The litigious society of… Shakespeare

[Some non-native readers of this column have complained about its being written only in Dutch. Exceptionally, with linguistic assistance from Peter Morris, I therefore turn to English this month. That language is quite appropriate, because my theme this time is the litigious society... in the times of William Shakespeare].

We usually think along the lines of a growing inclination of man/womankind to turn to the courts for the settlement of their disputes. But is this true? Did citizens in, say, the 16th century refrain from addressing the courts? The thought that this is not necessarily the case may occur when one reads Peter Ackroyd’s Shakespeare, The Biography (London: Chatto & Windus, 2005, 547 p.; all further references are to this book). That Shakespeare must have had a certain familiarity with the law is quite obvious from some of his famous lines, such as Shylock’s claim of a pound of flesh out of Bassanio’s body in The Merchant of Venice. What is perhaps less known is that this knowledge rested on personal experience with the law. Not with the law on copyright or libel, as a modern writer would have – because no such laws existed at the time (p. 223 – sedition and slander were another matter, p. 307). Rather, it was down to earth problems which compelled Shakespeare to make use of the courts.

This he may have learnt as a legal trainee (p. 80-81), but also from his father, John Shakespeare, who was a Justice of the Peace (p. 25) and also had his own experience with the law. In the late summer of 1588, for instance, John Shakespeare filed a bill of complaint with the Queen’s Bench at Westminster to regain possession of a house from a relative. The case was dropped but was subsequently revived in 1598. Shakespeare’s father was sued for £ 10 by a Stratford neighbour, then arrested, released and re-arrested, before once again addressing the Queen’s Bench (p. 173). And his Uncle Henry was fined for assaulting one of his close relations, for various agricultural misdemeanours and jailed for debt and trespass, as well as being excommunicated from the church for failing to pay his tithes (p. 25).

As for Shakespeare himself, he sued a Stratford neighbour for debt in the borough court (p. 445). When the sum was not forthcoming, Shakespeare sued the debtor’s surety (The Merchant of Venice!). In 1612, Shakespeare had to testify in a case where a husband, Stephen Belott, claimed the dowry that he had been promised upon marrying Mary Mountjoy. Shakespeare had played a role in arranging the marriage. The case ambled on and was finally referred to arbitration – which apparently is not as modern as some arbitrators would make us believe (p. 462-464).

All this provided Shakespeare with an ample knowledge of the law. In some of his plays, Shakespeare includes references and allusions that were understood only by the students of the law (p. 233). This is nothing new of course. Indeed, some universities offer courses such as ‘See you in court: Shakespeare goes to law’ (University of Sheffield). Shakespeare’s familiarity with the law is apparent from Sokal and Sokal’s Shakespeare’s legal language: a dictionary, which fills more than 400 pages with a detailed discussion of Shakespeare’s legal terms and notions.

Deze column is eerder verschenen in Ars Aequi april 2008