large shipwrights, as well as common seamen, are estate in the county of Kent, granted by the liable to be pressed into the service of the Archbishop of Canterbury [106] jointly to royal navy. [See Barrington on the Ancient him and his wife, the Lady Margaret, who Statutes, p. 300.] survived him. Upon the supposition that this lease was forfeited, the estate was given by Hamlet, when mortally wounded in Act V, the crown to one Cyriac Petit, who took Sc. 2, represents that Death comes to him in possession of it—and Dame Margaret Hales, the shape of a sheriff’s officer, as it were to the widow, brought this action against him take him into custody under a capias ad to recover it. The only question was whether satisfaciendum: the forfeiture could be considered as having taken place in the lifetime of Sir James Had I but time (as this fell serjeant, Hales: for, if not, the plaintiff certainly took Death, the estate by survivorship. Is strict in his arrest), Oh! I could tell you, —&c. Her counsel, Serjeants Southcote and Puttrel, powerfully argued that, the offence The Grave-diggers’ scene, however, is the of suicide being the killing of a man’s self, it mine which produces the richest legal ore. could not be completed in his lifetime, for as The discussion as to whether Ophelia was long as he was alive he had not killed entitled to Christian burial proves that himself, and, the moment that he died, the Shakespeare had read and studied Plowden’s estate vested in the plaintiff. "The felony of Report [105] of the celebrated case of Hales the husband shall not take away her title by v. Petit, tried in the reign of Philip and Mary, survivorship, for in this manner of felony and that he intended to ridicule the counsel two things are to be considered—first, the who argued and the Judges who decided it. cause of the death; secondly, the death- ensuing the cause; and these two make the On the accession of Mary Tudor, Sir James felony, and without both of them the felony Hales, a puisne Judge of the Common Pleas, is not [107] consummate. And the cause of was prosecuted for being concerned in the the death is the act done in the party’s plot which placed the Lady Jane Grey for a lifetime, which makes the death to follow. few days upon the throne; but, as he had And the act which brought on the death here previously expressed a strong opinion that was the throwing himself voluntarily into the succession of the right heir ought not to the water, for this was the cause of his death. be disturbed, he was pardoned and released And if a man kills himself by a wound from prison. Nevertheless, so frightened was which he gives himself with a knife, or if he he by the proceedings taken against him that hangs himself, as the wound or the hanging, he went out of his mind, and, after which is the act done in the party’s lifetime, attempting suicide by a penknife, he is the cause of his death, so is the throwing drowned himself by walking into a river. himself into the water here. Forasmuch as he Upon an inquisition before the Coroner, a cannot be attainted of his own death,

254 The George Greenwood Collection because he is dead before there is any time until his death there was no cause of to attaint him, the finding of his death by the forfeiture." Coroner is by necessity of law equivalent to an attainder in fact coming after his death. The argument of the gravediggers upon He cannot be felo de se til1 the death is fully Ophelia’s case is almost in the words consummate, and the death precedes the reported by Plowden: felony and the forfeiture." 1 Clo. Is she to be buried in Christian Walsh, Serjeant, contra, argued that the burial, that wilfully seeks her own felony was to be referred back to the act salvation? which caused the death. "The act consists of 2 Clo. The crowner hath sate on her, three parts: the first is the imagination, and finds it Christian burial. which is a reflection or meditation of the 1 Clo. How can that be, unless she [108] mind, whether or not it is convenient drowned herself in her own defence? for him to destroy himself, and what way it 2 Clo. Why, ‘tis found so. can be done; the second is the resolution, 1 Clo. It must be se offendendo; it which is a determination of the mind to cannot be else. For here lies the destroy himself; the third is the perfection, point: if I drown myself wittingly, it which is the execution of what the mind had argues an act; and an act hath three resolved to do. And of all the parts, the branches; it is to act, to do, and to doing of the act is the greatest in the perform. Argal she drowned herself judgment of our law, and it is in effect the wittingly. * * * Here lies the water; whole. Then here the act done by Sir James good: here stands the man; good. If Hales, which is evil, and the cause of his the man go to this water and drown death, is the throwing himself into the water, himself, it is, will he, nill he, he and the death is but a sequel thereof." goes; mark you that: but if the water come to him and drown him, he Lord C. J. Dyer and the whole court gave drowns not himself. Argal he that is judgment for the defendant, holding that not guilty of his own death shortens although Sir James Hales could hardly be not his own life. [110] said to have killed himself in his lifetime, 2 Clo. But is this law? "the forfeiture shall have "relation to the act 1 Clo. Ay’ marry is’t, crowner’s done by Sir James Hales in his lifetime, quest law. which was the cause of his death, viz., the throwing himself into the water." Said they, Hamlet’s own speech, on taking in his hand "Sir James Hales was dead, and how came what he supposed might be the skull of a he to his death? by drowning; and who lawyer, abounds with lawyer-like thoughts drowned him ? Sir James Hales; and when and words: did he drown him? in his lifetime. So that Sir [109] James Hales, being alive, caused Where be his quiddits now, his Sir James Hales to die; and the act of the quillets, his cases, his tenures, and living man was the death of the dead man. his tricks? Why does he suffer this He therefore committed felony in his rude knave now to knock him about lifetime, although there was no possibility of the sconce with a dirty shovel, and the forfeiture being found in his lifetime, for will not tell him of his action of battery? Humph! This fellow might

255 The George Greenwood Collection

be in’s time a great buyer of land, —our high-plac’d Macbeth with his statutes, his recognizances, Shall live the lease of nature. his fines, his double vouchers, his recoveries: is this the fine of his But, unluckily for Macbeth, the lease fines, and the recovery of his contained no covenants for title or quiet recoveries, to have his fine pate full enjoyment: there were likewise forfeitures to of fine dirt? will his vouchers vouch be incurred by the tenant—with a clause of him no more of his purchases, and reentry—and consequently he was speedily double ones too, than the length and ousted. [The lease frequently presents itself breadth of a pair of indentures? to Shakespeare's mind, as in Richard III, Act IV, Sc. 4— These terms of art are all used seemingly with a full knowledge of their import; and it Tell me what state, what dignity, would puzzle some practicing barristers with what honour, Canst thou demise to whom I am acquainted to go over the whole any child of mine? seriatim, and to define each of them satisfactorily. [111] This is as clear a reference to leasing, as if he had said in full, "demise, lease, grant and Macbeth to farm let."]

In perusing this unrivalled tragedy I am so Othello carried away by the intense interest which it excites, that I fear I may have passed over In the very first scene of this play there is a legal phrases and allusions which I ought to striking instance of Shakespeare’s proneness have noticed; but the only passage I find to legal phraseology: where Iago, giving an with the juridical mark upon it in Macbeth, explanation to Roderigo of the [113] manner is in Act IV, Sc. 1, where, the hero exulting in which he had been disappointed in not in the assurance from the Weird Sisters that obtaining the place of Othello’s lieutenant, he can receive harm from "none of woman notwithstanding the solicitations in his born," he, rather in a lawyer-like manner, favour of "three great ones of the city," says: resolves to provide an indemnity, if the worst should come to the worst: But he, as loving his own pride and purposes, But yet I’ll make assurance double Evades them with a bombast sure, circumstance And take a bond of fate; Horribly stuff’d with epithets of war, And, in conclusion, —without much considering what should be Nonsuits my mediators. the penalty of the bond, or how he was to enforce the remedy, if the condition should "Nonsuiting" is known to the learned to be be broken. the most disreputable and mortifying mode of being beaten: it indicates that the action is He, immediately after, goes on in the same wholly unfounded on the plaintiff’s own legal jargon to say: [112] showing, or that there is a fatal defect in the manner in which his case has been got up: insomuch that Mr. Chitty, the great special

256 The George Greenwood Collection pleader, used to give this advice to young Duke. Whoe’er he be that in this foul barristers practicing at nisi prius: "Always proceeding avoid your attorney when nonsuited, for till Hath thus beguil’d your daughter of he has a little time for reflection, however herself, much you may abuse the Judge, he will And you of her, the bloody book of think that the nonsuit was all your fault." law [114] You shall yourself read, in the bitter letter, In the next scene Shakespeare gives us, very After your own sense. distinct proof that he was acquainted with Admiralty law, as well as with the procedure The Moor, although acting as his own of Westminster Hall. Describing the feat of counsel, makes a noble and skilful defence, the Moor in carrying off Desdemona against directly meeting the statutable her father’s consent, which might either misdemeanour with which he is charged— make or mar his fortune, according as the and referring pointedly to the very words of act might be sanctioned or nullified, Iago the indictment and the Act of Parliament: observes: I will a round unvarnish’d tale Faith, he to-night hath boarded a deliver land carack: Of my whole course of love; what If it prove lawful prize, he’s made for drugs, what charms, ever— What conjuration, and what miqhty magic the trope indicating that there would be a (For such proceedings I am charged suit in the High Court of Admiralty to withal) determine the validity of the capture. I won his daughter with.

Then follows, in Act I, Sc. 3, the trial of Having fully opened his case, showing that Othello before the Senate, as if he had been he had used no forbidden arts, and having indicted on Stat. 33 Hen. VII. c. 8, for explained the course which he had lawfully practising "conjuration, witchcraft, pursued, he says in conclusion: [116] enchantment, and sorcery, to provoke to unlawful love." Brabantio, the prosecutor, This only is the witchcraft I have says: used: Here comes the lady—let her witness She is abused, stol’n from me, and it. corrupted By spells and medicines bought of He then examines the witness, and is mountebanks; [115] honourably acquitted. For Nature so preposterously to err * * * Again, the application to Othello to forgive Sans witchcraft could not. Cassio is made to assume the shape of a juridical proceeding. Thus Desdemona The presiding Judge at first seems concludes her address to Cassio, assuring alarmingly to favour the prosecutor, saying: him of her zeal as his Solicitor:

257 The George Greenwood Collection

I’ll intermingle every thing he does Lay gents (viz., all except lawyers) With Cassio’s suit: Therefore be understand by "purchase" buying for a sum merry, Cassio; [118] of money, called the price; but lawyers For thy Solicitor shall rather die consider that "purchase" is opposed to Than give thy cause away. (Act III, descent—that all things come to the owner Sc. 3.) either by descent or by purchase, and that whatever does not come through operation The subsequent part of the same scene of law by descent is purchased, although it shows that Shakespeare was well acquainted may be the free gift of a donor. Thus, if land with all courts, low as well as high—where be devised by will to A. in fee, he takes by Iago asks: purchase, or to B. for life, remainder to A. and his heirs, B. being a stranger to A., A. Who has a breast so pure takes by purchase; but upon the death of A., But some uncleanly apprehensions his eldest son would take by descent. Keep leets and law-days, and in session sit English lawyers sometimes use these terms With meditations lawful? [117] metaphorically, like Lepidus. Thus a Law Lord who has suffered much from hereditary Antony and Cleopatra gout, although very temperate in his habits, says, "I take it by descent, not by purchase." In Julius Caesar I could not find a single Again, Lord Chancellor Eldon, a very bad instance of a Roman being made to talk like shot, having insisted on going out quite an English lawyer; but in Antony and alone to shoot, and boasted of the heavy bag Cleopatra (Act I, Sc. 4) Lepidus, in trying to of game which he had brought home, Lord palliate the bad qualities and misdeeds of Stowell, insinuating that he had filled it with Antony, uses the language of a game bought from a poacher, used to say, conveyancer’s chambers in Lincoln’s Inn: "My brother takes his game—not by descent, but by—purchase"—this being a "His faults, in him, seem as the spots pendant to [119] another joke Lord Stowell of heaven, was fond of—"My brother, the Chancellor, More fiery by night’s blackness; in vacation goes out with his gun to kill— hereditary time." Rather than purchas’d." Coriolanus That is to say, they are taken by descent, not by purchase. In this drama, in which we should not expect to find any allusion to English juridical [So in The Second Part of Henry IV., Act proceedings, Shakespeare shows that he IV, Sc. 4, the King, who had usurped the must have been present before some crown, says to the Prince of Wales: tiresome, testy, choleric judges at Stratford, Warwick, or Westminster—whom he For what in me was purchas'd evidently intends to depict and to satirise— Falls upon thee in a more fairer sort. like my distinguished friend Charles Dickens, in his famous report of the trial of i. e. I took by purchase, you will take by Bardel v. Pickwick, before Mr. Justice descent.] Starey, for breach of promise of marriage.

258 The George Greenwood Collection

Menenius (Act II, Sc. 1), in reproaching the Sc. I) in supposing that son assault demesne two tribunes, Sicinius and Brutus, with their (or that the Plaintiff gave the first blow) is own offences, which they forget while they not a good defence to an action of battery, inveigh against Coriolanus, says: he is made to say, "I'll have an action of battery against him, if there be any law in You wear out a good wholesome Illyria: though I struck him first, yet it's no forenoon in hearing [120] a cause matter for that."] between an orange-wife and a posset-seller and then re-journ the The scene ends with old Montagu and old controversy of three pence to a Capulet being bound over, in the English second day of audience. When you fashion, to keep the peace—in the same are hearing a matter between party manner as two Warwickshire clowns, who and party, if you chance to be had been fighting, might have been dealt pinched with the colic, you make with at Charlecote before Sir Thomas Lucy. faces like mummers, set up the bloody flag against all patience, and The only other scene in this play I have in roaring for a pot—dismiss the marked to be noticed for the use of law controversy pleading more entangled terms [122] is that between Mercutio and by your hearing: all the peace you Benvolio, in which they keenly dispute make in their cause is, calling both which of the two is the more quarrelsome— the parties knaves. at last Benvolio— not denying that he had quarrelled with a man for coughing in the Shakespeare here mistakes the duties of the street, whereby he wakened Benvolio’s dog Tribune for those of the Prætor—but in truth that lay asleep in the sun—or that he had he was recollecting with disgust what he had quarrelled with another for tying his new himself witnessed in his own country. shoes with old riband—contents himself Nowadays all English judges are exemplary with this tu quoque answer to Mercutio: for dispatch, patience, and good temper! An I were so apt to quarrel as thou Romeo and Juliet art, any man should buy the fee- simple of any life for an hour and a The first scene of this romantic drama may quarter. (Act III, Sc. 1.) be studied by a student of the Inns of Court to acquire a knowledge of the law of Talking of the fee-simple of a man’s life, and "assault and battery," and what will amount calculating how many hours’ purchase it to a justification. Although Sampson was worth, is certainly what might not exclaims, [121] "My naked weapon is out: unnaturally be expected from the clerk of a quarrel, I will back thee," he adds, "Let us country attorney. [So in All's Well that Ends take the law of our sides; let them begin." Well (Act IV, Sc. 3) Parolles, the bragging Then we learn that neither frowning, nor cowardly soldier, is made to talk like a biting the thumb, nor answering to a conveyancer in Lincoln's Inn: "He will sell question, "Do you bite your thumb at us, the fee-simple of his salvation ** and cut the Sir?" "I do bite my thumb, Sir"—would be entail from all remainders."] [123] enough to support the plea of se defendendo. [To show the ignorance and stupidity of Sir Andrew Aguecheek (Twelfth Night, Act IV,

259 The George Greenwood Collection

POEMS "Hath served a dumb arrest upon his tongue." With a view to your inquiry respecting the From the Sonnets learning of Shakespeare I have now, my "When to the sessions of sweet silent dear Mr. Payne Collier, gone through all his thought plays—and I can venture to speak of their I summon up remembrance of things contents with some confidence, having been past." long familiar with them. His Poems are by no means so well known to me; for, "So should that beauty which you although I have occasionally looked into hold in lease." them, and I am not blind to their beauties, I "And summer’s lease hath all too must confess that I never could discover in short a date." them (like some of his enthusiastic admirers) the same proofs of surpassing genius which "And ‘gainst thyself a lawful plea render him immortal as a dramatist. But a commence." [125] cursory perusal of them does discover the "But be contented; when that fell propensity to legal thoughts and words arrest which might be expected in an attorney’s Without all bail shall carry me clerk who takes to rhyming. away." [Death is the sheriff's officer, strict in I shall select a few instances, without his arrest, and will take no bail.] unnecessarily adding any comment. "Of faults concealed, wherein I am From Venus and Adonis attainted." "But when the heart’s attorney once "Which works on leases of short is mute, numbered hours." The client breaks as desperate in the "Lord of my love, to whom in suit." [124] vassalage "Which purchase if thou make for Thy merit hath my duty strongly fear of slips knit, Set thy seal-manual on my wax-red To thee I send this written lips." embassage." [This is the beginning "Her pleading hath deserved a of a love-letter, in the language of a greater fee." vassal doing homage to his liege From the Rape of Lucrece lord.] "Dim register and notary of shame." "And I myself am mortgag’d." "For me I force not argument a "Why so large cost, having so short straw, a lease?" [Taxing an overcharge in Since that my case is past the help of the attorney's bill of costs.] law." "So should that beauty, which you "No rightful plea might plead for hold in lease, justice there." Find no determination." [The word

260 The George Greenwood Collection

"determination" is always used by impannelled to ‘cide [decide] and by their lawyers instead of "end."] [126] verdict to apportion between the litigating parties the subject matter to be divided. The Sonnet XLVI jury fortunately are unanimous, and after Mine Eye and Heart are at a mortal due deliberation find for the EYE in respect war of the lady’s outward form, and for the How to divide the conquest of thy HEART in respect of her inward love. sight; Mine Eye my Heart thy picture’s Surely Sonnet XLVI. smells as potently of sight would bar, the attorney’s office as any of the stanzas My Heart mine Eye the freedom of penned by Lord Kenyon while an attorney’s that right. clerk in Wales. [128] My Heart doth plead that thou in him cost lie SHAKESPEARE’S WILL (A closet never pierced with crystal eyes), Among Shakespeare’s writings, I think that But the Defendant doth that plea attention should be paid to his WILL, for, deny, upon a careful perusal, it will be found to And says in him thy fair appearance have been in all probability composed by lies. himself. It seems much too simple, terse, To ‘cide this title is impannelled and condensed, to have been the A quest of thoughts, all tenants to the composition of a Stratford attorney, who Heart; was to be paid by the number of lines which And by their verdict is determined it contained. But a testator, without The clear Eye’s moiety, and the dear professional experience, could hardly have Heart’s part; used language so appropriate as we find in As thus: mine Eyes’ due is shine this will, to express his meaning. outward part, And my Heart’s right, shine inward Shakespeare, the greatest of British love of heart. dramatists, appears to have been as anxious as Sir Walter Scott, the greatest of British I need not go further than this sonnet, which novelists, to found a family, although he is so intensely legal in its language and does not require all his descendants to "bear imagery, that without a considerable the name and arms of Shakespeare." But, as knowledge of English forensic procedure it far as the rules of English law would permit, cannot be fully understood. A lover being he seeks to perpetuate in an heir male, supposed to have made a conquest of [i.e., to descended from one of his daughters (his have gained by purchase] his mistress, his son having died [129] in infancy, and there EYE and his HEART, holding as joint- being no longer any prospect of issue male tenants, have a contest as to how she is to be of his own), all the houses and lands he had partitioned between them— [127] each acquired—which were quite sufficient for a moiety then to be held in severally. There respectable Warwickshire squire. His are regular Pleadings in the suit, the HEART favourite daughter, Susanna, married to Dr. being represented as Plaintiff and the EYE Ball, an eminent physician, was to be the as Defendant. At last issue is joined on what stirps from which this line of male heirs was the one affirms and the other denies. Now a to spring; and the testator creates an estate in jury [in the nature of an inquest] is to be

261 The George Greenwood Collection tail male—with remainders over, which, but son lawfully issuing; and for default for fines and recoveries, would have kept the of such issue, to the said second son whole of his property in one male of her body lawfully issuing, and to representative for generations to come. the heirs males of the body of the second son lawfully issuing; and for The will, dated 25th March, 1616, a month default of such heirs, to the third son before his death, having given legacies to of the body of the said Susanna various friends and relations, thus proceeds: lawfully issuing, and to the heirs males of the body of the said third Item, I give, will, bequeath, and son lawfully issuing; and for default devise, unto my daughter, Susanna of such issue, the same so to be and Hall, for better enabling of her to remain to the fourth, fifth, sixth, and perform this my will and towards seventh sons of her body, lawfully performance thereof, all that capital issuing one after another, and to the messuage or tenement, with the heirs males of the bodies of the said appurtenances, in Stratford aforesaid, fourth, fifth, sixth, and seventh sons [130] called the New Place, wherein lawfully issuing, in such manner as it I now dwell, and two messuages or is before limited to be and remain to tenements with the appurtenances, the first, second, and third sons of situate, lying, and being in Henley her body, and to their heirs males; Street, within the borough of and for default of such [131] issue, Stratford aforesaid; and all my barns, the said premises to be and remain to stables, orchards, gardens, lands, my said niece Hall, and the heirs tenements, and hereditaments males of her body lawfully issuing; whatsoever, situate, lying, and being, and for default of such issue, to my or to be had, received, perceived, or daughter Judith, and the heirs males taken, within the towns, hamlets, of her body lawfully issuing; and for villages, fields, and grounds of default of such issue, to the right Stratford-upon-Avon, Old Stratford, heirs of me the said William Bishopton, and Welcombe, or in any Shakespeare for ever. of them, in the said county of Warwick; and also all that messuage In his Will when originally engrossed, there or tenement, with the appurtenances, was no notice whatever taken of his wife; wherein one John Robinson but immediately after these limitations he dwelleth, situate, lying, and being in subsequently interpolated a bequest to her in the Blackfriars in London, near the the following words: Wardrobe; and all other my lands, tenements, and hereditaments I give unto my wife my second best whatsoever; to have and to hold all bed with the furniture. and singular the said premises, with their appurtenances, unto the said The subject of this magnificent gift being Susanna Hall, for and during the only personal property, he shows his term of her natural life; and after her technical skill by omitting the word devise, decease, to the first son of her body which he had used in disposing of his lawfully issuing, and to the heirs reality. [132] males of the body of the said first

262 The George Greenwood Collection

The idolatrous worshippers of Shakespeare, To strengthen the suspicion that who think it necessary to make his moral Shakespeare was likely not to have much qualities as exalted as his poetical genius, respect for his wife, persons animated by the account for this sorry bequest, and for no spirit of the late John Wilson Croker other notice being taken of poor Mrs. (although Shakespeare's biographers, in the Shakespeare in the will, by saying that he absence of any register of his marriage, had knew she was sufficiently provided for by conjectured that it took place in June, 1582), her right to dower out of his landed by searching the records of the Ecclesiastical property, which the law would give her; and Court at Worcester, have lately made the they add that he must have been tenderly very awkward discovery that the bond given attached to her, because (they take upon on grant of the licence for William themselves to say) she was exquisitely Shakespeare to marry Ann Hathaway is beautiful as well as strictly virtuous. But she dated 26th November, 1582, while the entry was left by her husband without house or in the parish register of the baptism of furniture (except the second best bed), or a Susanna, their eldest child, is dated 26th kind word, or any other token of his love; May, 1583. As Shakespeare, at the time of and I sadly fear that between William this misfortune, was a lad of eighteen years Shakespeare and Ann Hathaway the course of age, and Miss Hathaway was more than of true love never did run smooth. His seven years his senior, he could hardly have boyish inexperience was no doubt pleased been the seducer; and I am afraid that she for a short time with her caresses; but he was "no better than she should be," whatever probably found that their union was imaginary personal charms may be imputed "misgraffed in respect of years," and gave to her. advice from his own experience when he said: RETROSPECT

Let still the woman take Having concluded my examination of An elder than herself; so wears she Shakespeare’s juridical phrases and forensic to him allusions—on the retrospect I am amazed, So sways she level in her husband's [133] not only by their number, but by the heart. accuracy and propriety with which they are For, boy, however we do praise uniformly introduced. There is nothing so ourselves dangerous as for one not of the craft to Our fancies are more giddy and tamper with our free-masonry. In the House infirm, of Commons I have heard a county member, More longing, wavering, sooner lost who meant to intimate that he entirely and worn concurred with the last preceding speaker, Than women's are. * * say, "I join issue with the honourable Then let thy love be younger than gentleman who has just sat down;" the legal thyself sense of which is, "I flatly contradict all his Or thy affection cannot hold the facts and deny his inferences." JUNIUS, bent; who was fond of dabbling in law, and who For women are like roses; whose fair was supposed by some to be a lawyer flower, (although Sir Philip Francis, then a clerk in Being Once displayed, cloth fall that the War Office, is now ascertained, [134] very hour. beyond all doubt, to have been the man), in

263 The George Greenwood Collection his address to the English nation, speaking Take the last instance referred to—Romeo’s of the House of Commons, and wishing to photograph of the apothecary and his shop. say that the beneficial interest in the state belongs to the people, and not to their Meagre were his looks, representatives, says, "They are only Sharp misery had worn him to the trustees; the fee is in us." Now every bones: attorney’s clerk knows that when land is And in his needy shop a tortoise held in trust, the fee (or legal estate) is in the hung, trustee, and that the beneficiary has only an An alligator stuffed, and other skins equitable interest. While Novelists and [136] Dramatists are constantly making mistakes Of ill-shaped fishes; and about his as to the law of marriage, of wills, and of shelves inheritance—to Shakespeare’s law, lavishly A beggarly account of empty boxes. as he propounds it, there can neither be Green earthen pots, bladders and demurrer nor bill of exceptions, nor writ of musty seeds, error. Remnants of packthread and old cakes of roses, He is no doubt equally accurate in referring Were thinly scattered to make up a to some other professions, but these show. (Act V, Sc. 1.) references are rare and comparatively slight. Some have contended that he must have Any observing customer, who had once been by trade a gardener, from the entered the shop to buy a dose of rhubarb, conversation, in the Winter's Tale, between might have safely given a similar account of Perdita, Polixenes, and Florizel, about what he saw, although utterly ignorant of raising carnations and gilliflowers, and the Galen and Hippocrates. But let a non- skilful grafting of fruit trees. Others have professional man, however acute, presume contended that [135] Shakespeare must have to talk law, or to draw illustrations from been bred to the sea, from the nautical legal science in discussing other subjects, language in which directions are given for and he will very speedily fall into some the manuœuvring of the ship in the Tempest, laughable absurdity. and from the graphic description in Henry IV’s soliloquy of the "high and giddy mast," To conclude my summing up of the of the "ruffian billows," of the "slippery evidence under this head, I say, if shrouds," and of "sealing up the ship boy’s Shakespeare is shown to have possessed a eyes." Nay, notwithstanding the admonition knowledge of law, which he might have to be found in his works, "Throw physic to acquired as clerk in an attorney’s office in the dogs," it has been gravely suggested that Stratford, and which he could have acquired he must have been initiated in medicine, in no other way, we are justified in believing from the minute inventory of the contents of the fact that he was a clerk in an attorney’s the apothecary’s shop in Romeo and Juliet. office at Stratford, without any direct proof But the descriptions thus relied upon, of the fact. Logicians and jurists allow us to however minute, exact, and picturesque, will infer a fact of [137] which there is no direct be found to be the result of casual proof, from facts expressly proved, if the observation, and they prove only nice fact to be inferred may have existed, if it be perception, accurate recollection, and consistent with all other facts known to extraordinary power of pictorial language. exist, and if facts known to exist can only be

264 The George Greenwood Collection accounted for by inferring the fact to be I am quite serious and sincere in what I inferred. [139] have written about Nash and Robert Greene having asserted the fact; but I by no But, my dear Mr. Payne Collier, you must means think that on this ground alone it not from all this suppose that I have really must necessarily be taken for truth. Their become an absolute convert to your side of statement that he had belonged to the the question. ÆNEAS, while in the shades profession of the law may be as false as that below, for a time believed in the reality of he was a plagiarist from Seneca. Nash and all he seemed to see and to hear; but, when Robert Greene may have invented it, or dismissed through the ivory gate, he found repeated it on some groundless rumour. that he had been dreaming. I hope that my Shakespeare may have contradicted and arguments do not "come like shadows, so refuted it twenty times; or, not thinking it depart." Still I must warn you that I myself discreditable, though untrue, he may have remain rather sceptical. All that I can admit thought it undeserving of any notice. to you is that you may be right, and that Observing what fictitious statements are while there is weighty evidence for you, introduced into the published "Lives" of there is nothing conclusive against you. living individuals, in our own time, when truth in such matters can be so much more Resuming the Judge, however, I must lay easily ascertained, and error so much more down that your opponents are not called easily corrected, we should be slow to give upon to prove a negative, and that the onus faith to an uncorroborated statement made probandi rests upon you. You must likewise near three centuries ago by persons who remember that you require us implicitly to were evidently actuated by malice. [140] believe [138] a fact, which, were it true, positive and irrefragable evidence in What you have mainly to rely upon (and this Shakespeare’s own handwriting might have consideration may prevail in your favour been forthcoming to establish it. Not having with a large majority of the literary world) is been actually inrolled as an attorney, neither the seemingly utter impossibility of the records of the local court at Stratford, Shakespeare having acquired, on any other nor of the superior courts at Westminster, theory, the wonderful knowledge of law would present his name, as being concerned which he undoubtedly displays. But we must in any suits as an attorney; but it might have bear in mind that, although he was a mortal been reasonably expected that there would man, and nothing miraculous can be have been deeds or wills witnessed by him attributed to him, he was intellectually the still extant—and, after a very diligent most gifted of [141] mankind, and that he search, none such can be discovered. Nor was capable of acquiring knowledge where can this consideration be disregarded, that the opportunities he enjoyed would have between Mash’s Epistle in the end of the been insufficient for any other. Supposing 16th century, and Chalmers’s suggestion that John the father lived as a gentleman, or more than two hundred years after, there is respectably carried on trade as one of the no hint by his foes or his friends of principal inhabitants of the town, and that Shakespeare having consumed pens, paper, William the son, from the time of leaving ink, and pounce in an attorney’s office at the grammar-school till he went to London, Stratford. resided with his father, assisting him in the management of his houses and land and any ancillary business carried on by him—the

265 The George Greenwood Collection son might have been in the habit of dined at the ordinary in Alsatia, thus attending trials in the Stratford Court of described by Dekker, where he may have Record, and when of age he might have had a daily surfeit of law, if, with his been summoned to serve as a juryman there universal thirst for knowledge, he had any or at the Court Leet; he might have been desire to drink deeply at this muddy intimate with some of the attorneys who fountain: practiced in the town and with their clerks, and while in their company at fairs, wakes, "There is another ordinary at which your church ales, bowling-, bell-ringing-, and London usurer, your stale bachelor and your hurling-matches, he might not only have thrifty attorney do resort; the price three- picked up some of their professional jargon, pence; the rooms as full of company as a but gained some insight into the principles gaol; and indeed divided into several wards, of their calling, which are not without like the beds of en hospital. * * * If they interest to the curious. [142] chance to discourse, it is of nothing but of statutes, bonds, recognizances, fine, Moreover, it is to be considered that, recoveries, audits, rents, subsidies, sureties, although Shakespeare in 1589 was enclosures, liveries, indictments, outlawries, unquestionably a shareholder in the feoffments, judgments, commissions, Blackfriars Theatre, and had trod the boards bankrupts, amercements, and of such as an actor, the time when he began to write horrible matter."—Dekker’s Gull’s for the stage is uncertain; and we are not in Hornbook, 1609. possession of any piece which we assuredly know to have been written and finished by In such company a willing listener might him before the year 1592. Thus there was a [144] soon make great progress in law; and long interval between his arrival in London it may be urged, that I have unconsciously and the publication of any of the dramas exaggerated the difficulty to be encountered from which my selections are made. In this by Shakespeare in picking up his knowledge interval he was no doubt conversant with all of that which I myself have been so long sorts and conditions of men. I am sorry to labouring to understand. Many may think say I cannot discover that at any period of that Shakespeare resembles his own Prince his life Lord Chancellors or Lord Chief Hal, when reformed and become Henry V, Justices showed the good taste to cultivate who, notwithstanding his revels in East his acquaintance. But he must have been Cheap, and with no apparent opportunities intimate with the students at the Inns of of acquiring the knowledge he displayed, Court, who were in the habit of playing astonished the world with his universal before Queen Elizabeth at Greenwich, as he wisdom: [143] took a part in these court theatricals; and the author, in all probability, was Hear him but reason in divinity, present among the lawyers when ‘Twelfth And, all-admiring, with an inward Night’ was brought out at the Readers’ Feast wish, in the Middle Temple, and when ‘Othello’ You would desire the king were was acted at Lord Chancellor Ellesmere’s made a prelate before Queen Elizabeth. Hear him debate of commonwealth affairs, Shakespeare, during his first years in You would say, it hath been all-in-all London, when his purse was low, may have his study.

266 The George Greenwood Collection

List his discourse of war, and you bounded reign, shall hear And panting Time toiled after him in A fearful battle render’d you in vain. music. Turn him to any cause of policy, And now, my dear Hr. Payne Collier, I must The Gordian knot of it he will conclude. Long ago, I dare say, you were unloose heartily sorry that you ever thought of taking Familiar as his garter; that, when he the opinion of counsel on this knotty point; speaks, and at last you may not only exclaim, "I am The air, a chartered libertine, is still, no wiser then I was," but shaking your head, And the mute wonder lurketh in like old DEMIPHO in ‘Terence,’ after being man’s ears present at a consultation of lawyers on the To steal his sweet and honeyed validity of his son’s marriage, you may sigh sentences; and say, "Incertior sum multo quam So that the art, and practick part of dudum." life, Must be the mistress to this theorick. However, if my scepticism and my Henry V., Act I, Sc. 1. argumentation (worthy of Serjeant [145] Eitherside) should stimulate you deliberately to reconsider the question, and to We cannot argue with confidence on the communicate your matured judgment to the principles which would guide us to safe world, I shall not have doubted or conclusions respecting ordinary men, when hallucinated in vain. By another outpouring we are reasoning respecting one of whom it of your Shakespearian lore you may entirely was truly said: convince, and at all events you will much gratify, Each change of many-coloured life he drew, Your sincere admirer and friend, Exhausted worlds, and then (Signed) CAMPBELL imagined new; Existence saw him spurn her THE END

267 The George Greenwood Collection

Ecclesiastical Law in Hamlet, King of Denmark, lived about A. D. 700, and Christianity was not Hamlet introduced in Denmark until about A. D. 827, by Harold. So the laws of the by R. S. Guernsey Christian Church of England were 1885 referred to, and not the laws of Denmark, in the time of Shakespeare. edited by Mark Andre Alexander The established Church, in Denmark, is Lutheran, and has been such since 1536.

IT would seem at this late day that all The plot of Hamlet is derived from that could be said about the play of "Saxo Grammaticus' History of Hamlet has been said and often Denmark," and was used in novels repeated. I now claim the honor of before Shakespeare's time. It was first being the first discoverer and used as a play in 1589, said to have been announcer of the fact that in Hamlet written by Shakespeare and Marlowe, can be found allusions and statements but no copy of it as then represented is showing the most thorough and now known. It is mentioned by complete knowledge of the canon and contemporary writers. That which is now known as Shakespeare's Hamlet was statute law of England, relating to the written about 1597, and published about burial of suicides that has ever been 1600. It was entered in Stationer's Hall written. for copyright by James Roberts, on July In pointing out the law in Hamlet, the 26th, 1602, under the title of " The dialogue in the grave-diggers' scene is Revenge of Hamlett, Prince of always discussed by writers, but even in Denmarke." The edition published in that they do not any of them note all the 1603, like those previously printed, is law that is in it, and I will now show that one that I particularly call attention to as it is not confined entirely to the parallels not containing any of the fine descriptive in the famous case of Hales v. Petit, points relating to the death and burial of from which some of the arguments are Ophelia. It was little more than merely unquestionably taken. alluded to. The gravediggers' dialogue No law writer has yet stated the English and the burial of Ophelia, in the 5th Act, law relating to suicides so completely as was afterwards revised and inserted in is done in Hamlet. I have mentioned this the edition of 1604, and is the same as is fact in my recently published "History of now in common use. the Penal Laws against Suicides," but as The entire play was so revised and all the parallels and allusions contained altered to such an extent as to make the in the play were not there pointed out, I edition of 1604 a rewritten play. will now attempt to fully give them. Queen Elizabeth died March 23, 1603, Shakespeare has accurately stated the so the Hamlet of to-day was written laws of the Church and of the Statutes in under the reign of King James I. In this England, at the time he wrote, and not connection it is important to note the the laws of Denmark, in Hamlet's time. effect that this might have had upon the

268 The George Greenwood Collection forms then used by the English Church to the Queen. The case of Hales v. Petit in burials, and might have caused a arose out of this. change in this description of the burial of The parallel between the arguments Ophelia. presented in that case and those given in The three kinds of burials given suicides the grave-diggers' dialogue, as to suicide in the church yard are shown -- one by by drowning, are so striking that there the gravedigger, as was customary in can be no question that the writer was some parts of England and Wales, where familiar with the report of the law case. the grave was "out of the sanctuary" and Literal extracts from the reported case not "straight," that is, east and west, and are as follows: another was by Christian burial by the priest, when it was in the parish church- Serjeant Walsh argued that the act of yard, and the other was by the coroner suicide consisted of three parts. when not at cross roads, marked by a (1.) The imagination, which is a stake where stones, &c., were thrown at reflection or meditation of the mind it. Blackstone only mentions the burial whether or not it is convenient for of suicides at cross roads, and law him to destroy himself, and what students are led to believe that the law way it can be done. was the same over all England and Wales in that particular. It was only a (2.) The resolution, which is a legal custom and did not prevail determination of the mind to destroy generally. himself, and to do it in that particular way. The case of the suicide of Sir James Hales, and the legal effect thereof, is the (3.) The perfection, which is the first one reported as adjudicated upon by execution of what the mind has the Courts, as to the question of resolved to do. And this perfection forfeiture of the property of a suicide as consists of two parts, viz: the a felony (Hales v. Petit Plowden, 253). beginning and the end. Sir James Hales was a Judge of Lord Brown, of the Court, said: Common Pleas and a Protestant. In the reign of Queen Mary he was removed "Sir James Hales was dead, and how and imprisoned in the Fleet and other came he to his death? It may be places, and was otherwise persecuted, so answered by drowning -- and who that he became melancholy. He drowned him? Sir James Hales -- and attempted suicide by stabbing himself, when did he drown him? In his life but failed to accomplish his design. He time. So that Sir James Hales being was released from close confinement, alive caused Sir James Hales to die! and seeing the cruel persecutions of and the act of the living man was the other Protestants by the Queen, and death of the dead man. And then for fearing that he was about to be again this offence it is reasonable to punish seized, he at last drowned himself. The the living man who committed the coroner's jury (being Roman Catholic) offence, and not the dead man. But very unjustly found that he was sane at how can he be said to be punished the time, and therefore his personal alive when the punishment comes estate, which was valuable, was forfeited after his death."

269 The George Greenwood Collection

Lord Chief Justice Dyer said among the things to be considered were: 2D GRAVE D. -- Nay, but hear you, "(1.) The quality of the offence of Sir goodman delver.

James Hales. 1ST GRAVE D. -- Give me leave. "(2.) To whom the offence is Here lies the water; good; here committed. stands the man; good. If the man go "(3.) What shall he forfeit? Under to this water, and drown himself, it this point the Court said he is is, will he, nill he, he goes; mark you adjudged none of the members of that: but, if the water come to him, holy church if he drowned himself. and drown him, he drowns not himself. Argal, he that is not guilty "Wherefore all the Justices agreed of his own death, shortens not his that the forfeiture of the goods and own life. chattels real and personal of Sir James Hales shall have relation to 2D GRAVE D. -- But is this law? the act done in his life-time, which was the cause of his death, viz: the 1ST GRAVE D. -- Ay, marry is't, throwing himself into the water." crowner's 'quest law. The grave diggers' dialogue on suicide is as follows: 2D GRAVE D. -- Will you ha' the truth on't? If this had not been a ACT 5, SCENE I. gentlewoman, she should have been 1ST GRAVE D. -- Is she to be buried out of christian burial. buried in Christian burial that This scene in the edition of 1603 is wilfully seeks her own salvation? as follows:

2D GRAVE D. -- I tell thee she is; 1ST GRAVE D. -- I say no, she therefore make her grave straight; ought not to be buried in Christian the crowner hath set on her, and burial. finds it christian burial. 2D GRAVE D. -- Why, sir. 1ST GRAVE D. -- How can that be, unless she drowned herself in her 1ST GRAVE D. -- Mary, because own defense? she's drowned. [Mary was a profane word, used in the same way that God 2D GRAVE D. -- Why, tis found so. and some other sacred names are still profanely used.] 1ST GRAVE D. -- It must be se offendendo; [A plea of justifiable 2D GRAVE D. -- But did she not homicide or self defence.] it cannot drown herself? be else. For here lies the point: if I drown myself wittingly, it argues an 1ST GRAVE D. -- No, that's certain act; and an act hath three branches; it the water drown her. is, to act, to do, to perform. Argal, she drowned herself wittingly. 2D GRAVE D. -- Yea, but it was against her will.

270 The George Greenwood Collection

canons of the Church of England of 1ST GRAVE D. -- No, I deny that, 1603 and before the revision of the for look you, sir, I stand here, if the present Book of Common Prayer and the water came to me I drown not rubrics as they now stand. We must myself. But if I go to the water I am therefore resort to the old canons, usages there drowned. Ergo, I am guilty of and ecclesiastical and statute law of my own death. England and the Book of Common Y'are gone, y'are gone, sir. Prayer then in use. Although it was after or during the 2D GRAVE D. -- I but see, she hath reformation and under a protestant Christian burial, because she is a sovereign, yet the distinction between great woman. the Episcopal Church and the former Roman Catholic Church services were 1ST GRAVE D. -- Mary, more's the not marked or well defined. The Puritans pity, that great folks should have (Presbyterians) were almost as hostile to more authorization to hang or drown many of the tenets and practices of the themselves, more than other people. Episcopal Church of England as to the former Roman Catholic Church. The 1ST GRAVE D. -- Why, there thou Church of England, in the reign of say'st; and the more pity, that great Queen Elizabeth, although called folks should have countenance in "protestant," was in fact and substance this world to drown or hang but little more in that direction than had themselves, more than their even been done in the reigns of Henry VIII Christian." [sic] and Edward VI. The changes made by The grave was to be made "straight," statutes were marked and few in Henry's that is, it was to be made East and West, reign, and were more important and for Christian burial, but in cases of those essential to the future Church of England who had not Christian burial the grave than any of those made in the reign of was North and South, as before stated. Queen Elizabeth. The Articles of It is true that the burial is represented as Religion were established by law in the taking place in Denmark, as the King reign of Edward VI. A.D. 1553. The and Queen and Courtiers were present, present form of them was settled in but still the burial was according to the 1571. laws of England and the Established The canon law up to 1604 remained in Episcopal Church, and not the Roman full force in England as it had been when Catholic burial rites, as they and all other under the Pope of Rome. The statute of dissenting church ceremonies were not 25 Henry VIII, Chapter 19, among other allowed to be used in any parish things, provided that all the canons, churchyard in England after the constitutions, ordinances, and synodals Reformation and the establishment of provincial being then already made and the Episcopal Church. not repugnant to the laws of the land or I will now state the law of England as it the King s prerogative, should still be existed at the time that Hamlet was used and executed. This was confirmed written and revised in 1604. This was by I Elizabeth, Chap. I, A.D. 1558. about the time of the revision of the

271 The George Greenwood Collection

During the reign of Elizabeth there was and practices could go. The statutes of high church and low church practiced to the realm prohibited certain practices, an extent never before allowed, and this but those that were not positively depended upon the opinion and choice of forbidden could be followed and usually the bishop of the diocese and of the were to the same extent as when rector of the parish. In fact, the England was under the Church of Rome Episcopalians and the Catholics and and Popery governed the ritual. The others were required to attend the Parish legal ritual was such as the most ultra Church or did not attend any church, for Puritans (Presbyterians) could use by there were no other places for meetings. only reading the short service while the Seats were not placed in churches until Episcopal Church could have nearly the James I reign. As an indication of the same service as when it was under the state of religious feeling on the accession Church of Rome. It was a concession to of Elizabeth to the Crown in 1559 (when the Puritans by Parliament to prevent Queen Mary had held it for the six anarchy and to restore tranquility in the preceding years, and the nation had been nation. But all concessions by Church or received into the Roman Catholic State to each other and all laws from the Church), of the 9,400 beneficial men in time of Edward VI., 1549, when the first England who held under the Roman Protestant prayer book and ritual of the Catholic reign, all took the oath of Church of England was adopted and supremacy and retained their places approved jointly by authority of the under Elizabeth excepting 189; of these Church in Convocation and the state in last 14 were bishops, and 80 were Parliament until the adoption of the priests. Most of her councillors were present Book of Common Prayer in 1662 continued from the reign of Queen by the like authority, proved unavailing Mary. The Queen herself was more until the toleration Act of 1689 by inclined to the practices of the Church of Parliament. Rome than to the Reformed Churches of None other rituals or forms of worships Calvin and Luther. She was crowned by had the joint sanction of Church and a Roman Catholic Bishop according to State. the Roman Catholic ritual. All the bishops in Parliament and eight peers The act of uniformity of worships (I voted against the Book of Common Elizabeth Ch., 2, A.D. 1558) was Prayer adopted in her reign by virtually only to affect the Puritans. It Parliament, for the uniformity of prescribed certain penalties upon worship in England. It was not approved ministers for not using the service by authority of the Church of England in according to the Book of Common convocation. It was far from the Roman Prayer, and also for using any other Catholic ritual and required much less service in lieu thereof. No part of it than that which was adopted by could be omitted, but much more than Parliament and the Church in 1662, and therein required could be used according which is still in use in England and in to the old practices in the Church of the United States. There was more Rome unless positively prohibited by liberty then than now left to the choice statute. of the bishops of each diocese as to how No less form or kind of worships than far from the Church of Rome the ritual thereby prescribed was tolerated or

272 The George Greenwood Collection allowed in England. The toleration act, The part of the canon law against allowing protestant dissenters certain suicides was taken from the action of the privileges and rights as to other kinds of first council of Braga, which occurred beliefs and forms of worships was not many years before the canon law noticed enacted until 1689. In Elizabeth's reign it. Papistry and Puritanism were both "The first ecclesiastical rule which punished as heresies. The rural districts occurreth as to suicide is the 34th canon were strong in the old faith and church of the first council of Braga, in the year rituals, while in the seaport towns the 563, which forbids any burial service for new faith taught by Calvin and Luther those qui violentan sili ipsis infermet was stronger. mortem. But in Wilkins' councils the 5th The punishment which the church meted chapter of the 2d book of the Penetential out to suicides still prevailed as it had of Egbert, Archbishop of York, written been for centuries before. It is true the about the year A.D. 750 (which chapter rubric in the Book of Common Prayer is plainly taken from the canon of against the use of the burial service in Braga), adds this limitation, "If they do it cases where the deceased had laid by the instigation of the devil." And at p. violent hands on himself was not 232 the 15th of the canons published in inserted until the year 1662, yet it was in King Edgar's time, about the year 960, force under the old church canons and adds a further limitation. "If they do it was in effect the same as now. voluntarily by the instigation of the Christian burial was denied suicides in devil." (I Burns, Eccles. Law, 265). It will be observed that this canon law of all parts of England under the canon law. Egbert was in the time of the Saxon A council of Arles, about the middle of Heptarchy, but it, nevertheless, applied the fifth century, having pronounced to all of England. ["Instigation of the suicide to be the effect of "diabolical devil" meant a frenzy and not a inspiration," a council of Braga, in the deliberate self destruction, "with malice following century, ordained that no afore-thought" as a deliberate crime was religious rites should be celebrated at the designated in law.] tomb of a suicide, and that no masses The Decretum of Gratian inserting the should be said for his soul. canon of Braga adds to it "voluntaire." It was ordained in the sixth century by (do.) the canon law that no commemoration should be made in the Eucharist for such The exact language of the canons of as destroyed themselves, neither should Edgar, as translated by Wilkins, is as their bodies be carried out with palms follows: nor have the usual service read over "Concerning those who by any fault them. inflict death upon themselves, let there And these provisions, which were be no commemoration of them in the repeated by later councils, were oblation, or likewise for them who are gradually introduced with the canon law punished for their crimes, nor shall their into the laws of the Barbarian and of corpses be carried unto the grave with Charlemagne. Thus they were spread all palms." over Europe.

273 The George Greenwood Collection

"If any shall voluntarily kill himself by the burial rites of the church, for arms, or by any instigation of the devil, churchmen contended then as now that it is not permitted that for such a person in all cases of suicide the deceased any masses be sung, nor shall his body should be denied the burial rites of the be put into the ground with any singing church, and the clergy ought not to be of a psalm, nor shall he buried in pure bound by the decision of the Coroner's sepulchre." (Canons Edgar, 1 Wilk., 225, jury in such cases. [Coke says he is 232.) (Johnson, A.D. 740, No. 96, and called coroner or coronator because he 963, No. 24.) (1 Burns' Ecc. Law, 260.) hath principally to do with pleas of the [Pure sepulchre referred to white crown, or such wherein the King is more garments as well as other emblems of immediately concerned. The office is of purity. When persons were baptized in equal antiquity with that of sheriff. the Church of Rome, the recipient Mention is made of him in a charter of received a white garment (to be worn for King Athelstan, A.D. 905. Forfeiture of a specified time) and a lighted taper personal property for a felony was not placed in his hands as symbols of purity introduced into the English law until the and the light of faith. This custom in the beginning of the 12th century.] early church of representing the faithful The practice was when the coroner in white robes and palms of victory is delivered the custody of the body to the undoubtedly referred to by St. Paul in relatives and friends, that the same Rev. VII, 9, 14.] should be buried by the parish priest in To the rigid rule of the church there was the manner and form his discretion and then, as there still is, no exceptions, but church regulations might allow, the law made the decision in a coroner's excepting so far as positive statute law inquest binding and conclusive upon the compelled him to act. The statute law question; in a legal phrase the coroner's compelled him to attend and bury all inquest was not traversable in any Court persons in the parish churchyard, and to or place, but must be followed by all and read or sing certain prescribed prayers every person." [This is not so in the and portions of the bible as prescribed in United States; a decision of a coroner's the act of uniformity of worship without court is not binding or conclusive. An regard to the religious belief or doctrine inquest is merely used for the purpose of of the deceased. [Dissenters did not have obtaining evidence that may be used in a their own churches and burying grounds, criminal proceeding.] until long after Shakespeare's time.] The first grave digger in Hamlet The Book of Common Prayer as we believed that if Ophelia had not been a have it now was not yet settled in many gentle woman she would not have particulars. It was not until 1603 that the Christian burial. The second grave- 68th canon of the Church of England digger promptly answers that she is, required that the minister (priest) should, because the "crowner" (coroner) has set when requested, under a penalty, use the upon her and finds that she is to have forms of burial service as prescribed by Christian burial. the Book of Common Prayer. Until then By the canon law, whether Ophelia was it was left to the act of uniformity before sane or insane, if she deliberately caused mentioned. her own death, she was not entitled to

274 The George Greenwood Collection

Before the rubrics of 1662 they did not executed their criminals by sacrificing exclude the service for suicides, much to them to the gods on their altars, which the dissatisfaction of churchmen and the were mostly at the junction of the cross- clergy. Under the ancient law as well as roads, and the body was pinned to the under the 39 articles of the church, the earth by an iron pointed stake, and decision of the coroner's jury, he being a passers-by would cast a stone at it. magistrate, must be followed by the This mode of disposing of the body of church as to the voluntary or involuntary suicides was an ancient custom brought act of self-destruction. If the former was into England by the Saxons, and did not found by the coroner, the body was prevail in all parts of England and denied the church rites of burial and was Wales. buried by the coroner according to the local custom of the parish. If the latter There were three kinds of places of was found, as was the case when the burial of suicides that prevailed in subject was deemed insane, then the rites England. of burial must be used by the ministers, When the church officers performed the but only in the parish churchyard, under burial rites which the law compelled the penalty prescribed in the act of them to do, when the coroner's jury had uniformity of Elizabeth and in the 68th decided the suicide to be an insane act, canon of 1603. the body was entitled to be buried in the This humiliation of the church parish churchyard, but the canon and authorities to the civil authorities was statute law allowed the place of the compensated in part by the exclusive grave to be selected there by the parish right of the bishops to administer upon priest, because the freehold of the church the goods and chattels real and personal property is in the rector (priest.) This of a deceased in his parish, in all cases privilege was frequently exercised by where they were not forfeited to the priests as to the bodies of suicides and Crown. When the coroner's jury decided others in a peculiar manner. In some that a suicide was sane, the personal places the coroner buried suicides in the property of the deceased was forfeited to parish churchyard. When they were the Crown the same as on conviction of buried in- the parish churchyard they any other felony, and the burial of the were placed in the most obscure parts of body was by the coroner generally at it. cross-roads. [Coroner's juries almost In many churchyards in the northern always decided that the deceased was parts of England may be seen a row of insane, and therefore there was no graves on the extreme verge of the north forfeiture. Perhaps this was influenced side of the graveyard, apart from that in by the fact that suicides at that time had which the bodies of the inhabitants in little or no property to forfeit to the general are deposited. Some of the Crown -- another fact, that if property graves do not lie east and west as do was forfeited, the coroner got no fees.] those who have Christian burial. These This burial at the cross-roads and are occupied by the bodies of still-born without religious rites, was to give as infants, suicides and excommunicated strong an impression as possible of a persons, and those who it is termed are heathen burial, and also of a criminal "buried out of the sanctuary," because act, for the heathen Teutons there they are not entitled to the full church

275 The George Greenwood Collection rites of burial and are not in consecrated It was a special favor to do this for ground. which the parson expected to be paid by The first grave-digger in Hamlet, when the friends of deceased. he asked if the grave should be made The legal ritual only required that the "straight," was evidently accustomed to corpse be met by the priests and clerks in that part of England where a suicide's their robes at the "church style." grave was not made east and west, as the In the burial of Ophelia the funeral church stood, and as other graves run, cortege is first seen by Hamlet in the but was to be made "crooked," or not rural churchyard. I will therefore only parallel to them. describe the full burial rites in the The canon of Edgar before mentioned churchyard at that time. shows that the carrying of palms by the The priests and clerks in their robes meet clerical attendants as emblems of victory the funeral cortege at the entrance of the at funerals was the custom in regular churchyard, forewarning of which is burials in England. given by the church bell, and they lead The usual burial ceremonies for those the procession in the following order: who died in the faith in Shakespeare's The cross-bearer at the head of the time were more or less imposing or corpse, the officiating priest at the feet, elaborate, according to the rank of the the person carrying the holy water a little deceased. behind the officiating priest at his right The priest leading the funeral cortege hand, and the other persons who sing are following the corpse carried feet arranged on each side in the order of foremost on the way to the churchyard, their church rank, so as to leave room for the friends of deceased carrying the officiating priest in the middle. The rosemary as a token of remembrance, the four or six torches of wax are lighted and clerks carried five or six lighted torches given to those who are appointed to as an emblem of Christian faith, of carry them. The priest going before the triumph over death by belief in the corpse, all followed by the relatives and resurrection and immortality, singing friends of deceased carrying sprigs of psalms of victory and peace This was rosemary. In this manner they proceed to when the procession started from the the grave, singing psalms and hymns. When they arrive at the grave the bearers house where the deceased was to be taken to the churchyard. This is also lay the coffin on the brink of the grave alluded to by Gay, who wrote a century with its feet turned towards the east. (The coffin is sometimes opened for a after Shakespeare lived. view of deceased and then the entire top "To shew their love the neighbors far is removed.) The priest then standing and near, before the cross with his face turned Followed with wistful look the towards the body he sprinkles the corpse damsel's bier; (or coffin) thrice with holy water without Sprigged rosemary the lads and saying anything, and then blesses it by a lasses bore, prayer, then an anthem or psalm is sung, While dismally the parson walked after which he again sprinkles and before." incenses the body, and also the grave, then the friends of deceased (if the coffin

276 The George Greenwood Collection is open) are allowed to look for the last The 21st article of the Episcopal Church time upon deceased. When the corpse is was also against it. But the cross could being made ready to be laid into the be and was used, if the priest was earth and the coffin is lowered into the willing, at funerals in place of the grave a dirge and anthem is sung. Then crucifix. the holy Eucharist is administered. Then I will say to our readers in England that after again sprinkling the coffin with these practices at funerals in England holy water and a handful of earth is cast have never been introduced into the upon the coffin by the priest in the form United States or used here by the Roman of a cross, he saying the prescribed Catholic Church, or in the Protestant prayer, and then sprinkling it with holy Episcopal Church only to the literal water, an anthem is chanted, and then a extent required in the book of Common prayer said; then the relatives and friends Prayer or by the Roman Catholic Ritual. of the deceased come before the earth is thrown into the grave and sprinkle it The celebration of the Eucharist (the with holy water supplied by the priest, Lord's Supper) at the grave at burials and such other emblems as custom was a common practice in the Roman allows. They all stay until the grave has Catholic Church as early as the 4th been filled up, the company condole century, and was universal in England with the relatives of the deceased, and up to the time of the protestant then the bell rings, all return to the reformation in Edward VI's reign. The church, where a requiem mass was first prayer book of Edward required it. (formerly) sung and a funeral sermon The second book, A.D. 1552, did not preached. Sometimes the ceremony require it. When Queen Elizabeth terminated by the singing of a requiem ascended the throne, and restored the mass at the grave after it was filled up. protestant worship, she was not satisfied with the extent of burial service required The ceremonies at the grave occupied by the act of conformity and the Book of several hours time. Common Prayer, being King Edward's These ceremonies were customary in the second book; she desired that the Roman Catholic Church for many Eucharist should be generally celebrated centuries before the reformation and at the grave at funerals as had been the were in almost general use in the time of custom in the Roman Catholic Church. Shakespeare, and it is still to a The Latin version of Elizabeth's Prayer considerable extent the custom and Book issued in the second year of her practice in some of the high church reign required it. This was done by her dioceses in the Protestant Episcopal command and recommendation. In her Church in England. Majesty's proclamation she declares that It had long been the custom in the some things peculiar at the funerals of Roman Catholic Church to have a Christians she had added and crucifix carried by the priest before the commanded to be used, the act for corpse in funeral processions. In the time uniformity set forth in the first year of of Edward VI, A.D. 1548, there was a her reign to the contrary statute that forbid the use of the crucifix notwithstanding. But the English and images in church service; this was authorized version of the Book of Common Prayer adopted by Parliament revived in Elizabeth's reign. did not require it, although it might

277 The George Greenwood Collection properly be done in the discretion of the such occasions it is the usual phrase that bishop of the diocese, or the parish these persons are going to their nuptial priest. It, however, gradually fell into beds. When the coffin is opened flowers disuse, during the reigns succeeding are strewed upon the deceased. After the Queen Elizabeth. coffin is lowered in the grave flowers are It was an ancient custom to crown the again strewed upon it and the sprigs of deceased with white flowers and to strew rosemary are thrown upon it or stuck in them on the corpse, and to place the the newly covered grave, and after the crown or garlands on the coffin. The burial the garlands are laid upon the Roman Catholic ritual recommends it in grave or over it. regard to those who die soon after These were the "maiden strewments " baptism, in token of purity and virginity. mentioned by the priest, and was the To carry garlands tied with white scattering of flowers and herbs in the ribbons before the bier of a maiden and way to the grave, and was not the to hang them over her grave was an old scattering of flowers upon the coffin of custom, and is still the practice in many deceased. The Queen said of them when rural parishes in England. The word she strewed the dead Ophelia: "crants" used by Shakespeare, is the old "Sweets to the sweet, farewell, Dutch word for a garland or wreath, and I hoped thou shouldst have been my was retained by the Saxons. A word of Hamlet's wife -- like sound and meaning is also found in I thought thy bride bed to have the Lowland Scotch, and in the Danish decked, sweet maid, and Swedish languages. And not to have strewed thy grave." If the funeral occurred when natural This custom in England is elsewhere flowers could not be had, evergreens and alluded to by Shakespeare. Queen artificial garlands and wreaths were used Catherine in Henry VIII. (A 4, S. 2) for the occasion. In some places these directs: garlands were made of bay leaves and "When I am dead, good wench rosemary, and were solemnly carried Let me be used with honor, strew me before the corpse next to the priest, by over one or two maidens dressed in white, With maiden flowers." about the size and age of the deceased maiden. These garlands were laid upon In "The Maid's Tragedy," by Beaumont the grave after burial. & Fletcher, describe {sic} the capricious melancholy of a broken-hearted girl In some parts of England and Wales, thus: (Glamorgan in particular) it is the custom when a young couple are to be "When she sees a bank married their ways to the church are Stuck full of flowers she with a sigh strewed with sweet scented flowers and will tell evergreens. The bridal bed was also Her servants what a pretty place it covered with flowers. When a young were unmarried person dies the corpse is To bury lovers in; and make her strewed with flowers, and his or her maids ways to the grave are also strewed with Pluck 'em and strew her over like a sweet flowers and evergreens, and on corse."

278 The George Greenwood Collection

In a plaintive ditty sung by the that after a person's death there shall be melancholy Ophelia for her lost Hamlet, rung by the church bell no more than one she said: short peal, and one other before the "White his shroud as the mountain burial to call the assembly together, and snows, one other after the burial. Larded all with sweet flowers; The burial service required according to Which bewept to the grave did (not) the laws of England in 1603-4 were very go, brief and simple: With true love showers." 1. The priest must meet the corpse at [This verse is not in edition of 1603, the church style when the bell rung, and the word in parentheses in third and need read only that part of the line is in all except some modern present service beginning with "I am editions.] the resurrection," &c. In those days it quite became the 2. He must lead the procession to the ambition of young maidens to die in grave, and when they arrive there spring time. A contemporary of and the coffin is being made ready to Shakespeare, Sir Thomas Overbury, be placed in the grave he need say describing the "Faire and Happy only that part which begins with Milkmaid," observes: "Man that is born of a woman," &c. "Thus lives she, and all her care is 3. Then after the coffin is in the that she may die in the spring time, grave and the earth is being cast to have store of flowers stuck upon upon the coffin by some standing by, her winding sheet." he need only say that part which Lighted torches and rosemary were also begins with "Inasmuch as it hath used at weddings. Many ceremonies and pleased," &c., and then say "I heard customs relating to weddings and burials a voice," &c. that were prescribed or recommended by The ringing of the bell again and the the various rituals and missals of the old other parts of the service need only to be English Church before the Reformation done after the grave was filled up. were continued long after, and even to this day some of them are retained. The The place of burial could be selected by priests and bishops who came to the parish priest as well as the position England while under the Pope of the grave in the churchyard, whether introduced into England many wedding parallel to others being east and west and and burial customs and ceremonies among them, or on the north side of the which were common in Italy, France and church, lying north and south in Spain, where nearly all of them were unsanctified ground. The ancient canons educated. of the church allowed him to prohibit or allow decorations of the corpse and of The custom of strewing flowers upon the the grave in the churchyard. graves of departed friends is derived from an ancient custom and usage in the The law of England prohibited singing Roman Catholic Church. masses for the soul in all cases. It allowed but did not require the singing It was an old rule of the church, and was of psalms, nor a requiem to be sung at incorporated in the 67th canon in 1603

279 The George Greenwood Collection the grave after burial. It also then, as to meet the corpse as required by law. now, allowed incense and holy water, There were no torch bearers, no cross and prayers for the souls of the dead. bearer, no holy water, no singing. [The The statute law required nothing more Calvinists and Lutherans sung psalms than this, and allowed all else that canon whenever an opportunity was offered. So law and usage in the various parishes the absence of singing was marked on had sanctioned and used before. this occasion.] Now, in the light of all that has here The meager burial services, as required been said on this subject let us turn to in the Book of Common Prayer, are read Shakespeare's description of the burial of in a low voice, and the procession is Ophelia and we will see his sketch of the allowed to silently proceed to the grave, outlines of it in a clearer and brighter the strewments of flowers in the pathway is continued to the grave, and the virgin light than ever before. crants are allowed there to be placed It should be remembered that Ophelia's upon the grave. The coffin is placed on funeral was in a rural district, and that the brink of the grave. Again the low high church practices prevailed there, as voice of the priest is heard for a few before stated, and that therefore the minutes, and all stand silently waiting disgrace of withholding the usual church for something else. services at funerals was more keenly felt by the friends and relatives of deceased No lighted torches -- No singing of psalms or hymns, no blessing, no than if such omission was common. sprinkling of holy water. No smoking (Hamlet and Horatio in the churchyard. censer. No holy Eucharist. Church bell rings.) [Aside: Laertes breaks the silence in a subdued "Here comes the king, voice by asking: "What ceremony else?" The queen, the courtiers. Who is this they follow? No notice is taken of the inquiry by the And with such maimed rites! This priest. Hamlet says to the priest: "That is cloth betoken Laertes, a very noble youth." The corse they follow did, with Laertes again asks in a louder tone: desperate hand, "What ceremony else?" Foredo its own life. 'Twas of some The priest replies: estate: Couch we awhile, and mark." "Her obsequies have been as far enlarged The funeral cortege was maimed in such As we have warranty. Her death was manner as to show that the deceased did doubtful. with violent hands undo its own life. The And but that great command maiden pall bearers and the carrying of oversways the order, rosemary, and the strewing of flowers in She should in ground unsanctified the pathway by the friends of deceased, have lodged virgin crants carried before the coffin by Until the last Trump; for charitable the maidens showed it to be a deceased prayers maiden. Thus they arrived at the Shards, flints and pebbles should be entrance of the churchyard. The church thrown upon her." bell ringing, the parish priest was there

280 The George Greenwood Collection

The "great command " that ruled the "I tell thee, churlish priest, order of priests was the statute law of A ministering angel shall my sister England, which recognized the be, sovereign as the head of the church, and When thou liest howling." the decision of the coroner binding upon The howling meant crying for mercy. the church that she be entitled to Christian burial. Hamlet draws near and sees it is Ophelia, and exclaims in mortification The line above quoted fully describes the and surprise: "What, the fair Ophelia?" burial of suicides in that part of England where the ancient custom prevailed of Then the Queen steps forward and burial at the cross-roads with an iron scatters flowers in the open coffin and pointed stake driven through the body, to tells her disappointment and grief. She mark the spot, and passers by throw says: flints and stones upon it. "Sweets to the sweet, farewell! The priest proceeds to remind them of I hoped thou shouldst have been my the favors he had extended, He says: Hamlet's wife; I thought thy bride bed to have "Yet here she is allowed her virgin decked, fair maid, crams, And not t'have strewed thy grave." Her maiden strewments and the bringing home Laertes says of the disgraceful death and Of bell and burial." burial: That is all the legal ceremony and those "Oh, treble woe, not prohibited by the church, and he had Fall ten times treble on thou cursed fulfilled the letter of the law, and rung head the bell and had given her an honorable Whose wicked deed thy most place of burial and a straight grave. ingenious sense Deprived thee of." Then said Laertes in astonishment: "Must there no more be done ?" The The priest does not scatter the earth upon priest replies: "No more be done!" Then the coffin after it is lowered into the he again firmly and apologetically adds grave. to assure them that it is all over: Then Laertes says desperately in a "We should profane the service of paroxism of grief and shame: the dead "Hold off the earth awhile, To sing a requiem and such rest to Till I have caught her once more in her, my arms." As to peace-parted souls." (Then he leaps into the grave). Then he Then says the disconsolate Laertes: says to those standing by: "Lay her in the earth; "Now pile your dust upon the quick And from her fair and unpolluted and dead, flesh Till of this fiat a mountain you have May violets spring." made, Then he turns to the priest and say To o'er top old Pelion or the skyish sharply:

281 The George Greenwood Collection

head fair maid. Of blue Olympus." And not to follow thee unto thy grave. * * * * *

In the edition of 1603 it is as follows: LAERTES -- Forbear, the earth HAM. -- What funeral's this that all awhile, sister, farewell. the Court attends. (Leaps into the open grave.) It seems to be some noble parentage. Stand by a while. Now pour your earth on Olympus high, LAERTES. -- What ceremony else, And make a hill to o'er top old say, what ceremony else. Pelion." * * * * * * PRIEST. -- My Lord, we have done There is still more subtle points of law all that lies in us. governing and adopting all the allusions And more than well the church can to the laws and customs peculiar to tolerate. England, in Hamlet; it is this: the well She hath had a dirge sung for her known rule, the "lex fori," prevails, that maiden soul. is, the law of England is by law And but for favor of the king and presumed to prevail in every other you. country or place where the case arises, She had been buried in the open unless the contrary is shown by proof. fields, Again, the law is presumed by the forum Where now she is allowed Christian to have always been the same as at burial. present, unless some reason appears to [This is in accordance with the law the contrary. This play of Hamlet was of Denmark, where the only penalty designed to "hold the mirror up to against suicides is that the body is nature," and was written for an English not allowed to be buried in audience, and was to be performed in consecrated grounds or churchyards. England; that was the forum and the The established church in Denmark standard for all laws and customs as they is Lutheran since 1536, and full then existed in England. It was not Christian burial rites are very nearly important to the representation when or the same as in the Roman Catholic where Hamlet lived; the forum was, that Church.] he lived then and there in England at the time the play was presented by the actors LAERTES -- So I tell thee churlish in their usual dress, "to show * * the priest, a very age and body of the time." ministering angel shall my sister be [Hamlet's advice to the players.] when thou liest howling. There is no hidden cipher in all this that HAM. -- The fair Ophelia dead! I have been telling you about, it is so plain that he who runs may read. QUEEN. -- Sweets to the sweet, The object of this paper has been to farewell. illustrate and to lead to a more complete I had thought to adorn thy bridal bed knowledge and understanding of the

282 The George Greenwood Collection times, places, and circumstances under this wonderful dramatic delineation of which this play of Hamlet was written, human life. and to which it refers; by doing this to The End increase the interest and appreciation of

283 The George Greenwood Collection

About the Editor/Author

Mark Andre Alexander has a B.A. in English and an M.A. in Organization and Management Development. He works in Silicon Valley helping people take their next step. He’s a happy soul, a composer and musician, and likes to make people laugh. Occasionally he publishes articles and books. He’s married to a woman who improves him just by being present, and he believes everyone is on a journey to learn how to give and receive divine love. Books in the series What You Should’ve Learned as a Teen Creating Your Life: What You Should’ve Learned as a Teen Money and Wealth: What You Should’ve Learned as a Teen Sex and Romance: What You Should’ve Learned as a Teen Mozart and Great Music: What You Should’ve Learned as a Teen

Forthcoming topics in the series include language, rhetoric, law, liberty, virtue, vice, Shakespeare, great literature, great art, education, training, science, truth, soul, and spirit.

Other books Handbook for Advanced Souls: Eternal Reminders for the Present Moment

Public domain works edited by Mark Andre Alexander Shakespeare’s Law and Latin by Sir George Greenwood, M.P. The George Greenwood Collection Hamlet and the Scottish Succession by Lilian Winstanley

284