Elizabethan Demonology | Page 4

reality possess"--is understood in this sentence;
and consequently Hamlet, and through him, Shakspere, stand
committed to the appalling doctrine that hypocrisy in morals is to be
commended and cultivated. Now, such a proposition never for an
instant entered Shakspere's head. He used the word "assume" in this

case in its primary and justest sense; _ad-sumo_, take to, acquire; and
the context plainly shows that Hamlet meant that his mother, by
self-denial, would gradually acquire that virtue in which she was so
conspicuously wanting. Yet, for lack of a little knowledge of the
history of the word employed, the other monstrous gloss has received
almost universal and applauding acceptance.
4. This is a fair example of the style of error which a reader
unacquainted with the history of the changes our language has
undergone may fall into. Ignorance of changes in customs and morals
may cause equal or greater error.
The difference between the older and more modern law, and popular
opinion, relating to promises of marriage and their fulfilment, affords a
striking illustration of the absurdities that attend upon the interpretation
of the ideas of one generation by the practice of another. Perhaps no
greater nonsense has been talked upon any subject than this one,
especially in relation to Shakspere's own marriage, by critics who seem
to have thought that a fervent expression of acute moral feeling would
replace and render unnecessary patient investigation.
In illustration of this difference, a play of Massinger's, "The Maid of
Honour," may be advantageously cited, as the catastrophe turns upon
this question of marriage contracts. Camiola, the heroine, having been
precontracted by oath[1] to Bertoldo, the king's natural brother, and
hearing of his subsequent engagement to the Duchess of Sienna,
determines to quit the world and take the veil. But before doing so, and
without informing any one, except her confessor, of her intention, she
contrives a somewhat dramatic scene for the purpose of exposing her
false lover. She comes into the presence of the king and all the court,
produces her contract, claims Bertoldo as her husband, and demands
justice of the king, adjuring him that he shall not--
"Swayed or by favour or affection, By a false gloss or wrested
comment, alter The true intent and letter of the law."
[Footnote 1: Act v. sc. I.]
Now, the only remedy that would occur to the mind of the reader of the
present day under such circumstances, would be an action for breach of
promise of marriage, and he would probably be aware of the very
recent origin of that method of procedure. The only reply, therefore,
that he would expect from Roberto would be a mild and sympathetic

assurance of inability to interfere; and he must be somewhat taken
aback to find this claim of Camiola admitted as indisputable. The riddle
becomes somewhat further involved when, having established her
contract, she immediately intimates that she has not the slightest
intention of observing it herself, by declaring her desire to take the veil.
5. This can only be explained by the rules current at the time regarding
spousals. The betrothal, or handfasting, was, in Massinger's time, a
ceremony that entailed very serious obligations upon the parties to it.
There were two classes of spousals--sponsalia de futuro and _sponsalia
de praesenti_: a promise of marriage in the future, and an actual
declaration of present marriage. This last form of betrothal was, in fact,
marriage, as far as the contracting parties were concerned.[1] It could
not, even though not consummated, be dissolved by mutual consent;
and a subsequent marriage, even though celebrated with religious rites,
was utterly invalid, and could be set aside at the suit of the injured
person.
[Footnote 1: Swinburne, A Treatise of Spousals, 1686, p. 236. In
England the offspring were, nevertheless, illegitimate.]
The results entailed by sponsalia de futuro were less serious. Although
no spousals of the same nature could be entered into with a third person
during the existence of the contract, yet it could be dissolved by mutual
consent, and was dissolved by subsequent _sponsalia in praesenti_, or
matrimony. But such spousals could be converted into valid matrimony
by the cohabitation of the parties; and this, instead of being looked
upon as reprehensible, seems to have been treated as a laudable action,
and to be by all means encouraged.[1] In addition to this, completion of
a contract for marriage de futuro confirmed by oath, if such a contract
were not indeed indissoluble, as was thought by some, could at any rate
be enforced against an unwilling party. But there were some reasons
that justified the dissolution of sponsalia of either description. Affinity
was one of these; and--what is to the purpose here, in England before
the Reformation, and in those parts of the continent unaffected by
it--the entrance into a