16-is shakespeare dead-第10章

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



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

handwriting　might　have　been　forthcoming　to　establish　it。　　Not

having　been　actually　enrolled　as　an　attorney；　neither　the　records

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

Westminster　would　present　his　name　as　being　concerned　in　any　suit

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

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

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



Upon　this　Lord　Penzance　commends：　　〃It　cannot　be　doubted

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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



It　is　altogether　characteristic　of　Mr。　Churton　Collins　that

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

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

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

Record　sitting　every　fortnight；　with　six　attorneys；　besides　the

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

probability　to　suppose　that　the　young　Shakespeare　may　have　had

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

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

occupation　between　the　time　of　leaving　school　and　going　to　London

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

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

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

high　style；'　and　making　speeches　over　them。〃



This　is　a　charming　specimen　of　Stratfordian　argument。　　There

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

of　the　fertile　imaginations　of　embarrassed　Stratfordians；　seeking

for　some　explanation　of　the　Stratford　rustic's　marvelous

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

Churton　Collins　has　not　the　least　hesitation　in　throwing　over　the

tradition　which　has　the　warrant　of　antiquity　and　setting　up　in

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

signature　of　the　young　man　has　been　found。〃



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

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

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

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

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

tradition　would　have　been　absolutely　silent　on　the　matter？　

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

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

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

ancient　witnesses　should　be　in　similar　ignorance！



But　such　are　the　methods　of　Stratfordian　controversy。

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

cited　as　irrefragable　truth　when　it　suits　the　case。　　Shakespeare

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

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

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

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

accurate　knowledge　of　the　law。　　Therefore；　Shakespeare　of

Stratford　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　besides；　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　tolerable　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　are　not　colored　by　it。　　Much　of　his　law　may　have　been

acquired　from　three　books　easily　accessible　to　himnamely；

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's　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　attractio