LUDDINGTON AND OTHER PARISHES 47 be traced back directly for a hundred and fifty years, and repeats local gossip in support of the statement that the register of marriages had been seen within living memory.1 Other writers notice the tradition, which does not appear to have been current at the date of Malone's inquiries; and HalliwellPhillipps refers to it as only "publicly noticed in quite recent years. . . . Jordan, in a separate account of Luddington, makes no allusion to its marriage tradition; nor had the late R. B. Wheler, up to the year 1821 or later, ever heard of such a belief." The claims of Temple Grafton rest somewhat insecurely upon the entry in the bishop's register and the chance that the name was copied in error from the allegation, in which it may have been mentioned as the place of marriage. The question cannot be definitely settled in the absence of that document and of the parish register for 1582. Billesley church, with registers commencing in 1812, is referred to by Malone as the possible place of the marriage, but on insufficient grounds. It has also been thought that the ceremony may have been performed at Hampton Lucy, but this supposition is not confirmed by the parish registers, which commence in 1556. The probability that Shakespeare was married in any one of the churches referred to depends largely upon the reasons for avoiding the full publication of banns, and these, in the absence of definite information, can only be inferred from the circumstances discussed in the notes on the necessity for the licence. 5 1 History of William Shakespeare, p. 202. 2 R. G. White, Memoirs of the Life of William Shakespeare, p. 55; J. C. M. Bellew, Shakespeare's Home at New Place, p. 133; H. §. and C. W. Ward, Shakespeare's Town and Times, p. 104. 3 Outlines, ii. 364, note 299. See also Appendix, No. XXIII. The Temple Grafton parish registers commence in 1695, and the transcripts in the Diocesan Registry in 1612. The Life of William Shakespeare 1821, p. 111. G. R. French, Shakspeareana Genealogica, p. 373; Isaac Reed, The Plays of William Shakspeare, 1803, i. 139, note 4. V JOHN SHAKESPEARE'S CONSENT THE opinion that William Shakespeare married without his father's consent is founded mainly upon certain features of the licence bond, supposed to be unusual in others of that period, viz. that neither of the sureties was a member of the Shakespeare family, that consent was limited to the friends of the bride, and that there should be one publication of banns. The insertion of the words "hir frindes " has also been regarded as an error,1 while some writers accept this proviso as correctly conveying all that was intended, and hold that it points to the controlling influence of the Hathaway family in the marriage preliminaries. Dr. Sidney Lee says "the wording of the bond which was drawn before Shakespeare's marriage differs in important respects from that adopted in all other known examples. In the latter it is invariably provided that the marriage shall not take place without the consent of the parents or governors of both bride and bridegroom. The wedding probably took place, without the consent of the bridegroom's parents-it may be without their knowledgesoon after the signing of the deed." There is, however, no distinction between the Shakespeare bond and others of the same period in the limitation of consent to the friends of Anne Hathaway, such differences as exist being confined to variations in the wording of the clause (according as the bride happened to be under the control of parents, guardians, or friends) and, occasionally, to its entire omission when she was a widow or, in 1 G. R. French, Shakspeareana Genealogica, p. 559. CONSENT OF PARENTS 49 the words of the London bonds, "wholly at her own government." No special condition providing for consent in the case of either of the parties was inserted in the Worcester bonds before January 1581-2, when a clause referring solely to the "consent and agreement of the parents or governors" of the bride was introduced;1 and it was not until January 1588-9 that the bridegroom was included.2 The necessity for the consent of the parents of all persons licensed to marry without the full publication of banns had been considered before the introduction of the first clause in the Worcester bonds. In one of the Articles delivered to the Lords from the Lower House of Convocation in 1580, it was proposed "That there be no dispensation granted for marriage without banns but under sufficient and large bonds. . . . And thirdly that they proceed not to the solemnization of the marriage without consent of parents and governors." "8 These articles were not at that time sanctioned by the queen, and were again brought forward by Archbishop Whitgift, who appears to have been mainly instrumental in gaining for them the force of law, immediately after his translation from Worcester to Canterbury. "For in the month of September [1583] divers good articles were drawn up by himself and the rest of the bishops of his province and signed by them. Which the Queen also allowed of and gave her Royal Assent unto to give them greater authority." After the article as to consent, which was a repetition of that of 1580, the following words were added: "The copy of which bond is to be set down and given in charge to every bishop in his diocese to follow." 5 The condition in which reference is made to the consent of 1 Bonds for marriage licences in bundle of wills for the year 1581, Worcester Probate Registry. A Durham bond, dated February 22nd, 1583, contains no reference to consent. In the bonds for 1587 at Durham and for 1588 at Lincoln the consent of the parents of both parties is inserted. 2 Bonds filed with wills for the year 1588. 3 Strype, Life of Grindal, pp. 587-8. Blackstone's Commentaries, 1836 ed., i. 436. Gibson says the restraints moved for in 1580 were framed into an Article or Constitution and passed in 1584. Codex, 1713, i. 515. 5 Strype, Life of Whitgift, i. 227. E the bride's friends therefore appeared in the Worcester bonds before the Article making the insertion compulsory had received royal sanction; and this appears to indicate that Whitgift, who had the power to impose upon the sureties such conditions as were not contrary to civil or canon law, was ready to initiate, in his own diocese, any change likely to prevent the abuse of the licence,1 and to take advantage of every safeguard afforded either by the bond, the oath of the applicant, the certificate of consent, or the letter of recommendation, in order to protect himself and his officials against any attempt to conceal the facts. The delay in making the full change at Worcester until 1588-9 can be explained only as a result of the tardy adoption of the copy of the bond by the officials, and to some relaxation of discipline and personal control after Whitgift had left the diocese. Before the first of these changes was made, obedience to the then existing law was no doubt deemed to have been secured by the original condition of the bond that the parties could "by the laws and statutes of this realm be lawfully married together," a clause which, concurrently with the introduction of the special reference to consent in February 1581-2, was replaced by the words "or by any other means whatsoever following the enumeration of certain impediments. Either of these clauses was sufficiently comprehensive to make the sureties responsible in the matter of consent in the case of a minor; 3 and it was no departure from the usual practice at the Worcester Registry in 1582 to exclude the bridegroom of eighteen from a condition which it was considered necessary to apply to a bride who was of full age, and who could, therefore, have been legally married by banns without the consent of parents or friends. In any case, it may be taken for granted that the assurance 1 Public opinion was becoming strongly averse to the issue of marriage licences, unless such matters as consent were more effectually safeguarded. 2 See Appendix, No. XXIV. 8 There is nothing in the bonds to distinguish the bridegroom who was a minor. In 116 of the bonds for the years 1582 and 1583 the bridegroom, either alone or with others, is a surety; so that the minors are included in the remaining 50 with those who did not make personal application or, from various causes, were not acceptable as sureties. LICENCE NOT OBTAINED BY FRAUD 51 of consent was regarded as one of the most important of the precautions then taken against carelessness, collusion, or fraud on the part of any one concerned in a marriage by licence. I have not seen a marriage licence of the date of the Shakespeare grant, but have no doubt that the consent of the parents or guardians of both parties was then inserted. In 1584, Archbishop Whitgift and the bishops, in answer to one of the articles1 offered in the previous session of Parliament (27 Eliz.), stated that "The inconvenience that is proposed is in most dioceses already met withal by putting the conditions in the faculty (licence); viz. that they have their governor's consent; "2 and in the example of a licence given in the Canons of 1597 allusion is made to "the express consent of your parents and governors on both sides " and "the express consent of your parents and guardians." 3 No exception was made in Shakespeare's case in requiring one publication of banns; and, as this condition was almost invariably inserted in the bonds of the period at Worcester, it can no longer be regarded "as a proof that John Shakspeare had not, up to that time, given consent to his son's marriage.' The theory that the marriage took place without John Shakespeare's consent involves the assumption that the sureties and others concerned in the application joined in a conspiracy to obtain the licence by fraud, and represented that William Shakespeare was of full age or that the requisite consent had been obtained. That the registry officials were deceived by a misstatement as to his age or by means of a forged certificate of his father's consent is exceedingly improbable. 5 However lightly the poet and his bride might have regarded such a method of attaining their object, the sureties could hardly have been blind to the consequences, and the interest 1 See also Appendix, No. XII. 2 Wilkins, Concilia, iv. 314. 3 Cardwell, Synodalia, i. 161. H. C. Coote, quoted by G. R. French, Shakspeareana Genealogica, p. 559. The penalty for their part in such a transaction would probably have been no more severe than a fine or penance, but with a dispensation to remain in a state of matrimony. |