P R 
 
 3028 
 
 B78 
 
 1914 
 
 MAIN 
 
GIFT OF 
 
 u. 
 
PRICE 2/6 EACH. 
 
 BACONIAN THEORY REFUTED. 
 
 SHAKESPEARE'S 
 USE OF LEGAL TERMS 
 
 EY 
 
 CLARENCE MARION BRUNE, LL.D, D.C.L. 
 L<ic6nci es .Lettres de TUniversit^ de Paris 
 
 II Bights Reserved by 
 
 C, M. BRUNE, 
 :: DIGBY MANSIONS, W,, 
 LONDON, 
 

SHAKESPEARE'S 
 USE OF LEGAL TERMS 
 
 BY 
 
 CLAEENCE MAEION BBUNE, LL.D., D.C.L., 
 Licencie es Lefctres de 1'Universite de Paris. 
 
 LONDON : 
 PRINTED BY W. STRAKER, Ltd., LUDGATE HILL, E.C, 
 
 1914. 
 
INTRODUCTION. 7<f 
 ' 
 
 " Each change of many coloured life he drew, /^(/!*/V 
 " Exhausted worlds and then imagined new ; 
 " Existence saw him spurn her bounded reign 
 " And panting time toiled after him in vain." 
 
 Dr. JOHNSON. 
 
 In the consideration of the question as to whether 
 "Shakespeare was educated for the Bar, or whether he 
 made a systematic study of the law, the attention of the 
 student is arrested, at the outset of his investigations, by 
 the divers subjects of which the poet appears to possess 
 an erudite knowledge. We are told by each enthusiastic 
 specialist, in turn, that it would have been impossible for 
 Shakespeare to have acquired the intimate and minute 
 knowledge of the various arts and sciences which he dis- 
 plays throughout his works, in any other way than by 
 systematic study and research such as is necessary for 
 admission to the learned professions. Exhaustive 
 research has been made with a view of proving, from the 
 biblical and theological terms used in Shakespeare's 
 works, that he must have been a theological student. 
 Likewise, from his use of medical terms, it has been 
 sought to prove that he was educated for the profession 
 of medicine and surgery. Other specialists have based 
 their claims on evidence found within his works that he 
 must have been a schoolmaster, a gardener, a sailor, a 
 butcher or a lawyer. It is the last with which we are 
 here especially concerned. 
 
 399540 
 
Before proceeding to an examination of the evidence 
 which has been adduced showing Shakespeare's apparent 
 knowledge of the law, let us consider some of his accom- 
 plishments in other branches of learning, with a view of 
 ascertaining if his accomplishments in other subjects are 
 not, at least, commensurate with his technical knowledge 
 of the language of the law. 
 
 For example, his apparent technical knowledge of 
 seamanship and nautical terms is strikingly illustrated in. 
 the following : 
 
 11 thou dull god why liest thou with the vile 
 " In loathsome beds, and leav'st the kingly couch 
 44 A watch-case or a common larum-bell ? 
 44 Wilt thou upon the high and giddy mast 
 " Seal up the ship- boy's eyes, and rock his brain 
 44 In cradle of the rude imperious surge 
 " And in the visitation of the winds, 
 ' Who take the ruffian billows to the top, 
 4 Curling their monstrous heads and hanging them 
 4 With deafening clamour in the slippery clouds, 
 ' That with the hurly death itself awakes? 
 ' Canst thou, partial sleep, give thy repose 
 ' To the wet sea-boy in an hour so rude, 
 44 And in the calmest and most stillest night, 
 44 With all appliances and means to boot, 
 44 Deny it to a King? Then, happy low, lie down ! 
 44 Uneasy lies the head that wears the crown." (1) 
 
 And again, his description of a ship in a gale, and the 
 officers' commands, (2) together with some five hundred 
 and thirty-two instances throughout his works cited by 
 nautical commentators, (3) prove his intimate acquain- 
 tance with a professional science which is most difficult 
 for a layman to acquire. 
 
 (1) ' 4 Henry IV.", Part. 2. 
 
 (2) " The Tempest," Act L, Scene 1. 
 
 (3) Lord Mulgrave, Captain Balver, etc. 
 
It is said by the Naturalist commentators on 
 Shakespeare that? he is generally accurate in his descrip- 
 tion of animals and other things as found under natural 
 conditions. (1) Three thousand one hundred and fifty 
 seven times throughout his works he alludes to various 
 animals, mentioning two hundred and eighty- three 
 different kinds. (3) The cuckoo is mentioned nineteen 
 times, and in his description (3) of it he seems to be 
 accurate and in direct opposition to the current theory of 
 his time. Accurate as he usually is, Shakespeare 
 apparently regarded the eagle as of the highest rank, 
 endowing him with high-soaring, keen-sighted and 
 princely qualities, whereas modern ornithologists look 
 upon the eagle as a cruel, thieving creature. Again, 
 Shakespeare regarded the toad as the foulest of the 
 animals, while science looks upon it as a clean, useful 
 ;animal. Unlike our notions of canine fidelity and 
 nobleness, Shakespeare characterizes his villains with the 
 -culminating epithet of " ignominious cur," the dog being 
 mentioned, usually in a despicable sense, over three 
 hundred times, and in all his plays except four. 
 
 Shakespeare's knowledge of plant life as shown in his 
 plays (4) is quite equal, if not superior to that of many of 
 our celebrated horticulturists, who have sought to show 
 from his numberless allusions to flowers and plant life 
 that he was also learned in this branch of science. 
 
 But of all the sciences the one in which Shakespeare 
 ^exhibits the greatest erudition, free of errors, seems to 
 be that of pathology. This technical knowledge of the 
 
 (1) Knight. 
 
 (2) C. M. Brune : " Animals in Shakespeare." 
 
 (3) "Henry IV." 
 
 (4) " Winter's Tale," Act IV., Scene 4, and other plays. 
 
6 
 
 practice of medicine, surgery, obstetrics, anatomy and* 
 pharmacy, as shown in his works, according to his- 
 medical commentators, surpasses accountability in any 
 other way than by acquisition through special training 
 in the mysteries of these arts and sciences. One medical 
 commentator (1) has selected some four hundred and 
 seventy-five passages from Shakespeare's works elucidating 
 the poet's intimate acquaintance with the field of 
 knowledge covering practically the entire subjects of 
 these arts and sciences. 
 
 It is interesting to note that Shakespeare seems to- 
 have anticipated Harvey (2) in the discovery of th& 
 circulation of the blood ; (3) and his lines 
 
 " Throw Physic to the dogs ; I'll none of it " (4) 
 and 
 
 " You rub the sore 
 " When you should bring tbe plaster." (5) 
 
 seem, moreover, to have anticipated the principles of 
 
 osteopathy; while 
 
 4 ' One fire drives out one fire ; one nail, one nail ; " 
 
 besides 
 
 " And falsehood falsehood cures, as fires cools fire 
 " Within the scorched veins of one new-burned," 
 
 and other passages (6) are strongly prophetic of the 
 maxim of Hannamann's homoeopathic school : similia 
 swiilibus curantur. 
 
 (1) R. Rush Field. 
 
 (2) Harvey announced his discovery in the year 1628. 
 
 (3) "Romeo and Juliet, Act III., Scene 1; "Measure for 
 
 Measure," Act II., Scene 4; " Coriolanus," Act I., 
 Scene 1; 2 "Henry IV., Act V., Scene 2; "Macbeth," 
 Act II., Scene 2; "Lucrece." 
 
 (4) " Macbeth," Act V., Scene 3. 
 
 (5) " Tempest," Act II., Scene 1. 
 
 (6) "King John," Act III, Scene 1; " Coriolanus," Act IV.; 
 
 Scene 7 ; " Romeo and Juliet," Act 1., Scene 2, 
 
See how the blood is settled in his face ! 
 Oft have I seen a timely-parted ghost, 
 Of ashy semblance, meagre, pale, and bloodless, 
 Being all discended to the labouring heart ; 
 Who, in the conflict that it holds with death, 
 Attracts the same for evidence 'gainst the enemy ; 
 Which with the heart there cools and ne'er returneth 
 To blush and beautify the cheek again. 
 But see, his face is black and full of blood ; 
 His eye-balls further out than when he liv'd, 
 Staring full ghastly like a strangled man : 
 His hairuprear'd, his nostrils stretched from struggling ; 
 His hands abroad display'd, as one that grasp'd 
 ' And tugg'd for life, and was by strength subdu'd. 
 Look on the sheets, his hair, you see, is sticking ; 
 His well proportioned beard made rough and rugged, 
 Like to summer's corn by tempest lodg'd, 
 It cannot be but he was murder'd here ; 
 The least of all these signs were probable." (1) 
 
 This passage has been commended by an eminent 
 medical authority who says that it " must be regarded 
 as a perfect description of approaching dissolution." (2) 
 
 The signs which often herald the approach of death 
 could not be more accurately described than in the 
 following : 
 
 " 'A made a liner end, and went away, an' it had been 
 any christom child ; 'a parted even just between twelve 
 and one, e'en at turning o' the tide : for after I saw him 
 fumble with the sheets ; and play with flowers, and 
 smile upon his fingers' ends, I know there was but one 
 way ; for his nose was as sharp as a pen, and 'a babbled 
 of green fields, so 'a bade me lay more clothes on his 
 feefc: I put my hand into the bed, and felt them, and 
 they were as cold as any stone ; then I felt to his knees r 
 
 (1) "King Henry IV.," Part II., Act III., Scene 2. 
 
 (2) Bell : " Principles of Surgery." 
 
8 
 
 and so upward and upward, and all was as cold as 
 any stone." (1) 
 
 Seldom does Shakespeare speak slightingly or in a 
 derogatory manner of physicians as he often does of 
 lawyers. He pays the physicians the highest compli- 
 ment, and they, in turn, have bestowed upon his apparent 
 medical accomplishments their unqualified appreciation. 
 Distinguished physicians maintain that they can often 
 diagnose the precise ailment from Shakespeare's descrip- 
 tion, and many alienists have commended his vivid 
 delineation of insanity in Hamlet and King Lear. 
 
 But, while enthusiastic medical commentators are 
 seeking to prove that Shakespeare must have made a 
 study of medicine and its allied subjects, is it not possible 
 and even probable that his knowledge of these subjects 
 was rather superficial, though apparently precisely set 
 down in his works ? We know for a certainty that he 
 copied largely from Holinshed, Hall, Plutarch and other 
 sources. In view of this, it seems likely that Shakespeare 
 may have derived his apparent technical knowledge of 
 medicine from a similar source. Suspicion " points his 
 slow unmoving finger at" the Medical writings of one 
 Claudius Galenus, as the following lines of the poet 
 indicate his acquaintance with that author's works. 
 
 "It gives me an estate of seven years' health; in which 
 time I will make a lip at the physician : the most 
 sovereign prescription in Galen is but empiricutick, and, 
 to this preservative, of not better report than a horse- 
 drench." (2) 
 
 The foregoing is not intended to be considered in any 
 measure exhaustive of the subjects considered, but is 
 designed only as an introduction showing Shakespeare's 
 
 (1) "Henry V.," Act II., Scene 3. (2) "Coriolanus,"Act II., Scene 1. 
 
apparent technical knowledge of a few subjects other than 
 law, and, with this in view, we may now proceed to consider 
 his legal acquirements ; and the object of this consideration 
 will be to show that, however familiar Shakespeare may 
 appear to have been with technical terms used in the 
 various professions, including that of the law, his works 
 do not show such an accurate knowledge of the law as to 
 justify one in arriving at the conclusion that he was 
 learned in the law, in the sense in which the phrase is 
 commonly used. 
 
 It is true that, in his plays, Shakespeare makes use of 
 many legal words and phrases. He frequently uses them 
 correctly, but it is also the case that he often uses them 
 incorrectly, and frequently in such a way as to negative 
 any indication that he had any knowledge, technical or 
 otherwise, of the law, such as a trained lawyer would have. 
 
 Many passages, from Shakespeare's plays, have been 
 quoted by various writers who believe in his legal ac- 
 quirements, to prove that he must have had a legal train- 
 ing to make such use of the technical language of the law 
 and to express his thoughts so accurately in legal terms 
 and phraseology. But the question arises, as it so often 
 does in Shakespearean criticism, whether many of these 
 passages, so often quoted, are original with Shakespeare. 
 It is our purpose to indicate some of the sources from 
 which the poet obtained many of the legal terms which 
 he used; and that, in many instances, he has completely 
 misunderstood their legal significance; (1) these will be 
 examined, in due course, under their proper heading. 
 
 (1) Use of " dower " : " King Lear," Act I., Scene 1 ; "All's 
 
 well that Ends Well," Act IV., Scene 4, etc., etc. 
 Use of " indenture " : " Pericles," Act I., Scene 3. 
 Use of " Jointress " : "Hamlet," Act I., Scene 2. 
 and scores of other instances hereafter cited. 
 
SHAKESPEARE'S OPINION OF 
 LAWYERS, AND THE LAW. 
 
 It is unusual for a professional man of any calling to- 
 have as low an opinion of his profession as Shakespeare 
 seems to have had of the profession of the law, as gathered 
 from various passages in his works and this should come 
 as a rude shock to those advocates of the theory that 
 Shakespeare was bred to the legal profession. 
 
 " I have neither the scholar's melancholy, which is. 
 emulation ; nor the musician's, which is fantastical ; nor 
 the courtier's, which is proud ; nor the soldier's, which 
 is ambitious; nor the lawyer's, which is politic." (1) 
 
 " We must not make a scarecrow of the law 
 " Setting it to fear the birds of prey, 
 " And let it keep one shape, till custom make it 
 " Their perch, and not their terror." (2) 
 
 and later in the same scene we get a glimpse of his. 
 opinion of the jury system : 
 
 "I do not deny, 
 
 ' The jury, passing on the prisoner's life, 
 ' May in the sworn twelve, have a thief or two 
 * Guiltier than him they try. What's open made 
 ' To justice, that justice seizes ; what knows the law, 
 ' That thieves do pass on thieves? " (2) 
 
 and later in the same scene and again in the previous- 
 act, we not only get an unflattering comparison to the 
 lawyer in " come, fear you not ; good councellors lack not 
 clients," (3) but, moreover, we are treated to a view of 
 another avocation with which Shakespeare exhibits an 
 extraordinary familiarity. 
 
 (1) " As You Like It," Act IV., Scene 1. 
 
 (2) " Measure for Measure," Act II., Scene 1. 
 
 (3) " Measure for Measure," Act I, Scene 2. 
 
11 
 
 The opinion, in regard to lawyers and the administra- 
 tion of justice, that Shakespeare repeatedly expresses is. 
 constantly at variance with the generally accepted 
 notions of the respect the professional man has for his 
 calling. 
 
 " Plate sin with gold, 
 
 " And the strong lance of justice hurtless breaks ; 
 " Arm it in rags, a pigmy's straw does pierce it." (1) 
 
 "And 'tis gold 
 " Which makes the true man kill'd, and saves the thief." (2) 
 
 Further : 
 
 " In the corrupted currents of this world, 
 
 " Offence's gilded hand may shove by justice ; 
 
 "And oft 'tis seen, the wicked prize itself 
 
 " Buys out the law : but 'tis not so above : 
 
 " There is no shuffling, there no action lies 
 
 "In his true nature ; and we ourselves compell'd, 
 
 " Even to the teeth and forehead of our faults, 
 
 " To give in evidence." (3) 
 
 Besides : 
 
 "All scholars, lawyers, courtiers, gentlemen, 
 
 " They call false caterpillars, and intend their death." (4) 
 
 And again in the same play : 
 
 " The first thing we do, let's kill all the lawyers." (5) 
 and : 
 
 "Crack the lawyer's voice, 
 " That he may never more false titles plead." (6) 
 
 or : 
 
 " In law, what plea so tainted and corrupt 
 " But, being season'd with a gracious voice 
 " Obscures the show of evil ? " (7) 
 
 1) ' King Lear," Act IV., Scene 6. 
 
 2) " Cymbeline," Act II., Scene 3. 
 
 (3) " Hamlet," Act III., Scene 3. 
 
 (4) " Henry VI.," Part II., Act IV., Scene 4. 
 
 (5) " Henry IV.," Part II., Act IV., Scene 2. 
 
 (6) " Timon of Athens," Act IV., Scene 3. 
 
 (7) " Merchant of Venice," Act III., Scene 2. 
 
12 
 
 Shakespeare had a large personal experience with 
 lawyers and the law, appearing as plaintiff and defendant 
 in a great many cases, besides the vaster experience of 
 his father, either as plaintiff or defendant, in some fifty 
 suits at law, which must have come to the notice of the 
 poet ; and it was probably this unpleasant experience 
 that caused him to form such a low opinion of lawyers 
 and administration of justice in his time, and caused him 
 to write such advice to prospective litigants as : 
 
 "It pleases time, and fortune, to lie heavy 
 
 *' Upon a friend of mine, who, in hot blood, 
 
 " Hath stepp'd into the law, which is past depth 
 
 " To those that, without heed, do plunge into it." (1) 
 
 and: 
 
 " Still you keep o' the windy side of the law : " (2) 
 
 and to hurl such epithets at lawyers and to degrade the 
 administration of justice as we find in the following 
 passages : 
 
 " Then 'tis like the breath of an unfee'd lawyer ; you give 
 me nothing for 't : " (3) 
 
 *' With lawyers in the vacation : for they sleep between term 
 and term, and then they perceive not how times move." (4) 
 
 And the mad gallop of Queen Mab : 
 " O'er lawyers' fingers, who straight dream on fees " : (5) 
 
 besides the maladministrative significance of : 
 
 ** Help, master, help ; here's a fish hangs in the net, like a 
 poor man's right in the law ; 'twill hardly come out." (6) 
 
 (1) ' Timon of Athens," Act III., Scene 5. 
 
 (2) * Twelfth Night," Act III., Scene 4. 
 
 (3) * King Lear," Act I., Scene 4. 
 
 (4) As You Like it," Act III., Scene 2. 
 
 (5) * Romeo and Juliet," Act I., Scene 4. 
 
 (6) ' Pericles," Act II., Scene 1. 
 
13 
 
 And: 
 
 "Where I have seen corruption boil and bubble, 
 " Till it o'errun the stew : laws for all faults, 
 " But faults so countenanced, that the strong statutes 
 " Stand like the forfeits in a barber's shop, 
 " As much in mock as mark." (1) 
 
 Culminating in the mockery of the court (uniting the 
 jurisdictions of law and equity, unknown in Shakespeare's 
 time) organized by the mad King Lear, who constitutes 
 Mad Tom and the Fool Lord Chief Justice and Lord 
 Chancellor respectively, for the imaginary trial of his 
 
 daughters. 
 
 LEAR. 
 
 (To EDGAR) " Thou robed man of justice, take thy place ; 
 (To THE FOOL) " And thou, his yoke-fellow of equity, 
 
 " Bench by his side : (To KENT) You are of the 
 
 commission, 
 '* Sit you too." 
 
 EDGAR. 
 
 " Let us deal justly. 
 " Sleepest, or wakest thou, jolly shepherd ? 
 
 "Thy sheep be in the corn ; 
 " And for one blast of thy manikin mouth, 
 
 " Thy sheep shall take no harm, 
 " Pur ! the cat is grey." 
 
 LEAR. 
 
 " Arraign her first: 'tis Goneril. I here take my oath before 
 this honourable assembly, she kicked the poor King her 
 father." 
 
 FOOL. 
 "Come hither, mistress ; is your name Goneril? " 
 
 LEAR. 
 " She cannot deny it." 
 
 FOOL. 
 " Cry you mercy, I took you for a joint-stool." 
 
 (1) " Measure for Measure," Act V., Scene 1. 
 
LEAR. 
 
 '* And here's another, whose warp'd looks proclaim 
 " What store her heart is made of. Stop her there ! 
 *' Arms, arms, sword, fire ! Corruption in^the palace ! 
 *' False justice, why hast thou let her 'scape ? " (1) 
 
 Shakespeare's appreciation of the administration of 
 justice is further exemplified in such passages as this : 
 
 4< The justice and the truth o' the question carries 
 
 " The due o' the verdict with it ; at what ease 
 
 11 Might corrupt minds procure knaves as corrupt 
 
 " To swear against you? Such things have been done." (2) 
 
 This naturally suggests an examination of his views of 
 the judiciary as found in his works. His estimate of the 
 bench seems to discount even his low opinion of the other 
 'branches of the legal profession. 
 
 " See how yon' justice rails upon yon' simple thief. 
 Hark, in thine ear: Change plans; and handy-dandy 
 which is the justice, which is the thief." (3) 
 
 " and then the justice, 
 
 ' In fair round belly, with good capon lin'd, 
 " With eyes severe, and beard of formal cut, 
 41 Full of wise saws and modern instances, 
 " And so he plays his part : " (4) 
 
 And, " You wear out a good wholesome forenoon, in 
 hearing a cause between an orange-wife and a fossett- 
 seller ; and then rejourn the controversy of three-pence to 
 a second day of audience. When you are hearing a 
 matter between party and party, if you chance to be 
 pinched with the cholick, you make faces like mummers ; 
 set up the bloody flag against all patience; and, in 
 roaring for a chamber-pot, dismiss the controversy 
 
 (1) "King Lear," Act III., Scene 6. 
 
 (2) " Henry VIII.," Act V., S^ene 1. 
 
 (3) "King Lear," Act IV., Scene 6. 
 
 (4) " As you Like it," Act II., Scene 7. 
 
15 
 
 bleeding, the more entangled by your hearing : all the 
 peace you make in their cause, is, calling both the parties 
 knaves; You are a pair of strange ones." (1) And, 
 " Thou hast appointed justices of peace, to call men 
 before them about matters they were not able to 
 answer." (2) 
 
 Taking into consideration the facts that Shakespeare 
 had a large acquaintance with barristers and had had 
 considerable personal experience in law cases in which 
 he or his father was directly interested, it does not seem 
 improbable that through this experience he might have 
 acquired many legal terms, which he has made use of in 
 his writings, without having made any systematic study 
 of the law, as some writers have attempted to prove. It 
 has, moreover, been sought to show that had Shakespeare 
 been educated for the Bar he would have had more 
 respect for his profession and the law in general and not 
 have been such a persistent law-breaker himself. But, 
 perhaps, it may have been because he was constantly 
 within the grip of the law that so degraded his opinion 
 of it. 
 
 "No rogue e'er felt that halter draw, 
 
 '* With good opinion of the Law." 
 
 (1) * Coriolanus," Act II., Scene 1. 
 
 (2) "Henry VI.," Part II., Act IV., Scene 7. 
 
SHAKESPEARE'S CONCEPTION OF 
 THE LAW. 
 
 The history in the Bar in England shows that it has 
 always been to the fore in great reforms and revolutions as 
 the champion of liberty and of the rights of the oppressed 
 people, maintaining the equality of men in the eyes of 
 the law, as against the prerogative of the Crown, and 
 its resultant favoritism and systematic tyranny. In view 
 of this the advocates of the theory that Shakespeare was 
 a lawyer cannot but look upon him as a rebel in the 
 popular ranks. It is inconceivable that a lawyer could 
 have written a play with King John as a central figure 
 without even alluding to the most important incident in 
 his reign, the great Charter of English liberties wrung 
 from this monarch at Kunnymede. Nowhere in 
 Shakespeare's works is Magna Charta mentioned. Yet, 
 these advocates maintain that Shakespeare had a lawyer's 
 conservatism. " He respected the established order of 
 things. He chisels the republican Brutus in cold and 
 marble beauty, but paints with beams of sunlight the 
 greatness, bravery and generosity of imperial Caesar. 
 Coriolanus is the impersonation of patrician contempt 
 for popular rights. Shakespeare passes unnoticed the 
 causes which led to Cade's insurrection, because he cares 
 not for them causes so just that honourable terms 
 were exacted by the insurgents. His portrait of Joan of 
 Arc, the virgin Mother of French nationality, who raised 
 it to glory because the people believed in her, is a great 
 offence. There is nowhere a hint of sympathy with 
 personal rights as against the sovereign nor with 
 
17 
 
 Parliament then first assuming its protective attitude 
 towards the English people." (1) 
 
 Another great commentator goes on to say that "He 
 is uniformly right in his law and in his use of legal 
 phraseology, which no mere quickness of intuition can 
 account for," (2) and that " were an issue tried before me 
 as Chief Justice at the Warwick Assizes, ' whether 
 William ^Shakespeare, late of Stratford-upon-Avon, 
 gentleman, ever was clerk in an attorney's office in Strat- 
 ford-upon-Avon, aforesaid/ I should hold that there is 
 evidence to go to the jury in support of the affirmative, 
 but should add that the evidence is very far from being 
 conclusive, and I should tell the twelve gentlemen in the 
 box that it is a case entirely for their decision without 
 venturing even to hint to them, for their guidance, any 
 opinion of my own. Should they unanimously agree in 
 a verdict either in the affirmative or negative, I 
 do not think that the Court, sitting in banco, could 
 properly set it aside and grant a new trial. But the 
 probability is (particularly if the trial were by a 
 special jury of Fellows of the Society of Anti- 
 quaries) that, after they had been some hours in 
 deliberation, I should receive a message from them 
 4 there is no chance of our agreeing, and therefore we wish 
 to be discharged ; ' that having sent for them into Court, 
 and read them a lecture on the duty imposed upon them 
 by law of being unanimous I should be obliged to order 
 them to be locked up for the night ; that having sat up 
 all night without eating or drinking, and * without fire,, 
 candle-light excepted,' they would come into Court next 
 
 (1) Senator C. K. Davis: " Law of Shakespeare," p. 34. 
 
 (2) Lord Campbell : " Lives of the Chief Justices of England,'" 
 
 Vol. I., p. 50, note. 
 
18 
 
 morning pale and ghostly, still saying * we cannot agree,' 
 and that according to the rigour of the law, I ought to 
 order them to be again locked up as before till the close 
 of the assizes, and then sentence them to be put in a 
 cart, to accompany me in my progress towards the next 
 assize town, and to be shot into a ditch on the confines 
 of the County of Warwick." (1) 
 
 (1) Lord Campbell : "Shakespeare's Legal Acquirements," p. 11. 
 
THE MERCHANT OF VENICE. 
 
 Let us now examine, at some length, a few of the 
 passages from the " Merchant of Venice," so frequently 
 quoted to prove Shakespeare's knowledge of the law. 
 Many commentators regard these passages as the last 
 word of the argument in summing up their case before 
 the Court of which they are at once the self-constituted 
 judge, jury and advocate. 
 
 ' Go with me to a notary ; seal me there 
 
 * Your single bond ; and in a merry sport, 
 
 * If you repay me not on such a day, 
 
 * In such a place, such sum, or sums as are 
 
 * Express'd in the condition, let the forfeit 
 'Be nominated for an equal pound 
 
 * Of your fair flesh, to be cut off and taken 
 
 1 In what part of your body pleaseth me." (1) 
 
 These were the conditions demanded by Shylock of 
 .Antonio for the loan of three thousand ducats which 
 Antonio desired to obtain for the use of his friend 
 Bassanio, and to which Antonio agreed, replying : 
 " Content, in faith ; I'll seal to such a bond." (1) 
 
 We find that Antonio did enter into such a convention 
 with Shylock and on account of non-payment of the 
 three thousand ducats he is brought into Court, and 
 judgment according to the terms of the bond is 
 demanded by Shylock. The legal aspects of this trial 
 will be considered in due course, but, before proceeding 
 to such consideration, let us make a few observations 
 concerning Shy lock's proposal to Antonio in the fore- 
 going quotation, as it is one of the principal incidents in 
 
 (1) " Merchant of Venice," Act I., Scene II. 
 
20 
 
 the play, and the one on which the trial of Antonio for~ 
 his life is based, and the one by means of which many 
 commentators have founded their arguments in favour of 
 the contention that Shakespeare must have been deeply 
 learned in the law. It seems to me that they have all' 1 
 gone wide of the mark in this respect for the reason 
 that it doesn't appear by the terms of the bond that it could 
 be held to be a legally valid instrument either under the 
 Common Law of England or under the Civil Law then* 
 in 'force in the City of Venice where the action was 
 instituted, because the penalty consequent upon its non- 
 fulfilment involved the committing of a crime in the 
 cutting by Shylock of a pound of flesh from nearest 
 Antonio's heart. A condition, in a will under the Eoman. 
 Law, impossible of fulfilment or involving a crime, would I 
 be treated as if no such condition had been imposed and 
 the will would be enforced, simply eliminating the con- 
 dition as superfluous, but in a contract the imposition of 
 such a condition rendered the contract, ipso facto, null' 
 and void ; and the same is, and always has been true 
 under the Common Law of England. 
 
 It may be argued that Shakespeare put these words 
 into the mouth of Shylock, on the assumption that 
 Shylock would not be presumed to know their legal effect, 
 but it would seem that such an argument would be 
 extremely far-fetched when we consider that the lending 
 of money on bond was his trade and that it was highly 
 probable he went to his own notary, who would have 
 tempered his enthusiasm by his advice that such a bond 
 would be of no value and not enforceable. 
 
 Instead of Shakespeare having any such idea, or in fact 
 any real appreciation of the legal significance of such an, 
 
21 
 
 instrument, it seems far more likely that bis genius for 
 dramatic construction was moved to make use of the 
 incident, from whatever source he may have obtained it, 
 to the utter disregard of the legal effect of such a bond. 
 In this same proposal of Shylock's, Shakespeare seems, 
 further, to misconceive the entire nature of the bond he 
 is asking for in making use of the word " single." This 
 ^description of the bond as " your single bond " would 
 -have been quite correct in Shakespeare's time if he had 
 stopped with that. Such bonds under seal were then 
 used as ordinary contracts ; but such bonds or contracts, 
 under seal, had no collateral conditions ; and when 
 .Shylock asked Antonio to agree to a penalty on nonfulfil- 
 ment, the bond was not a single bond, but one with a 
 collateral condition. Had he used the word " special " 
 instead of " single," he would have been more lawyer- 
 like and correct in its description. 
 
 Some commentators have tried to show that " single " 
 is a misprint, and that " simple " should have been used. 
 But for the most part these commentators have not been 
 lawyers, or, if they have, they have overlooked the fact 
 that a simple bond or contract, under the English 
 Common Law, was not under seal, and was enforceable 
 only after proof of consideration. So this theory must 
 be dismissed as not coming under the definition of a 
 simple contract ; and the same argument applies under 
 the Civil Law in force in Venice, except in the latter case 
 the word "formal" instead of " special" under the 
 Common Law or " single," as Shakespeare wrote it, 
 should have been used to accurately describe the kind of 
 bond which Shylock desired, and which Antonio agreed 
 to seal and which he did afterwards seal, and on which he 
 is brought into court. Either of these words would have 
 
22 
 
 served, equally well, his dramatic requirements and ful- 
 filled the metrical conditions, and are the words which 
 any lawyer would undoubtedly have used in Shakespeare's 
 day, for such bonds were then in such common every-day 
 use that it seems impossible for anyone, even without 
 any technical knowledge of the law, to have so described' 
 the bond which Shylock was demanding. 
 
 THE TEIAL. 
 
 It is astonishing that such an instrument should ever 
 have been executed, and still more astonishing that the 
 Duke of Venice, who was trying the case, did not 
 instantly dismiss it on the grounds of the invalidity of 
 the bond, on account, as we have seen, of the illegality of 
 the penalty it contained. The Duke seems to have had 
 plenty of time to consider the question before the actual 
 trial. This is shown by the statement of the messenger 
 who comes to Belmont to acquaint Bassanio of the loss of 
 Antonio's ships and the forfeiture of the bond, when he~ 
 says of Shylock : 
 
 " He plies the Duke at morning, and at night, 
 " And doth impeach the freedom of the state 
 " If they deny him justice : twenty merchants, 
 " The duke himself, and the magnificoes 
 " Of greatest port, have all persuaded with him, 
 " But none can drive him from his envious plea 
 " Of forfeiture, of justice, and his bond." (1) 
 
 and 
 
 " Besides, it should appear, that if he had 
 " The present money to discharge the Jew, 
 " He would not take it." (1) 
 
 (1) " Merchant of Venice," Act III., Scene 2. 
 
By this we see that the question of a possible tender of 
 payment had been raised before the actual trial, and that 
 Shylock had signified that in such an event he would 
 refuse the payment and demand the forfeiture. This he 
 actually did do at the trial the legal effect of this refusal 
 of payment will be considered later. 
 
 The fact that the Duke had been considering the case 
 before the trial scene is further shown in the beginning of 
 the trial, when Antonio says to the Duke : 
 
 " I have heard 
 
 " Your grace hath ta'en great pains to qualify 
 " His rigorous course ; but since he stands obdurate 
 " And that no lawful means can carry me 
 14 Out of his envy's reach, I do oppose 
 " My patience to his fury." (1) 
 
 and further by the Duke's own words : 
 
 '* Shylock, the world thinks, and I think so too, 
 
 " That thou but lead'st this fashion of thy malice 
 
 " To the last hour of act ; and then, 'tis thought 
 
 " Thou'lt show thy mercy and remorse, more strange 
 
 " Than is thy strange apparent cruelty : 
 
 " And where thou now exact'st the penalty, 
 
 " Which is a pound of this poor merchant's flesh, 
 
 " Thou wilt not only lose the forfeiture, 
 
 " But, touched with human gentleness and love, 
 
 u Forgive a moiety of the principal." (1) 
 
 and Shylock' s reply : 
 
 " I have possess 'd your grace of what I purpose 
 
 " And by our holy Sabbath have I sworn 
 
 " To have the due and forfeit of my bond : 
 
 11 If you deny it, let the danger light 
 
 11 Upon your charter, and your city's freedom." (1) 
 
 (1) " Merchant of Venice," Act IV., Scene 1. 
 
24 
 
 Therefore we see that Shy lock had, before the actual 
 trial of the case, thoroughly acquainted the Court with 
 his contention. 
 
 " And doth impeach the freedom of the state 
 " If they deny him justice." (1) 
 
 -and at the trial used most impressive language : 
 
 " And by our holy Sabbath have I sworn 
 
 * ' To have the due and forfeit of my bond : 
 
 " If you deny it, let the danger light 
 
 " Upon your charter, and your city's freedom." (2) 
 
 There can only be one reason for Shakespeare allowing 
 the Duke to go on with the case, considering the fact 
 that the bond was void ab initio, and that was because he 
 (Shakespeare, and not the Duke) did not know that such 
 a bond would be invalid, either under the Civil Law in 
 Venice or under the Common Law of England, for, had 
 he realized its invalidity, he would, doubtless, with all his 
 wonderful resources of ingenuity, have invented a legal 
 instrument on which to base his dramatic trial as 
 dramatic effect is the only possible plea for such 
 ignorance of legal principles. Moreover, a lack of legal 
 significance is manifest in 
 
 44 If you deny it, let the danger light 
 
 11 Upon your charter, and your city's freedom." (2) 
 
 It does not seem to have occurred to Shakespeare that 
 Venice was not a chartered City, receiving its Charter 
 from some superior power to itself, and that it was an 
 independent sovereign state existing by force of its own 
 power among other States, and that it was therefore in 
 no danger of losing its Charter as it had none to lose, or 
 of losing the freedom of the State. 
 
 (1) "Merchant of Venice," Act III., Scene 2. 
 
 (2) " Merchant of Venice," Act IV., Scene 1, 
 
25 
 
 After Shylock has refused to accept payment in open 
 Court, and says : 
 
 " The pound of flesh which I demand of him, 
 
 " Is dearly bought ; 'tis mine, and I will have it : 
 
 "If you deny me, fie upon your law! 
 
 " There is no force in the decrees of Venice: 
 
 "I stand for judgement: answer, shall I have it? " (1) 
 
 and Antonio, the defendant, says : 
 
 "I do beseech you, 
 
 " Make no more offers, use no further means, 
 "But, with all brief and plain conveniency, 
 " Let me have judgement and the Jew his will." (1) 
 
 the Duke answers Shylock : 
 
 " Upon my power, I may dismiss this court, 
 "Unless Bellario, a learned doctor, 
 "Whom I have sent for to determine this, 
 " Come here to-day." (1) 
 
 which indicates that the Duke, if left to his own 
 conclusion, would arbitrarily dismiss the action ; but 
 there is nothing to show that he would base a dismissal 
 upon the invalidity of the bond or any legal points 
 whatever. Here we have both the plaintiff and defendant 
 'demanding the Court to pronounce judgment, and the 
 Court intimating that he will arbitrarily dismiss the case 
 (unless Bellario comes along and finds some means of 
 dissuading him from using his arbitrary power as the high- 
 est in the Commonwealth, and contrary to law as he 
 apparently understood it. So as a matter of fact, had 
 Portia not appeared to plead Antonio's case, he would 
 have been set free, through the dismissal of the case, by 
 the arbitrary action of the Duke. But, whether this is 
 all good law or not, it is good drama ; so we are treated 
 to Portia's extraordinary exposition of the law, the legal 
 effect of the bond and the power of the Court. 
 
 <1) "Merchant of Venice," Act IV., Scene 1. 
 
26 
 
 Portia had come as the representative of Bellario, whom 
 the Duke was expecting to try the case. Bellario hadf 
 written of Portia to the Duke : 
 
 " We turn'd o'er many books together: 
 " He is furnished with my opinion." (1) 
 
 It was a common practice in Civil Law countries for 
 judges to call in specialists, learned in a particular branch 
 of the law, whether judges or not, to try cases in their 
 stead. This not having been the practice under the- 
 Common Law of England, it is difficult to say where 
 Shakespeare got the idea from, i.e., whether he knew that 
 it was common in Venice or whether he borrowed it fromv 
 some mediaeval or later writer on the subject the latter 
 however, seems to be the most likely theory. 
 
 Instead of Portia dismissing the action on the grounds* 
 of the invalidity of the bond, she holds the bond to be a 
 valid instrument, when she says : 
 
 " Of a strange nature is the suit you follow; 
 " Yet in such rule, that the Venetian law 
 " Cannot impugn you as you do proceed." (1) 
 
 and gets Antonio to " confess the bond " and Bassanio to- 
 tender payment all before she has seen the bond. After 
 which Bassanio seems to have asked Portia to do exactly 
 what the Duke intended to do, viz., arbitrarily dismiss 
 the case, when he says : 
 
 " I beseech you, 
 
 ' Wrest once the law to your authority : 
 ' To do a great right, do a little wrong, 
 ' And curb this cruel devil of his will." (1) 
 
 to which Portia replies : 
 
 1 It must not be. There is no power in Venice 
 
 1 Can alter a decree established : 
 
 1 'Twill be recorded for a precedent, 
 
 * And many an error by the same example, 
 
 1 Will rush into the state : it cannot be." (1) 
 
 (1) "Merchant of Venice," Act IV., Scene l k 
 
27 
 
 This is of course sound reasoning on the assumption 
 that the bond is a valid instrument, enforceable under 
 the laws of Venice, which was not the case, but Portia 
 proceeds to take the former view : 
 
 " For the intent and purpose of the law 
 
 " Hath full relation to the penalty, 
 
 " Which here appeareth due upon the bond." (1) 
 
 and, when she says : 
 
 " Why this bond is forfeit; 
 " And lawfully, by this the Jew may claim 
 " A pound of flesh, to be by him cut off 
 " Nearest the merchant's heart," (1) 
 
 she holds that the bond is enforceable under the law and 
 that Shylock has the legal right to claim judgment, and 
 a few moments later pronounces the judgment of the 
 Court : 
 
 " A pound of that same merchant's flesh is thine ; 
 
 " The court awards it, and the law doth give it." (1) 
 
 and then proceeds to order an execution of the judgment : 
 " And you must cut this flesh from off his breast ; 
 " The law allows it, and the court awards it." (1) 
 
 Now, as the Court has held the bond to be a perfectly 
 regular and legal instrument, enforceable under the law, 
 pronounced judgment and has ordered execution of the 
 judgment directed to Shylock, any act of execution under 
 the decree would, of course, be perfectly legal, and the 
 executioner, acting under authority of the Court, would 
 be guilty of no crime. This was apparently in Shylock's 
 mind in contemplating the execution, when he said : 
 
 " What judgement shall I dread, doing no wrong." (1) 
 
 When a Court commands a thing to be done, the order 
 carries with it such rights as may be necessary and 
 
 (1) " Merchant of Venice," Act IV., Scene 1. 
 
28 
 
 incidental to the effectual carrying out of the order, 
 without which the order would have no effect. This is 
 an elementary principle of both the Common Law in 
 England and of the Civil Law in force in the Common- 
 wealth of Venice. In this case, the Court ordered 
 Shylock to cut a pound of flesh from off the merchant's 
 Jbreast, in accordance with the terms of the bond on 
 which the judgment was based, and this order was in 
 accordance with the foregoing principle of law giving 
 him the necessary collateral rights incidental to the due 
 execution of the order ; yet contrary to this principle of 
 the Common and Civil Law and to every principle of 
 natural justice, Portia stops the executioner by saying : 
 
 ' This bond doth give thee here no jot of blood ; 
 
 ' The words expressly are, a pound of flesh : 
 
 1 Take then thy bond, take then thy pound of flesh ; 
 
 4 But, in the cutting it, if thou dost shed 
 
 4 One drop of Christian blood, thy lands and goods 
 
 * Are, by the laws of Venice confiscate 
 ' Unto the State of Venice. 
 
 * Therefore, prepare thee to cut off the flesh. 
 
 * Shed thou no blood ; nor cut thou less, nor more, 
 ' But just a pound of flesh : if thou tak'st more, 
 
 * Or less, than a just pound, be it but so much 
 
 * As makes it light, or heavy, in the substance, 
 4 Or the division of the twentieth part 
 
 4 Of one poor scruple, nay, if the scale do turn 
 
 ' But in the estimation of a hair, 
 
 4 Thou diest, and all thy goods are confiscate." (1) 
 
 Therefore, according to this pronouncement, if Shylock 
 obeys the order of the Court, by proceeding with the 
 execution, he will forfeit his life and all his lands and 
 goods, and if he does not obey the Court's order and 
 proceed with the execution, he will clearly be in 
 contempt of court. This is not now and never has been 
 
 (1) " Merchant of Venice," Act IV., Scene 1. 
 
29 
 
 good law. It is not justice, but injustice, to place 
 Shylock in so awkward a position by sheer perversion 
 of the law ; yet not content with this illegal persecution,, 
 when Shylock, broken and disgusted with the proceed- 
 ings, says : 
 
 " Give me my principal and let me go." (1) 
 
 Shakespeare again seems not to appreciate an elementary 
 principle of law in causing Portia, acting in the capacity 
 of a judge, to say : 
 
 " He hath refus'd it in the open court ; 
 
 " He shall have merely justice, and his bond." (1) 
 
 Is it any wonder that the poor old Jew asks in surprise :: 
 44 Shall I not have bearly my principal?" (1) 
 
 To which Portia replies : 
 
 " Thou shalt have nothing but the forfeiture, 
 11 To be so taken at thy peril, Jew." (1). 
 
 It is inconceivable that anyone, with even an elementary 
 knowledge of law, could have put such a ruling into the 
 mouth of the judge. By this ruling, simply because a 
 tender had been made and refused, the plaintiff was 
 deprived of his right of action to recover the debt. No- 
 question is raised as to the tender having been made by 
 one not a party to the suit, but doubtless, if such 
 question had been raised, Portia would have held that it 
 was of no effect, although, by the Common and Civil 
 Law, it would have been a perfectly legal tender. (2) 
 There seems to be scarcely anything in this play that is 
 set down or conducted in a lawyer-like manner, and 
 Shakespeare seems not to have the slightest appreciation 
 of legal principles or legal form in his mad race for 
 dramatic effects, and when, finally, Shylock becomes 
 
 (1) "Merchant of Venice," Act IV., Scene 1. 
 
 (2) "Institutes of Gaius," p. 411. (Poste.) 
 
30 
 
 disgusted with the whole affair and apparently chooses to 
 forave contempt of Court by saying: 
 
 "Why, then the devil give him good of it! 
 " I'll stay no longer question." (1) 
 
 thereby refusing to carry out the execution which the 
 Court has ordered, which would not have constituted a 
 crime, being sanctioned and ordered by the Court, and 
 notwithstanding the fact, the Court ruled that if he had 
 carried out the order his life and goods would have been 
 forfeit to the State, Shakespeare proceeds to an equally 
 absurd interpretation of Shylock's legal position by having 
 the Court say : 
 
 " The law hath yet another hold on you, 
 " It is enacted in the laws of Venice, 
 
 * If it be proved against an alien, 
 
 * That by direct, or indirect attempts, 
 ' He seek the life of any citizen, 
 
 ' The party 'gainst the which he doth contrive 
 ' Shall seize on half his goods : the other half, 
 " Comes to the privy coffer of the state ; 
 ' And the offender's life lies in the mercy 
 
 * Of the duke only, 'gainst all other voice, 
 
 1 In which predicament, I say, thou stand'st : 
 
 * For it appears by manifest proceedings, 
 ' That indirectly, and directly too, 
 
 * Thou hast contrived against the very life 
 
 ' Of the defendant ; and thou hast incurr'd 
 ' The danger formerly by me rehearsed." (1) 
 
 This might have been good law if the Court had not 
 previously ruled that the bond was a valid instrument 
 and pronounced judgment and ordered execution. If 
 this was the law of Venice, the proper procedure would 
 have been to plead the illegality of the bond and proceed 
 criminally against Shylock under this law for conspiring 
 against the life of a Venetian citizen, but, when the 
 Court held that the bond was a valid instrument, 
 enforceable under the law, he had a legal right to the 
 
 (1) " Merchant of Venice," Act IV., Scene 1. 
 
31 
 
 forfeiture, and the Court ordered the execution, there 
 could be no action against Shylock for conspiracy. If any- 
 one was guilty of a conspiracy, it would seem to be Portia, 
 and not Shylock, for exceeding judicial authority in 
 ordering an illegal execution, and failing this, proceeding 
 against Shylock for something that the Court had ordered 
 him to do. The whole fabric of the case seems to be a 
 flight of Shakespeare's dramatic imagination, without 
 reference to even the most fundamental principles of law 
 or justice : simply manufactured law for the dramatic 
 purposes of the author and nothing more unless we 
 look upon Portia as a sort of Shakespearean Chancellor 
 of the Exchequer in wresting the law to her own authority 
 for the purpose of securing Shylock's fortune for the 
 Exchequer of the State, even at the cost of the life 
 of Antonio, and failing this, to confiscate half his 
 fortune for the State under the alleged authority of 
 another so-called law of Venice. But this legal or illegal 
 financier is not content with stripping Shylock of his 
 present fortune ; knowing him to be thrifty in the accu- 
 mulation of wealth, it is ordered that he shall 
 
 " record a gift, 
 
 "Here in the court, of all he dies possess'd 
 "Unto his son Lorenzo and his daughter." (1) 
 
 in consideration of the Duke pardoning his life. The 
 legal aspects of this amazing document will be considered 
 presently. But first a few words are pertinent respecting 
 Antonio's proposal to create a trust for Lorenzo's 
 benefit 
 
 So please my lord the duke, and all the court, 
 To quit the fine for one half his goods, 
 I am content, so he will let me have, 
 The other half in use, to render it, 
 Upon his death, unto the gentleman 
 That lately stole his daughter." (1) 
 
 (1) "Merchant of Venice," Act IV., Scene 1. 
 
32 
 
 This passage has often been cited by commentators (1) to> 
 prove that Shakespeare must have been learned in the 
 law to make use of such precise language in the creation 
 of the trust to settle one-half the Jew's property upon his 
 daughter and son-in-law, and is even mentioned by one 
 text-book authority (2) in the illustration of a "use."" 
 But, while the passage is in a certain simple sense indi- 
 cative of a trust, I see nothing so extraordinarily striking 
 as to warrant the conclusion that Shakespeare possessed 
 any special erudition in the subject of trusts or uses. 
 The language of the passage is beautifully concise but 
 such as might have been written by any dramatist of the 
 present or of Shakespeare's day, without any special 
 knowledge of the law, more than might be expected in, 
 any well read writer of plays or other fiction. Moreover, 
 when viewed in connection with the conduct of the trial 
 as a whole, it does not seem possible that anyone with 
 any technical knowledge of legal procedure could have 
 written it, any more than they could have written the 
 preceding conspiracy indictment, which has been hereto- 
 fore considered. Taken as a sequel to the conspiracy 
 indictment, if that indictment had been good law, the 
 sequel could doubtless be considered equally sound. But 
 as we have seen that the conspiracy indictment would have 
 been good only if the Court had held the bond to be 
 illegal, and the Court did not so hold, but, on the con- 
 trary, the Court having held the bond to be valid and 
 enforceable, the trust paragraph would have the same 
 legal status, and, likewise, as there could be no action 
 against Shylock for conspiracy under that indictment^ 
 
 (1) C. K. Davis, Lord Campbell, etc. 
 
 (2) Lewin's '* Treatise on Trusts." 
 
33 
 
 there could be no warranty in law for taking Shylock's 
 goods, or the creation of the trust. 
 
 We now come to the climax of injustice and legal 
 absurdity in Antonio's proposal: 
 
 " that he do record a gift, 
 " Here in the court, of all he dies possess'd 
 " Unto his son Lorenzo and his daughter." (1) 
 
 'This the Court orders done when the Duke says : 
 " He shall do this ; or else I do recant 
 " The pardon that I late pronounced here." (1) 
 
 "Shylock, of course, must either lose his life or acquiesce, 
 
 so he is forced to reply : 
 
 "I am content." (1) 
 and, Portia says : 
 
 " Clerk, draw a deed of gift." (1) 
 
 Shylock, completely broken in spirit by the injustice he 
 lias received, is glad to escape with his life, and makes a 
 
 .pathetic plea to be allowed to leave the Court : 
 "I pray you give me leave to go from hence: 
 " I am not well, send the deed after me, 
 " And I will sign it." (1) 
 
 which the Duke brutally grants by saying : 
 
 "Get thee gone, but do it." (1) 
 
 And so ends the most remarkable trial scene recorded in 
 literature remarkable alike for its wonderful dramatic 
 effect and legal absurdity. 
 
 Much ingenuity has been displayed by critics (2) in 
 trying to explain the instrument last mentioned, viz., the 
 " deed of gift, of all he dies possess'd/' All this may be 
 very effective for dramatic purposes, but when examined 
 from a legal point of view, its absurdity is at once 
 apparent, for such an instrument would include all 
 property Shylock might acquire between the time of the 
 
 (1) " Merchant of Venice," Act IV., Scene 1. 
 
 (2) Senator Cushman K. Davis : " The Law in Shakespeare," 
 
 etc. 
 
34 
 
 trial and his death, and such a document as Shakespeare- 
 describes here has none of the elements to make it legally 
 effective under either the Civil (1) or Common Law, or 
 rather it has elements that would render it invalid. If 
 it be regarded as a will or as a gift mortis causa, it 
 would fail as such, because it was apparent that it 
 was not his free and voluntary act, and that it was 
 made on compulsion. Moreover, if it is regarded as a 
 will, he would have the right, under either the Civil or 
 Common Law, to alter its terms at any time, or render it 
 null and void by making a later will. Furthermore this 
 order, like the trust and the conspiracy orders, could not 
 be legally operative against Shylock, even if he did not 
 avail himself of his legal rights to rescind the will or gift 
 mortis causa, as one pleases to call it, so long as the 
 Court held that the bond was legal and enforceable, as it 
 did hold the effect of which has been heretofore fully 
 discussed. Therefore, having seen that this trial from 
 beginning to end has not conformed to any known legal 
 form or requirement of either the Civil or Common Law, 
 we must conclude that the law and procedure in this case 
 have no warrant of validity and that the whole matter 
 was a fiction of the author's brain manufactured for his 
 dramatic purposes and that he had no appreciation of 
 their legal significance. Perhaps this is why he had a 
 woman try the case, for we find him saying in another 
 play: 
 
 "I will make 
 
 " One of her women lawyers to me, for 
 " I yet not understand the case myself." (2) 
 
 especially as in this case, he caused a Court of Law to be 
 turned into a Court of Chancery a shifting of jurisdic- 
 tion not known in Shakespeare's day. 
 
 (1) Cooper's " Justinian," Lib. 2, Til. 12. 
 
 (2) " Cymbeline," Act II., Scene 3. 
 
SHAKESPEARE'S USE OF LEGAL 
 TERMS IN OTHER PLAYS. 
 
 In considering the use of legal terms by Shakespeare, 
 for the purpose of determining whether or not he had 
 any special technical knowledge of the law, it is necessary 
 to take into consideration, and to always keep in mind, 
 the fact that many words and phrases of a technical and 
 legal character concerning the science of law, and 
 especially that branch of law pertaining to conveyancing, 
 were in common everyday use among laymen in Shake- 
 speare's day, and were not then, as now, confined to the 
 exclusive knowledge of members of the legal profession. 
 
 The use of such legal terms naturally suggests to the 
 modern reader that the author making use of them must 
 necessarily have had some special training. But when 
 considered from the standpoint of the common know- 
 ledge of such terms at the time they were written, it 
 becomes necessary to differentiate between terms then in 
 common use and terms confined exclusively to the know- 
 ledge of those writers learned in the law. Many terms 
 in common use in everyday transactions have since be- 
 come either quite obsolete or of such infrequent use 
 that the knowledge of their legal significance is now 
 restricted to those who have made a special study of the 
 
36 
 
 science indicating research in the use of terms which 
 were heretofore the common knowledge of the average 
 man of affairs. 
 
 Commentators have endeavoured to show that, by 
 using such terms as appear highly technical to- 
 day, Shakespeare must have been deeply learned in this 
 science. They have expended much energy in this 
 direction over Shakespeare's use and description of the 
 Writ of Prsemunire. Such a term, we must admit, sounds 
 a high note of legal erudition to the layman of to-day, 
 but to the layman of Shakespeare's day it was quite 
 well known. It was used for despoiling the churches 
 and monasteries of their property to secure revenue for 
 the Crown, and was a common topic of the day, as well 
 known to all classes as Church Disestablishment is 
 Known to-day. The only instance of Shakespeare's use 
 of this writ that indicates any special knowledge of it, 
 more than might be expected of any well-informed man 
 of his day, is in the famous scene between Cardinal 
 Wolsey and the Dukes of Norfolk and Suffolk and the 
 Earl of Surrey, (1) which has been quoted by many 
 critics to prove Shakespeare's profound knowledge of the 
 law. 
 
 But these critics have apparently overlooked the fact 
 that the material for this scene, especially that part of it 
 which is of legal significance, was borrowed bodily from 
 Holinshed, and to show this we now quote in parallel 
 columns from Holinshed and Shakespeare. 
 
 ;:(!) "King Henry Y III.," Act III., Scene 2. ' 
 
37 
 
 HOLINSHED, 
 
 "In the meantime the King, 
 being informed that all those 
 things the Cardinal had done by 
 his power legatine within this 
 realm were in the case of the 
 prsemunire and its provision, 
 caused his Attorney, Christopher 
 Hales, to sue out a writ of 
 praemunire against him, in the 
 which he licensed him to make 
 his Attorney. And, further- 
 more, the seventeenth of 
 November the King sent the 
 two dukes of Norfolk and Suffolk 
 to the Cardinal at Westminster, 
 who went as they were com- 
 manded, and finding the Cardinal 
 there they declared that the 
 King's pleasure was that he 
 should surrender up the great 
 seal into their hands, and to 
 depart simply unto Asher . . . 
 After this, in the King's bench, 
 his matter for the prsemunire 
 being called upon two Attorneys, 
 which he had authorized by his 
 warrant signed with his own 
 hand, confessed the action, and 
 so had judgement to forfeit all 
 his lands, tenements, goods and 
 cattels, and to be out of the 
 King's protection." (1) 
 
 SHAKESPEARE. 
 
 NORFOLK : 
 
 "Hear the King's pleasure, 
 Cardinal : who commands 
 you 
 
 " To render up the great seal 
 presently 
 
 "Into our hands; and to con- 
 fine yourself 
 
 " To Asher-house, my lord of 
 Winchester's 
 
 ' Till you hear further from his 
 highness." 
 
 SUFFOLK: 
 
 "Lord Cardinal, the King's 
 
 further pleasure is : 
 "Because of those things you 
 
 have done of late 
 ' By ycur power legatine within 
 
 this kingdom, 
 "Fall into the compass of a 
 
 prsemunire, 
 " That therefore such a writ be 
 
 sued against you; 
 " To forfeit all your goods, 
 
 lands, tenements 
 " Chattels, and whatsoever, and 
 
 to be 
 
 " Out of the King's protection." 
 (2) 
 
 It is interesting to note that there is little difference 
 between the foregoing from a legal point of view. 
 Holinshed uses the word " cattels," while Shakespeare 
 uses the term "chattels." These words, however, were 
 used synonymously in Shakespeare's day, and it would 
 appear that that used by Holinshed was in more 
 technical legal use, while that used by Shakespeare was 
 in greater use by all classes which argues less technical 
 legal skill in Shakespeare than in Holinshed and if we 
 
 (1) Hplinshed's" Chronicle," pp. 741-743. 
 
 (2) Shakespeare's Henry VIII," Act III., Scene 2. 
 
38 
 
 accept the folio reading of "castles" for "chattels," it 
 makes out a worse case for Shakespeare, because it is 
 difficult to conceive that anyone understanding law 
 would use the word " castles " for the reason that the 
 forfeiture of the Cardinal's lands would also include 
 castles or buildings thereon, unless we assume that the 
 " castles " were on leased land, which is too far-fetched an 
 assumption to be worthy of the slightest consideration, 
 further than to note such slight possibility. Another 
 difference between the two authors is that Holinshed 
 uses the phrase " case of the prsemunire " while Shake- 
 speare uses " compass of a praemunire." This departure 
 from the text of Holinshed seems to have been made by 
 Shakespeare purely for metrical purposes of his verse, 
 and the change has no special legal signiBcance, 
 
 And, earlier in the same play, we find, in the description 
 of the trial of the Duke of Buckingham, what at first 
 appears to indicate a familiarity with legal procedure and 
 technical terms because the description of the trial, and 
 the legal language used, is fairly accurate ; but, as we 
 have seen that Shakespeare borrowed the Wolsey scene 
 from Holinshed, we find that he has likewise borrowed 
 the material for the description of this scene from Hall's 
 Chronicles, and, as before, we quote the language of the 
 two authors in parallel columns for comparison. 
 
 HALL. SHAKESPEARE. 
 
 " When the lordes had taken " The great duke 
 
 their places, sir Thomas Lowel "Came to the bar; where, to 
 and sir Richard Chomley his accusations, 
 
 knightes brought the duke to : 'He pleaded still, not guilty, 
 the barre with thaxe of the and alleg'd 
 
 Tower before him who humbly " Many sharp reasons to defeat 
 bareheaded reverenced the duke the law. 
 
 of Northfolke, and after all the "The king's attorney, on the 
 lordes and the kinges lerned contrary, 
 
39 
 
 ' Urg'd on the examinations, 
 
 proofs, confessions 
 1 Of divers witnesses ; which 
 
 the duke desir'd 
 ' To have brought, viva voce, to 
 
 his face ; 
 'At which appear'd against 
 
 him, his surveyor ; 
 ' Sir Gilbert Peck, his chancellor 
 
 and John Court, 
 ' Confessor to him ; with that 
 
 devil-monk, 
 1 Hopkins, that made this 
 
 mischief." (2) 
 
 'Counsail. Then the Clarke of ye 
 -consail sayd, sir Edward Duke 
 of Buckyngha hold up thy 
 hands, thou are endited of high 
 treason, for that thou traitor- 
 ously hast conspired and 
 ymagined as farre as in thee lay 
 .to shorten the life of our 
 soueraigne lorde the Kyng: of 
 this treason how will thou 
 .acquit e thee, the duke answered 
 by my Peres. And when then- 
 ditement was openly rede, the 
 Duke sayd it is false and untrue, 
 and conspired and forged to 
 bryng me to my death, and that 
 will I prove allegyng many 
 -reasons to falsefy the indite- 
 ment, and against his reasons 
 -the kynges Atturnay alledged 
 the examinacions, cofessions 
 .and proues of witnesses. The 
 Duke desired the witnesses to 
 be brought furth, then was 
 brought before him sir Gylbert 
 Perke priest his Chauncellor, 
 fyrst accuser of the same Duke, 
 Master, Ihon Delacourt priest, 
 the Dukes Confessor and his 
 *owne hand writyng layde before 
 .him to the accusement of the 
 .duke," etc. (1) 
 
 Thus we see, from a comparison of the texts of 
 Holinshed, Hall and Shakespeare, that it required no 
 .special legal knowledge or training to embody the tech- 
 nical terms and legal effect of Holinshed's and Hall's 
 Chronicles into the apparently technical legal language 
 of the characters in this play of Shakespeare's, especially 
 when this apparently technical language of the law was 
 the common parlance of the day ; and the same is true of 
 many other technical expressions used by Shakespeare 
 and most other contemporary dramatic authors. Many of 
 
 (1) Hall's " Chronicles," p. 628. 
 
 (2) Shakespeare's "King Henry VIII, 11 Act II., Scene 1. 
 
40 
 
 these words familiar to these laymen have ceased, through 
 disuse, to be familiar at the present time, to all except the 
 members of the legal profession and those who have made 
 a study of the science of the law. As one example among 
 many instances : When the layman of to-day reads of 
 "fine and recovery" in Shakespeare's works or hears it 
 mentioned by a member of the Bar, he does not under- 
 stand it, because there is now no such procedure, and he 
 is at once impressed with the deep learning which he 
 supposes necessary to cope with the use of such high- 
 sounding legal language, but when he realizes that such 
 terms were as well known to all classes then as a 
 parliamentary closure is at the present time, he ceases to 
 marvel at the apparent legal knowledge displayed in their 
 use by Shakespeare and his contemporaries. 
 
 One of Shakespeare's contemporary dramatists says : 
 " There is another ordinary at which your London usurer,. 
 your stale bachelor, and your thrifty attorneys do resort ; 
 the price, three pence ; the rooms are as full of company 
 as a gaol. If they chance to discourse it is of nothing but 
 statutes, bonds, recognizances, audits, subsidies, rents,, 
 sureties, enclosures, liveries, indictments, outlawries, 
 feoffments, judgements, commissions, bankrupts, amerce- 
 ments and of such horrible matter." (1) All of which goes 
 to show that a man with ^Shakespeare's faculties for ab- 
 sorbtion could, through mingling with these people, easily 
 have made use of many legal terms without having made 
 any special study of the subject. The same condition 
 seems to have prevailed among other contemporary drama- 
 tists as well. Some of these dramatists, it is true, were 
 members of the legal profession, but many of them were 
 
 (1) Dekker's . Gull's Hornbook." 
 
41 
 
 not. One contemporary poet and dramatist in particular, 
 who seems, so far as we are able to ascertain, never to 
 have been in any way connected with the profession of 
 law, has written as much law and much good law too 
 (and the same may be said of others) (1) in one of his 
 plays as we are able to find in any one of Shakespeare's 
 plays: and who has written one passage that contains 
 law terms and legal technicalities enough to confound 
 Blackstone and the Chief Justices of England, as the 
 following will show : 
 
 "I think it would be something tedious to read all, and 
 therefore, gentlemen, the sum is this: That you, Signor 
 Cornelio, for divers and sundry weighty and mature 
 considerations you especially moving, specifying all the 
 particulars of your wife's enormities in a schedule here- 
 unto annexed, the transcript whereof is in your tenure, 
 custody, occupation and keeping; that for these the 
 aforesaid premises, I say, you renounce, disclaim and 
 discharge Gazetta from being your leeful or your lawful 
 wife, and that you eftsoons, divide, disjoin, separate ? 
 remove, and finally eloigne, sequester and divorce her 
 from your bed and your board ; that you forbid her all 
 access, repair, egress or regress to your, person or persons, 
 mansion or mansions, dwellings, habitations, remainences 
 or abodes, or to any shop, cellar, sollar, easements, 
 chamber, dormer, and so forth, not in the tenure, custody, 
 occupation or keeping of the said Cornelio ; notwith- 
 standing all former contracts, covenants, bargains, 
 conditions, agreements, compacts, promises, vows, affi- 
 ances, assurances, bonds, bills, indentures, poll-deeds, 
 deeds of gift, defeasances, feoffments, endowments, 
 vouchers, double vouchers, priory entries, actions, declara* 
 tions, explications, rejoinders, rights, interests, demands, 
 claims, or titles whatsoever heretofore betwixt the one 
 and the other party or parties being had, made, passed, 
 covenanted and agreed, from the beginning of the world 
 to the day of the date hereof. Given the seventeenth 
 of November, fifteen hundred and so forth. Here, sir, 
 you must set your hand." (2) 
 
 (1) John Webster's " The Devil's Law Case," etc. 
 
 (2) George Chapman's " All Fooles," Act IV., Scene 1. 
 
42 
 
 Compared with the foregoing Shakespeare's scene over 
 the skull : 
 
 44 Where be his quiddits now, his quillets, his cases, his 
 tenures, and his tricks? Why does he suffer this rude 
 knave to knock him about the sconce with a dirty shovel 
 and will not tell him of his action of battery ? Humph ! 
 This fellow might be in's time a great buyer of land, 
 with his statutes, his recognizances, his fines, his double 
 vouchers, his recoveries : Is this the fine of his fines, 
 and the recovery of his recoveries, to have his fine pate 
 full of fine dirt ? Will his vouchers vouch him no more 
 of his purchases, and double ones too, than the length 
 and breadth of a pair of indentures?" (1) 
 
 so often cited in support of Shakespeare's legal acquire- 
 ments pales into insignificance as an exhibition of legal 
 technicalities. We find no term of a legal technical 
 nature in this speech that is not used with equal glibness 
 in the language quoted from his two contemporary 
 dramatists, (2) which was common parlance of the day ; 
 and many of the technical legal terms used by these 
 writers are not even to be found in the plays attributed 
 to Shakespeare. 
 
 We have seen that Shakespeare borrowed his legal 
 phraseology in King Henry VIII. from Holinshed's and 
 Hall's Chronicles let us now consider the source of his 
 ^exposition of the Salic Law in which commentators have 
 found such a marvellous exhibition of Shakespeare's 
 profound legal knowledge. It is granted that, on the 
 face of it, this exposition of the Salic Law seems to 
 indicate great legal erudition on the part of Shakespeare, 
 -and it is amazing to note with what reckless credulity so 
 many commentators have founded their arguments in 
 
 (1) " Hamlet," Act V., Scene 1. 
 
 (2) Chapman's "All Fooles," Act IV., Scene 1 ; and Dekker's 
 
 " Gull's Hornbook." 
 
favour of Shakespeare's legal acquirements upon this and 
 other expositions of the law found in his plays, without 
 enquiring into the sources from which he appropriated, 
 not only the subject matter but, oftentimes, the very 
 language used. Holinshed is, again, the source from 
 which he derived the material for his famous exposition 
 of the Salic Law, as will appear from a comparison of the 
 language on the subject, quoted from the two authors, in 
 parellel columns : 
 
 HOLINSHED.] 
 
 " Herein did he much envie 
 against the surmised and false 
 fained law Salike which the 
 Frenchmen alledge over against 
 the Kings of England in barre 
 of their just title to the crowns 
 of France. The verie words of 
 that supposed law are these, In 
 terram Salicam miliereo ne 
 seccedant that is to saie, into 
 the Salike land let not woman 
 succeed. Which the French 
 glossers expound to be the 
 realme of France, and that this 
 law was made by King 
 Pharamond ; whereas yet their 
 owne authors affirme that the 
 land Salike is in Germanie 
 between the rivers of Elbe and 
 Sala, and that when Charles 
 the Great overcame the Saxons, 
 he placed there certaine French- 
 men, which having in disdeine 
 the dishonest mouners of the 
 Yeomans women, made a law, 
 that the females should not 
 succeed to any inheritance with- 
 in that land, which at this day 
 is called Meisen, so that if this 
 be true, this law was not made 
 for the realme of France, nor the 
 Frenchmen possessed the land 
 Salike, till foure hundred and 
 one and twentie years after the 
 death of Pharamond, the sup- 
 
 SHAKESPEARE. 
 
 " There is no bar 
 
 "To make against your high- 
 ness' claim to France 
 
 "But this, which they produce 
 from Pharamond. 
 
 " * In terram Salicam muliures 
 ne succedant ; ' 
 
 "No woman shall succeed in 
 Salique land : 
 
 "Which Salique land the 
 French unjustly gloze 
 
 "To be the realm of France, 
 and Pharamond 
 
 " The founder of this law and 
 female bar. 
 
 " Yet their own authors faith- 
 fully affirm 
 
 "That the land Salique is in 
 Germany, 
 
 " Between the floods of Sala 
 and of Elbe ; 
 
 " Where Charles the Great, hav- 
 ing subdued the Saxons, 
 
 " Who, holding in disdain the 
 German women 
 
 " For some dishonest manners 
 of their life, 
 
 * Establish'd then this law : 
 to wit no female 
 
 " Should be inheritrix in 
 Salique land ; 
 
 "Which Salique, as I said, 'twixt 
 Elbe and Sala, 
 
 " Is at this day in Germany call'd 
 Meisen. 
 
posed maker of this Salike law, 
 for this Pharamond deceased in 
 the year 426, and Charles the 
 Great subdued the Saxons, 
 and placed the Frenchmen in 
 those parts beyond the river 
 Sala, in the yeare 805. 
 
 " Moreover, it appeareth by 
 their owne writers that King 
 Pepine, which deposed Ghil- 
 derike, claimed the crowne of 
 France, as heire generall, for 
 that he was descended of 
 Blithild, daughter of King 
 Clothair the first ; Hugh Capet 
 also, who usurped the crowne 
 upon Charles, Duke of Lorraine, 
 the sole heire male of the line 
 and stocke of Charles the Great, 
 to make his title seeme true, 
 and appeare good, though in 
 deed it was starke nought, con- 
 veied himselfe as heire to the 
 ladie Lingard, daughter of King 
 Charlemaine sonne to Lewes 
 the emperour, that was son to 
 Charles the Great, King Lewes 
 also the tenth, otherwise called 
 Saint Lewes, being verie heir to 
 the said usurper Hugh Capet, 
 could never be satisfied with 
 his conscience how he might 
 justlie keepe and possesse the 
 crowne of France, till he was 
 pursuaded and fullie instructed 
 that Queen Isabel his grand- 
 mother was lineallie descended 
 of the ladie Ermengard, 
 daughter and heire to the above 
 named Charles, duke of Lorraine, 
 by the which marriage, the 
 bloud and line of Charles the 
 Great was againe united and 
 restored to the crowne and 
 scepter of France, so that more 
 cleeare than the sun it openlie 
 appeareth that the title of 
 King Pepin, the claim of Hugh 
 Capet, the possession of Lewes, 
 yea and the French Kings to 
 this daie, are derived and con- 
 veied from the heire female, 
 
 " Then doth it well appear the 
 
 Salique law 
 " Was not devised for the realm 
 
 of France, 
 "Nor did the French possess 
 
 the Salique land 
 14 Until four hundred one and 
 
 twenty years 
 "After def unction of King 
 
 Pharamond 
 "Idly supposed the founder of 
 
 this law, 
 " Who died within the year of 
 
 our redemption 
 "Four hundred twenty-six ;. 
 
 and Charles the Great 
 " Subdued the Saxons, and did 
 
 beat the French 
 " Beyond the river Sala, in the 
 
 year 
 " Eight hundred five. Besides, 
 
 their writers say, 
 "King Pepin, which deposed 
 
 Childerick 
 "Did, as heir general, being 
 
 decended 
 
 "Of Blithild, which was daugh- 
 ter to King Clothair, 
 "Make claim and title to the 
 
 crown of France, 
 " Hugh Capet who ursurp'd 
 
 the crown 
 "Of Charles the duke of 
 
 Lorraine sole heir male 
 "Of the true line and stock of 
 
 Charles the Great 
 " To find his title with some 
 
 shows of truth, 
 " Though, in pure truth, it was 
 
 corrupt and nought, 
 " Convey'd himself as heir to 
 
 the Lady Lingare, 
 " Daughter to Charlemain, who 
 
 was the son 
 " To Lewes the Emperor and 
 
 Lewes the son 
 "Of Charles the Great also 
 
 King Lewes the tenth, 
 "Who was sole heir . to the- 
 
 usurper Capet, 
 
 "Could not keep quiet in his- 
 conscience 
 
45 
 
 ihough they would under the 
 colour of such fained law, 
 barre the Kings and Princes of 
 this realme of England of their 
 right and lawful inheritance." 
 
 " Wearing the crown of France, 
 
 till satisfied 
 "That fair Queen Isabel, his 
 
 grandmother 
 " Was lineal of the Lady 
 
 Ermengare, 
 
 " Daughter to Charles the afore- 
 said Duke of Lorriane. 
 " By the which marriage the line 
 
 of Charles the Great 
 " Was re-united to the crown of 
 
 France, 
 "So that, as clear as is the 
 
 summer's sun, 
 "King Pepin's title and Hugh 
 
 Capet's crown claim, 
 "King Lewes his satisfaction,- 
 
 all appear 
 " To hold in right and title of 
 
 the female. 
 "So do the Kings of France 
 
 unto this day ; 
 "Howbeit they would hold up 
 
 this Salique law, 
 "To bar your highness claim- 
 ing from the female, 
 " And rather choose to hide 
 
 them in a net 
 " Than amply to irabare their 
 
 crooked titles 
 "Usurp'd from you and your 
 
 progenitors." (2) 
 
 In comparing these authors, we find that Shakespeare's 
 'exposition is to all intents and purposes, merely a para- 
 phrase, in meter, of Holinshed, and that Shakespeare 
 was so faithful in copying Holinshed that he even repro- 
 duced his errors. It will be observed that they both fix 
 the time at 421 years after the death of Pharamond : 
 they both agree that Pharamond died at 426, and that 
 Charles the Great subdued the Saxons in 805; this, how- 
 ever, figures out 379 years after the death of Pharamond, 
 instead of 421 years. It is obvious that the error 
 
 (1} Holinshed "Chronicle." 
 
 (2) "King Henry V.", Act I., Scene '2. 
 
46 
 
 occurred in transposing figures : in setting the amounts 
 down to make the subtraction, i.e., the first figure of the- 
 805 and the two last figures of the 426 were set down,, 
 making 826 ; then the first figure of the 426 and the last 
 two figures of the 805 were set down, making 405 ; which 
 taken from the 826 would make 421, the number arrived 
 at, when, as a matter of fact, it should have been 379. 
 Moreover, they both call Hugh Capet's heir King Lewes 
 the tenth, whereas, he was, in fact, King Lewes the ninth. 
 If any evidence further than the similarity in language 
 is needed to show that Shakespeare copied the passage 
 from Holinshed conclusive proof is shown by the fact 
 that it is inconceivable that two authors could have made 
 the same errors in calculating the time above referred to. 
 Notwithstanding this fact that the author of " King 
 Henry the Fifth " copied his exposition of the Salic Law 
 from Holinshed and is in no manner entitled to credit 
 for the arguments therein, this is one of the often quoted 
 passages to prove Shakespeare's profound knowledge of 
 jurisprudence. It illustrates how prone the admirers of 
 his legal acquirements are to accept blindly everything in 
 his plays as emanating from his own brain, instead of 
 critically examining the sources from which he copied 
 his legal material. His literary critics have not been 
 guilty of quite such gross negligence, as they have fairly 
 well traced the sources of his plots and found them,, 
 likewise, largely borrowed. In passing on we might also- 
 note that 
 
 HOLINSHED SAYS : SHAKESPEARE SAYS : 
 
 "The Archbishop further "For in the book of Numbers 
 alleged out of the booke of is it writ, 
 
 numbers this saieing : when a When a man dies, let the in- 
 man dieth without a soune let heritance 
 
 the inheritance descend to his Descend unto the daughter." (2}> 
 daughter." (1) 
 
 (1) Holinshed Chronicle." (2) Shakespeare's " King Henry V.' 
 
47 
 
 to show that Shakespeare also appropriated from Holins* 
 hed his exposition of the Levitical Law, often quoted in 
 support of the theory of his biblical knowledge and legal 
 training. 
 
 Holinshed's and Hall's Chronicles are the source 
 from which Shakespeare obtained the plots and technical 
 legal language and situations in all his English historical 
 plays, paraphrasing the texts of these authors and often 
 literally copying their language, and especially their legal 
 terms, as the following shows : 
 
 SHAKESPEARE. 
 
 I am denied to sue my livery here, 
 And yet my letters-patents give me leave. 
 My father's goods are all distrain'd and sold ; 
 And these, and all, are all amiss employ 'd. 
 What would you have me do ? I am a subject 
 And challenge law : Attorneys are denied me ; 
 ' And therefore personally I lay my claim 
 * To my inheritance of free descent." (1) 
 
 It will be noted that Shakespeare copied Holinshed so 
 accurately in writing the foregoing, that he even repro- 
 duced Holinshed's double plurals in " letters-patents. '* 
 Other than this, there is nothing so striking as to call for 
 special comment, except the fact that Shakespeare, in 
 following Holinshed, used the legal term " distrained' 7 in a 
 fairly correct sense, in contradistinction to his incorrect 
 use of the word in 
 
 " Here's Beaufort, that regards nor God, nor King, 
 " Hath here distrain'd the Tower to his use." (2) 
 
 The definition of a distraint is " the act of taking 
 movable property out of the possession of a wrong-doer, 
 
 (1) Shakespeare's "King Richard II.," Act II., Scene 3. 
 
 (2) "King Henry VI.," part 1, Act I., Scene 3. 
 
48 
 
 to compel the performance of an obligation, or to procure 
 satisfaction for a wrong committed, like a distress for 
 tent." (1) 
 
 From this definition it will be seen that distrained is 
 not the proper legal term to use to convey the idea of 
 forcibly taking possession of the Tower and holding it, 
 which is the meaning evidently intended in this case. 
 I'his erroneous use of the term was doubtless original 
 with Shakespeare, while the correct use of the term was 
 copied from Holinshed. 
 
 It is pertinent to this topic to note that when law 
 terms are correctly used in their legal sense in 
 Shakespeare's plays, it can usually be shown that 
 he copied them substantially and often literally, from 
 Holinshed, Hall and other sources, and that when he 
 uses them erroneously or not in their legal sense, they 
 are not traceable to any other source than the poet's 
 imagination ; which is a potent argument, if not a positive 
 proof, that Shakespeare had no special appreciation of the 
 legal significance of many of the legal terms he made use 
 of in his plays, and that the plays could not have been 
 written by a member of the legal profession. He used the 
 term "dower" seventeen times in his works, but only 
 once is it used to denote what the word legally means 
 now, and then meant, and that is when he says : 
 
 ** I must confess your offset is the best: 
 
 " And, let your father make her the assurance, 
 
 *' She is your own ; else, you must pardon me, 
 
 " If you should die before him, where's her dower ?" (2) 
 
 (1) " Blackstone's Commentaries," 6. 
 
 (2) " The Taming of the Shrew," Act II., Scene 1. 
 
49 
 
 The definition of " dower " was in Shakespeare's day : 
 " The third part of all such freehold lands as her husband 
 held at the time of affiancing, and of which he was 
 seized in his demesne, is termed a woman's reasonable 
 dower." (1) Another authority of the time says : 
 
 " Dower was the woman's life interest in the lands of which 
 her husband died seized for her and her children's nutri- 
 ment and support." (2) 
 
 Other authorities (3) of the period give substantially 
 the same definition. In many instances Shakespeare used 
 the word " dower" where he should have used the word 
 " dowry " or " dos," which meant that which was given to 
 a female at her marriage usually by her father, but might 
 be given her by any one. Shakespeare seems to have had 
 no appreciation of the legal distinction between the two 
 terms. It is not necessary to quote the whole sixteen 
 instances where he has used the word " dower " in the 
 wrong legal sense. A few examples should suffice to 
 show his lack of appreciation of its legal significance. 
 
 " We have this hour a constant will to publish 
 ** Our daughters' several dowers, that future strife 
 *' May be prevented now." (4) 
 
 This was a gift by King Lear of his Kingdom, which he 
 divided among his three daughters, and was therefore 
 their several dowries and not their dowers as Shakespeare 
 erroneously expresses it. 
 
 ** Doubt not, but Heaven 
 
 " Hath brought me up to be your daughter's dower 
 " As it hath fated her to be my motive 
 " And helper to a husband." (5) 
 
 (1) 
 (2) 
 (3) 
 (4) 
 (5) 
 
 Glanville," Book VI., p. 113. 
 
 Littleton," Vol. II., p. 49. 
 
 Bracton," 
 
 King Lear," Act I., Scene 1. 
 
 All's Well that Ends Well," Act IV., Scene 4. 
 
50 
 
 Diana, the daughter, had no husband, dead or alive, 
 and, therefore, could have no dower rights in anything, 
 and least of all in Helena, Dowry should have been 
 used, for in a prior scene Helena says to Diana's 
 
 mother : 
 
 " After this, 
 
 " To marry her, I'll add three thousand crowns 
 " To what is past already." (1) 
 
 This clearly shows that Helena proposed to give Diana 
 a dowry at her marriage if she would consent to carry 
 out the conspiracy which Helena proposed, and, there- 
 fore, it could not be, by any stretch of imagination, 
 considered as a dower right, for in such use of the word 
 dower the effect would be equivalent to Helena being 
 metamorphosized into the life interest of Diana in the 
 lands of which her husband died seized which, of 
 course, would be a legal reductio ad absurdum Shake- 
 speare evidently intended that Helena should give Diana 
 a dowry, but did not understand the legal distinction 
 between the two terms, and used the wrong legal term 
 in this instance as in other cases throughout his works 
 where he uses the two words interchangeably without 
 reference to their legal significance. 
 
 The legal meaning of 'tnoiety is " one of two equa* 
 parts," (2) but Shakespeare frequently uses the word in 
 the loose sense of meaning some other part than one 
 half. 
 
 '* Methinks my moiety, north from Burton here, 
 " In quantity equals not one of yours." (3) 
 
 (1) ' All's Well that Ends Well," Act III., Scene 7. 
 
 (2) " Littleton Section," 291. 
 
 (3) " King Henry IV.," Part I., Act III., Scene 1. 
 
51 
 
 Here the division of the territory was to be in three 
 gparts, while 
 
 " On me, whose all not equals Edward's moiety," (1) 
 
 might mean one half, or any other undeterminable part 
 of the King. 
 
 In Slade's Case, (2) in the 44th year of Queen 
 Elizabeth, it was first decided that an action on the case 
 -would lie for debt, or for causes arising ex contractu as 
 -distinguished from causes arising ex delicto : yet nine 
 years before this right of action was known in England 
 .Shakespeare wrote : 
 
 11 1 do not know the matter ; he is 'rested on the case." (3) 
 
 In seeking the grounds for this arrest we find it in the 
 preceding scene, (4) and it appears to be an action for debt 
 arising ex contractu. Such an action was unknown in 
 English law at the time Shakespeare wrote this play in 
 1593, according to accepted authorities. (5) Moreover, 
 -from this scene, it appears that the arrest was made 
 without any original writ, or mesne process, by oral 
 instruction of the creditor to the officer : 
 
 1 ' Here is thy fee; arrest him officer." (6) 
 
 This could not be done without a capias ad respon- 
 dendem, which would be issued only on causes arising 
 <ex delicto, or causes arising out of a wrong or trespass, 
 and no such tort is even suggested by the scene. It would 
 not have been a difficult matter for Shakespeare to have 
 arranged the scene to conform to legal practice, and the 
 
 (1) "King Richard III.," Act I., Scene 2. 
 
 (2) 4 Rep. 83. 
 
 (3) " Comedy of Errors," Act IV., Scene 2. 
 
 (4) "Comedy of Errors," Act IV., Scene 1. 
 
 (5) Furness, Rolfe, Collier, &c. 
 
 ,(6) " Comedy of Errors," Act IV., Scene 1. 
 
52 
 
 fact that he did not do so, and committed such gross errors,, 
 shows his lack of knowledge of legal procedure. It does 
 not seem that this scene deserves all the eulogium of 
 commentators (1) who have cited it in attempting to show 
 Shakespeare's technical knowledge of the law, for it was 
 an everyday occurrence for debtors to be arrested ancl 
 confined in jail before judgment, unless bail was 
 furnished, and this procedure was not confined to the 
 knowledge of lawyers, but was quite well known to all 
 classes of average intelligence. 
 
 Commentators have tried to show that Shakespeare's 
 use of " common " and " several " proved his deep> 
 learning : 
 
 " My lips are no common, though several they be." (2) 
 
 and 
 
 "What's here? " (Reads) " 'Gainst the 
 
 " Duke of Suffolk for enclosing the commons of Melford." (3)< 
 
 In every community in England, under the feudal' 
 system, certain lands were set apart from that held indi- 
 vidually, for the common use of the peasants. The 
 encroachment of the Lord of the Manor on these commons- 
 and the disposition of the landlord to enclose them away 
 from common use and appropriate them as the private 
 property of the landlords, has, from feudal times down 
 almost to our present day, been a source of serious dis- 
 putes. The respective rights of the Lord of the Manor 
 and the tenants were, in the time of Shakespeare, quite 
 well known to the man of average intelligence, and 
 therefore required no technical knowledge of the law on 
 
 (1) Lord Campbell: " Shakespeare's Legal Acquirements," 46.. 
 
 (2) "Love's Labour's Lost,' Act II., Scene 1. 
 
 (3) "King Henry VI.," Part II., Act I., Scene 3. 
 
53 
 
 the subject to enable the author to make use of the 
 language he has given us on the subject of lands in 
 -common and severalty Besides 
 
 " My lips are no common, though several they be " (1) 
 
 is sheer nonsense, because if the lady's lips were held in 
 severalty they could not, as a matter of course, be held 
 .in common. Had Shakespeare used the word " but " 
 instead of " though " in the foregoing line, it would have 
 fulfilled equally well the dramatic and metrical require- 
 ments, and made the speech legally intelligible. More- 
 over, if we are to accept the identity of Shakespeare the 
 author with Shakespeare of Stratford-upon-Avon, it 
 .appears that the author had some personal experience 
 "with the enclosing of Welcombe Commons, in which he 
 seems to have especially interested himself. (2) Another 
 -example of that which seems highly technical : 
 "How now, a kiss in fee farm?" (3) 
 
 At the present time the term "fee farm " appears to 
 the layman very technical, notwithstanding that the 
 word " fee," when applied to right in lands, is now well 
 known to all classes. In Shakespeare's day the term 
 " fee farm " was quite well known to the person of aver- 
 age intelligence, because it was a very common way of 
 holding land. The definition of the term at the time the 
 -author makes use of it was as follows : 
 
 4 * Fee farm is when a tenant holds of his lord in fee simple, 
 paying to him the value of half of the one third, fourth, 
 or other part of the land by the year.'* (4) 
 
 (1) " Love's Labour's Lost," Act II., Scene 1. 
 
 (2) " Enclosing Welcombe Common." 
 
 (3) " Troilusand Cressida," Act III., Scene 2. 
 <4) "Les Termes de la Ley," p. 220. 
 
54 
 
 From this definition it will be seen that no special 
 technical knowledge of law was necessary to use th& 
 term, especially when so much land, especially in rural 
 districts, was held in this manner. But it requires some- 
 ingenuity to account for the use of the word in its legal 
 sense when applied to a kiss. Inasmuch as fee simple 
 signified a title in perpetuity, a kiss in fee farm would 
 necessarily mean a kiss in perpetuity, subject to certain* 
 annual payment by the tenant to his lord arising out of 
 the enjoyment of the fee. Modesty forbids us to pursue 
 the analysis of the meaning to its logical conclusion.. 
 Besides, it is not probable that Shakespeare ever intended 
 any ulterior significance in the use of the term. It is 
 more than likely that he confused the meanings of fee- 
 simple and fee farm. In any event, using the term as he 
 did shows that he had no appreciation of its technical 
 legal significance, even as well known as it then was to- 
 all classes. 
 
 Commentators are fond of citing Shakespeare's many 
 allusions to the legal word " indenture " to prove his 
 technical knowledge of law terms. It is true that he^ 
 sometimes uses the term in its technical legal sense, but 
 this can be accounted for without attributing to his use 
 of the word any technical knowledge of its legal 
 significance beyond that of any well informed man of 
 letters of his day. It was then a commonly used legal 
 document, as well known as an ordinary contract 
 is known to-day. In fact it was an ordinary written- 
 contract, essentially differing from a modern writteni 
 contract by having the same matter written twice or more- 
 on the same sheet leaving a space between each written, 
 matter, then each part was detached from the other by 
 
55 
 
 tearing or cutting, or indenting through the vacant space, 
 and a part given to each of the contracting parties. The 
 fact that the indented line of one matched that of another 
 was proof of the genuineness of the document, and this 
 indenting was then actually necessary to constitute 
 an indenture, and was a well-known document in 
 common use. While Shakespeare uses the word some- 
 times correctly, as we have said, sometimes he uses it in 
 such a way as to negative any argument in favour of his 
 having any special appreciation of its legal significance, 
 as the following will illustrate : 
 
 " For if a King bid a man be a villain, he's bound 
 " By the indenture of his oath to be one." (1) 
 
 An oath of allegiance to a sovereign was never in the 
 form of an indenture, and there was no oath attaching to 
 an indenture, so Shakespeare has here used the word 
 erroneously, unless we conclude that by indenture he 
 simply meant the zigzag stability of the oath in question, 
 but, in the latter interpretation the expression loses all 
 legal significance. 
 
 " *Tis semper idem, for absque hoc nihil est ; 
 
 11 'Tis all in very part." (2) 
 
 Shakespeare's use of absque hoc was probably not 
 intended to be used in any legal sense whatever. As it 
 is put into the mouth of a comedian, it was more likely 
 intended for nonsense. It is the only time Shakespeare 
 attempts to use the term. 
 
 He seems to have a very vague idea of jointure in his- 
 loose employment of the idea in 
 
 " Therefore our sometime sister, now our queen, 
 " The imperial jointress of this warlike state." (3) 
 
 (1) " Pericles, Prince of Tyre," Act I., Scene 3. 
 
 (2) " King Henry IV.," Part II., Act V., Scene 5. 
 
 (3) "Hamlet, Prince of Denmark," Act I., Scene 2. 
 
56 
 
 The legal definition of jointress, according to the 
 authority (1) of the day, was a woman whose husband 
 had settled a life estate upon her should she survive him, 
 as a means of barring her dower rights. As the Queen 
 could have t no dower rights in the Kingdom, the term 
 jointress is misused in a legal sense. Another legal 
 term which Shakespeare uses in a very loose legal sense 
 is " testament " : 
 
 " But there's a parchment, with the seal of Gsesar ; 
 
 " I found it in his closet ; 'tis his will ; 
 
 11 Let but the commons hear this testament." 
 
 ****** 
 
 " Here is the will, and under Caesar's seal. 
 
 *' To every Roman citizen he gives, 
 
 " To every several man, seventy-five drachmas." 
 
 ****** 
 
 14 Moreover, he hath left you all his walks, 
 " His private harbours, and new-planted orchards, 
 " On this side Tyber ; he hath left them you, 
 " And to your heirs for ever, common pleasures, 
 41 To walk abroad, and recreate yourselves." (2) 
 
 It may be interesting to note that wills, under the 
 Common Law of England, did not need to be under seal ; 
 while, under the Eoman Law in the time of Caesar six 
 seals were necessary in addition to that of Caesar, (3) 
 viz., five witnesses and the libripens, unless it were a 
 military will (or testament in procinctu) which had fallen 
 into disuse, (4) likewise the form of will recorded in the 
 Comitia Calata in any event neither of these forms was 
 required to be under seal. Moreover, Shakespeare does 
 not use the word " heirs " in a legal sense, for an heir 
 
 (1) " Les Termes de la Ley," p. 472. 
 
 (2) "Julius Caesar," Act III., Scene 2. 
 
 (3) "Gaius" (Poste), p. 216. 
 
 (4) H. J. Robey : "Roman Private Law in the time of Cicero," 
 
 p. 176 ; " Gaius " (Poste), p. 216. 
 
57 
 
 under the Eoman Law was a universal successor to the 
 entire property and personalty of the testator, (1) while, 
 under the Common Law of England, public bodies do 
 not, legally speaking, have heirs, but successors. It is, 
 therefore, an erroneous use of the term from a legal 
 point of view. 
 
 And again, according to authorities (2) on the subject 
 lands could not be given by testament ; it must be by 
 will ; only personal property could be given by testament ; 
 yet Shakespeare says : 
 
 " For all the temporal lands, which men devout 
 " By testament have given to the Church, 
 ' ' Would they strip from us. " (3 ) 
 
 This shows an extremely loose use of the term ; such use 
 that one with any knowledge of legal phraseology would 
 not have made. 
 
 " Mine eye and heart are at a mortal war, 
 
 1 ' How to divide the conquest of my sight ; 
 
 41 Mine eye, my heart, thy picture's sight would bar, 
 
 " Mine heart, mine eye, the freedom of that right. 
 
 " My heart doth plead that thou in him dost lie 
 
 *' (A closet never pierced by crystal eyes), 
 
 41 But the defendant doth that plea deny, 
 
 ** And says of him thy fair appearance lies. 
 
 " To 'cide this title is impannelled 
 
 " A quest of thoughts, all tenants to the heart ; 
 
 " And by their verdict is detirmined 
 
 14 The clear eye's moiety and the dear heart's part : 
 
 " And thus ; mine eye's due is thine outward part, 
 
 " And mine heart's right thine inward love of heart." (4) 
 
 This is in effect an action before a jury to try title to 
 a lady, with the gentleman's heart as plaintiff and his 
 
 (1) " Gaii Institutionum Juris Civilis Commentarii Quattnor " 
 
 (Poste), 215. 
 
 (2) "IV. Burns' Ecclesiastical Law," p. 44. 
 
 (3) "King Henry V.," Act I., Scene 1. 
 
 (4) Sonnets XL VI. 
 
58 
 
 eye as defendant. In this action, curiously enough, both- 
 plaintiff and the defendant claim not only an equitable- 
 title but also actual possession. Neither of the litigants- 
 complains of a disseisin. The plaintiffs declaration,, 
 which he calls a plea, claims that : 
 
 " My heart doth plead that thou in him dost lie." (1) 
 
 Thus claiming not only title, but possession as well. To 
 this the defendant answers, saying : 
 
 " But the defendant doth that plea deny." (1) 
 
 Thus entering a general denial of the plaintiff's declara- 
 tion, and then goes on : 
 
 " And says of him thy fair appearance lies." (1) 
 
 Thus claiming not only title, but possession as well in 
 himself. To decide this issue a jury is empanelled,, 
 being : 
 
 " A quest of thoughts, all tenants to the heart." (1) 
 
 Here we are treated to the extraordinary procedure of 
 drawing the jury from the tenants of the plaintiff, from 
 whom they derived their titles and with whom they 
 were all parties in interest. Needless to say that such a 
 procedure was a travesty on justice. However, the 
 jurymen seemed to have duly qualified, notwithstanding 
 their apparent bias, and rendered a verdict in the case,, 
 apportioning the lady between the litigants as follows : 
 "Mine eye's due is thine outward part" (1) 
 
 for the defendant and 
 
 "My heart's right thine inward love of heart" (1) 
 
 for the plaintiff ; being an award of exactly what each 
 claimed in the beginning. We are not told by 
 
 (1) Sonnets XLVI. 
 
59 
 
 Shakespeare if in this absurd trial the Court ordered" 
 each to pay his own bill of costs. 
 
 " Sir, for a quart d'eau he will sell the fee-simple 
 of his salvation, the inheritance of it, and cut the 
 entail from all remainders, and a perpetual succession 
 for it perpetually." (1) It is difficult to see where 
 any technical knowledge of the law would assist one 
 in solving Shakespeare's meaning of the above passage. 
 In fact, one writer has gone so far as to say that a 
 knowledge of law would be more of a hindrance than 
 a help. 
 
 The following passage has been cited (2) to show 
 Shakespeare's intimate knowledge of the law of real 
 property, and this commentator goes on to say that 
 Shakespeare exhibits a knowledge not generally 
 possessed, when he says : 
 
 * Of what quality was your love, then? 
 ' * Like a fair house built on another man's ground : 
 " So that I have lost my edifice by mistaking the place 
 "I erected it." (3) 
 
 This is a well-known principle of law, known to-day to 
 the average business man of intelligence, and was 
 likewise well known in Shakespeare's days ; therefore, 
 it required no great amount of legal knowledge to have 
 written this passage. However, commentators (4) have 
 seen great legal acumen in this passage, and one 
 authority cites the case of the First Parish in Sudbury 
 v. Jones (5) Jones in support of this view. This case, 
 
 (1) All's Well that Ends Well," Act IV., Scene 3. 
 
 (2) Lord Campbell : " Shakespeare's Legal Acquirements," 39.- 
 
 (3) " Merry Wives of Windsor," Act II., Scene 2. 
 
 (4) 26 Law Reporter, 2. 
 
 (5) 3 Cosh, 184. 
 
60 
 
 however, does not apply, for the reason that in this case 
 the question at issue was whether the First Parish in 
 Sudbury owned the land upon which had been built a 
 school house, or whether the Town of Sudbury owned 
 the land. The Court decided that the land belonged to 
 the First Parish, and, therefore the Town of Sudbury lost 
 the building which it had placed upon the land. 
 
 Much ingenuity has also been shown in commenting 
 on Shakespeare's apparent knowledge of Ecclesiastical 
 Law in the grave-digger's scene in Hamlet. But, when 
 we consider the source from which he derived the material 
 for this scene, it is apparent that no special technical 
 learning in the law was necessary to produce this scene. 
 It is based upon the case of Hales v. Petit, reported in 
 Plowden, and was a case which created a great deal of 
 comment at the time on account of the quibbles and fine 
 spun theories of the lawyers and the extraordinary 
 opinion of the Court, which was the subject of con- 
 siderable ridicule, and undoubtedly prompted Shakespeare 
 to write this scene. 
 
CONCLUSION. 
 
 Yet, notwithstanding all the bad law and inaccurate- 
 law terms which have been herein cited, commentators. 
 still persist that Shakespeare must have had a technical 
 legal education. One commentator, in charging a jury 
 trying bhe issue as to whether Shakespeare was ever a 
 clerk in an attorney's office, says : " I should hold that 
 there is evidence to go to the jury in support of t he- 
 affirmative, and I should tell the twelve gentlemen in the 
 box that it is a case entirely for their decision, without 
 venturing even to hint to them, for their guidance, any 
 opinion of my own," (1) and the same commentator 
 goes on to say, that " He (Shakespeare) is uniformly right 
 in his law and his use of legal phraseology, which no mere 
 quickness of intuition can account for." (2) And many 
 other commentators have made equally broad assertions 
 as to Shakespeare's technical knowledge of the law. 
 
 It has been attempted in the foregoing paper to show, 
 as far as opportunity would permit, Shakespeare's won- 
 derful versatility in various branches of knowledge. In 
 medicine and surgery, it was seen, he exhibited a marked 
 degree of erudition in this art and science ; in nautical 
 terms his works equally abound, and are used usually in 
 a very technical sense; in theology and, likewise, in 
 horticulture he appears to exhibit profound knowledge ; 
 but the subject in which we are particularly interested in 
 considering, from a technical point of view, is his use of 
 legal terms and phraseology, together with his interpre- 
 tation of these terms from a legal point of view. 
 
 (1) Lord Campbell: "Shakespeare's Legal Acquirements," 9. 
 
 (2) Lord Campbell : " Lives of the Chief Justices of England,"" 
 
 213 N. 2. 
 
62 
 
 From what has preceded, it will be observed that 
 Shakespeare sometimes uses law terms in their technical 
 legal sense, but more often does he use them without any 
 special reference to their legal significance. When he 
 does use legal terms in their proper sense, the source 
 from which he obtains them can usually be traced to 
 other authors, such as Holinshed's and Hall's 
 'Chronicles, Plutarch's Lives and other sources ; and 
 in the majority of cases where he uses such terms 
 erroneously, it is generally impossible to discover from 
 what source he received his material, and, therefore, it is 
 to be concluded that they were original with him, or that 
 he picked them up in a desultory way from personal 
 observation and contact with members of the legal pro- 
 fession. It is not surprising that a man of Shakespeare's 
 .genius for gathering and assimilating knowledge would 
 acquire a knowledge of the law sufficient for him to make 
 the inaccurate use of such terms as are found in his works 
 without any technical study of the subject. It seems 
 that we get a more reasonable and logical explanation 
 from the fact that he was a man of marvellous genius 
 and of minute observation of the affairs of life, with an 
 ability to assimilate its facts and conditions from a large 
 .acquaintance with men learned in all subjects with which 
 he deals, together with vast and diversified reading, than 
 to conclude, because we find a large amount of apparently 
 technical language in his work, that he had made a pro- 
 found and technical study of these subjects with which 
 he appears, at least on the surface, to be thoroughly 
 familiar. 
 
 Moreover, the sources from which he derived much 
 ^of his material is still a mooted question. It is 
 -certain that a number of plays with similar titles to some 
 
63 "" 
 : *' :. : :/:*':." *\ : :;. 
 
 of those used by Shakespeare-, existed : p**icft* tV-the c\3rh*- 
 position and production of his works, and it is quite 
 probable that, when he went to the Globe Theatre and 
 assumed its management and proceeded to write plays, 
 -that he found there a number of manuscripts, some of 
 which may have already been performed, and whose 
 titles have come down to us, but the manuscripts of 
 which have been either destroyed or have not come down 
 to us. It seems likely that Shakespeare may have got 
 much of his material from such a source, and that many 
 -of the inaccuracies in his plays may .have been simply 
 
 copied from these old manuscripts in the same manner 
 that has been heretofore pointed out with reference to 
 :his faithful copying of inaccuracies in the Salic Law which 
 .he found in Holinshed's Chronicles. 
 
 Another source from which Shakespeare probably 
 -derived a considerable amount of his legal knowledge 
 was through his faculty for absorbing all matters of 
 moment. Prior to the reign of Henry VIII. the greater 
 part of learning was confined to the keeping of the 
 monasteries, and when they were despoiled under the 
 reign of that monarch, their priests were scattered over 
 the length and breadth of the land, and many of them 
 naturally gravitated to the metropolis as the centre of 
 population. These monks being thrown upon their 
 own resources naturally tried to earn their own living, 
 and so turned to teaching and the diffusion of knowledge, 
 which, theretofore, had been kept within their own 
 possession. About the time Shakespeare is credited with 
 
 coming up to London, this diffusion of knowledge was at its 
 zenith, and many legal treatises were first published 
 among which may be mentioned Plowden's Commentaries 
 
 or Keports, Marwood's Forest Law in 1568, Compton's 
 
64 
 
 Office and Authority -of a- Justice of the Peace in 
 Eastall's Termes de la Lay in 1572, Eastall's Entries in 
 1596, Brooke's Abridgment of the Law in 1568,Poulton's 
 Abstract of Penal Statute in 1572, and about this time 
 Sir Edward Coke began to give his legal knowledge to the- 
 world. Naturally such an array of legal lore, together 
 with the vast number of students at the Inns of Court, 
 had its influence on a great brain like that of Shakespeare,, 
 and undoubtedly he did mix freely with lawyers and 
 students, thereby absorbing terms which was their 
 common parlance. We have seen that it is not only in 
 the subject of law, but in nearly all the other arts and 
 sciences, that Shakespeare is equally at home ; and he 
 himself, within his works, seems to have given us a 
 reasonable clue to the way in which he obtained the 
 knowledge and information which he discloses to us in 
 his works, when he wrote the following : 
 
 " Hear him but reason in divinity, 
 
 " And, all-admiring, with an inward wish 
 
 11 You would desire the King were made a prelate : 
 
 " Hear him debate of commonwealth affairs, 
 
 ' You would say it hath been all in all his study ; 
 
 " List his discourse of war, and you shall hear 
 
 " A fearful battle render'd you in music : 
 
 ** Turn him to any cause of policy, 
 
 " The Gordian knot of it he will unloose, 
 
 " Familiar as his garter : that, when he speaks, 
 
 " The air a charter 'd libertine, is still, 
 
 * And the mute wonder lurketh in men's ears, 
 
 * To seal his sweet and honey'd sentences ; 
 1 So that the art and practic part of life 
 
 * Must be the mistress to his theoric : 
 
 ' Which is a wonder how his grace should glean it, 
 
 * Since his addiction was to courses vain, 
 
 * His companions unletter'd, rude, and shallow, 
 
 * His hours fill'd up with riots, banquets, sports, 
 
 * And never noted in him any study, 
 
 * Any retirement, any sequestration 
 
 * From open haunts and popularity." (1) 
 
 (1) " King Henry V.," Act I., Scene 1. 
 

14 DAY USE 
 
 I RETURN TO DESK FROM WHICH BORROWED 
 
 LOAN DEPT. 
 
 This book is due on the last date stamped below, or 
 
 on the date to which renewed. 
 Renewed books are subject to immediate recall. 
 
 RENEWALS OINLY - 
 
 Tel. No. '642-3405 
 
 
 
 
 
 ICLF q 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 JUL31 1968 4 8 
 
 
 
 nrn O^L TP*UP 
 
 RECD UD 
 
 Str t-J W 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 LD 21A-45w-9,'67 
 (H5067slO)476B 
 
 General Library 
 
 University of California 
 
 Berkeley 
 
^^^^^^^^_ YB I 1 389 
 
 ^^^^f 
 
 ^^^^^^^^^^i 
 
 U.C.BERKELEY LIBRARIES 
 
 
 UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA