is shakespeare dead-第9节

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


　will；　to　say　nothing　of　other　legal　papers；　dated　during　the　period　of　William　Shakespeare's　youth；　has　been　scrutinized　over　half　a　dozen　shires；　and　not　one　signature　of　the　young　man　has　been　found。〃

Moreover；　if　Shakespeare　had　served　as　clerk　in　an　attorney's　office　it　is　clear　that　he　must　have　so　served　for　a　considerable　period　in　order　to　have　gained　（if　indeed　it　is　credible　that　he　could　have　so　gained）　his　remarkable　knowledge　of　law。　　Can　we　then　for　a　moment　believe　that；　if　this　had　been　so；　tradition　would　have　been　absolutely　silent　on　the　matter？　　That　Dowdall's　old　clerk；　over　eighty　years　of　age；　should　have　never　heard　of　it　（though　he　was　sure　enough　about　the　butcher's　apprentice）；　and　that　all　the　other　ancient　witnesses　should　be　in　similar　ignorance！

But　such　are　the　methods　of　Stratfordian　controversy。　　Tradition　is　to　be　scouted　when　it　is　found　inconvenient；　but　cited　as　irrefragable　truth　when　it　suits　the　case。　　Shakespeare　of　Stratford　was　the　author　of　the　Plays　and　Poems；　but　the　author　of　the　Plays　and　Poems　could　not　have　been　a　butcher's　apprentice。　Away；　therefore；　with　tradition。　　But　the　author　of　the　Plays　and　Poems　must　have　had　a　very　large　and　a　very　accurate　knowledge　of　the　law。　　Therefore；　Shakespeare　of　Stratford　must　have　been　an　attorney's　clerk！　　The　method　is　simplicity　itself。　　By　similar　reasoning　Shakespeare　has　been　made　a　country　schoolmaster；　a　soldier；　a　physician；　a　printer；　and　a　good　many　other　things　beside；　according　to　the　inclination　and　the　exigencies　of　the　commentator。　　It　would　not　be　in　the　least　surprising　to　find　that　he　was　studying　Latin　as　a　schoolmaster　and　law　in　an　attorney's　office　at　the　same　time。

However；　we　must　do　Mr。　Collins　the　justice　of　saying　that　he　has　fully　recognized；　what　is　indeed　tolerably　obvious；　that　Shakespeare　must　have　had　a　sound　legal　training。　　〃It　may；　of　course；　be　urged；〃　he　writes；　〃that　Shakespeare's　knowledge　of　medicine；　and　particularly　that　branch　of　it　which　related　to　morbid　psychology；　is　equally　remarkable；　and　that　no　one　has　ever　contended　that　he　was　a　physician。　　（Here　Mr。　Collins　is　wrong；　that　contention　also　has　been　put　forward。）　　It　may　be　urged　that　his　acquaintance　with　the　technicalities　of　other　crafts　and　callings；　notably　of　marine　and　military　affairs；　was　also　extraordinary；　and　yet　no　one　has　suspected　him　of　being　a　sailor　or　a　soldier。　　（Wrong　again。　　Why　even　Messrs。　Garnett　and　Gosse　'suspect'　that　he　was　a　soldier！）　　This　may　be　conceded；　but　the　concession　hardly　furnishes　an　analogy。　　To　these　and　all　other　subjects　he　recurs　occasionally；　and　in　season；　but　with　reminiscences　of　the　law　his　memory；　as　is　abundantly　clear；　was　simply　saturated。　　In　season　and　out　of　season　now　in　manifest；　now　in　recondite　application；　he　presses　it　into　the　service　of　expression　and　illustration。　　At　least　a　third　of　his　myriad　metaphors　are　derived　from　it。　　It　would　indeed　be　difficult　to　find　a　single　act　in　any　of　his　dramas；　nay；　in　some　of　them；　a　single　scene；　the　diction　and　imagery　of　which　is　not　colored　by　it。　　Much　of　his　law　may　have　been　acquired　from　three　books　easily　accessible　to　him；　namely　Tottell's　Precedents　（1572）；　Pulton's　Statutes　（1578）；　and　Fraunce's　Lawier's　Logike　（1588）；　works　with　which　he　certainly　seems　to　have　been　familiar；　but　much　of　it　could　only　have　come　from　one　who　had　an　intimate　acquaintance　with　legal　proceedings。　　We　quite　agree　with　Mr。　Castle　that　Shakespeare's　legal　knowledge　is　not　what　could　have　been　picked　up　in　an　attorney's　office；　but　could　only　have　been　learned　by　an　actual　attendance　at　the　Courts；　at　a　Pleader's　Chambers；　and　on　circuit；　or　by　associating　intimately　with　members　of　the　Bench　and　Bar。〃

This　is　excellent。　　But　what　is　Mr。　Collins'　explanation。　　〃Perhaps　the　simplest　solution　of　the　problem　is　to　accept　the　hypothesis　that　in　early　life　he　was　in　an　attorney's　office　（！）；　that　he　there　contracted　a　love　for　the　law　which　never　left　him；　that　as　a　young　man　in　London；　he　continued　to　study　or　dabble　in　it　for　his　amusement；　to　stroll　in　leisure　hours　into　the　Courts；　and　to　frequent　the　society　of　lawyers。　　On　no　other　supposition　is　it　possible　to　explain　the　attraction　which　the　law　evidently　had　for　him；　and　his　minute　and　undeviating　accuracy　in　a　subject　where　no　layman　who　has　indulged　in　such　copious　and　ostentatious　display　of　legal　technicalities　has　ever　yet　succeeded　in　keeping　himself　from　tripping。〃

A　lame　conclusion。　　〃No　other　supposition〃　indeed！　　Yes；　there　is　another；　and　a　very　obvious　supposition；　namely；　that　Shakespeare　was　himself　a　lawyer；　well　versed　in　his　trade；　versed　in　all　the　ways　of　the　courts；　and　living　in　close　intimacy　with　judges　and　members　of　the　Inns　of　Court。

One　is；　of　course；　thankful　that　Mr。　Collins　has　appreciated　the　fact　that　Shakespeare　must　have　had　a　sound　legal　training；　but　I　may　be　forgiven　if　I　do　not　attach　quite　so　much　importance　to　his　pronouncements　on　this　branch　of　the　subject　as　to　those　of　Malone；　Lord　Campbell；　Judge　Holmes；　Mr。　Castle；　K。C。；　Lord　Penzance；　Mr。　Grant　White；　and　other　lawyers；　who　have　expressed　their　opinion　on　the　matter　of　Shakespeare's　legal　acquirements。

Here　it　may；　perhaps；　be　worth　while　to　quote　again　from　Lord　Penzance's　book　as　to　the　suggestion　that　Shakespeare　had　somehow　or　other　managed　〃to　acquire　a　perfect　familiarity　with　legal　principles；　and　an　accurate　and　ready　use　of　the　technical　terms　and　phrases；　not　only　of　the　conveyancer's　office；　but　of　the　pleader's　chambers　and　the　courts　at　Westminster。〃　　This；　as　Lord　Penzance　points　out；　〃would　require　nothing　short　of　employment　in　some　career　involving　CONSTANT　CONTACT　with　legal　questions　and　general　legal　work。〃　　But　〃in　what　portion　of　Shakespeare's　career　would　it　be　possible　to　point　out　that　time　could　be　found　for　the　interposition　of　a　legal　employment　in　the　chambers　or　offices　of　practising　lawyers？　。　。　。　It　is　beyond　doubt　that　at　an　early　period　he　was　called　upon　to　abandon　his　attendance　at　school　and　assist　his　father；　and　was　soon　after；　at　the　age　of　sixteen；　bound　apprentice　to　a　trade。　　While　under　the　obligation　of　this　bond　he　could　not　have　pursued　any　other　employment。　　Then　he　leaves　Stratford　and　comes　to　London。　　He　has　to　provide　himself　with　the　means　of　a　livelihood；　and　this　he　did　in　some　capacity　at　the　theatre。　　No　one　doubts　that。　　The　holding　of　horses　is　scouted　by　many；　and　perhaps　with　justice；　as　being　unlikely　and　certainly　unproved；　but　whatever　the　nature　of　his　employment　was　at　the　theatre；　there　is　hardly　room　for　the　belief　that　it　could　have　been　other　than　continuous；　for　his　progress　there　was　so　rapid。　Ere　long　he　had　been　taken　into　the　company　as　an　actor；　and　was　soon　spoken　of　as　a　'Johannes　Factotum。'　　His　rapid　accumulation　of　wealth　speaks　volumes　for　the　constancy　and　activity　of　his　services。　　One　fails　to　see　when　there　could　be　a　break　in　the　current　of　his　life　at　this　period　of　it；　giving　room　or　opportunity　for　legal　or　indeed　any　other　employment。　　'In　1589；'　says　Knight；　'we　have　undeniable　evidence　that　he　had　not　only　a　casual　engagement；　was　not　only　a　salaried　servant；　as　many　players　were；　but　was　a　shareholder　in　the　company　of　the　Queen's　players　with　other　shareholders　below　him　on　the　list。'　　This　（1589）　would　be　within　two　years　after　his　arrival　in　London；　which　is　placed　by　White　and　Halliwell…Phillipps　about　the　year　1587。　　The　difficulty　in　supposing　that；　starting　with　a　state　of　ignorance　in　1587；　when　he　is　supposed　to　have　come　to　London；　he　was　induced　to　enter　upon　a　course　of　most　extended　study　and　mental　culture；　is　almost　insuperable。　　Still　it　was　physically　possible；　provided　always　that　he　could　have　had　access　to　the　needful　books。　　But　this　legal　training　seems　to　me　to　stand　on　a　different　footing。　　It　is　not　only　unaccountable　and　incredible；　but　it　is　actually　negatived　by　the　known　facts　of　his　career。〃　　Lord　Penzance　then　refers　to　the　fact　that　〃by　1592　（according　to　the　best　authority；　Mr。　Grant　White）　several　of　the　plays　had　been　written。　　The　Comedy　of　Errors　in　1589；　Love's　Labour's　Lost　in　1589；　Two　Gentlemen　of　Verona　in　1589　or　1590；　and　so　forth；　and　then　asks；　〃with　this　catalogue　of　dramatic　work　on　hand　。　。　。　was　it　possible　that　he　could　have　taken　a　leading　part　in　the　management　and　conduct　of　two　theatres；　and　if　Mr。　Phillipps　is　to　be　relied　upon；　taken　his　share　in　the　performances　of　the　provincial　tours　of　his　companyand　at　the　same　time　devoted　himself　to　the　study　of　the　law　in　all　its　branches　so　efficiently　as　to　make　himself　complete　master　of　its　principles　and　practice；　and　saturate　his　mind　with　all　its　most　technical　terms？〃

I　have　cited　this　passage　from　Lord　Penzance's　book；　because　it　lay　before　me；　and　I　had　already　quoted　from　it　on　the　matter　of　Shakespeare's　legal　knowledge；　but　other　writers　have　still　better　set　forth　the　insuperable　difficulties；　as　they　seem　to　me；　which　beset　the　idea　that　Shakespeare　might　have　found　time　in　some　unknown　period　of　early　life；　amid　multifarious　other　occupations；　for　the　study　of　classics；　literature　and　law；　to　say　nothing　of　languages　and　a　few　other　matters。　　Lord　Penzance　further　asks　his　re