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　attraction　which　the　law　evidently
  had　for　him；　and　his　minute　and　undeviating　accuracy　in　a　subject
  where　no　layman　who　has　indulged　in　such　copious　and　ostentatious
  display　of　legal　technicalities　has　ever　yet　succeeded　in　keeping
  himself　from　tripping。〃
  A　lame　conclusion。　　〃No　other　supposition〃　indeed！　Yes；
  there　is　another；　and　a　very　obvious　suppositionnamely；　that
  Shakespeare　was　himself　a　lawyer；　well　versed　in　his　trade；
  versed　in　all　the　ways　of　the　courts；　and　living　in　close
  intimacy　with　judges　and　members　of　the　Inns　of　Court。
  One　is；　of　course；　thankful　that　Mr。　Collins　has　appreciated
  the　fact　that　Shakespeare　must　have　had　a　sound　legal　training；
  but　I　may　be　forgiven　if　I　do　not　attach　quite　so　much　importance
  to　his　pronouncements　on　this　branch　of　the　subject　as　to　those
  of　Malone；　Lord　Campbell；　Judge　Holmes；　Mr。　Castle；　K。C。；　Lord
  Penzance；　Mr。　Grant　White；　and　other　lawyers；　who　have　expressed
  their　opinion　on　the　matter　of　Shakespeare's　le