HATHAWAY OR WHATELEY

THE truth of Rowe's statement that Shakespeare's wife was "the daughter of one Hathaway "1 was accepted without question until attention was called to the entry in the bishop's register, in which she is described as Anne Whateley. While this discrepancy cannot be said to have seriously disturbed the old belief, some doubt has naturally arisen, and renewed interest has been imported into the debate upon the question of her identity.

Before giving the results of a search among the Worcester diocesan records for a clue to the puzzle, it will, perhaps, be as well to review some of the explanations which the introduction of this new name has brought forth.

In some remarks upon the last edition of Outlines, the editor of Shakespeareana says: "Its author had in contemplation, for example, a careful investigation of Shakespeare's residence in St. Helen's parish in the old city of London; also to enquire thoroughly into the history of Shakespeare's wife, who, as the discoveries of the last dozen years or so render not at all unlikely, was named Anne or Agnes Whately, instead of Anne (or Ann) Hathaway."2 It is not quite clear whether this points to an explanation similar to that suggested by Dr. Karl Elze, who enquires: "Can it be that this entry refers

1 Some Account of the Life of Mr. William Shakspeare, 1709. See Outlines, ii. 186, for a reference to an unpublished edition of Rowe's account, in which the names of John and Samuel Hathaway are also mentioned.

2 Shakespeareana, vii. 27, New York, 1890. note 394.

See also Outlines, ii. 396,

to Anne Hathaway's first marriage?" In any case all the evidences except that of the bishop's register are in favour of the name given in the bond, "Anne Hathwey . . . maiden," which effectually disposes of the theory that she had been previously married. Moreover, if she had been a widow, the consent of her friends would have been unnecessary, although there are occasional exceptions to this rule, the consenting parties in such cases being described in the Worcester bonds and London allegations as "friends" or "governors," whose protection, in some circumstances, was considered necessary. Mrs. C. H. Dall says: "Anne may have been a ward or niece, and the seal attached to the bond must have been borrowed only. . . . As far as can be inferred from known facts, Anne Hathaway was an orphan, whose connection with Shottery has been assumed. . . . I draw attention to the fact that Anne Hathaway could not have been the daughter of Richard Hathaway of Shottery." In a letter to The Athenæum of July 17th, 1886, Mr. A. Hall suggested the possibility that "Richard Hathaway, alias Gardener of Shottery, who died in 1582, may have married a widow named Whateley from Temple Grafton, which would then be Anne Hathaway's birthplace. . . . This assumption would account for Anne's known seniority to the surviving Hathaways and for her exclusion from the father's will." There is no evidence in favour of this hypothesis; and it may also be urged that, if she had been known by the name of Whateley, alias Hathaway, it might reasonably be looked for in that or the reversed form both in the bond and the register entry, in common with many instances of a like kind in the matrimonial records. In commenting upon Mr. Hall's letter, the editor says: "No amount of ingenuity will ever convert the 'Anne Whateley of Temple Grafton' of one day into the Anne Hathaway of Stratford' of

William Shakespeare, 1888, p. 73.

2 The consent of the parents of widows is specially excepted in the example of a licence given in the Constitutions and Canons of 1597, and again in the 104th Canon of 1603.

What we really know about Shakespeare, pp. 32, 183, 188-9.

I am informed that the Rev. T. P. Wadley, who discovered the bishop's register entry, was of the opinion that the name Whateley was an alias.

ANNE WHATELEY

23

the next." It is very unlikely, however, that licences were granted to Shakespeare on successive days for his marriage to Anne Whateley and to Anne Hathaway respectively. Even if John Shakespeare's consent to the second proposed marriage could have been obtained, it is difficult to believe that the same or other sureties could have been induced to undertake the responsibility of the second bond in the face of the transactions of the previous day, which were not calculated to give assurance of the absence of impediments or exemption from the penalty. The second application with its unavoidable complications would have excited suspicion at the registry, with the probable result of a refusal of the second licence and, upon further enquiry, the withdrawal of the bishop's sanction to the first.

Dr. Sidney Lee says: "The theory that the maiden name of Shakespeare's wife was Whateley is quite untenable, and it is unsafe to assume that the bishop's clerk, when making a note of the grant of the license in his register, erred so extensively as to write 'Anne Whateley of Temple Grafton' for Anne Hathaway of Shottery.' The husband of Anne Whateley cannot reasonably be identified with the poet. He was doubtless another of the numerous William Shakespeares who abounded in the diocese of Worcester."1 The poet's name was common enough at that time in the Midland counties 2 to make it possible that on consecutive days two William Shakespeares applied for marriage licences at the Worcester Registry; but, in addition to this coincidence, it would be necessary to assume another almost as curious, in the loss of the Whateley bond and the omission of the Hathaway entry from the bishop's register. That all these things occurred is very improbable, although a bond is not filed for every licence, nor is a licence recorded for every bond. It has been assumed that the marriage was objectionable to the Shakespeare family and that the name Whateley was 1A Life of William Shakespeare, pp. 23, 24.

The name "William Shakespere" appears in the Rowington list of the "trained shouldiers. . . taken at Alcester" in 1605. State Papers printed in Ryland's Records of Rowington, p. 187.

used for the purpose of deception. This explanation fails upon two grounds: John Shakespeare could not have been ignorant of the identity of the woman to whose marriage with his son he had formally given a consent, without which the licence could not have been obtained; and it would be necessary to assume that the registry officials were very easily imposed upon, or that they were in collusion with the applicants, and deliberately issued a licence in a name different from that given in the bond, the object of which would have been thereby defeated. Mr. Joseph Hill, in some notes in his edition of Historic Warwickshire, says: "The word 'Whateley' shows that the original off-hand memorandum in some draft or rough book for subsequent entry in the Registry was not made with care; it contains, in fact, three inaccuracies-the date, the name and the parish. The original in Latin would be 'Annam Hathwey,' and when some days subsequently it was entered in the register by a neat copyist, he mistook the 'm' for 'w' and the small and capital 'h' being precisely alike he would be easily misled, particularly as it was an invariable habit at that period to curtail the terminal of a name, whilst the first stroke of 'w' was formed by many writers like the letter 't'”1

Although there is no proof of the existence of a rough draft of the register at the date of Shakespeare's licence, such a book appears to have been kept at one period for the use of the scribe who made the entries. During Hurd's episcopate a number of loose sheets, upon which were recorded some of the official acts of several bishops from 1516 to 1542, were formed into a volume-now Number XXVII. of the series of registers. The earlier memoranda bear the appearance of having been carelessly written, and some of the paragraphs are interlined; but towards the end of the volume the pages become a fair duplicate on paper of the register, which was written on vellum. At this stage it may have occurred to the registrar, perhaps with a view to economies, which at that

1 Historic Warwickshire, by J. Tom Burgess, p. 102.

2 Similar duplicates of portions of the episcopal registers are preserved at Hereford.

LONDON ALLEGATIONS

25

period of the Reformation were somewhat pressing,1 that, since the draft could be as neatly compiled as the register, it was advisable to dispense with such a duplication of the work. There are now no means of ascertaining whether this draft was continued until 1582.

Indistinct writing in an allegation prepared without previous drafting would make a mistake such as Mr. Hill suggests comparatively easy; but as neither that document nor rough draft nor temporary memorandum has been preserved at the Worcester Registry, there is no satisfaction in discussing the quality of the penmanship. From the appearance of the London allegations, which were written in a book, there can be but little doubt that many of them were prepared without the intervention of anything more than, possibly, a memorandum of the names and descriptions of the parties.2 There are frequent erasures and interlineations, and the following example appears to support the idea that these documents were sometimes written directly from a verbal statement. On December 19th, 1597, Thomas Sturgis appeared personally before Doctor Stanhope, and applied for a licence for the marriage of Nicholas Tillman and Margaret Sturgis, both of the city of London. After giving other particulars, the allegation, which is without signatures, comes to an end with the words, "and he further allegeth," thus indicating that the answer to some question was not satisfactory, and so the transaction—for that time, at any rate was ended.1 Without some additional knowledge of the routine of the Worcester Registry in Shakespeare's day, it is impossible to decide the question as to the nature of the document from which the register list of licences was compiled, though the evidence appears to be in favour of

"The revenues and incomes of the Bishopricks had been so stript by their immediate Popish predecessors that the present [1559] Bishops were in want even of Convenience and Necessaries, for Housekeeping" (Strype, History of the Reformation, pp. 158-9).

2 This is the present practice at Worcester, and may be a survival. 2 Allegation Book, No. 1, London Diocesan Registry.

Some of the incomplete entries in the Worcester episcopal registers suggest the probability that the scribe sometimes copied and failed to cancel the particulars from allegations that were left in an unfinished condition. "John Wise," June 14th, 1581, folio 396, Bishop Whitgift's register.

See