Sheriffs
An irony related to literary history is revealed in this insight into British society. When one thinks of British law way back in history and recalls Robin Hood, the law of the land that immediately comes to mind is the Sheriff of Nottingham. Ironically, it turns out that Robin and his Merry Men had to hide from the Sheriff not because he was at the top of the hierarchy, but rather more toward the middle. The job of the Sheriff is ironic because his job was not really about arresting and imprisoning criminals per se, but because it was his job to keep track of taxes. That Robin Hood was enriching himself and then giving it away to the poor was a dual violation of the tax system and that is what fell under the domain of the Sheriff; the constable was in charge of holding him accountable for stealing.
Constables
A little bit of historical irony is offered through the sad devolution of the position of constable. What we today know as pretty much the lowest rung on the ladder of British law enforcement—the bobby on the beat of a small English village—actually began as one the most powerful positions. In fact, by the writing of the text, the constable was already beginning its slow decline as it is described in the text as now—then—being lesser than a Justice of the Peace, which it once equaled.
Of Gentlemen and Bums
Ever wonder what is meant by the concept of the proper British gentlemen? This text clarifies, or at least tries to. In reality, what it seems to describe is, ironically, just the opposite. Truly it seems there is a thin line between a gentleman and bum:
“to be shorte, who can live idly and without manuall labour, and will beare the port, charge and countenaunce of a gentleman, he shall be called master, for that is the title which men give to esquires and other gentlemen, and shall be taken for a gentleman”
Then Why Elizabethan and Not Parliamenthan?
The entire point—or, at least, the central point—of this text is to forward the idea that the greatest system of monarchy is one in which the balance of government power is invested in Parliament rather than in the monarch. The irony lies in the fact the author was composing his volume during the period of British history synecdochally referred to as the Elizabethan Era, as if Parliament barely existed or exist primarily to serve the will of the Queen. Which, basically, it did.
Legal Irony
One definition of irony describes it as a state in which that which is assumed to be one thing is actually, in practice, the opposite. With that definition in mind, apparently the laws of England at the time the author writers—regarding the property rights of wives—was based entirely on such an ironic disconnect between what the law intended and what the reality of marital situations. Either that, or the author is being purposely ironic:
“And although our lawe may seeme somewhat rigorous toward the wives, yet for the most part they can handle their husbandes so well and so doulcely, and specially when their husbands be sicke: that where the lawe giveth them nothing, their husbandes at their death of their good will give them all.”
