Quotation: “Undoubtedly, my Lord; and we have no objection to the document being exhibited for the court to draw its own conclusion from, but we deny that it is entitled to speak in its own explanation. A document is a thing which speaks by its written characters. It cannot take to itself a tongue, and speak by word of mouth also; and, in support of this, I may call your Lordship’s attention to the general principles of law governing the interpretation of written documents.”

“I maintain that the document remains the document; and that for all
purposes, including the giving of evidence concerning its execution, Miss
Smithers still remains Miss Smithers.” -Chapter 20

Comment: These two quotes during the trial made me think of our discussion last week about Augusta’s objectification. The first quote, taken from the Attorney-General, describes how Augusta should not be considered a witness because she is already serving as a “document”. This sentiment is something that has been built up throughout the novel from multiple characters such as Eustace and Mr. Short. The first quote could also be a form of satire from Haggard, based upon the traditional phrase that “women (and children) should be seen and not heard”. Haggard is also making a point on how the law is interpreted, most often very literally. Augusta’s purpose, in the eyes of the attorney-general, is to be a document with no voice, despite the fact that she is very clearly a human. Mr. Short’s quote finally seems to defend the humanity of Augusta. He doesn’t say that she is a book (like Eustace) and does not continue to claim that she is solely a document. These points of objectification earlier in the novel were seen as something beneficial for the characters at Augusta’s expense. However, now Mr. Short is attempted to restore her humanity and reconcile for her objectification, which allows Augusta to ultimately give her story to the court, which assists in winning the case.

Question: While Haggard includes a lot of satire within Mr. Meeson’s Will, I can’t help but wonder what the inspiration for the plot was. Was there a case that he believed was taken too literally before the time in which he wrote the novel?