SHAKESPEARE'S FRIENDS AND THE BOND 57

As John Shakespeare's consent does not appear to have been withheld, it may seem strange that a surety was not procured among his numerous relatives and friends.1 The absence of any of the well-known names is taken to indicate that all these were averse to the marriage, a natural conclusion if it were known that the poet was on good terms with them. But if the traditional and not improbable view of his youth is to be relied upon, it is not unlikely that, amongst other causes, an inclination for the stage had given offence to some of his relations, and that an occasional public appearance 2 had supplied those who might otherwise have given the required aid with a reason for declining to take any responsibility on behalf of one who showed a preference for a calling then held in disrepute.

The terms of the bond itself throw very little light upon this question. An analysis of the 166 bonds executed during the years 1582 and 1583 reveals the fact that a surety of the same name as the bridegroom is found in only 24; and as every namesake in this very limited number may not have been the father, the services of the paternal relative could have been available or acceptable for only a very small proportion of the licences granted. This result is curious, and the meaning of it is not clear, for, if the fathers were consenting and acceptable as sureties, there appears to be no reason why their number should be so small. It may be, however, that the bishop made it a rule that the bride's friends should join in the bond as an additional safeguard for her protection.

Whatever may be the true explanation of the facts cited, it can no longer be maintained that the absence of John Shakespeare's name from the bond is at all remarkable, and the inferences usually drawn from this aspect of the marriage therefore lose their significance.

The names of Quiney, Sadler, Reynolds, Greene, and others are well known as those of friends of the family.

2 George Brandes, William Shakespeare, A Critical Study, p. 11; F. S. Boas, Shakspere and His Predecessors, p. 107; H. G. Bohn, The Biography and Bibliography of Shakespeare, p. 76.

VI

THE NECESSITY FOR A LICENCE

HASTE and secrecy are the reasons usually assigned for the necessity of the licence obtained for the marriage of William Shakespeare and Anne Hathaway. The first was probably the more urgent, and is the only one indicated by the bond, from which we learn that two of the publications of banns were dispensed with. Secrecy may also have been desired; but of this there is no evidence, since the place of marriage is not named in the bond or in the entry in the bishop's register.

2

The defective condition of the earlier parish registers and the omission of the place of abode from many of the records of the grants make it impossible to trace all the marriages by licence; but I have ascertained, by means of a search in parishes named in the bishop's registers, that more than half of a certain number of marriages for which licences were granted in the years 1581 and 1582 were solemnized in the bride's parish. And, as it is known that, in some cases, the ceremony was performed in the bridegroom's parish or in a parish adjoining the residence of one of the parties, it is evident that some other motive than secrecy prompted the application for the greater part of the licences granted in Shakespeare's day.

3

1 Karl Elze, William Shakespeare, p. 78; Charles Knight, William Shakspere, A Biography, p. 272; Thomas De Quincey, Shakespeare, A Biography, p. 51. 2 See notes on the Terminal Parish: Appendix, No. XVII.

3 In the records of licences granted before 1578 in which the place of marriage is given, the bride's parish is generally named,-probably as often as in the cases of marriage after banns. See Appendix, No. XX.

NO IMPEDIMENT TO THE MARRIAGE 59

Among the illicit motives for a secret marriage are those arising out of precontract, consanguinity, affinity, or want of consent,1 only the last of which is likely to have existed in Shakespeare's case. The absence of this or any such disability as may have been included in the "any other meanes whatsoever" of the bond is, however, clearly indicated by the facts that the poet and his affairs must have been well known to the sureties and that their friendly service was rendered at a time when, in the diocese of Worcester at any rate, irregularities of the kind mentioned would almost certainly have resulted in the forfeiture of the penalty. In order to establish the contention that such an impediment as the absence of consent existed, and was concealed by the applicant for the licence, it is not enough merely to assert that the system under which licences were granted was, at times, greatly abused, and that there are circumstances in connection with Shakespeare's marriage which require explanation. No other evidence, however, has been adduced, and it is only by a perversion of the meaning of the terms of the bond that any appearance of objection on the part of the friends on either side can be read into it. In Anne Hathaway's case the clause referring to the consent of her friends places the matter beyond doubt, and all the available evidence points to the conclusion that the obstacles to marriage by licence without the consent of the poet's friends were so great as to make the attainment of illegal secrecy well-nigh impossible under the circumstances as we know them. If, for this or any other reason, Shakespeare had found a clandestine marriage necessary and if a lax discipline in the diocese had afforded the opportunity, the publicity of banns would have been more easily and economically evaded in a manner such as that described in a complaint to the Archbishop of Canterbury in 1598: "others never stayed asking the banns three several festival days, as is by law required; but did ask them twice upon some holy-day, and the third time the next morning, when they were married."2 In the absence of John

1 The second and third of these appear to have been the cause of grave scandal in the church in Elizabethan times.

Strype, Life of Whitgift, ii. 400.

Shakespeare's determined opposition, the existence of which remains to be proved, there appear to have been only justifiable reasons for avoiding the full publication of banns. Such reasons, to some extent involving secrecy, are not wanting, and amongst them is the possibility that Shakespeare may have had occasion to conceal his presence in Stratford or its vicinity from some enemy of whom he stood in fear. If the poaching episode could be established1 and assigned to the pre-marriage period, the supposed result would supply an adequate motive for selecting some place for the wedding at a safe distance from Charlecote, and the difficulty of arranging for the ceremony under such conditions would sufficiently account for the licence. Aubrey's account suggests the possibility that this occurred about the time of the marriage, and made it undesirable that the banns should be publicly proclaimed in the church at Stratford.

3

At that period the powers of a master to compel the return of an apprentice who had illegally left his employment were far-reaching, and, with such a charge to answer, Shakespeare's position would have been one of considerable danger 2 unless, indeed, his nimble wit and impatience of restraint had given the master very good reasons for viewing his departure with satisfaction. But this is altogether conjectural, since it is not known, with any certainty, whether the offence of running away had been condoned, leaving the youth free from his indentures when he applied for the licence. That it was obtained to avoid arrest on this account, unless the fact of his apprenticeship was concealed from the registry officials, is, however, improbable, if the London regulations were in force at Worcester in 1582. On February 17th, 1597-8, an allegation was partly prepared for the issue of a marriage licence to

1903.

See Mrs. C. C. Stopes on "Justice Shallow," Fortnightly Review, February 25 Eliz. c. 4, s. 47. These references to Shakespeare's "master" should be read with my comments on Dowdall's letter. See Appendix, No. XXX.

3 The satisfaction on parting may have been mutual, for apprenticeship seems to have been a hard service in those days.

The parish clerk's use of the word "master" is not consistent with the supposition that Shakespeare was apprenticed to his father.

REASONS FOR OBTAINING LICENCES 61

"William Gardner aged about 25 yeres, being a Bachelor, of the parishe of Islington . . . Yeoman, having nether father nor mother living and serveth St John Spencer at Islington and hath his land in his owne hands &c." The allegation is unfinished and without signature or jurat, and in the margin is written "He confesseth he hath not his master's consent and. therefor is refused." From the result of this application it would appear that a master's consent was considered to be necessary, and that a licence was sometimes refused for reasons which would not have been accepted in objection to a marriage after banns. Although such a ruling is not in agreement with the modern interpretation of the Apprentices' Act,2 Shakespeare's application might have been refused on similar grounds.

The sensitiveness which causes some to shrink from the publicity of a proclamation of the banns and of a marriage ceremony before neighbours and friends has been regarded as an adequate reason for the licence. But since the Shakespeares and the Hathaways, as the absence of their names suggests, were but little interested in the arrangements or else were powerless to render the necessary assistance as sureties, the difficulties connected with the bond were too great to be lightly encountered by one in the poet's position, had he no more substantial reason than a desire for a wedding without the full publication of banns or in the seclusion of a remote parish.8

Cases of injustice arising from the want of consent were referred to the Consistory Court, and the mental incapacity of a father or unjust refusal by guardians constituted sufficient grounds for interference, the decision of the Judge being followed by the issue of a licence; but there is no evidence

1 Allegation Book No. 1, London Diocesan Registry.

2 "A covenant against matrimony in an indenture of apprenticeship is of no effect, a covenant in restraint of marriage being illegal." Evans Austin, The Law relating to Apprentices, p. 58.

3 The absence of the record of the marriage from the Stratford parish register does not prove that secrecy was desired, for the ceremony might have been performed at Luddington or Bishopton, both chapels in the parish of Stratford-uponAvon.