politan of Hamburg, and therefore any action would by reason of distance, as well as of legal forms, necessarily involve delay. Claudius, on the other hand, knew that the success of his plot depended upon his hasty marriage. He could not in prudence await the lengthy time required for a dispensation. In fact he could brook no delay; for Hamlet was hastening homeward, and would, no doubt, attempt to frustrate his design. It was, therefore, urgent that the marriage, as well as the coronation ceremony be accomplished before the Prince had set foot in Denmark. If the members of the council had scruples concerning the impediment, an evil character like Claudius would consider them as nothing worth. He had committed horrid crimes with the view of sating his ambition. Was it likely now, when the crown was within his reach, that he would balk at a lesser offence? His characteristic cunning and duplicity impelled him to resort to a convenient equivocation. The claim that he had, or was obtaining, the necessary dispensation for a legal marriage would not only satisfy scrupulous officials but also quell popular opposition. His action is paralleled by that of the English Uxorcide in 1533. Five years had rolled away since Henry first solicited a divorce, three, since he began to cohabit with Anne Boleyn. But when he discovered his mistress to be in a condition to promise him an heir, he decided upon a secret marriage. When Dr. Lee, the royal chaplain, made some opposition, Henry calmed his priestly scruples with the assurance that Clement VII. had granted him a divorce from Catherine, and that the papal document was safely deposited in his closet." It is clearly shown in the course of the drama that Claudius did not legalize his marriage. He knew that any attempt would be futile; for though the first impediment, that of marrying his deceased brother's wife, were removed, his marriage with the Queen was still barred by a second and * "Lingard's History of England', Vol. V, p. 3. Edinburgh Edition, 1902. third law which were of even greater moment. The second concerned the criminal seduction of a consort on the promise of marriage after the death of the husband.' It prohibited and nullified the marriage of the adulterer even after the death of the innocent party. This second impediment was a secret of Claudius and Gertrude, who closely guarded it, unaware of its disclosure to Hamlet by his father's ghost: 66 "Ay, that incestuous, that adulterous beast, With witchcraft of his wit, with traitorous gifts,- So to seduce!-won to his shameful lust The will of my most virtuous Queen." The third impediment was a law which prohibited and nullified the marriage of the man who murdered the husband of his accomplice in adultery in order to marry her. This impediment of crime was unknown to the Queen, and remained a secret to Claudius alone until revealed to the Prince by his ghostly visitant: "Tis given out that, sleeping in my orchard, A serpent stung me; so the whole ear of Denmark Is by a forged process of my death Rankly abused; but know, thou noble youth, Now wears his crown. A criminal like Claudius, long debauched in conscience, gave little heed to these impediments which hopelessly barred his legal union with the Queen. As long as his crimes were securely locked in the secret of his own heart, his marriage would appear real to the citizens of Denmark, and, in consequence, seem no debarment from the throne. Since Hamlet's right to the crown depends upon the 3 The 2nd impediment dates back to the earlier Christian centuries. It is found in the preserved records of the Council of Triburien (895), in several collections of Canon Law, such as those of Regino, Burchard, Ivo, and the famous Sum or Abridgment of Canon Law made by Gratian in 1140. work consists not only of the decrees of councils and popes down to Innocent II, but also of passages from the Scripture, from the Fathers, and even from the Roman Law. The 994 validity of his mother's marriage with Claudius, it appears strange that of the many commentators only one has touched upon the question. Professor Trench admits that the marriage was invalid, but his conclusion, though true, is based on premises which every Catholic knows to be erroneous. "The case of Gertrude," he says, "is precisely parallel with that of Catherine of Aragon. Their cases, however, far from being parallel, exhibit a great disparity. Both should be judged according to the ecclesiastical canons which prevailed at the time, and which governed the sacramental marriage contract. Gertrude obtained no dispensation from the three impediments which nullified her marriage, while Catherine was canonically freed from the one barrier to her union with Henry. But, continues the Professor: "Such a union (with a deceased husband's brother) was illicit to the English people." Yes, in the case of Gertrude, but not in that of Catherine. The marriage of the former was from the first considered invalid and criminal; that of the latter, sanctioned by the religion of Christendom, was valid in the eyes of the English nation and of Henry himself, until after eighteen years. of wedded life, he unfortunately fell under the fascination of a beautiful and vivacious maid of honor in the Queen's household. When his overtures to Anne Boleyn were spurned save on the promise of marriage, he began under the influence of his criminal passion to feel scruples concerning the validity of his union with Catherine. But these pretended scruples deceived no one; and their hollowness was a common subject for jesting among his courtiers. This fact is well exemplified by Shakespeare's ironical allusions in the person of sundry nobles: Lord Cham. It seems the marriage with his brother's wife Duke of Suffolk. No, his conscience Has crept too near another lady. W. T. Trench: "Shakespeare's Hamlet'', A New Commentary, London, 1903, p. 54. Duke of Norfolk. 'Tis so: He counsels a divorce; a loss of her These news are everywhere; every tongue speaks 'em, (Hen. VIII. 2. ii.) Professor Trench further intimates that the audiences of Shakespeare adjudged the marriage of Catherine to be as void as Gertrude's; "for if it were not so, Queen Elizabeth would have had little right to occupy the throne."" Such an opinion is discredited by the history of the times. Though the statute by which Elizabeth had been pronounced illegiti mate was still in force, she ascended the throne without opposition. Of her right there could be no doubt. It had been established by the statute for the thirty fifth Henry VIII.' and nothing, therefore remained for the two houses but to recognize the accession of the new sovereign. She was welcomed by both the Catholic and Protestant parties. The former believed that her conversion to the ancient faith which she professed during the reign of her sister, was real and sincere; the latter, while lamenting her apostacy, persuaded themselves that her sentiments were feigned. "It is probable that, in her own mind, she was indifferent to either form of worship; but her ministers, whose prospects depended on the Ibidem, p. 257. Lingard's History of England'', Vol. VI, c. I. 7 Henry's many marriages and divorces had so complicated the question of the succession, that Parliament, to avoid disputes after Henry's death, had given him power to settle the matter by will. This he did, directing that the crown should descend to his son Edward and his heirs; in case Edward dies childless, it was to go to Mary and her heirs, and then to Elizabeth and her heirs." Myers' Mediaeval and Modern History', P. See also Lingard's "History of England',' Vol. V, p. 225. 415. change, urged their mistress to reject and proscribe the religion which proclaimed her a bastard, and to support the reformed doctrines which alone could give stability to her throne.R If the drama does not enter upon antecedent details, it is because it already presupposes three accomplished facts: the murder of Hamlet's father, the incestuous marriage of Claudius, and the Prince defrauded of the crown. the drama retroactive would retard the action of a tragedy To make already overcrowded with incidents, and give too great a prominence to Claudius to the detriment of the main character. Shakespeare does, however, emphasize more than once the all-important fact that the marriage of Claudius was only putative or supposed, and therefore null and void, and this fact he would impress upon our minds by frequent repetitions. Hence, he causes Hamlet to speak of it so often as a matter of deep grief, to charge his mother with criminal conduct, to implore her to abandon her unholy and shameful union with his uncle: 8 Queen. O, Hamlet, speak no more! Thou turn'st mine eyes into my very soul, And there I see such black and grained spots Hamlet. Nay, but to live Stew'd in corruption, Queen. O, speak to me no more! These words, like daggers, enter into mine ears, Hamlet. Confess thyself to heaven; Repent what's past, avoid what is to come; To make them ranker. Queen. O, Hamlet, thou hast cleft my heart in twain. Good night! But go not to mine uncle's bed; Lingard — Ibidem. |