16-is shakespeare dead-第7章

按键盘上方向键 ← 或 → 可快速上下翻页，按键盘上的 Enter 键可回到本书目录页，按键盘上方向键 ↑ 可回到本页顶部！
————未阅读完？加入书签已便下次继续阅读！



vocabulary　and　parcel　of　his　thought。　　Take　the　word　'purchase'

for　instance；　which；　in　ordinary　use；　means　to　acquire　by　giving

value；　but　applies　in　law　to　all　legal　modes　of　obtaining

property　except　by　inheritance　or　descent；　and　in　this　peculiar

sense　the　word　occurs　five　times　in　Shakespeare's　thirty…four

plays；　and　only　in　one　single　instance　in　the　fifty…four　plays　of

Beaumont　and　Fletcher。　　It　has　been　suggested　that　it　was　in

attendance　upon　the　courts　in　London　that　he　picked　up　his　legal

vocabulary。　　But　this　supposition　not　only　fails　to　account　for

Shakespeare's　peculiar　freedom　and　exactness　in　the　use　of　that

phraseology；　it　does　not　even　place　him　in　the　way　of　learning

those　terms　his　use　of　which　is　most　remarkable；　which　are　not

such　as　he　would　have　heard　at　ordinary　proceedings　at　NISI

PRIUS；　but　such　as　refer　to　the　tenure　or　transfer　of　real

property；　'fine　and　recovery；'　'statutes　merchant；'　'purchase；'

'indenture；'　'tenure；'　'double　voucher；'　'fee　simple；'　'fee

farm；'　'remainder；'　'reversion；'　'forfeiture；'　etc。　This

conveyancer's　jargon　could　not　have　been　picked　up　by　hanging

round　the　courts　of　law　in　London　two　hundred　and　fifty　years

ago；　when　suits　as　to　the　title　of　real　property　were

comparatively　rare。　　And　besides；　Shakespeare　uses　his　law　just

as　freely　in　his　first　plays；　written　in　his　first　London　years；

as　in　those　produced　at　a　later　period。　　Just　as　exactly；　too；

for　the　correctness　and　propriety　with　which　these　terms　are

introduced　have　compelled　the　admiration　of　a　Chief　Justice　and　a

Lord　Chancellor。〃



Senator　Davis　wrote：　　〃We　seem　to　have　something　more　than　a

sciolist's　temerity　of　indulgence　in　the　terms　of　an　unfamiliar

art。　　No　legal　solecisms　will　be　found。　　The　abstrusest　elements

of　the　common　law　are　impressed　into　a　disciplined　service。　　Over

and　over　again；　where　such　knowledge　is　unexampled　in　writers

unlearned　in　the　law；　Shakespeare　appears　in　perfect　possession

of　it。　　In　the　law　of　real　property；　its　rules　of　tenure　and

descents；　its　entails；　its　fines　and　recoveries；　their　vouchers

and　double　vouchers；　in　the　procedure　of　the　Courts；　the　method

of　bringing　writs　and　arrests；　the　nature　of　actions；　the　rules

of　pleading；　the　law　of　escapes　and　of　contempt　of　court；　in　the

principles　of　evidence；　both　technical　and　philosophical；　in　the

distinction　between　the　temporal　and　spiritual　tribunals；　in　the

law　of　attainder　and　forfeiture；　in　the　requisites　of　a　valid

marriage；　in　the　presumption　of　legitimacy；　in　the　learning　of

the　law　of　prerogative；　in　the　inalienable　character　of　the

Crown；　this　mastership　appears　with　surprising　authority。〃



To　all　this　testimony　（and　there　is　much　more　which　I　have

not　cited）　may　now　be　added　that　of　a　great　lawyer　of　our　own

times；　VIZ。：　　Sir　James　Plaisted　Wilde；　Q。C。　1855；　created　a

Baron　of　the　Exchequer　in　1860；　promoted　to　the　post　of　Judge…

Ordinary　and　Judge　of　the　Courts　of　Probate　and　Divorce　in　1863；

and　better　known　to　the　world　as　Lord　Penzance；　to　which　dignity

he　was　raised　in　1869。　　Lord　Penzance；　as　all　lawyers　know；　and

as　the　late　Mr。　Inderwick；　K。C。；　has　testified；　was　one　of　the

first　legal　authorities　of　his　day；　famous　for　his　〃remarkable

grasp　of　legal　principles；〃　and　〃endowed　by　nature　with　a

remarkable　facility　for　marshaling　facts；　and　for　a　clear

expression　of　his　views。〃



Lord　Penzance　speaks　of　Shakespeare's　〃perfect　familiarity

with　not　only　the　principles；　axioms；　and　maxims；　but　the

technicalities　of　English　law；　a　knowledge　so　perfect　and

intimate　that　he　was　never　incorrect　and　never　at　fault。　。　。　。

The　mode　in　which　this　knowledge　was　pressed　into　service　on　all

occasions　to　express　his　meaning　and　illustrate　his　thoughts　was

quite　unexampled。　　He　seems　to　have　had　a　special　pleasure　in　his

complete　and　ready　mastership　of　it　in　all　its　branches。　　As

manifested　in　the　plays；　this　legal　knowledge　and　learning　had

therefore　a　special　character　which　places　it　on　a　wholly

different　footing　from　the　rest　of　the　multifarious　knowledge

which　is　exhibited　in　page　after　page　of　the　plays。　　At　every

turn　and　point　at　which　the　author　required　a　metaphor；　simile；

or　illustration；　his　mind　ever　turned　FIRST　to　the　law。　　He　seems

almost　to　have　THOUGHT　in　legal　phrases；　the　commonest　of　legal

expressions　were　ever　at　the　end　of　his　pen　in　description　or

illustration。　　That　he　should　have　descanted　in　lawyer　language

when　he　had　a　forensic　subject　in　hand；　such　as　Shylock's　bond；

was　to　be　expected；　but　the　knowledge　of　law　in　'Shakespeare'　was

exhibited　in　a　far　different　manner：　　it　protruded　itself　on　all

occasions；　appropriate　or　inappropriate；　and　mingled　itself　with

strains　of　thought　widely　divergent　from　forensic　subjects。〃

Again：　　〃To　acquire　a　perfect　familiarity　with　legal　principles；

and　an　accurate　and　ready　use　of　the　technical　terms　and　phrases

not　only　of　the　conveyancer's　office；　but　of　the　pleader's

chambers　and　the　Courts　at　Westminster；　nothing　short　of

employment　in　some　career　involving　constant　contact　with　legal

questions　and　general　legal　work　would　be　requisite。　　But　a

continuous　employment　involves　the　element　of　time；　and　time　was

just　what　the　manager　of　two　theaters　had　not　at　his　disposal。

In　what　portion　of　Shakespeare's　（i。e。；　Shakspere's）　career　would

it　be　possible　to　point　out　that　time　could　be　found　for　the

interposition　of　a　legal　employment　in　the　chambers　or　offices　of

practicing　lawyers？〃



Stratfordians；　as　is　well　known；　casting　about　for　some

possible　explanation　of　Shakespeare's　extraordinary　knowledge　of

law；　have　made　the　suggestion　that　Shakespeare　might；

conceivably；　have　been　a　clerk　in　an　attorney's　office　before　he

came　to　London。　　Mr。　Collier　wrote　to　Lord　Campbell　to　ask　his

opinion　as　to　the　probability　of　this　being　true。　　His　answer　was

as　follows：　　〃You　require　us　to　believe　implicitly　a　fact；　of

which；　if　true；　positive　and　irrefragable　evidence　in　his　own

handwriting　might　have　been　forthcoming　to　establish　it。　　Not

having　been　actually　enrolled　as　an　attorney；　neither　the　records

of　the　local　court　at　Stratford　nor　of　the　superior　Court　at

Westminster　would　present　his　name　as　being　concerned　in　any　suit

as　an　attorney；　but　it　might　reasonably　have　been　expected　that

there　would　be　deeds　or　wills　witnessed　by　him　still　extant；　and

after　a　very　diligent　search　none　such　can　be　discovered。〃



Upon　this　Lord　Penzance　commends：　　〃It　cannot　be　doubted

that　Lord　Campbell　was　right　in　this。　　No　young　man　could　have

been　at　work　in　an　attorney's　office　without　being　called　upon

continually　to　act　as　a　witness；　and　in　many　other　ways　leaving

traces　of　his　work　and　name。〃　　There　is　not　a　single　fact　or

incident　in　all　that　is　known　of　Shakespeare；　even　by　rumor　or

tradition；　which　supports　this　notion　of　a　clerkship。　　And　after

much　argument　and　surmise　which　has　been　indulged　in　on　this　subject；

we　may；　I　think；　safely　put　the　notion　on　one　side；　for　no　less

an　authority　than　Mr。　Grant　White　says　finally　that　the　idea　of

his　having　been　clerk　to　an　attorney　has　been　〃blown　to　pieces。〃



It　is　altogether　characteristic　of　Mr。　Churton　Collins　that

he；　nevertheless；　adopts　this　exploded　myth。　　〃That　Shakespeare

was　in　early　life　employed　as　a　clerk　in　an　attorney's　office　may

be　correct。　　At　Stratford　there　was　by　royal　charter　a　Court　of

Record　sitting　every　fortnight；　with　six　attorneys；　besides　the

town　clerk；　belonging　to　it；　and　it　is　certainly　not　straining

probability　to　suppose　that　the　young　Shakespeare　may　have　had

employment　in　one　of　them。　　There　is；　it　is　true；　no　tradition　to

this　effect；　but　such　traditions　as　we　have　about　Shakespeare's

occupation　between　the　time　of　leaving　school　and　going　to　London

are　so　loose　and　baseless　that　no　confidence　can　be　placed　in

them。　　It　is；　to　say　the　least；　more　probable　that　he　was　in　an

attorney's　office　than　that　he　was　a　butcher　killing　calves　'in　a

high　style；'　and　making　speeches　over　them。〃



This　is　a　charming　specimen　of　Stratfordian　argument。　　There

is；　as　we　have　seen；　a　very　old　tradition　that　Shakespeare　was　a

butcher's　apprentice。　　John　Dowdall；　who　made　a　tour　of

Warwickshire　in　1693；　testifies　to　it　as　coming　from　the　old

clerk　who　showed　him　over　the　church；　and　it　is　unhesitatingly

accepted　as　true　by　Mr。　Halliwell…Phillipps。　　（Vol。　I；　p。　11；　and

Vol。　II；　pp。　71；　72。）　　Mr。　Sidney　Lee　sees　nothing　improbable　in

it；　and　it　is　supported　by　Aubrey；　who　must　have　written　his

account　some　time　before　1680；　when　his　manuscript　was　completed。

Of　the　attorney's　clerk　hypothesis；　on　the　other　hand；　there　is

not　the　faintest　vestige　of　a　tradition。　　It　has　been　evolved　out

of　the　fertile　imaginations　of　embarrassed　Stratfordians；　seeking

for　some　explanation　of　the　Stratford　rustic's　marvelous

acquaintance　with　law　and　legal　terms　and　legal　life。　　But　Mr。

Churton　Collins　has　not　the　least　hesitation　in　throwing　over　the

tradition　which　has　the　warrant　of　antiquity　and　setting　up　in

its　stead　this　ridiculous　invention；　for　which　not　only　is　there

no　shred　of　positive　evidence；　but　which；　as　Lord　Campbell　and

Lord　Penzance　pointed　out；　is　really　put　out　of　court　by　the

negative　evidence；　since　〃no　young　man　could　have　been　at　work　in

an　attorney's　office　without　being　called　upon　continually　to　act

as　a　witness；　and　in　many　other　ways　leaving　traces　of　his　work

and　name。〃　　And　as　Mr。　Edwards　further　points　out；　since　the　day

when　Lord　Campbell's　book　was　published　（between　forty　and　fifty

years　ago）；　〃every　old　deed　or　will；　to　say　nothing　of　other

legal　papers；　dated　during　the　period　of　William　Shakespeare's

youth；　has　been　scrutinized　over　half　a　dozen　shires；　and　not　one

signature　of　the　young　man　has　been　found。〃



Moreover；　if　Shakespeare　had　served　as　clerk　in　an　attorney's

office　it　is　clear　that　he　must　have　served　for　a　considerable

period　in　order　to　have　gained　（if；　indeed；　it　is　credible　that

he　could　have　so　gained）　his　remarkable　knowledge　of　the　law。

Can　we　then　for　a　moment　believe　that；　if　this　had　been　so；

tradition　would　have　been　absolutely　silent　on　the　matter？　

That　Dowdall's　old　clerk；　over　eighty　years　of　age；

should　have　never　heard　of　it　（though　he　was　sure　enough

about　the　butcher's　apprentice）　and　that　all　the　other

ancient　witnesses　should　be　in　similar　ignorance！



But　such　are　the　methods　of　Stratfordian　controversy。

Tradition　is　to　be　scouted　when　it　is　found　inconvenient；　but

cited　as　irrefragable　truth　when　it　suits　the　case。　　Shakespeare

of　Stratford　was　the　author　of　the　Plays　and　Poems；　but　the

author　of　the　Plays　and　Poems　could　not　have　been　a　butcher's

apprentice。　　Anyway；　therefore；　with　tradition。　　But　the　author

of　the　Plays　and　Poems　MUST　have　had　a　very　large　and　a　very

accurate　knowledge　of　the　law。　　Therefore；　Shakespeare　of

Stratford　mu