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.