the Keept thor of being emancipated from the slavery of religious bias, and, his book as a consequence, they are beginning to pay homage to truth with the result that a perceptible change has been wrought in the critical character of modern historical research.1 In exposition of the state of education in the age of Hamlet, a recent non-Catholic author writes: "From the beginning of the ninth century, all the more famous monasteries had two distinct schools one for the oblati, the other for outsiders. One of the complex causes of the astonishing new birth of Europe was the conversion of the Scandinavian pirates into Christians and civilized Normans. In Germany under the enlightened rule of the Ottos, the symptoms of a better order of things were already to be traced before the middle of the tenth century. Though in a sense the authority of Aristotle was supreme throughout this, as well as the latter medieval period in the formation of scholastic philosophy, the influence of Plato upon European thought counted for at least as much as that of the Stagirite." H. Rashdall, The Universities of the Middle Ages. Vol. 1 C. 2 et passim. Arthur Leach makes the following remarkable assertion: "There is not the smallest doubt that the provision for secondary schools was far greater in proportion to population during the Middle Ages than it has ever been since. Every Collegiate Church kept a secondary school, and every Cathedral Church maintained in early days a small university." School Supply in the Middle Ages. No less an authority than Huxley writes concerning the culture of these schools: "I doubt if the curriculum of any modern university shows so clear and generous a comprehension of what is meant by culture, as this old Trivium and Quadrivium did." Universities actual and ideal: Inaugural Address as Rector of Aberdeen University. 1 This emancipation was already enjoyed to some extent before the close of the last century by such famous authors as Hallam, Maitland, Digby, and Drane in England; Guizot and Archey in France; Heeren, Voigt, and Specht in Germany; Betinelli, Andres, and Battini in Italy. If Hamlet studied philosophy in Germany, it was at one of these renowned schools. Their wondrous history may be found in detail in a German work of original research.' The great cathedral school at Magdeburg, which had been founded in the year 937 by Otto the Great, attained equal rank with that of Hildesheim. Ludolph Kroppinstedt, who had studied twenty years at Paris, where he was a schoolmate of the famous St. Thomas of Canterbury, was called by archbishop Weigman to take charge of the school. Within its walls, philosophy was taught by the famous master, Gerbert, and by Oterich, a rival professor of equal fame. It attracted students from all parts of Germany, and thither the princes of the empire, as well as the Teutonic knights of Prussia, sent their sons. A rival school was founded in 993 at Hildesheim by the emperor Otto III, who was himself a scholar and a pupil of the renowned Gerbert. It soon acquired eminence, and became illustrious as the principal institution of higher learning in North Germany. Worthy of note is the fact that in the days of Hamlet, Thietmar, a celebrated priestly scholar and a countryman of the Prince of Denmark was at the head of the famous imperial school at Hildesheim. At one or other of these famous institutions of Northern Germany, which were frequented by the sons of kings and princes, Shakespeare, no doubt intended Hamlet to study philosophy. He was, however, unacquainted with the history of learning in Germany in the eleventh century; such a history had not yet been written. But he was aware that at home the university of Oxford, like other universities of Europe, had been the natural outgrowth of preexisting famous schools, and by analogy he would reasonably infer that the same was the case at Wittenberg. It was the only place of which he knew, and the name was moreover familiar to his audience, and that alone was a sufficient reason to send his hero to school at Wittenberg. * "Geschichte des Unterrichtswesens in Deutschland" by Dr. Specht. If some, ignoring these very pertinent historic facts, wish, nevertheless, to think that the Poet, enamoured of the "'innovations of the Reformers," desired to have the Prince imbued with their doctrines at the Protestant university at Wittenberg, they must not only charge him with an astounding anachronism of five centuries, but also ignore the fact that he makes Hamlet a Catholic; that in his dramas he reveals more than once a dislike for the "Reformers" and their innovations; and more wondrous still, that he fails to cause the Dane to utter even a single word in favor of the doctrines of the new religion, which they suppose him to have imbibed at Wittenberg. On the contrary, Hamlet's thoughts and sentiments, as shall be seen, are in striking harmony with the religious principles, and morals, and philosophy as prevalent in the imperial schools of Northern Germany of the eleventh century. CHAPTER VI The Age of Hamlet The topic of Hamlet's years has given rise to almost as much discussion as the question of the duration of the drama. The Poet deals with the one and the other in the same artful manner. From the opening of the play he seems to convey, in scene after scene, the impression that the Prince, still in the heyday of his youth, is probably not more than twenty or twenty-three years of age. As this skillful legerdemain gives rise to the notion of Hamlet's youthfulness, it is well to consider it before touching upon his actual age. Ignoring the brief duration of the dramatic action, some critics are led to enlarge unduly on Hamlet's supposed weakness of will, or vacillation. They suppose the action of the tragedy to run on for many months or even a year, and, in consequence, exaggerate the Prince's apparent procrastination. This delusion, says Furness, results from the Poet's skillful method of dealing with the dramatic element of time, a method whereby he conveys, in an artful manner, two opposite ideas: the one of swiftness, and the other of slowness. By one series of illusions, we imagine that the action is driving along in storm, while by the other, we are insensibly beguiled into believing that it extends over many months. Our mind, engrossed by the action of the drama, fails to measure the duration, and accepts without questioning each successive impression as the Poet intended. In illustration, Polonius, who was surely cognizant of the latest court news, expresses as much surprise as Ophelia herself at Hamlet's strange behavior, and yet, from this very interview with his daughter, he goes directly to the king, and speaks of Hamlet's lunacy as a fact well known and of long duration. This and many other instances, which may be multiplied by any careful reader, are not inconsistencies or oversights on the part of th Poet. They belong to two series of time, the one suggestiv. and illusory, and the other visible and directly indicated These two elements have been called by Halpin, the pro tractive and the accelerating series, and by Sir Christopher North, the two clocks of Shakespeare. Counting off the time by one of these clocks, some have estimated the duration of the dramatic action at seven or eight days, while others as sign at least ten days.1 It may be reasonably asserted that while the action of the drama may be thus possibly compressed into a period of seven days, nevertheless, from certain data given, one may calculate with some precision that the actual time of the en tire drama does not exceed three months, a period of time affording, indeed, scanty room for procrastination in the project of killing a king, under the circumstances in which Hamlet was placed. At the opening of the play, two im portant events are premised as accomplished; the murder of Hamlet's father and the marriage of his mother. That the former occurred in November and the latter in December, may be inferred from the time of the ghostly apparition; and this time is indicated by Marcellus in the words: "Some say that ever, 'gainst that season comes 1 If Daniel's calculation of time be accepted, the action may, in accordance, be divided into seven respective days, as follows: First day, Second day, Act I, scene I-III. Here, is supposed an interruption of less than two months. Third day, Fourth day, Fifth day, Act II. Act III, scene I-IV; Act IV, scene I-III. At this point, a week or more, is thought to intervene. Sixth day, Seventh day, Act IV, scene V-VII. Act V. |