The sun. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1833-1916, 1916-04-16
The trial sr.ne IN The MErchm Of Venice" which hs been TN huttle
ground Of mch of thu discussion uwr the ports legal knpv1.dpr.

ton by DR.. Karl Muller. published by
BrockhauS Of Leipsic. In this work all the
theories Of authorship we're discussed. and
incidentally the following dictum was given:
We cannot close our eyes to the fact that
history very decidedly negatives the idea
that William Shakespeare Of Stafford was
either "A lawyer. a physician, a courtier, Q
philosopher. an aristocrat or "A SOLDIER
In 1883 DIR. Morgan devoted a chapter Of
his Shakespeare in Fact and In Criticism"
New York. William Evarts BenjaInin) to
"A study Of the Law and Medicine In the
Plays The book itself Is dedicated to
Cushman *. Davis. who "has touched, to
adorn, the study Of Shakespeare never
theless we find Or. Morgan reviewing with
critical eye the conclusions OF Rushton.
Campbell and DAVIS and showing that by
purely legal tests the law Of the Merchant
Of Venice IL bad law.
This he does by imagining that the case
Of Shylock against Antonio had been once
appealed with success. and that on a sec
ond appeal by Antonio the court affirmed
the decision Of the lower court. completely
overruling Portia- This final opinion DR..
Morgan produces in the form OF a modern
decision as it would appear In a law report.
Passing then to the differences TO DO
drawn from the legal phenomena in Shake
speare he says. william Shakespeare was
certainly not a lawyer. either by profession
or practice" How then shall We account
for all the evidence In the plays? us not
the solution of the mystery after all" says
DIR. Morgan, "to be found in m
necessityc Portals law Is bad. because
bad law is more dramatic than good law
This might have been a good place TOT
the whole question to rest, but such was
not ito destiny. II was time FOR England
10 Renter the fray. and so there appeared
In 1897 n book by Edward James Castle.
X. G.. late Lieutenant Royal Engineers.
entitled shakespeare. Bacon. Jonson ana
Greene. A Study" NIondon. Low, Marston
G. Coz. in which a brand new theory 10
set forth.
Ne divided the plays into two distinct
classes. legal and n~on-legal. explaining 'he
prcsence of law In ono group and the ao-
sence,of il In the other by the assumption
that Shakespeare in writing the former had
the assistance OF a lawyer. probably Bacon
and wrote the second group unaided. THIS
new announcement gave occasion Tor an
other American ummary or the Whose
matter, an opportunity accepted In 1888 pS
william G.. Devecmon Of the Maryland bar.
whose book In Re Shakespeare's Lega!
ACHIEVEMENTS; Notes by an Cnoeiever
Therein" was issued by the Shakespeare
Society OF New York.
Thu text of his first chapter is that
Shakespeare was not necessarily n lawyer
because he used legal Technology, .h,t
since thisd deduction had so often been made
he devotes three chapters to showing show
Shakespeare has been made a lawyer" rum
ming over the list from Campbell to Castle.
whose effort he considers the most wonder
full Of all. He declares not only that Castle
has failed TO produce evidence that there
are two groups Of the plays but that the
conclusion would be n non seQuitur even
II the facts were admitted.
In his last chapter Mr., Devecmon at
tempts TO show that such legal knowledge
as Shakespeare possessed can be explained
by the fact that at Stratford. where his
father was High Bailiff, Shakespeare had
"been brought up as II were within the
four walls of a court house. with the liti-
gants. jurors and lawyers his daily COM
panions." Thus l believe | have shown
he concludes, Though In a very brief and
imperfect way. that Shakespeare had 10
knowledge Of the technic OF law and no
lust appreciation OF those fundamental
principles OF Justice which are the basis Of
all law"
At this period a grateful relief from con-
trovers!al writing was provided by Judge
Charles II. Phelps Of Baltimore, whose
"Falstaff and Equity (Boston. Houghton
Mifiin. 1901 Is one Of the most readable
and informing In the whole series. The
whole book OF POI pages is devoted to the
illumination Of one passage from the first,
part Of Henry w." where IalstdD says.
An che Prince and Poins he no, two arrant
towards, there's no equity stirring" He
shows that in all of the plays the word
equity is used only four times. and his
researches drive him to the conclusion that
the point in Fdlsta6's use Of the term has
uniformly been missed.