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.