been discussed from almost every point of view and, in the absence of more interesting matter, seem likely to be the subjects of further curiosity and debate, it is desirable that the facts should be correctly stated and their meanings understood so far as surviving records will permit. The long series of adverse comments upon Shakespeare and his wife commenced before the end of the seventeenth century with Aubrey's reference to the wife of the Oxford vintner, Davenant. The next contribution was made between 1750 and 1778 by William Oldys in some speculations as to Anne Shakespeare's beauty and the probability that certain of the Sonnets were addressed to her "on some suspicion of her infidelity."2 ."2 George Steevens called attention to the lack of evidence, and referred to the charge of jealousy as an unwarrantable conjecture. Malone, on the other hand, while questioning the evidence upon which Oldys founded his opinions, suggested that both jealousy and the likelihood that Shakespeare was not very strongly attached to his wife were indicated by the fact that jealousy was "the principal hinge of four of his plays," by the Davenant scandal, and by the bequest of the "second-best bed," as interlined in the poet's will. To these matters of debate were afterwards added disparity in the ages of the pair and Shakespeare's supposed long absence from the home at Stratford-upon-Avon. Material for further adverse comment was provided in 1836 by the discovery of the marriage licence bond, which brought to light the interval between the issue of the licence and the baptism of the eldest child and the absence of John Shakespeare's name as a surety or as a consenting party. A clandestine performance of the marriage ceremony was erroneously supposed to be indicated by the necessity for dispensing with the full publication of banns. 1 Lives of Eminent_Men: "Sir William Davenant, Knight,”, ii. 302-3. See also Appendix, No. I. Notes in Gerard Langbaine's English Dramatic Poets. See Appendix, No. I. Some of the details of this discussion are given in the Supplement to Shakspeare's Plays by Samuel Johnson and George Steevens, 1780, i. 653–7, and Malone's Plays and Poems of Shakspeare, 1821, xx. 305–9. DE QUINCEY'S COMMENTS 3 Some years later, the discovery of the record of the issue of the marriage licence, with important differences between the terms of that document and the bond, gave a fresh impetus to discussion. Among the more recent writers who have expressed opinions unfavourable to Shakespeare or his wife on one or more of these points are Thomas Moore,1 Thomas de Quincey,2 Thomas Campbell, Richard Grant White, Lord Campbell,5 and Dr. Karl Elze.6 Not only Shakespeare and his wife, but even the unknown. minister that performed the marriage ceremony and others concerned are included in these criticisms, none of which can be accepted as presenting either persons or incidents in a true light. De Quincey's comments, for instance, if taken seriously, may mislead many to whom his high reputation as a man of letters is some guarantee of the correctness of his facts and the soundness of his conclusions. The errors of such men are difficult either to ignore or to rectify, but in most of these cases, happily for the repute of those concerned, it can be shown that the imputations are based upon a misapprehension as to the reasons for obtaining the marriage licence or a misreading of the terms of the bond. False impressions of Shakespeare's friends are created by De Quincey's ill-natured reference to the sureties and their "gross clownish pronunciation" of the poet's surname (Shagspere) at the supposed interview with the "bishop's secretary." Of their share in the transaction nothing is known beyond the fact that by giving the required security they rendered assistance without which the marriage licence could not have been obtained. These random comments, as well as Joseph Hunter's slighting reference to the rude marks made by the sureties in signing the bond and to their The Life, Letters, and Journals of Lord Byron, 1860, p. 271. 2 Shakspeare, A Biography, pp. 43-93. 6 The Dramatic Works of William Shakspeare, 1859, i. xxvii. 5 Shakespeare's Legal Acquirements Considered, p. 107. Shakespeare, A Literary Biography, p. 76. Sidney Lee, A Life of William Shakespeare, p. 21. See Appendix, No. II. The name Shagspere occurs also in the Act Book of the Consistory Court. See p. 100. unfitness for a place at a poet's bridal,' must have been prompted by far-fetched notions as to Shakespeare's position in 1582. Many of the allusions to various aspects of the intimacy between William Shakespeare and Anne Hathaway and to their married life stand in unpleasant contrast to the cautious and sympathetic references of other writers who are not prepared to dogmatize on such questions as the extent of their moral delinquency, and are unwilling to justify one at the expense of the other by an attempt to allocate the imputed blame. It will, perhaps, be urged that the views to which attention has been called are fully justified by the common experience of life as we now see it; but this can hardly be relied upon as a safe guide in the formation of a correct judgment on matters obscured by the lapse of three centuries. Whether a more intimate acquaintance with the facts, mostly long since forgotten, or, what is of equal importance, a better knowledge and appreciation of modes of thought now no longer in vogue would justify any of the criticisms, it is impossible to say. This much, however, is certain, that no undisputed facts can be cited nor can any reliable documentary evidence be produced in their support other than the records of the grant of the marriage licence and of the baptism of Susanna Shakespeare, the dates of which are held to establish the principal charge in the indictment. The delay in completing the marriage rites thus disclosed, though not in accordance with modern ideas of propriety, appears to have escaped contemporary censure. Anne Hathaway's alleged seniority may have given her an advantage which was used in forcing the marriage upon her youthful lover. On the other hand, it is quite as likely that a "premature knowledge of the world" and the early maturity often associated with great genius gave him advantages quite equal to those which the woman derived from her greater age and experience. For some reason now unknown, upon which local tradition throws no light, Anne Shakespeare may have 1 New Illustrations, i. 50. * Goldwin Smith, Shakespeare the Man, p. 22; Samuel Butler, Shakespeare's Sonnets Reconsidered, p. 92. THE MARRIAGE CONTRACT 2 5 failed to retain her husband's affection.1 Jealousy and strife may have been followed by estrangement. It is possible that Shakespeare's long periods of absence from his family were borne by him with a willingness not quite consistent with a desire for his wife's companionship or a preference for domestic life. He may have been dissolute and prodigal in his youth, and on leaving Stratford for London may perhaps have freely availed himself of the greater liberty thus gained. The objection to all of these surmises is not that they are beyond belief or even improbable, but that there is no clear evidence upon which any one of them can be substantiated. As most of the charges can be neither established nor disproved, it is not purposed to enter upon any vindication beyond an attempt to show that an unwarranted use has been made of the marriage licence documents. An appearance of truth has been given to hypotheses which, owing to frequent repetition, are now often accepted as facts. This last objection also applies in some measure to the terms used by Shakespeare's apologists,1 who in an excess of admiration for his rare intellectual gifts overlook the important fact that we know almost as little about his virtues as his vices. No discussion upon matters connected with Shakespeare's marriage seems to be complete without a reference to the probability that, in accordance with the custom of the time, he entered into a contract with Anne Hathaway a few months before the date of the licence. The methods of conducting the espousals in Elizabethan days, as described in the proceedings of the Consistory Court at Worcester,5 indicate that, except under peculiar circumstances, such as a suit to enforce the completion of the marriage, evidence of the transaction 1 F. S. Boas, Shakspere and His Predecessors, p. 105; F. G. Fleay, A Chronicle History of the Life and Work of William Shakespeare, pp. 88-9. Joseph Graves, The Life of William Shakspeare, p. 6; W. Carew Hazlitt, Shakespear, p. 44. 3 G. G. Gervinus, Shakespeare Commentaries, pp. 30 and 33. The views of this school are ably and pleasantly expressed by Charles Knight, William Shakspere, A Biography, 1865, pp. 105–296. See also C. and M. C. Clarke, The Plays of William Shakespeare, i. xxix., xxxiii. For extracts from these depositions, see Appendix, No. IV. was not at all likely to be placed on permanent record. The failure to discover evidence of such a precontract in the poet's case therefore leads to no definite conclusion. But, as a binding agreement could then be legally entered into with very little formality, it has been properly held that so simple an expedient for avoiding scandal or still greater mischief could scarcely have been neglected, especially if the adverse view of Anne Hathaway's part in the transaction is to be accepted. The judge's decision in the case of Holder against Shaw,1 cited by Halliwell-Phillipps in support of his contention that "Shakespeare could have entered, under any circumstances whatever, into a precontract with Anne Hathaway," proves that an informal contract of marriage between competent parties, before witnesses, and in some cases without the interference of parents or guardians, although there was, sometimes, a stipulation for their consent, was as binding as the more formal troth-plight of which the parents and friends on both sides had signified their approval. A promise per verba præsenti or cohabitation after a promise per verba futuro1 would have given Anne Hathaway a legal claim to the completion of the marriage.5 Persistent refusal on Shakespeare's part would have rendered him liable to excommunication and imprisonment until the decree of the judge had been obeyed, and the sentence of the court would have rendered void a subsequent marriage with another. So far, Anne Hathaway's position was unassailable. Such a marriage, though irregular, was regarded as valid; and even if Shakespeare had still refused and the 1 Act Book, No. 4, and Deposition Book, No. 3, Worcester Consistory Court, October 1585 to June 1586. 2 Outlines, i. 65. This reference applies in all cases to the 7th edition of Outlines of the Life of Shakespeare, by J. O. Halliwell-Phillipps. The parents do not appear to have been called upon to give evidence in this case. See Henry Swinburne, A Treatise of Spousals, 1686, pp. 35-6; J. T. Hammick, The Marriage Laws of England, pp. 3, 4, and 51; The Rights and Liabilities of Husband and Wife (Sweet & Sons), p. 4. See also 32 Henry VIII., c. 38, s. 2; 2 & 3 Edward VI., c. 23, s. 2; 1 & 2 Philip and Mary, c. 8, s. 19; 1 Elizabeth, c. 1, s. 11. case, 5 The question of the consent of parents, which complicates Shakespeare's is discussed in the chapter on "John Shakespeare's Consent." See Appendix, No. V. |