{"id":9396,"date":"2008-05-31T21:39:38","date_gmt":"2008-06-01T02:39:38","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/blogs.law.harvard.edu\/ethicalesq\/2008\/05\/31\/et-tu-solomon-more-bull-about-shak"},"modified":"2011-08-05T14:53:26","modified_gmt":"2011-08-05T18:53:26","slug":"et-tu-solomon-more-bull-about-shakespeare-and-lawyers","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/archive.blogs.harvard.edu\/ethicalesq\/2008\/05\/31\/et-tu-solomon-more-bull-about-shakespeare-and-lawyers\/","title":{"rendered":"et tu, Solomon? more bull about Shakespeare and lawyers"},"content":{"rendered":"

<\/a> P<\/em><\/strong>rof. Yabut<\/a> interrupts a sleepy, rainy weekend for a little kvetch-‘n’-preach:<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Y<\/strong><\/em>ou don’t have to be a poet to believe that literature and fiction can often be more true than non-fiction, as well as more persuasive. And, you don’t have to be a lawyer — or distrust them — to know they will use words in any genre to mislead. But, the f\/k\/a<\/em> Gang wasn’t expecting to have a humorous, insightful, enjoyable suspense tale — the 2006 novel \u201cKill all the Lawyers<\/a><\/em>“– ruined by the very piece of untruthful Bar Progaganda About Shakespeare and Lawyers<\/a> that we’ve been trying to debunk for a decade — the argument that Shakespeare was paying lawyers the highest compliment when he had Dick the Butcher advocate killing ’em all in Henry VI, Part II<\/em>.<\/p>\n

Twice this past month, f\/k\/a <\/em>has plugged “Kill all the Lawyers<\/a><\/em>,” which is from the Solomon vs. Law<\/a> series, by author and former lawyer Paul Levine<\/a>. Last night, we were about to finish reading the book — and planning to tell our readers how much we enjoyed it — when the following dialog (at 225) gave the entire Gang a giant case of agita<\/em><\/a>\/tsuris:<\/p>\n

\n

“More lawyer tricks?” [bad-guy, talk-show psychologist Dr. William] Kreeger said. “Technicalities and obfuscations. No wonder Shakespeare said, “‘Let’s kill all the lawyers.’ ”<\/p>\n

<\/a> “Shakespeare had a villain say that,” Steve replied, miraculously remembering a long-ago English Lit class at the U. “Dick the Butcher said it in a play, one of the Henrys. His pals were planning to overthrow the government, so the first thing they planned was to kill the lawyers to make the job easier. You’re misconstruing the line, just like you’re mischaracterizing my sister.”<\/em><\/p>\n

“More legalese?” Kreeger taunted him. “More fine print and sleight of hand. Yes, indeed. Let’s kill all the lawyers before they kill all of us.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<\/blockquote>\n

I hate to side with the evil, pedophile-murderer, but Dr. Kreeger is absolutely correct: lawyer Solomon is obfuscating, and — actually — using some rather clumsy sleight-of-hand. Furthermore, Solomon didn’t get his mis-information from an English Literature course.<\/p>\n

He got it straight from the propaganda playbook of bar associations across the United States. The Bar has been telling everyone who will listen (and especially themselves) that the sentence \u201cFirst thing we do, let\u2019s kill all the lawyers.\u201d [King Henry VI, Part II<\/em>, IV, ii] demonstrates Shakespeare’s unshakable recognition of the important role lawyers play in maintaining the rule of law and the fruits of civilization. They argue that unruly rebels want to kill lawyers first, because it is the most effective step toward bringing down the Government and uprooting society.<\/p>\n

However, as we explain in detail in our posting “Shakespeare and Lawyers<\/a>” (March 1, 2004):<\/p>\n

There\u2019s one problem, neither the play itself nor English history supports the legal profession\u2019s interpretation of Shakespeare. First, the conversation between Jack Cade and Dick the Butcher is not <\/em>a discussion on how to plot to win a rebellion against lawful government. Quite the opposite, Cade is proclaiming what he will do \u201cwhen I am king, \u2014 as king I will be.\u201d When Butcher yells out that the first thing he wants done is to kill all the lawyers, Cade responds, \u201cNay, that I mean to do,\u201d and laments \u201cI was never mine own man\u201d since signing a contract [\u201dscribbled\u201d on parchment by a lawyer and sealed with bee\u2019s wax].<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

You can get the full, unlawyered explanation, along with the text of the scene from the play to put it in context, at our post. The Bar’s argument so quickly falls apart on even the most cursory examination, that it surely would make folks less secure and serene than the f\/k\/a<\/em> Gang want to get those distorting propagandists on the witness stand for some withering cross-examination.<\/p>\n

<\/a> Clearly, author, and former lawyer, Paul Levine<\/a> should know better. His novels and other writings are well-researched and realistic. Either Levine never bothered to take a look at what Shakespeare actually said, or he so badly wanted to take lawyers off the hook that he was willing to swallow the specious argument of his colleagues at the Bar and to recklessly pass along their claim despite its frivolous nature. [update<\/em><\/strong> (June 1, 2008): scroll to the afterwords<\/em> blurb below for Paul Levine’s response to our accusations.]<\/p>\n

It’s one thing for our protagonist Steve Solomon to manipulate facts to persuade judges, opposing counsel or juries. Among “Solomon’s Laws<\/em>,” you will find, for example:<\/p>\n