[Wōdnes-dæg] If the Bard's a Barrister, What's in it for his Audience?

Introduction
Shakespeare's Education
Elizabethan Litigiousness
Playgoers Themselves
Closing
References

{The Sander's Portrait. Image from an article hosted on the University of Guelph website.}

Introduction

A recent article from newswise points to some research being done at the University of Mississippi by one Professor Gregory Heyworth. Professor Heyworth's query: Was Shakespeare an Attorney?

Professor Heyworth bases his question on a comparison of a known signature of the Bard's with one found on the "Archaionomia," a famed Elizabethan collection of Anglo-Saxon laws. Using the newest in digital imaging technology, Professor Heyworth and three graduate students were able to impose the signature in question on one that's certified to be genuine. However, the article never really gives a conclusion to the story since the research appears to be ongoing.

In any case, that's one detailed look at old ink.

But it does raise the intriguing question of whether or not Shakespeare was a lawyer. It's intriguing because so little is known about his life between his time at grammar school and his fame as a playwright. If Shakespeare was a lawyer of whatever stripe it could also nicely relate to the abundance of legal references in Shakespeare's plays.

However, it doesn't have to be that simple. Even Professor Heyworth and his team admit that it might not be the signature of the famous playwright William Shakespeare that they're superimposing over the Bard's authentic mark. "There were multiple people with that name" at the time," Professor Heyworth noted.¹

Even if it does, someday, turn out to be the Bard's signature and it comes to light that he indeed was an attorney before he became famous as a playwright, there's the question of his education.

Back To Top
Shakespeare's Education

If the records we have for his birth are accurate, he started life shortly before April 26, 1564.² However, rather than going onto university at the the age of 14 (as was standard at the time), he was pulled from the system. For his father had gone too far into debt, and had lost his social standing in Stratford,³ due in part to charging too much interest on a loan and, possibly, due to his being a Catholic.

Although Shakespeare becomes hard to track after leaving the school system, it's fair to say that if he had gone to university and studied law there would be some record of (or from) his doing so.

A lack of such a record could be chalked up to a loss of these documents in a fire or a theft, but that's an event that wouldn't have been forgotten or left out of history books.

On the other hand, perhaps Shakespeare's education in grammar school and contemporary London was enough to land him a position as a document reviewer of sorts. Someone who didn't study law to practice it, but who was well enough aware of the way language worked to be a legal copy-editor. That kind of exposure to legal material would definitely brand it into your memory and then you'd be able to pull it out for plays and cocktail parties with ease.

Such a proposition might not be as wild as you think, since, much like modern America, the people of Elizabethan London were often suing each other.

Back To Top
Elizabethan Litigiousness

A lot of their litigiousness had to do with accusations of business malpractice, family relations (usually in-laws and step-children), or with interest and loans. This last one was hotly debated at the time because orthodox Christian belief bans interest, whereas economic theory and practice had no problem with it. Loans with interest helped keep people from being cheated, though charging 'too much' interest was regarded in the same light.

Further, from what's left in documents of the time (diaries, plays, treatises), it seems that the law was not just the exclusive concern of a group of highly trained individuals. These individuals definitely would have an incredible depth of legal knowledge, but the common man or woman might also have a considerable amount of legal know-how when it came to inheritance or the maximum interest rate. Not only were they litigious, but the common people of Elizabethan England did consist of a trading class, and this trading class would've had to have dealt with the law in some way or other.

Back To Top
Playgoers Themselves

Now, if Shakespeare's plays are packed with legal terms and references, why didn't these discourage or disinterest playgoers? If the playgoers of Shakespeare's day just wanted bawdy comedy or gory spectacle, why bother going to see the latest play by the guy who puts all of that the legal jargon on the stage? Either people were interested in such things for some now lost reason, or these references resonated or intrigued because of some level of familiarity.

The fact that Elizabethans weren't shy about bringing each other to court suggests just such a general familiarity.

Back To Top
Closing

So, the question "what were playgoers getting out of these legal references, if anything?" needs to be added to the question of the Bard's being a barrister. Maybe these nods to the law and its terminology was a bit of a thrill because playgoers were familiar with them. Maybe they worked because such references offered special insight into a society that seemed alien and closed off to them (that of a legal specialist, who knew the law's theory as well as practice).

Feel free to add your thoughts in the comments.

And, on Friday, check back here for an attempt to redeem the megaflop Gigli.

Back To Top
References

1. "Was the Bard a Barrister? Signature Analysis May Offer Clues." Newswise, 23 March 2012.

2. "William Shakespeare." Wikipedia. 23 March 2012.

3. "Elizabethan Education." William Shakespeare Biography. 28 March 2012.

Back To Top