a legal example will be used or a situation at law described; and in their absence re mains the certainty that a legal phrase or a law term will be employed. Recognizing this trait of the mind, the works of Shakespeare should furnish indis putable proof of his presence in chambers, or his attendance at court, and this source of information seems to supply but meagre evi dence of more than a passing acquaintance with either. Does it appeal to one as probable or plausible that a man, whose early training and subsequent occupation was with court or counsel, should write thirty-seven dramas, not one of which is founded on a legal plot or story? Is it consistent with human nature or experience that a lawyer or even lawyer's clerk should produce scores of acts, without making one of them relate to the law? Does not reason and intelligence revolt at the idea that anyone, who had spent years among law books and papers, would present hundreds of scenes, almost to the complete exclusion of those with which he was most familiar? Credulity refuses to believe as the imagi nation fails to conceive that he who, with the power of inspiration, had canvassed every field of human endeavor for themes and scenes, would all but avoid the vocation which attracted his early talents and received his first attention. The more remarkable do these reflections become when we consider that the law is re plete with plots and stories that are dramatic; scenes and acts that are tragic; pictures and situations that both interest and instruct. From witness stand and prisoners' dock come recitals which the genius of Shake speare would have immortalized to stir the passions and excite the emotions of pos terity. A few volumes of reported cases passing through Shakespeare's brain would have resulted in a profusion of tragedies and comedies. Those who contend that Shakespeare was a lawyer seek to maintain their position by
calling attention to the many legal terms to be found in his writings. Terms which used in this day indicate research and training in the law. We should not, however, fall into the common error of judging a 1598 man by an 1898 standard. It must be remem bered that words which, to us, are mere tech nical survivals of a past era of jurisprudence were, in the sixteenth century, living and moving expressions of the bar. Then as now words denoting legal tran sactions of common occurrence were known to and employed by people of all vocations. The humblest citizen who had ever had oc casion to convey real estate was, doubtless, qualified to speak of " fines and recovery." The writ of praemunire was ever and again employed for the dual purpose of beggaring the suppressed church and benefiting a needy state. The conditions that had given birth to jointures still prevailed to render necessary such estates. So it is that the changes of three hundred years have assigned to the exclusive use of the lawyer many terms which the whole of educated England, in Shakespeare's time, possessed. Much care is, therefore, to be exercised lest, in failing to observe the change, we declare the party using such terms to have been a lawyer solely by rea son of his familiarity with them. . Not only did Shakespeare possess the in formation general among all classes and the added knowledge which his superior mind secured from such information, but he had peculiar and special facilities of acquiring legal intelligence. As a player and playwriter, he had on his hands much time not occupied with the active duties of his calling. In all likelihood, a portion of such time was spent as a spectator at the trial of cases at tracting public attention. Here he heard the language of the law which his wonderful intellect retained and afterwards found op portunity to employ. On the other hand, lawyers" are now and
