Article #70-1 | Gutenberg Articles

Excerpt

Excerpt from What Is Man? and Other Essays, by Mark Twain

[5] From Chapter XIII of The Shakespeare Problem Restated. By George
G. Greenwood, M.P. John Lane Company, publishers.

The Plays and Poems of Shakespeare supply ample evidence that their
author not only had a very extensive and accurate knowledge of law, but
that he was well acquainted with the manners and customs of members of
the Inns of Court and with legal life generally.

“While novelists and dramatists are constantly making mistakes as to
the laws of marriage, of wills, and inheritance, to Shakespeare’s law,
lavishly as he expounds it, there can neither be demurrer, nor bill of
exceptions, nor writ of error.” Such was the testimony borne by one of
the most distinguished lawyers of the nineteenth century who was raised
to the high office of Lord Chief Justice in 1850, and subsequently
became Lord Chancellor. Its weight will, doubtless, be more appreciated
by lawyers than by laymen, for only lawyers know how impossible it is
for those who have not served an apprenticeship to the law to avoid
displaying their ignorance if they venture to employ legal terms and to
discuss legal doctrines. “There is nothing so dangerous,” wrote Lord
Campbell, “as for one not of the craft to tamper with our freemasonry.”
A layman is certain to betray himself by using some expression which a
lawyer would never employ. Mr. Sidney Lee himself supplies us with an
example of this. He writes (p. 164): “On February 15, 1609,
Shakespeare... obtained judgment from a jury against Addenbroke for the
payment of No. 6, and No. 1, 5s. 0d. costs.” Now a lawyer would never
have spoken of obtaining “judgment from a jury,” for it is the function
of a jury not to deliver judgment (which is the prerogative of the
court), but to find a verdict on the facts. The error is, indeed, a
venial one, but it is just one of those little things which at once
enable a lawyer to know if the writer is a layman or “one of the
craft.”

Explanation

**Detailed Explanation of the Excerpt from What Is Man? and Other Essays by Mark Twain**

This passage is taken from Mark Twain’s What Is Man? and Other Essays (1906), specifically from "The Shakespeare Problem Restated," which is actually a satirical critique of George G. Greenwood’s arguments in The Shakespeare Problem Restated (1908). Greenwood was a British lawyer and Member of Parliament who contributed to the Shakespeare authorship debate, arguing that William Shakespeare of Stratford-upon-Avon could not have written the plays and poems attributed to him due to his lack of formal education and legal expertise. Instead, Greenwood (like many anti-Stratfordians) suggested that the real author was someone with legal training, possibly Francis Bacon or Edward de Vere, Earl of Oxford.

Twain, who was himself a skeptic of Shakespeare’s authorship, includes this excerpt to mock the legalistic arguments used against Shakespeare while also highlighting the absurdity of the debate. The passage is ironic because Twain is quoting Greenwood’s legal argument—which claims that Shakespeare’s works display too much legal knowledge for a commoner—to undermine the traditional view of Shakespeare’s authorship.

Breakdown of the Excerpt

1. The Claim: Shakespeare’s Legal Knowledge

The passage begins by asserting that Shakespeare’s plays and poems demonstrate:

"Extensive and accurate knowledge of law"
Familiarity with the "manners and customs of members of the Inns of Court" (the legal training institutions in England)
Deep understanding of "legal life generally"

This is a key anti-Stratfordian argument: How could a glove-maker’s son with no formal legal education write works that correctly depict complex legal procedures?

2. The Legal Authority’s Testimony

The excerpt cites an unnamed 19th-century Lord Chief Justice (later Lord Chancellor) who claims:

"While novelists and dramatists are constantly making mistakes as to the laws of marriage, of wills, and inheritance, to Shakespeare’s law, lavishly as he expounds it, there can neither be demurrer, nor bill of exceptions, nor writ of error."

Demurrer: A legal objection that admits the facts but disputes their sufficiency.
Bill of exceptions: A formal record of objections to a judge’s rulings.
Writ of error: An appeal to a higher court to review a legal error.

The judge’s point: Shakespeare’s legal references are flawless, unlike those of other writers who botch legal details. This suggests that the author must have been legally trained.

3. The Layman’s Ignorance (with Sidney Lee as an Example)

The passage then contrasts Shakespeare’s legal precision with the errors made by non-lawyers, using Sidney Lee (a prominent Shakespeare biographer) as an example:

"Mr. Sidney Lee himself supplies us with an example of this. He writes (p. 164): 'On February 15, 1609, Shakespeare... obtained judgment from a jury against Addenbroke for the payment of £6, and £1, 5s. 0d. costs.' Now a lawyer would never have spoken of obtaining 'judgment from a jury,' for it is the function of a jury not to deliver judgment (which is the prerogative of the court), but to find a verdict on the facts."

Lee’s mistake: He says Shakespeare got a "judgment from a jury", but legally, a jury gives a verdict, while the judge delivers judgment.
Implication: Even a respected Shakespeare scholar makes legal errors, proving that only a trained lawyer could write with Shakespeare’s accuracy.

4. The Freemasonry of Law (Lord Campbell’s Warning)

The passage quotes Lord Campbell (a 19th-century Lord Chancellor):

"There is nothing so dangerous as for one not of the craft to tamper with our freemasonry."

"Freemasonry" metaphor: Law is a closed, esoteric profession—outsiders who try to write about it inevitably expose their ignorance.
Conclusion: Since Shakespeare’s works never make legal mistakes, the author must have been a lawyer or legally trained.

Literary Devices & Rhetorical Strategies

Appeal to Authority (Ethos)
- The argument relies on high-ranking legal experts (Lord Chief Justice, Lord Chancellor) to lend credibility.
- The condescending tone toward laymen (like Sidney Lee) reinforces the idea that only lawyers can judge legal accuracy.
Irony & Satire
- Twain is quoting Greenwood’s argument, but his inclusion of it in What Is Man? is mocking the over-reliance on legal technicalities in the authorship debate.
- The pedantic focus on minor errors (like Lee’s "judgment from a jury") is ridiculous—yet this is the kind of reasoning used to discredit Shakespeare.
Metaphor ("Freemasonry")
- Law is compared to a secret society, implying that outsiders cannot fake expertise.
- This exclusivity argument is used to suggest that Shakespeare’s author must have been an insider.
Contrast (Shakespeare vs. Other Writers)
- Other dramatists make legal mistakes, but Shakespeare never does—implying superior (or insider) knowledge.

Themes & Significance

The Shakespeare Authorship Question
- The passage is part of the long-standing debate over whether William Shakespeare of Stratford wrote the plays.
- Anti-Stratfordians (like Greenwood) argue that the real author must have been nobility or a lawyer (e.g., Bacon, Oxford).
- Twain, though skeptical, mocks the extremes of this debate by highlighting how legal nitpicking is used to discredit Shakespeare.
Class & Education in Elizabethan England
- The argument reflects classist assumptions: A commoner couldn’t possibly have legal or aristocratic knowledge.
- This ignores the possibility of autodidactic learning or collaboration.
The Danger of Over-Analysis
- The passage shows how hyper-focus on technical details (like legal terms) can distort literary appreciation.
- Twain’s inclusion of this satirizes the pedantry of Shakespeare scholars.
The Mystique of Genius
- The argument assumes that genius must come from formal training, ignoring the possibility of natural talent or observation.
- Shakespeare’s works transcend his supposed background, which is why the debate persists.

Why This Matters in Twain’s Essay

Twain was fascinated by the Shakespeare authorship question and wrote extensively about it. In What Is Man?, he questions human nature, identity, and perception—and the Shakespeare debate fits into this theme by asking:

Can a man’s work outshine his documented life?
Does genius require formal education, or can it emerge from nowhere?
How much should we trust "expert" opinions?

By including Greenwood’s legalistic argument, Twain exposes the absurdity of reducing literature to forensic analysis while also acknowledging the mystery of Shakespeare’s brilliance.

Final Thoughts

This excerpt is a microcosm of the Shakespeare authorship debate:

Pro-Stratfordians argue that genius doesn’t need a degree.
Anti-Stratfordians (like Greenwood) insist that only a lawyer could write such legally precise works.
Twain’s perspective is skeptical of both sides, using satire to show how scholars overcomplicate the issue.

The passage ultimately raises more questions than answers:

If Shakespeare didn’t write the plays, who did?
If he did, how did he acquire such legal knowledge?
And does it even matter, if the works themselves are masterpieces?

Twain’s inclusion of this debate in his essays challenges the reader to think critically about how we attribute genius—and whether biography should dictate our appreciation of art.

Questions

Question 1

The passage’s citation of the Lord Chief Justice’s testimony (“there can neither be demurrer, nor bill of exceptions, nor writ of error”) primarily serves which of the following rhetorical functions in Greenwood’s argument?

A. To establish an empirical baseline for evaluating Shakespeare’s legal accuracy by invoking a neutral, judicial standard.
B. To undermine the credibility of Shakespeare’s contemporaries by demonstrating their comparative legal incompetence.
C. To appeal to the emotional biases of lay readers by framing legal precision as a marker of aristocratic refinement.
D. To construct an argument from authority that presupposes the impossibility of legal accuracy without formal training.
E. To introduce a reductio ad absurdum by implying that only a lawyer could avoid legal errors in dramatic writing.

Question 2

The passage’s treatment of Sidney Lee’s error (“judgment from a jury”) is most analogous to which of the following rhetorical strategies?

A. A straw-man fallacy, in which Lee’s minor mistake is exaggerated to discredit all non-legal interpretations of Shakespeare.
B. An appeal to tradition, wherein the long-standing practices of legal terminology are used to invalidate modern scholarship.
C. A false dichotomy, forcing a choice between legal expertise and complete ignorance with no middle ground.
D. A synecdoche, where a single linguistic slip is used to represent the broader incompetence of laypersons in legal matters.
E. An ad hominem attack, dismissing Lee’s scholarship entirely based on a peripheral error unrelated to his central arguments.

Question 3

The metaphor of legal knowledge as “freemasonry” (Lord Campbell’s warning) primarily functions to:

A. suggest that legal expertise is a hereditary privilege, inaccessible to those outside elite social circles.
B. imply that Shakespeare’s works contain coded legal messages intended only for initiated readers.
C. reinforce the idea that legal discourse is a closed, self-referential system that excludes outsiders by design.
D. argue that Shakespeare’s legal accuracy proves he was secretly a member of a legal guild or secret society.
E. contrast the rigidity of legal language with the fluidity of literary expression, highlighting Shakespeare’s unique synthesis.

Question 4

Which of the following best describes the implicit tension between the passage’s surface argument and Twain’s likely intent in including it?

A. The passage’s legalistic precision is presented as objective, while Twain uses it to expose the subjectivity of all authorship claims.
B. The argument relies on the authority of legal experts, yet Twain’s inclusion of it undermines the very notion of authoritative expertise.
C. The excerpt purports to solve the authorship question, but Twain’s satirical framing reveals it as an unsolvable paradox.
D. The legal evidence is marshaled to disprove Shakespeare’s authorship, while Twain’s essay ultimately reaffirms the Stratfordian position.
E. The passage’s focus on technical errors mirrors Twain’s own meticulous style, creating an ironic alignment between form and content.

Question 5

If one were to extend the passage’s logic to its most extreme conclusion, which of the following principles would it most strongly support?

A. Literary genius is incompatible with autodidacticism, as formal institutional training is a prerequisite for creative mastery.
B. The value of a literary work should be judged solely by its technical accuracy in specialized fields like law or medicine.
C. Historical biographies of artists are irrelevant, as their lives cannot explain the technical proficiency of their works.
D. The authorship of any text displaying specialized knowledge must be attributed to someone with verifiable credentials in that field.
E. Legal and literary discourses are fundamentally incompatible, making Shakespeare’s achievement an anomaly rather than a model.

Solutions and Explanations

1) Correct answer: D

Why D is most correct: The Lord Chief Justice’s testimony is deployed as an argument from authority—a rhetorical strategy that leverages the credibility of a high-ranking legal expert to preemptively dismiss the possibility that Shakespeare (a non-lawyer) could have written the plays. The passage does not merely cite the testimony as neutral evidence (A) but uses it to presuppose that legal accuracy is impossible without formal training, which is the core of Greenwood’s argument. The phrasing (“there can neither be demurrer, nor bill of exceptions, nor writ of error”) is deliberately absolute, closing off alternative explanations.