3211 Crowners quest law] Barrett (1580, a crowner, #1692): “Coronator, vel quæstor, vel quæsitor homicidii. [sepanwths. sepanoplokós ] is he, or shee, that gathereth flowres to make a garland.”

3211 Crowners quest law] Plowden (1650, pp. 153-59/fol.258-64): “Dame Hales against Petit. (pp.. 153-159/ fol. 258-64): [Fol. 258]”Lease for years to the Husband and Wife, the Husband drowned himself, and so became a selo de se; the Wife enters, an Office is found, the Q. shall have the whole Term Adjudged.1. The quality of the offence is murther, because that it was upon malice prepenced, otherwise of Homicide, also it was made Nullo sciente, nullo præsente.2. It is an offence againt nature, the Law of God, and to the King, for to kill his Subject, and deprive him of one of his mystical members, whereof he is the head, and by breaking of his peace, and for the ill example given to others.3. He shall forfeit for this Felony, all Goods, Debts, Chattels real and personal which he had at the time of the Act done, which was the cause of his death, viz. the casting of himself into the water, and the forfeiture shall have relation to this act done in his life, and is an Attainder in Law to that purpose, but not to make Corruption of bloud, forfeit Dower, or make Fee-simples escheat; by the Court.4. Although the wife be remitted to the Term by the survivor, yet this is defeated by the office, ex post facto.5. Where the Bishop maketh a Lease for years, which is not confirmed in his life, its needs not to </p. 153><p. 154>be averred, in respect it is onely voidable, otherwise of Lessee for life, for that it shall be void by his death.6. The pleading that Sir James Hales was possessed of two Leases at the time of his death, and the Office found that he had two, without saying at the time of his death, sufficeth, reddendo singula singulis.7. Lessee for years to commence at Michaelmas, brings Trespass before the Defendant gives colour by the Lease, this is not good; yet the Plaintiff shall not recover, because he had no Title.“Southcot and Puttrel, Serjeants for the Plaintiff. He that striketh another, after this wound given, giveth his goods to another before the death, the gift is good.“So a Constable 11H .4.12. which arrests him, permits him to escape before the death of the other, is not a Felon; the finding by the Coroner of his death in this case, countervails an Attainder indeed, because after his death he cannot be Attainted, and he himself is the cause he cannot. A Felon of himself cannot make a Testament, or Executor, nor forfeit any thng, but that which ought to come to his Executor: Instant is the end of one time, and the Commencement of another: in Instant is[fol. 259] priority of time in consideration of Law; Husbnd and Wife Joynt-Tenants of a Lease for years, there is no Moities between them, but every one of them hath the whole; and if the Husband charge the land, she after his death shall avoid it, because remitted to theTerm, and in by Title Paramount to the Grant, 7 H .6.1. So 18.E.4.5 Tenant in Tail gives Trees growing, and dies before they are cut down, the Donee shall not cut them, because the </p. 154> <p.155>issue and Wife are in by Title Paramount, the gift by Southcot. So 14. H. 4.32. and Fitz. nat. br. fol. 14.143. The Lord shall take his Ward, which is an Apprentice out of the possession of his Master, for that his Title to his body accrued in respect of his signiory, which is more ancient then theApprentice, 49 E.3.3. the Kings Tenant in London Devises to his wife for life, and dies without Heirs, the devise is good, as it seems by the Book, and yet taketh not effect until after the death of the Kings Tenant, and preferred before an Escheat to the King yet both their Titles comes at one instant, but the Title of the Wife adjudged the elder, because some part of it Commences in the life of the Devisor, albeit it taketh effect after his death; an Obligee is a Felo de se, the Survivor shall have the Obligation by the better opinion, 8.E. 4.4[fol. 260]”Walsh, Chomley, Benlos, and Carus for the Defendant. A Dead man cannot have property, for the Forfeiture shall have relation to the ill Act done in his Life when the goods were his; otherwise the Forfeiture shall be to the prejudice of others, which after his death out to have the goods, and the law hath respect to the Commencement of the Act, as in22.E.3. and Stamford 19. one is Lunatick when he givs himself the mortal wound, he forfeits nothing, and it is not Felony if then he kils another, yet is of sane memory when he died of the wound. So 33. Ass.7. Stamford 10 one kils his Master one year after he departed from his service upon malice conceived when he was his servant, adjudged Treason; Felonies done by others, may be punished in their life time, in person, Goods, Chattels, and Lands. </p. 155><p. 156>“A Felon of himself hath prevented the death, by Execution and forfeiture of his Land, which Land shall not Escheat without Attainder in Deed for favor of the Free-hold and inheritance; and the only means to make him forfeit that which he may forteit [sic] ,viz. his Goods and Chattels is by inquest which ought to be equivalent to the Judgement given in his life, because he took away the means of the Judgement which should have been given against him in his life, as he should have if he had killed another; and when Judgement by the Law cannot be given, the Law supplies it; otherwise as 3.E.3 a Felon flies out of the Sanctuary, and will not render himself, but is killed, he forfeits his goods, and the King hath the year, day, and waste; and so an Inquest there shall be equivalent to the Judgement, because he himself is the cause that it cannot be given against him; by Carus, my horse strikes A. I sell him to another; A. dies, he shall be forfeit.“So the King shall have the Goods of a Villain which gives himself a mortal wound, yet the Lord hath seised them after the wound, and before the death of the Villain. So the Attainder of the Husband in his life, shall be a Forfeiture of the Term of his wife. So this Act here; and if once Title [fol. 261]be given to the King, Nullum tempus occurit Regi, as in 50.E.3. the Husband Joynt-Lessor for years with the wife, receives money of one Attainted, which by the Attainder belongeth to the King ; the Husband dies, the wife herself holdeth it, this found after, the King hath the Term in Execution for his money, as he should have had in the life of her Husband if it had been found then, and now found by office, shall relate to the life of the Husband. </p.156><p. 157>“Curia, this is Murther here and not Homicide, because upon malice prepenced, and is an offence against nature, the Law of God, and King, to kill a Subject, and deprive him ofone of his Mystical Members, as Brooks terms it, whereof he is the head, and by the breaking of his peace, and for the ill example given to others; and therefore Felo de se Forfeits to the King all his Goods, Debts, and Chattels, 8.E.2.3.E.3.301 362.22.E.3. (before f. 259) Stamford. fol. 188. I . and Stamford Prerogative, fol. 46. 8H.4.2. by Tillestey, and ex consequenti cannot make Executors, nor have Administors, neither shall the Bishop have them, because out of the Church is no cause of Forfeiture, 19.H. 6.63. by Paston, 8.E.4.4. by Needham, and Litl. and 27.H.8.9. by Montague, and if he repents he is reconciled, and hath the rights of the Church before his death, yet he shall Forfeit those to the King for this offence.“But a Felo de se Forfeits not Lands, his wives Dower, nor Corrupts his bloud, 3.E.3. 22.E.3 (before fol. 259) because those cannot be without attainder in Deed.“Appellee in Battail is killed, he forfeits his land, by Benlos, and Brown, because this killing is equivalent to Judgement and Execution; but [fol. 262] Weston held the contrary without express attainder by Judgement for to favor the inheritance; and by Dier, because the three Writs of Escheat for attainder, are (Register the 16) pro quo suspensus est, ut-lagatus, or abjuravit; if the Appellor vanquish the Appellee in battail, there his land shall Escheat, because there Judgement shall be given after that he shall be hanged, 8.E..3. [fol. 263]the husband adheres to the enemies of the King in Scotland, and dies there, </p. 157><p. 158>8.E.3.fol. 388. or is killed in levying War against the King; here he forfeits his Lands, the Dower of his Wife, and his bloud is corrupted, for this is an attainder in Law, 7.H.4.46. by Markham and Stamford, fol. 198.a. this which causeth the death, ought to be said, Feloniously done.“He that refuseth the trial of the Law, forfeits Goods and Chattels, as 3.E.3. 13.H.4.13. 4.H.7.18. Stamford, fol. 183.C. he which flies for Felony, Stamford Prerogativæ, fol. 46. A. he hthat challengeth without cause above, 35.40.E.3.42. 20.E.4.5. Stamdord, fol. 185. he that taketh Clergie if he be found guilty of Felonies, which refuse the Judgement of Law, 14.E. 14.17. he that stands mute of malice, for those are the Acts of refusal of the Law. And from the time of those which appear of Record, the forfeiture shall have relation to the wound given against the party himself for the forfeiture against a stranger, not for to be Felony, because in the mean between the wound and death, he suffers himself voluntarily to escape; for if the escape should be Felony, then that escape had been Felony at the time of the escape, by Brown. A. and B. Joynte-Tenants for years, A. Grants to C. That if he paies 10.l. before Michaelmas, then he shall have his Term; yet he shall not have the Term, because the condition precedes the Grant, as 14.H.8. 22. by Brudnel, until the 10.l. paid the Joyncture continues, and it is not but a Communication; but if A. Grant or Lease it from Michaelmas next coming during the Term to C. there C. shall have it against the Survior, for there the Title is granted in deed in the estate in his life. So here this Act in his life gives Titleto the King, and the office by relation executes the Title then, and the Survivor </p. 158><p.159>shall not have it from him, because once attached in him; as the Kings Villain and his wife are Joynt-Tenants for years, the Villain dies, his wife hath the Lease by Survivor; this found by office, takes away the interest of the wife, as the entry of the King should in the life of the Villain, and upon the King should in the life of the Villain, and upon Cessor thereof, the Kings Title once vested, is not taken away, because Nullum tempus occurit Regi, by Dier; by Weston, where Titles of the King shall be preferred; as Land discends [sic] to a villain, his Lord enters after, this found, the Ideot of the King shall have the Land, and laches of entry shall not prejudice the King; yet both Titles at once in the lord, because born Villain to the King, because born Ideot by relation of office to it. So if the husband be intituled to be Tenant by the Courtesie, and his wife after this found Ideot, this takes away the Title from the Husband for ever, for the Heir shall be in ward, therefore if holden of the King, or shall have it out of the Kings hands, if not holden, because the Title of the King to the Free-hold of the Land [fol. 264]by the custody of it during the life of the wife, shall take away by relation of the Office the Title of the husband, which before the Office was found, was vested in the husband.”</p. 159>

3211 Crowners quest law] Spelman (1686, p. 383): <p. 383> “Inquæstio]] Idem Gallis sub Caroli Magni æuo, quod nobis hodiè an Inquest, et Inquisitio dicitur. Gesta de villa Nouilliaco, post Appendicem ad Flodoardû. Subreptis rebus et mancipiis quibusdam villæ Nouilliaci, Carolus annoregni sui 32. id est, gratiæ 800 misit suos Missos ad hoc inquirendum, et inquæstione facta, et veritate (sicut ei dictum fuerat) inventa, quoniam prædicti subreptores ad rationem non venerunt, sic ut banniti fuerunt, &c. Missi, hoc æuo dicti sunt, qui nobis hodie, ipsisque Gallis, Iustitiarii: Banniti, iidem qui noblis Vtlagati. . . .

[Ed. I don’t think the rest of this is necessary; it seems to be a description of how inquests came into A.S. Culture. Through the Galli, not through the Normanni ].

3211 Crowners quest law] Johnson (2nd ed. 1760, quest, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5): “s. [quæste, Fr.] 1. Search; act of seeking. 2. an Empanell’d jury 3. Searchers. Collectively 4. Enquiry; examination [Shakespeare all above def.] 5. Request; desire; solicitation. [Herbert]”

3211 Crowners quest law]Hawkins(apud Johnson, 2nd ed. 1765, Appendix, sig. Ll3v): < sig. Ll3v > “I strongly suspect that this is a ridicule on the case of Dame Hales, reported by Plowden in his commentaries, as determined in 3 Eliz.

“It seems her husband sir James Hales had drowned himself in a river, and the question was, whether by this act a forfeiture of a lease from the dean and chapter of Canterbury, which he was possessed of, did not accrue to the crown; an inquisition was found before the coroner, which found him felo de se. The legal and logical subtilties, arising in the course of the argument of this case, gave a very fair opportunity for a sneer at crowner’s quest-law. The expression, a little before, that an act hath three branches, &c. is so pointed an allusion to the case I mention, that I cannot doubt but that < /sig. Ll3v >< /sig. Ll4r> Shakespeare was acquainted with and meant to laugh at it.” < /sig. Ll4r > (see also 3200n)

3211 quest] Hanmer (ed. 1770, 6:Glossary): “inquest, jury.”

This is Thomas Hawkins addition to Hanmer.

3211 Crowners quest law] Hawkins(apud Steevens, ed. 1773, Appendix): (<sig. Nn7>“To the note relative to the case of Sir James Hales, it may be added, that on this occasion a great deal of subtilty was used, to ascertain whether Sir James was the agent or the patient ; or, in other words, whether he went to the water , or the water came to him. Sir. J. HAWKINS.” </sig. Nn7>

[Ed. This appendix note is subsequently recorded in mstv1]

3211 Crowners quest law] Hawkins (ms. notes in Steevens, ed. 1773): “On this occasion, much subtlety was used to ascertain whether Sir James was agent or patient, i.e. whether he went to t[h]e water or t[h]e water came to him. [signed] D [itto] [HAWKINS?] .”

3211 Crowners quest law] Capell (1779-83 [1774]1:1:Glossary): “Crowner’s Quest a Corruption of—Coroner’s Inquest.”

3211 Crowners quest law] Hawkins (apud Steevens, ed. 1778): “It may be added, that on this occasion a great deal of subtilty was used, to ascertain whether Sir James was the agent or the patient ; or, in other words, whether he went to the water, or the water came to him. The cause of Sir James’s madness was the circumstance of his having been the judge who condemned Lady Jane Gray . Sir J. HAWKINS “ 

3211 Crowners quest law] Malone (ms. notes, -1778):: “<sig . 56r> to follow Mr. Hawkins’s note]] There is certainly a strong resemblance between between [sic] the case reported by Plowden & some passages in this scene. Yet I know not how Shakespeare could have come to the knowledge of that case; for Plowden’s commentaries were written in old law french, and were not translated till a few years ago. </ sig. 56r>“

mMAL1:[Ed.This note is modified by MALONE in 1780’s Supplements and then reported in 1790].

3211 Crowners quest law] Malone (1780, pp. 360): <p. 360> “If Shakspeare meant to allude to the case of Dame Hales, (which indeed seems not improbable,) he must have heard of that case in conversation; for it was determined before he was born, and Plowden’s Commentaries, in which it is reported, were not translated into English till a few years ago. Our author’s study was probably not much encumbered with old French Reports.” </p. 361>

3211 Crowners quest law]

3211 Crowners quest law]

3211 Crowners quest law]

3211 Crowners quest law]

3211 Crowners quest law]

3211 Crowners quest law]

3211 Crowners quest law] Caldecott (ed. 1819) : “Coroner’s inquest.”

3211 Crowners quest law] Malone (ed. 1821, The Life of William Shakspeare, 2: 107-109):<p. 107>”Instead of being brought home to assist his father in trade, various passages in his works incline me to believe, that our poet’s ardent curiosity about that period, led him frequently to attend the court of record, which sat at Stratford once a fortnight; in which the baliff, with the assistance of the steward, or town clerk, who was always a legal practitioner, heard and determined all causes arising within the jurisdiction of the borough, where the matter in contest did not amount to thirty pounds. In this court the proceedings appear to have been very regular and orderly; they had their appearances, their essoins, their imparlances, their demurrers, their issues knit, and their trials by jury, all in proper form. . . </p. 107> <p. 108>The comprehensive mind of our poet, it must be owned, embraced almost every object of nature, every trade, and every art, the manners of every description of men, and the general language of almost every profession: but his knowledge and application of legal terms, seems to me not merely such as might have been acquired by the casual observation of his all-comprehending mind; it has the appearance of technical skill; and he is so fond of displaying it on all </p. 108><p. 109> occasions, that there is, I think, some ground for supposing that he was early initiated in at least the forms of law.”</p. 109>

3211 Crowners quest law] Nares (1822, 1906): “s. for inquest. A popular abbreviation, not yet disused among the lower orders. ‘What lawful quest have giv’n their verdict up Unto the frowning judge.’ [3R 1.4 .? (1016)] ‘And covertly within the Tower they calde A quest, to give such verdit as they should.’ Mirr. Mag. p. 390. ‘Among his holie sons he cal’d a quest, Whose counsel to his mischiefe might give way.’ Niccolo’s England’s Eliza, p. 95.

“Also for an inquiry, &c. See Johnson.”

3211 Crowners quest law] Singer (ed. 1826):“Warburton says that this (3200-01) is a ridicule on scholastic divisions without distinction; and of distinctions without difference. Shakspeare certainly aims at the legal subtleties used upon occasion of inquests. Sir John Hawkins points out the case of Dame Hales, in Plowden’s Commentaries. Her husband Sir James drowned himself in a fit of insanity (produced, it was supposed, by his having ben one of the judges who condemned Lady Jane Grey), and the question was about the forfeiture of a lease. There was a great deal of this law logic used on the occasion, as whether he was the agent or patient ; or in other words (as the clown says), whether he went to the water, or the water came to him . Malone thinks because Plowden was in law Fench that Shakspeare could not read him! and yet Malone has shown that Shakspeare is very fond of legal phraseology, and supposes that he must have passed some part of his life in the office of an attorney.”

3211 Crowners quest law] Knight (ed. 1841) : “Sir John Hawkins originally pointed out that this ludicrous description of ‘crowner’s-quest law’ was, in all probability, ‘a ridicule on the case of Dames Hales, reported by Plowden in his Commentaries.’ This was a case regarding the forfeiture of a lease to the crown, in consequence of the suicide of Sir James Hales. Malone somewhat sneers at the belief that Shakspere should have known anything about a case determined before he was born; adding, ‘Our author’s study was probably not much encumbered with old French reports.’ Plowden was not published till 1578,---in old French, certainly, as Malone says; but we have not a doubt that Shakspere was familiar with the book, as the following extracts from the translation of 1779 will show. The clown says, ‘An act hath three branches, it is to act, to do, and to perform.’ Warburton observes that ‘this is a riducle on scholastic divisions without difference.’ The precise thing, however, to be ridiculed is in the speech of one of the counsel in the case before us:--

3211 Crowners quest law] Verplanck (ed. 1844): “Sir John Hawkins originally pointed out that this ludicrous description of ‘crowner’s-quest law’ was, in all probability, ‘a ridicule on the case of Dames Hales, reported by Plowden in his Commentaries.’ This was a case regarding the forfeiture of a lease to the crown, in consequence of the suicide of Sir James Hales. Malone somewhat sneers at the belief that Shakspere should have known anything about a case determined before he was born; adding, ‘Our author’s study was probably not much encumbered with old French reports.’ Plowden was not published till 1578,---in old French, certainly, as Malone says; but we have not a doubt that Shakspere was familiar with the book, as the following extracts from the translation of 1779 will show. The clown says, ‘An act hath three branches, it is to act, to do, and to perform.’ Warburton observes that ‘this is a riducle on scholastic divisions without difference.’ The precise thing, however, to be ridiculed is in the speech of one of the counsel in the case before us:--

“Walsh said that the act consists of three parts. The first is the imagination, which is a reflection or meditation of the mind, whether or no it is convenient for him to destroy himself, and what way it can be done. The second is the resolution, which is a determination of the mind to destroy himself, and to do it in this or that particular way. The third is the perfection, which is the execution of what the mind has resolved to do. And this perfection consists of two parts, viz., the beginning and the end. The beginning is the doing of the act which causes the death, and the end is the death, which is only a sequel to the act.

“Again, the clown says, ‘Here lies the water; good; here stands the man; good: If the man go to this water and drown himself, it is, will he, nill he, he goes; mark you that: but the if water comes to him , and drown him, he drowns not himself! Argal, he that is not guilty of his own death, shortends not his own life.’ We have, of course, no such delicious exaggeration as that of the clown; but the Again, the reasoning of following reasoning of one of the judges is very nearly equal to it:

‘Sir James Hales was dead, and how came he to his death? It may be answered, by drowning; and who drowned him? Sir James Hales; and when did he drown him? In his lifetime. So that Sir James Hales being alive caused Sir James Hales to die; and the act of the living manw as the death of the dead man. And then for this offence it is reasonable to punish the living man who committed the offence, and not the dead man. But how can he be said to be punished alive when the punishment comes after his death? Sir, this can be done no other way but by divesting out of him, from the time of the act done in his life which was the cause of his death, the title and property of those things which he had in his lifetime.” The determination in this case, that the verdict of felo de se was legal, shows that the complaint of the clown, “that great folk shall have countenance in this world to drown or hang themselves,” was wholly unjust.“

3211 Crowners quest law] Delius (ed. 1854) :“coroner’s quest ist die Untersuchung, die der Krombeamte anstellt. Der daraus sich ergebende Ausspruch heisst hier ironish cronwer’s quest-law. Diese und die vorhergehende Spitzfindigkeit, welche den act in drei Theila: to act, to do, und to perform theilt, onthÑlt vielleicht einen unter der Regierung der Kînigin Elisabeth vorgekommenen Fall des Sir James Hales, der sich im Wahnsinn ertrÑnkt hatte. Der Kronbeamte stellte weitlÑufige Untersuchungen an, ob Sir James zum Wasser gekommen sei, oder das Wass zu ihm.” [“This is an inquiry, which engages the coroner. The yielded report from it is called ironically crowner’s quest-law . These and the previous subtlties that divide an act into three parts, to act, to do and to perform , contains perhaps one incident during the reign of Queen Elizabeth of Sir James Hales, who drowned himself in madness. The coroner provided a detailed investigation whether Sir James might have come to the water, or the water to him.“]

3211 Crowners quest law] Hunter (ms notes, 1855, p. 226) : <p. 226> “ In the cause Taylor and Lambert, Court of King’s Bench 3 May 1825, the lord Chief Abbott is reported to have said referring to the case of Sir James Hales in Plowden’s Reports ‘This case certainly furnished a very celebrated poet with material for one of his most entertaining scenes. It was quite impossible not to suppose that Shakspeare was poised at the argument, and drew from it the reflection of his grave-digger on the death of Ophelia: In Sr James Chronicle. No 10, 530. Sir [Shery?] when Sir James Hales case was heard, as he certainly died in the reign of Queen Mary before Shakspeare was born.—Sir J. Hawkins had made the same remark [a word and a page 2.63? I can’t make out] </p. 226>

3211 Crowners quest law] Hudson (ed. 1856) : “Shakespeare’s frequent and correct use of legal terms and phrases has led to the belief that he must have served something of an apprenticeship in the law. Among the legal authorities studied in his time, were Plowden’s Commentaries, a black-letter book, written in the old law French. One of the cases reported by Plowden, is that of Dame Hales, regarding the forfeiture of a lease, in consequence of the suicide of Sir James Hales; and Sir John Hawkins has pointed out, that this rich burlesque of ‘crowner’s quest law’ was probably intended as a ridicule on certain passages in that case. He produces the following speech of one of the counsel: ‘Walsh said that the act consists of three parts. The first is the imagination, which is a reflection or meditation of the mind, whether or no it is convenient for him to destroy himself, and what way it can be done. The second is the resolution, which is a determination of the mind to destroy himself, and to do it in this or that particular way. The third is the perfection, which is the execution of what the mind has resolved to do. And this perfection consists of two parts, viz., the beginning and the end. The be- ginning is the doing of the act which causes the death, and the end is the death, which is only a sequel to the act. ‘ [Ed. this quote from Hawkins drawn from knt1.] ”  

[Ed. In a separate note (see n. 3209), Hudson repeats, with his “H” signature: ”We must here produce another passage from Plowden, as given by Hawkins. It is the reasoning of one of the judges, and is nearly as good as that in the text; [repeats knt1’s quotation of the judge’s verdict] ‘Sir James Hales was dead, and how came he to his death? It may be answered, by drowning; and who drowned him? Sir James Hales; and when did he drown him? In his lifetime. So that Sir James Hales being alive caused Sir James Hales to die; and the act of the living man was the death of the dead man. And then for this offence it is reasonable to punish the living man who committed the offence, and not the dead man. But how can he be said to be punished alive when the punishment comes after his death? Sir, this can be done no other way but by divesting out of him, from the time of the act done in his life which was the cause of his death, the title and property of those things which he had in his lifetime.’”

3211 Crowners quest law] Elze (ed. 1857): "’Crowner’s quest, sagt nares, is a familiar corruption, among the vulgar, for coroner’s inquest. The coroner, I believe, is still the crowner, in that class of society’ [sic]"

3211 Crowners quest law] Staunton (ed. 1859) :“Sir John Hawkinssuggested that Shakespeare here designed a ridicule on the legal and logical subtleties ennunciated in the case of Dame Hale, as reported in Plowden’s Commentaries. The case was this: her husband, Sir James Hale, committed suicide by drowning himself in a river, and the point argued was whether by this act a lease which he died possessed of did not accrue to the Crown. It must be admitted that the clown’s, ‘If I drown myelf wittingly, it argues an act; and an act hath three branches;’ reads amazingly like a satire on the following:--Serjeant [Ed. knt1’s influence begins here] Walsh said that--‘The act consists of three parts. The first is the imagination, which is a reflection or meditation of the mind, whether or no it is convenient for him to destroy himself, and what way it can be done. The second is the resolution, which is a determination of the mind to destroy himself, and to do it in this or that particular way. The third is the perfection, which is the execution of what the mind has resolved to do. And this perfection consists of two parts, viz., the beginning and the end. The beginning is the doing of the act which causes the death, and the end is the death, which is only a sequel to the act.’ &c. &c.

“Nor would it be easy to find a better parallel for, --’Here lies the water; good: here stands the man; good: if the man go to this water, and drown himself, it is, will he nill he, he goes,--mark you that; but the water come to him and drown him, he drowns not himself:’ &c. ---than what follows, in the argument of the judges, viz. Weston, Anthony Brown, and Lord Dyer[Ed. These names suggest Knight may have read Plowden as well], ‘Sir James Hales was dead, and how came he to his death? It may be answered, by drowning; and who drowned him? Sir James Hales; and when did he drown him? In his lifetime. So that Sir James Hales being alive caused Sir James Hales to die; and the act of the living man as the death of the dead man. And then for this offence it is reasonable to punish the living man who committed the offence, and not the dead man.’ &c. ”

3211 Crowners] Clark & Wright (ed. 1864, Glossary): “sb. a coroner.”

3211 quest] Clark & Wright (ed. 1864, Glossary): “sb. enquiry, search, inquest, jury” Provides xref to MM. 4.1 [1786ff]. I; R3 1.4[1013?]

3211 quest] Keightley (ed. 1864 [1866]: Glossary):”reports.”

3211 Crowners quest law] Clarke (ed. 1864, Glossary)

3211 Crowners quest law] Clarke & Clarke (ed. 1864-68, rpt. 1874-78): “A common corruption of ‘coroner’s inquest.’”

3211 Crowners quest law] Clarke & Clarke (ed. 1864-68, rpt. 1874-78): “It has been pointed out that in the gravedigger’s dabbling with legal subtleties, Shakespeare has satirised those who figure conspicuously in a law-case, reported among others in Plowden’s ‘Commentaries,’ concerning a certain Sir James Hale, who drowned himself in a river. Assuredly some of the grave disquisitions quoted from that case bear marvellous resemblance to the humorous points discussed by ‘goodman delver’ here. [cites Walsh’s lines “The act consists . . . dead man.”; see knt1 or hud1 above]. It is, indeed, very probable that this kind of forensic wire-drawing and hare’splitting was in the poet’s mind when he put these sentences into the First Clown’s mouth.”

3211 Crowners quest law] Halliwell (ed. 1865): “‘Thus he forswore the wicked deed ‘Of his dear wives untimely end;Quoth the people, let’s conclude with speed,That for the crowner we may send.’ Strange News from Westmoreland . n.d.”

3211: crowner’s quest law

3211 Crowners] Rushton (1867, pp. 72-3): <p. 72> “The word ‘crowner,’ used in ‘Hamlet,’ is, I think, generally supposed to be a corruption of the Clown’s, but it is merely the English for the Law Latin coronator, from corona, a crown, which Holinshed also uses. Slender says, in effect, that Justice Shallow was the most skilful in the law, because he was not merely justice of peace, but also of the quorum; and Holinshed says, ‘the least skilfull in the law are of the peace, the other both of the peace and quorum.’

“Selden says: ‘The title of esquire or armiger is between the dignity of knight-bachelor and the common title of gentleman. And it is of that nature with us now, that to whomsoever, either by blood, place in the state, or other eminence, we conceive some higher attribute should be given than the sole title gentleman, knowing yet that he hath no other honorary title legall fixed on him, we usually style him an esquire, ins uch passages as require legally that his degree or estate be mentioned, as especially in indictments and actions whereupon he may be outlawed.—Tit. Hon.

“As a name of estate or degree it was used in divers Acts of Parliment before and after </p. 72> <p. 73>the 1 Henry V. cap. 5 for Rot. Parl. and 1 E.4.” </p. 73>

3211 Crowners quest law] Delius (ed. 1872) :“coroner’s quest ist die Untersuchung, die der Krombeamte anstellt. Der daraus sich ergebende Ausspruch heisst hier ironish cronwer’s quest-law. Diese und die vorhergehende Spitzfindigkeit, welche den act in drei Theila: to act, to do, und to perform theilt, betrifft nach einer Vermuthung von Hawkins einen unter der Regierung der Kînigin Elisabeth vorgekommenen Fall des Sir James Hales, der sich im Wahnsinn ertrÑnkt hatte. Der Kronbeamte stellte weitlÑufige Untersuchungen an, ob Sir James zum Wasser gekommen sei, oder das Wass zu ihm.” [This is an inquiry, which engages the coroner. The yielded report from it is called ironically crowner’s quest-law . These and the previous subtlties that divide an act into three parts, to act, to do and to perform , concern an incident from one Hawkins during the reign of Queen Elizabeth of Sir James Hales, who drowned himself in madness. The coroner provided a detailed investigation whether Sir James might have come to the water, or the water to him.]

3211 Crowners quest law] Clark & Wright (ed. 1872): “quest. See [R3 1.4.189 (1016)]: ‘What lawful quest have given their verdict up Unto the frowning judge/’ where the word specifically means the jury who undertook the inquest. This elaborately absurd expositon of ‘crowner’s quest law’ is supposed by Sir J. Hawkins to be intended as a satire on the case of Dame Hales, 34d Elizabeth, whose husband, Sir James Hales, had drowned himself. On this occasion the argument of Serjeant Walsh and the Judges was as pedantic and as full of quibbles as that of our ‘first clown.’ The case is reported in Plowden’s Commentaries, which were not translated from French into English till long after Shakespeare’s time.”

3211 Crowners quest law] : Hudson (ed. 1872): “Shakespeare’s frequent and correct use of legal terms and phrases has led to the belief that he must have served something of an apprenticeship in the law. Among the legal authorities studied in his time, were Plowden’s Commentaries, a black-letter book, written in the old law French. One of the cases reported by Plowden, is that of Dame Hales, regarding the forfeiture of a lease, in consequence of the suicide of Sir James Hales; and Sir John Hawkins has pointed out, that this rich burlesque of ‘crowner’s quest law’ was probably intended as a ridicule on certain passages in that case. He produces the following speech of one of the counsel: ‘Walsh said that the act consists of three parts. The first is the imagination, which is a reflection or meditation of the mind, whether or no it is convenient for him to destroy himself, and what way it can be done. The second is the resolution, which is a determination of the mind to destroy himself, and to do it in this or that particular way. The third is the perfection, which is the execution of what the mind has resolved to do. And this perfection consists of two parts, viz., the beginning and the end. The be- ginning is the doing of the act which causes the death, and the end is the death, which is only a sequel to the act. ‘ [ this quote from HAWKINS drawn from KNT1]”

3211 Crowner’s quest] Moberly (ed. 1873): “This seems to be a reference to the celebrated case of Sir E. Hales in 1553. Having narrowly escaped death for the Lady Jane Grey plot, this eminent lawyer had drowned himself, while apparently in a state of insanity from terror. A verdict of ‘felo de se’ was found upon him, involving forfeiture of goods and attainder. As there was some property in which his widow had a right immediately upon his death, the legal question arose whether it did not become hers before the verdict of attainder and forfeiture. She lost her cause on the ground that ‘an act has three branches, imagination, resolution, and execution,’ and that consequently her husband’s attainder and forfeiture were complete as soon as these three elements of the act were complete. The strangeness of the case seems to have tickled Shakspere’s fancy, and made him parody the legal argument in his clowns’ talk.”

3211 Crowner’s quest]

3211 Crowner’s quest] Nares (1822; rev. & enl. 1876; rpt. 1905): “A familiar corruption, among the vulgar, for coroner’s inquest. [cites Ham. scene 5.1.?]

“The coroner, I believe, is still the crowner, in that class of society.”

3211 Crowner’s quest]

3211 Crowner’s quest]

3211 Crowners quest law] Hudson (ed. 1881):“Hawkins thinks the Poet here meant to ridicule a case reported by Plowden. Sir James Hale had drowned himself in a fit of insanity, and the legal question was whether his lease was thereby forfeited. Much subtilty was expended in finding out whether Sir James was the agent or the patient ; that is, whether he went to the water or the water came to him . The following is part of the argument: ‘Sir James Hales was dead, and how came he to his death? It may be answered, by drowning; and who drowned him? Sir James Hales; and when did he drown him? In his lifetime. So that Sir James Hales being alive caused Sir James Hales to die; and the act of the living man was the death of the dead man.’”

3211 Crowners quest law]Elze (ed. 1882): “From Peacock’s Glossary of Words used in the Wapentakes of Manley andCorringham (London, 1877) we learn, that the same abbreviated expression is still current in Lincolnshire.”

3211 Crowners quest law] Guernsey (1885, p. 8 ): <p. 8>“ . . . the Hamlet of to-day was written under the reign of King James 1. In this connection it is important to note the effect that this might have had upon the forms then used by the English Church in burials, and might have caused a change in this description of the burial of Ophelia.

“The three kinds of burials given suicides in the church yard are shown—one by the gravedigger, as was customary in some parts of England and Wales, where the grave was ‘out of the sanctuary’ and not ‘straight,’ that is, east and west, and another was by Christian burial by the priest, when it was in the parish church-yard, and the other was by the coroner when not at cross roads, marked by a stake where stones, &c., were thrown at it. Blackstone only mentions the burial of suicides at cross roads, and law students are led to believe that the law was the same over all England and Wales in that particular. It was only a 1egal custom and did not prevail generally.

“The case of the suicide of Sir James Hales, and the legal effect thereof, is the first one</p. 8><p.9> reported as adjudicated upon by the Courts, as to the question of forfeiture of the property of a suicide as a felony (Hales v. Petit Plowden, 253). Sir James Hales was a judge of Common Pleas and a Protestant. In the reign of Queen Mary he was removed and imprisoned in the Fleet and other places, and was otherwise persecuted, so that he became melancholy. He attempted suicide by stabbing himself, but failed to accomplish his design. He was released from close confinement, and seeing the cruel persecutions of other Protestants by the Queen, and fearing that he was about to be again seized, he at last drowned himself. The coroner’s jury (being Roman Catholic) very unjustly found that he was sane at the time, and therefore his personal estate, which was valuable, was forfeited to the Queen. The case of Hales v. Petit arose out of this.

“The parallel between the arguments presented in that case and those given in the grave-diggers’ dialogue, as to suicide by drowning, are so striking that there can be </p. 9> <p. 10>no question that the writer was familiar with the report of the law case.

“Literal extracts from the reported case are as follows: [see stau above for Walsh’s conclusions and Lord Brown’s subsequent judgment of Hales; see dialogue 3190-3217]

<p. 14>“The grave was to be made ‘straight,’ that is, it was to be made East and West, for Christian burial, but in cases of those who had not Christian burial the grave was North and South, as before stated.

“It is true that the burial is represented as taking place in Denmark, as the King and Queen and Courtiers were present, but still the burial was according to the laws of England and the Established Episcopal Church, and not the Roman Catholic burial rites, as they and all other dissenting church ceremonies were not allowed to be used in any parish churchyard in England after the Reformation and the establishment of the Episcopal Church. </p. 14>

<p. 24>“ The first grave digger in Hamlet believed that if Ophelia had not been a gentle woman she would not have Christian burial. The second grave-digger promptly answers that she is, because the ‘crowner’ (coroner) has set upon her and finds that she is to have Christian burial.

“By the canon law, whether Ophelia was sane or insane, if she deliberately caused her own death, she was not entitled to the burial rites of the church, for churchmen contended then as now that in all cases of suicide the deceased should be denied the burial rites of the church, and the clergy ought not to be bound by the decision of the Coroner’s jury in such cases.*

“The practice was when the coroner delivered the custody of the body to the relatives and friends, that the same should be buried </p. 24><p. 25> by the parish priest in the manner and form his discretion and church regulations might allow, excepting so far as positive statute law compelled him to act. The statute law compelled him to attend and bury all persons in the parish churchyard, and to read or sing certain prescribed prayers and portions of the bible as prescribed in the act of uniformity of worship without regard to the religious belief or doctrine of the deceased.*

“The Book of Common Prayer as we have it now was not yet settled in many particulars. It was not tintil 16O3 that the 68th canon of the Church of England required that the minister (priest) should, when requested, under a penalty, use the forms of burial service as prescribed by the Book of Common Prayer. Until then it was left to the act of uniformity before mentioned.

“Before the rubrics of 1662 they did not exclude the service for suicides, much to the dissatisfaction of churchmen and the clergy. Under the ancient law as well as under the 39 articles of the church, the decision of the coroner’s jury, he being a magistrate, must be followed by the church as to the voluntary or involuntary act of self-destruction. If the former was found by the coroner, the body was denied the church rites of burial and was buried by the coroner according to the local custom of the parish. If the latter was found, as was the case when the subject was deemed insane, then the rites of burial must be used by the ministers, but only in the parish churchyard, under the penalty prescribed in the act of uniformity of Elizabeth and in the 68th canon of 1603.

“This humiliation of the church authorities to the civil authorities was compensated in part by the exclusive right of the bishops to administer upon the goods and chattels real and personal of a deceased in his parish. in all cases where they were not forfeited to the Crown. When the coroner’s jury decided that a suicide was sane, the personal property of the deceased was forfeited to the </p. 26> <p. 27> Crown the same as on conviction of any other felony, and the burial of the body was by the coroner generally at cross-roads.*

“This burial at the cross-roads and without religious rites, was to give as strong an impression as possible of a heathen burial, and also of a criminal act, for the heathen Teutons there executed their criminals by sacrificing them to the gods on their altars, which were mostly at the junction of the cross-roads, and the body was pinned to the earth by an iron pointed stake, and passersby would cast a stone at it.

“This mode of disposing of the body of suicides was an ancient custom brought into England by the Saxons, and did not prevail in all parts of England and Wales.

“There were three kinds of places of burial of suicides that prevailed in England.

“When the church officers performed the</p. 27><p. 28> burial rites which the law compelled them to do, when the coroner’s jury had decided the suicide to be an insane act, the body was entitled to be buried in the parish churchyard, but the canon and statute law allowed the place of the grave to be selected there by the parish priest, because the freehold of the church property is in the rector (priest.) This privilege was frequently exercised by priests as to the bodies of suicides and others in a peculiar manner. In some places the coroner buried suicides in the parish churchyard. When they were buried in the parish church-yard they were placed in the most obscure parts of it.

“In many churchyards in the northern parts of England may be seen a row of graves on the extreme verge of the north side of the graveyard, apart from that in which the bodies of the inhabitants in general are deposited. Some of the graves do not lie east and west as do those who have Christian burial. These are occupied by the bodies of still-born infants. suicides and excommuni-</p. 28><p. 29> cated persons, and those who it is termed are ‘buried out of the sanctuary,’ because they are not entitled to the full church rites of burial and are not in consecrated ground.

“The first grave-digger in Hamlet, when he asked if the grave should be made ‘straight,’ was evidently accustomed to that part of England where a suicide’s grave was not made east and west, as the church stood, and as other graves run, but was to be made ‘crooked,’ or not parallel to them.

“The canon of Edgar before mentioned shows that the carrying of palms by the clerical attendants as emblems of victory at funerals was the custom in regular burials in England.

“The usual burial ceremonies for those who died in the faith in Shakespeare’s time were more or less imposing or elaborate, according to the rank of the deceased.

“The priest leading the funeral cortege following the corpse carried feet foremost on the vay to the churchyard, the friends of deceased carrying rosemary as a token of re-</p. 29> <p. 30> membrance, the clerks carried five or six lighted torches as an emblem of Christian faith, of triumph over death by belief in the resurrection and immortality, singing psalms of victory and peace. This was when the procession started from the house where the deceased was to be taken to the churchyard. This is also alluded to by Gay, who wrote a century after Shakespeare lived. ‘To shew their love the neighbors far and near, Followed with wistful look the damsel’s bier: Sprigged rosemary the lads and lasses bore, While dismally the parson walked before.’ It was a special favor to do this for which the parson expected to be paid by the friends of deceased.

“The legal ritual only required that the corpse be met by the priests and clerks in their robes at the ‘church style.’

“In the burial of Ophelia the funeral cortege is first seen by Hamlet in the rural churchyard. I will therefore only describe the full burial rites in the churchyard at that time.

“The priests and clerks in their robes meet </p. 30> <p. 31>the funeral cortege at the entrance of the churchyard, forewarning of which is given by the church bell, and they lead the procession in the following order: The crossbearer at the head of the corpse, the officiating priest at the feet, the person carrying the holy water a little behind the officiating priest at his right hand, and the other persons who sing are arranged on each side in the order of their church rank, so as to leave room for the officiating priest in the middle. The four or six torches of wax are lighted and given to those who are appointed to carry them. The priest going before the corpse, all followed by the relatives and friends of deceased carrying sprigs of rosemary. In this manner they proceed to the grave, singing psalms and hymns. When they arrive at the grave the bearers lay the coffin on the brink of the grave with its feet turned towards the east. (The coffin is sometimes opened for a view of deceased and then the entire top is removed.) The priest then standing before the </p. 31><p. 32> cross with his face turned towards the body he sprinkles the corpse (or coffin) thrice with holy water without saying anything, and then blesses it by a prayer, then an anthem or psalm is sung, after which he again sprinkles and incenses the body, and also the grave, then the friends of deceased (if the coffin is open) are allowed to look for the last time upon deceased. When the corpse is being made ready to be laid into the earth and the coffin is lowered into the grave a dirge and anthem is sung. Then the holy Eucharist is administered. Then after again sprinkling the coffin with holy water and a handful of earth is cast upon the coffin by the priest in the form of a cross, he saying the prescribed

prayer, and then sprinkling it with holy water, an anthem is chanted, and then a prayer said; then the relatives and friends of the deceased come before the earth is thrown into the grave and sprinkle it with holy water supplied by the priest, and such other emblems as custom allows. They all stay until the grave has been filled up, the company con-</p. 32><p. 33> dole with the relatives of the deceased, and then the bell rings, all return to the church, where a requiem mass was (formerly) sung and a funeral sermon preached. Sometimes the ceremony terminated by the singing of a requiem mass at the grave after it was filled up.

“The ceremonies at the grave occupied several hours time.

“These ceremonies were customary in the Roman Catholic Church for many centuries before the reformation and were in almost general use in the time of Shakespeare, and it is still to a considerable extent the custom and practice in some of the high church dioceses in the Protestant Episcopal Church in England.

“It had long been the custom in the Roman Catholic Church to have a crucifix carried by the priest before the corpse in funeral processions. In the time of Edward VI, A. D. 1548, there was a statute that forbid the use of the crucifix and images in church service ; this was revived in Elizabeth’s reign.</p. 33><p. 34>“The 21st article of the Episcopal Church was also against it. But the cross could and was used, if the priest was willing, at funerals in place of the crucifix.” </p. 34>

<n><p. 24>“* Coke says he is called coroner or coronator because he hath principally to do with pleas of the crown, or such wherein the King is more immediately concerned. The office is of equal antiquity with that of sheriff. Mention is made of him in a charter of King Athelstan, A.D. 905. Forfeiture of personal property for a felony was not introduced into the English law until the begining of the 12th century.”</p. 24></n>

<n><p. 25>“* Dissenters did not have their own churches and burying grounds, until long after Shakespeare’s time.”</p. 25></n>

<n><p. 27>“*Coroner’s juries altnost always decided that the de:eased was insane, and therefore there was no for- feiture. Perhaps this was influenced by the fact that suicides at that time had little or no property to forfeit to the Crown-another fact, that if property-was forfeit- ed, the coroner got no fees.” <n></p. 27>“

3211 quest] Barnett (1889, p. 58): <p. 58>“as inquiry, a search. ‘The quest of the Holy Grail.’ Lat. quaesita, a thing sought.” </p. 58>

3211 Crowners quest law] Symons (in Irving & Marshall, ed. 1890): “Compare [TN , 1.5.142 (429)], and see note (xref note here needed). Sir John Hawkins supposes the passage in the text to be written in ridicule of the case of Dame Hales, reported by Plowden in his Commentaries, which were not, however, translated from the French till the eighteenth century. Malone suggests that Shakespeare may have heard of the case in conversation. “Our author’s study,” he adds, “ was probably not much encumbered with old French Reports.” See Furness, Variorum Ed [v1877]. vol. i. 376, where the points of resemblance are given at some length.” [ed. note: Furness (HFF) repeats the v1773 note from HAWKINS followed by KNIGHT’s quotation of the Walsh’s legal conclusion]”

3211 quest] Craig (ed. 1891: Glossary): “sub. inquiries, [MM 4.1.63 (1836)].”

3211 quest] Dowden (ed. 1899): “Shakespeare seems to have read or heard of Plowden’s report of Hales v. Petit. Sir James Hales had drowned himself; the coroner’s jury returned a verdict of felo de se . Dame Hales’s counsel argued that the act of suicide cannot be completed in a man’s lifetime. Walsh,, Serjeant, contra replied that ‘the act consists of three parts’—the imagination, the resolution, and the execution. Plowden’s Commentaries were not translated from the French until the eighteenth century.” 

3211 quest] Dowden (ed. 1899): “inquest.”

3211 quest]Chambers (ed. 1905) : “coroner.”

3211 quest] Neilson (ed. 1906, Glossary)

3211 quest]

3211 Crowners] Wilson (ed. 1934, Glossary)

3211 quest] Wilson (ed. 1934, Glossary)

3211 Crowners quest law]Wilson (ed. 1934):“An echo of the famous case of Hales v. Petit, heard 1554, of which reports were pub. in 1571, 1578, and which settled for the period the law as regards suicide, recognising it as homicide and so distinct from some kind of felony for which there was a forfeiture. Sir James Hales, the suicide, was a Common Law judge, and consequently the case would be noteworthy on that score; in any event it presents some striking parallels with the words of the sexton, e.g. (I) Hales committed suicide by walking into a river at Canterbury (cf. ‘if the man go to this water’ etc.). (ii) The counsel for the defence argued that

“the act of self destruction consists of three parts. The first is the imagination, which is a reflection or meditation of the man’s mind whether or no it be convenient to destroy himself and in way it may be done. The second is the resolution, which is athe determination of the mind to destroy himself and to do it in this or that particular way; the third is the perfection, which is the execution of what the mind has resolved to do. And this perfection consists of two parts, viz., the beginning and the end. The beginning is the doing of the act which causes the death, and the end is the death, which is only a sequel of the act. ‘ [ this quote is, with a few minor rewordings from KNT1]

“(iii) There was much discussion as to whether Hales was the ‘agent’ or the ‘patient,’ in other words whether he went to the water or the water came to him; and the verdict was:

“Sir James Hales was dead. And how came he by his death? It may be answered by drowning. And who drowned him? Sir James Hales. And when did he drown him? In his lifetime. So that Sir James Hales being alive caused Sir James Hales to die, the act of the living man was the death of the dead man. And for this offence it is reasonable to punish the living man, who committed the offence, and not the dead man. [from KNT1 [w/o attribution], as in above quotation]

“These parallels were first noted by Sir John Hawkins, the friend of Dr. Johnson (v. Furness). The same arguments are likely to have been repeated at any inquest upon a drowned person and so might come to Sh.’s knowledge. Cf. Sir D. Plunket Barton, Links between Sh. and the Law, 1929, pp. 51-4, and The Hist. of the Common Law, 1934, pp. 307-8, by Dr. Harold Potter, to whom I am indebted for the first half of this note.”

3211 Crowners quest law]

3211 Crowners] Kittredge (ed. 1939, Glossary):

211 quest] Kittredge (ed. 1939, Glossary):

3211 Crowners quest law]

3211 quest]

3211 quest]Brooke & Crawford (ed. 1947) glosses quest:“inquest .” 

3211 Crowners quest law] Rylands (ed. 1947, Notes)

3211 Crowners quest law] Alexander (ed. 1951) : “crowner’s quest law, law as laid down at the Coroner’s inquest.” He provides xref to Oth 1.2.46 (255) and its meaning of “party to make inquiry.”

3211 quest] Alexander (ed. 1951, Glossary)

3211 quest] Sisson (ed. 1954, Glossary)

3211 Crowners quest law]

3211 quest]

3211 Crowners quest law] Spencer (ed. 1980): “The Clowns give a burlesque of the arguments in the coroner’s court over Ophelia’s death.”

3211 Crowners quest law] Spencer (ed. 1980): “(that is, according to the formalities governing a coroner’s inquest (quest)).”

3211 quest]

3211 Crowners quest law]

3211 Crowners quest law] Jenkins (ed. 1982, Longer Notes, 547): <p. 547>“The grave-digger’s distinction between whether the man go to his water or the water come to him, in spite of Hawkins and those others he has misled, was in fact not raised in the case of Hales, whose suicide was not in question. But the use of if here is brilliant; for its puts what is a crucial issue in Ophelia’s death in a way that precisely mimics the typical legal argument. And in the gravedigger’s resounding conclusion about one who is not guilty of his own death we may find a parody of a decision by one of the judges: [cites Plowden, “Sir James Hale being alive . . . and not the dead man”; see Cam3 above for quote].”</p. 547>

3211 quest]

3211 marry] Wilkes

3211 Crowners quest law]

3211 Crowners quest law] Edwards (ed. 1985): “coroner’s inquest law.”

3211 quest] Wells and Taylor (ed. 1986, Glossary)

3211 quest] Wells and Taylor (ed. 1986, Glossary)

3211 Crowners quest law]

3211 quest]

3211 quest]

3211 quest]

3211 quest]

3211 Crowners] OED: The OED notes that this spelling of crowner is an obsolete dialectal spelling of coroner , a word that corresponds to a medieval Latin form coronator . The following are early to contemporary analogues for this spelling : c 1425 WYNTOUN Cron. VIII. xxiv. 120 Til Elandonan his crownare past, For til arest mysdoaris flare. 1487 Act 3 Hen. VII, c. 2 The crowner upon the viewe of the body dede shuld inquire of hym..that had don that deth or murder. 1577 HARRISON England II. iv. (1877) I. 102 There are..crowners, whose dutie is to inquire of such as come to their death by violence. 1602 SHAKS. Ham. v. i. 4 The Crowner hath sate on her, and finds it Christian buriall. Ibid. 24 Other. But is this law? Clo. I marry is’t, Crowners Quest Law.