WHAT IS MAN? AND OTHER ESSAYS OF MARK TWAIN

continuous employment involves the element of time, and time was

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

In what portion of Shakespeare’s (i.e., Shakspere’s) career would

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

interposition of a legal employment in the chambers or offices of

practicing lawyers?”

Stratfordians, as is well known, casting about for some

possible explanation of Shakespeare’s extraordinary knowledge of

law, have made the suggestion that Shakespeare might,

conceivably, have been a clerk in an attorney’s office before he

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

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

as follows: “You require us to believe implicitly a fact, of

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

handwriting might have been forthcoming to establish it. Not

having been actually enrolled as an attorney, neither the records

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

Westminster would present his name as being concerned in any suit

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

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

after a very diligent search none such can be discovered.”

Upon this Lord Penzance commends: “It cannot be doubted

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

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

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

traces of his work and name.” There is not a single fact or

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

tradition, which supports this notion of a clerkship. And after

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

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

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

his having been clerk to an attorney has been “blown to pieces.”

It is altogether characteristic of Mr. Churton Collins that

he, nevertheless, adopts this exploded myth. “That Shakespeare

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

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

Record sitting every fortnight, with six attorneys, besides the

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

probability to suppose that the young Shakespeare may have had

employment in one of them. There is, it is true, no tradition to

this effect, but such traditions as we have about Shakespeare’s

occupation between the time of leaving school and going to London

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

them. It is, to say the least, more probable that he was in an

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

high style,’ and making speeches over them.”

This is a charming specimen of Stratfordian argument. There

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

butcher’s apprentice. John Dowdall, who made a tour of

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

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

accepted as true by Mr. Halliwell-Phillipps. (Vol. I, p. 11, and

Vol. II, pp. 71, 72.) Mr. Sidney Lee sees nothing improbable in

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

account some time before 1680, when his manuscript was completed.

Of the attorney’s clerk hypothesis, on the other hand, there is

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

of the fertile imaginations of embarrassed Stratfordians, seeking

for some explanation of the Stratford rustic’s marvelous

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

Churton Collins has not the least hesitation in throwing over the

tradition which has the warrant of antiquity and setting up in

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

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

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

negative evidence, since “no young man could have been at work in

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135

Leave a Reply 0

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *