Skip to main content

Shakespeare and lawyers

 


Instead of working on today's blogpost, I'll simply use something I've already written. It appears in Quora, where one poster asks, "What are some famous writers who have had a negative view of lawyers, like Shakespeare did?" 

Well ... "as" would work better than "like" there. But that was not the big problem. The problem was ... Shakespeare didn't. So far as we know. This is what I wrote in response to that poster:

So far as I know, Shakespeare did NOT have a negative view of lawyers. He does have a character in one play say “First thing we do, let’s kill all the lawyers.” But that character is a member of an unruly mob. The Bard clearly did not mean for us to sympathize with the statement.

Many writers do have negative views of lawyers. It should not be too difficult for you to find real examples. I suggest you leave Shakespeare out of it.


Guess I told HIM.

I was about to go on and discuss an equally famous Dickens line, but that might have been gilding the lilly. 
Labels:

Comments

  1. Paul D. Van PeltMay 4, 2023 at 6:03 AM

    During a long career, which involved administrative and paralegal work, I developed a cautious respect for lawyers. In an occasional role as law judge, I had access to those who had also filled such robes. Their advice was helpful and I learned a lot. About the cautious piece: some of my friend's advisories were not sound. So, I had to parse their recommendations, uh, judiciously. Another feature of learning.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. ChristopherMay 4, 2023 at 8:17 AM

      Yes, lawyers are made of common human clay. For better and for worse.

      Delete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

A Story About Coleridge

This is a quote from a memoir by Dorothy Wordsworth, reflecting on a trip she took with two famous poets, her brother, William Wordsworth, and their similarly gifted companion, Samuel Taylor Coleridge.   We sat upon a bench, placed for the sake of one of these views, whence we looked down upon the waterfall, and over the open country ... A lady and gentleman, more expeditious tourists than ourselves, came to the spot; they left us at the seat, and we found them again at another station above the Falls. Coleridge, who is always good-natured enough to enter into conversation with anybody whom he meets in his way, began to talk with the gentleman, who observed that it was a majestic waterfall. Coleridge was delighted with the accuracy of the epithet, particularly as he had been settling in his own mind the precise meaning of the words grand, majestic, sublime, etc., and had discussed the subject with William at some length the day before. “Yes, sir,” says Coleridge, “it is a majesti
7 comments
Read more

Five Lessons from the Allegory of the Cave

  Please correct me if there are others. But it seems to be there are five lessons the reader is meant to draw from the story about the cave.   First, Plato  is working to devalue what we would call empiricism. He is saying that keeping track of the shadows on the cave wall, trying to make sense of what you see there, will NOT get you to wisdom. Second, Plato is contending that reality comes in levels. The shadows on the wall are illusions. The solid objects being passed around behind my back are more real than their shadows are. BUT … the world outside the the cave is more real than that — and the sun by which that world is illuminated is the top of the hierarchy. So there isn’t a binary choice of real/unreal. There are levels. Third, he equates realness with knowability.  I  only have opinions about the shadows. Could I turn around, I could have at least the glimmerings of knowledge. Could I get outside the cave, I would really Know. Fourth, the parable assigns a task to philosophers
Post a Comment
Read more

Searle: The Chinese Room

John Searle has become the object of accusations of improper conduct. These accusations even have some people in the world of academic philosophy saying that instructors in that world should try to avoid teaching Searle's views. That is an odd contention, and has given rise to heated exchanges in certain corners of the blogosphere.  At Leiter Reports, I encountered a comment from someone describing himself as "grad student drop out." GSDO said: " This is a side question (and not at all an attempt to answer the question BL posed): How important is John Searle's work? Are people still working on speech act theory or is that just another dead end in the history of 20th century philosophy? My impression is that his reputation is somewhat inflated from all of his speaking engagements and NYRoB reviews. The Chinese room argument is a classic, but is there much more to his work than that?" I took it upon myself to answer that on LR. But here I'll tak
13 comments
Read more