Experts of unchallengeable authority have testified definitely as to only one of Shakespeare鈥檚 multifarious craft-equipments, so far as my recollections of Shakespeare-Bacon talk abide with me 鈥� his law-equipment. I do not remember that Wellington or Napoleon ever examined Shakespeare鈥檚 battles and sieges and strategies, and then decided and established for good and all that they were militarily flawless; I do not remember that any Nelson, or Drake, or Cook ever examined his seamanship and said it showed profound and accurate familiarity with that art; I don鈥檛 remember that any king or prince or duke has ever testified that Shakespeare was letter-perfect in his handling of royal court-manners and the talk and manners of aristocracies; I don鈥檛 remember that any illustrious Latinist or Grecian or Frenchman or Spaniard or Italian has proclaimed him a past-master in those languages; I don鈥檛 remember 鈥� well, I don鈥檛 remember that there is TESTIMONY鈥� great testimony 鈥� imposing testimony 鈥� unanswerable and unattackable testimony as to any of Shakespeare鈥檚 hundred specialties, except one 鈥� the law.

Many poets have died poor, but this is the only one in history that has died THIS poor; the others all left literary remains behind. Also a book. Maybe two.

But when a layman ventures to plunge deeply into legal subjects, he is naturally apt to make an exhibition of his incompetence. Let a non-professional man, however acute,鈥� writes Lord Campbell again, presume to talk law, or to draw illustrations from legal science in discussing other subjects, and he will speedily fall into laughable absurdity.鈥�

O dear, how long ago it was 鈥� how pathetically long ago! And here am I, old, forsaken, forlorn, and alone, arranging to get that argument out of somebody again.