"His Wife was the Daughter of one Hathaway, said to have been a substantial Yeoman in the Neighbourhood of Stratford." --Nicholas Rowe, Some Acount of the Life &c. of Mr. William Shakespear, prefaced to his 1709 edition of the Plays.
In this post I do not propose to address the quality of life regarding Shakespeare's marriage to Anne Hathaway. There is really no evidence on which to base such appraisals. Certainly the artist's characterizations cannot be carried into biography. He could instinctively understand Macbeth, Iago, Edmund, without being a suborner, thoroughgoing villain or murderer. Neither should his wife be thought curst, nagging or domineering because of the characterization of such women in the plays, nor should his marriage be thought extraordinary to those of his countrymen who found the earner working away from home. What I propose to address in this post are simply the facts of the marriage, which have led to all sort of confusing speculation, needlessly, in my view.
John Whitgift was the bishop of Worcester from 1577 to 1583, when he was "translated" to the see of Canterbury. Worcester was 21 miles west of Stratford, and the consistory court there the place where a marriage license, issued to a local parish priest, might be obtained. Whitgift's register for the date November 27, 1582 indicates the issuance of a license for marriage between William Shaxpere and Anne Whateley of Temple Grafton. At the time, Shakespeare would have been 18 years old. I reproduce the register entry below in facsimile, from Joseph William Gray, Shakespeare's Marriage, Chapman & Hall, 1905; followed by the context and literal translation from Cartae Shakespeareanae. Note that this is the entry from the Bishop's register, not the license itself, which has not survived.
It reads, "inter Willelmum Shaxpere et Annam whateley de Temple Grafton." Temple Grafton is a village four miles to the west of Stratford. The name in the register is Whateley, not Hathaway, and thereby hangs a tale.
The next day, November 28, 1582, a marriage bond was entered into by Fulke Sandells and John Rychardson, farmers of Shottery, Anne Hathaway's village. The purpose of the bond was to indemnify the church in case some later lawful impediment is found to the marriage since the banns were only going to be pronounced once, rather than the stipulated three times. In fact, the idea behind the reding of banns is to bring forth any testimony that might show just such an impediment.
The gentlemen in question were friends of the Hathaway family from Shottery, and stood surety for £40--an enormous amount for the day. In fact, Sandells seems to have been acting as agent for the Hathaway family, performing the duties of father since Richard Hathaway was recently deceased. Sandells had supervised his will i.e., acted as trustee, and Rychardson had witnessed it. Richard Hathaway had been married twice. Anne was the firstborn of four children (1556) by his first wife. His first wife's name is unknown, but lived in Temple Grafton. His second wife was named Joan who died about 1600. Richard Hathaway died in September, 1581.
The bond clearly describes intended marriage between William Shakespeare and Anne Hathaway of Stratford. I reproduce it in transcript below, from the Cartae Shakespeareanae, the beginning paragraph in Latin simply states the parties, amounts, date, and officers of the diocese acting as witnesses:
Noverint universi per praesentes nos Fulconem Sandells de Stratford in comitatu Warwici agricolam et Johannem Rychardson ibidem agricolam, teneri et firmiter obligari Ricardo Cosin generoso et Roberto Warmstry notario publico in quadraginta libris bonae et legalis monetae Angliae solvend. eisdem Ricardo et Roberto haered. execut. et assignat. suis ad quam quidem solucionem bene et fideliter faciend. obligamus nos et utrumque nostrum per se pro toto et in solid. haered. executor. et administrator, nostros firmiter per praesentes. sigillis nostris sigillat. Dat 28 die Novem. Anno regni dominae nostrae Eliz. Dei gratia Angliae Franc. at Hiberniae Regime fidei defensor &c. 25.
The condicion of this obligacion ys suche that if herafter there shall not appere any lawfull lett or impediment by reason of any precontract, consanguitie, affinitie or by any other lawfull meanes whatsoever, but that Willm Shagspere one thone partie and Anne Hathwey of Stratford in the dioces of Worcester, maiden, may lawfully solemnize matrimony together, and in the same afterwardes remaine and continew like man and wiffe according unto the lawes in that behalf provided; and moreover if there be not at this present time any action sute quarrell or demaund moved or depending before any judge ecclesiasticall or temporall for and concerning any such lawfull lett or impediment; and moreover if the said Willm do not proceed to solemnization of mariadg with the said Anne Hathwey without the consent of hir frindes And also if the said Willm do upon his owne proper costes and expenses defend and save harmles the right reverend Father in God Lord John Bishop of Worcester and his offycers for licencing them the said Willm and Anne to be maried together with once asking of the bannes of matrimony betwene them and for all other causes which may ensue by reason or occasion therof that then the said obligacion to be void and of none effect or els to stand and abide in full force and vertue.
The bond is signed with the marks of Sandells and Rychardson, who are described as being "de Stratford" but were actually from Shottery. I reproduce the marks below, from Halliwell-Phillipps The Life of William Shakespeare, p. 112:
The chancellor of the diocesan consistory court was Richard Cosin ("Ricardo Cosin") assisted by registrar Robert Warmstry ("Roberto Warmstry"). The effect of the bond was that the marriage might proceed "with once asking of the bannes," as noted above, rather than asking the banns on three succeeding weeks., William and Anne had two problems: one, Anne was pregnant, probably three months gone; and two, Advent was about to commence, and canon law prohibited the asking of the banns during the Advent season. The prohibitory Advent period in 1582 would have run from December 2 through January 13. A second period of marriage prohibition began on January 27 and lasted until April 7. Clearly, there was no time to announce the banns on three succeeding weeks. The couple had missed their opportunity, the pregnancy not showing itself, perhaps, in time. These were good reasons to make haste.
It is often observed that in Elizabethan times a troth-plight, or informal verbal contract, would have guaranteed marriage, with, perhaps, a ceremony of hand-holding before relatives, after which sex between the couple might be engaged in with social impugnity. We do not know whether any such ceremony, whether public or private, occurred between William and Anne before she became pregnant. Victorian apologists for Shakespeare--who dwell heavily on this custom--also point out that a third of Elizabethan women at the time of marriage were pregnant, and that many marriages were preceded by the less formal troth-plight, also known as "hand-fasting" or "making sure":
"...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 procsenti or cohabitation after a promise per verba futuro would have given Anne Hathaway a legal claim to the completion of the marriage. 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" (Gray, p. 6).
Again, it is important to note that we simply do not know whether any such troth-plight existed between William and Anne, but it seems unlikely in the light of the haste shown to get to church in November, 1582.
A "common" license had been issued to them. "The common licence, as then issued by the Bishop of Worcester, dispensed with the full publication of banns and was generally addressed to the rector, vicar, or curate, occasionally by name, of the church designated for the marriage, which was not necessarily in the parish of one of the parties" (Gray, p. 9-10).
"Upon the issue of a common licence, the following documents were probably prepared:
a) An allegation, to which the applicant was sworn, stating the name, residence, and occupation of each of the parties and of the parents, guardians, or friends giving consent, and the reason why the full publication of banns was to be dispensed with, or why permission was required to marry in a parish which was not the ordinary residence of the bride or bridegroom.
b) A bond to indemnify the bishop and his officials from any action or suit arising out of the grant of the licence.
c) A letter from some person of position known to the bishop or his officials and to the parties and their friends, certifying that no impediment existed and that the licence could safely be granted. The assurance of consent was sometimes included in this certificate.
d) The licence addressed to the minister of the church in which the ceremony was to be performed." (Gray, p. 11).
Of these, if in fact they all ever existed, only the bond survives.
Common licenses were issued for reasons of haste, and also for reasons (related or not) for the desire for privacy, to save expense, or other conveniences. It is unfortunate the allegation does not survive, because then it could be determined on what basis Shakespeare, then a minor, gained consent to marry. Was it by permission of his parents by letter? His own oath? On the say so of the friends of the Hathaway family? Was his father present? He well could have been without leaving documentary evidence. We simply don't know. The allegation would also have contained the stated reasons for a single reading of the banns.
It is doubly unfortunate that the actual license itself does not survive, because then we would have known to whom it was addressed and, consequently, where in fact the wedding took place. Most current biographers are interested in undergirding the implications of John Shakespeare's Testament, interweaving the many disparate Warwickshire Catholic currents and building a case of Shakespeare's crypto-Catholicism. Therefore, they place the wedding in Temple Grafton. The priest there, John Frith, was known as a follower of the old faith, a priest from the days of Queen Mary. He was accused of papistry in government spy reports (Wood, p. 85). Had they been married by Frith, the ceremony, should they have so desired, would have been conducted in Latin as a Catholic ceremony, concluded by a mass.
On the other hand, it may not be that William and Anne sought to be married in Temple Grafton because of their faith, or more likely, their parents' faith. Anne was likely a resident of Temple Grafton. It was where her mother had originated, and she may well have been living there with here mother's people, though she is clearly referenced as "Anne Hathwey of Stratford" in the bond. It is often noted that Henry Heicroft was the vicar in Stratford at the time, a firm Protestant. But it does not follow, that William and Anne went to unusual lengths to avoid being married by him. It is clear, however, that the marriage was not performed in Stratford. The parish records for Stratford at the time are complete and a Shakespeare-Hathaway marriage cannot be found. An alternative location might have been Luddington, where Anne had relatives, and where a local tradition persisted into the eighteenth century that Shakespeare had been married there. Yet again, it might have been held at Bishopton, slightly to the north of Shottery, or Worcester itself, in St. Martin's church, "where the pages of the register for marriages of 1582 have been carefully cut out" (Ackroyd, p. 93). On the whole, Temple Grafton seems most likely, but again, we simply do not know for sure.
And what of Anne Whateley? Was she the girl left just short of the alter? The girl our young Romeo intended to marry before being bullied into a shotgun wedding by Sandells and Rychardson at the behest of the older, curst Anne? (Anne was 26 at their marriage, William 18). Anthony Burgess, among many others, has embroidered an elaborate romance along these lines in his masterful Nothing Like the Sun, and again in his biography Shakespeare, but it is all fiction--though it must have been nearly impossible for a novelist to resist. Gray has shown that on the very day the license was issued, November 27, 1582, William Whateley, vicar of Crowle, was present in the Consistory Court at Worcester, pursuing a long-running tithe suit there. The names Whateley and Hathaway in the Warwickshire dialect sound alike. It is easy to believe that an overworked clerk, late in the day, perhaps, could mis-hear one for the other, especially since he had heard, seen and written the name Whateley so recently in the course his duties. Anne Whateley seems to have been, in the modern parlance, a clerical error.
So what of the mysteries of Shakespeare's marriage:
Did he marry without his parents' permission, even though he was legally a minor? We simply don't know. The evidence does not support the contention that he did, and in the absence of evidence, it is likely, according to common custom, that a letter or oath of permission was presented at the diocesan court.
Did he marry Anne Hatheway, whose father Richard was a yeoman farmer from Shottery, a hamlet nearby to Stratford? Yes.
Did Shakespeare and Anne have a troth-plight, or verbal agreement of marriage, before engaging in pre-marital sex? It is impossible to say, but seems unlikely because of the rush to secure license and marriage before the advent season once it was known that Anne was pregnant. A spectrum of opinions undoubtedly existed within the Shakespeare and Hathaway families and their friends. We simply don't know what words or demands passed between who or when.
Was it a "shotgun wedding" promoted and forced by the friends of the Hathaways? Again, it is impossible to say, but there is no reason for supposing so. The evidence simply indicates that Fulke Sandells and John Richardson were performing the duties of true friends to the late Richard Hathaway and his daughter.
Was the wedding performed in Temple Grafton, Luddington, or Worcester? It is impossible to say. It is possible to say it was not performed in Stratford, and the most likely location was Temple Grafton.
Was it a Catholic ceremony? Again, it is impossible to say. If it occurred in Temple Grafton it is likely to have been, but much would have been left to private agreement between the parties and John Frith. If it occurred in another church, it is likely not to have been.
Was it a loveless marriage? There is, again, no way to know, but no reason to suppose so.
There is a poetic coda to the marriage story. It concerns sonnet 145, unusual for its placement and quality among the sonnets:
Those lips that Love's own hand did make
Breathed forth the sound that said 'I hate'
To me that languish'd for her sake;
But when she saw my woeful state,
Straight in her heart did mercy come,
Chiding that tongue that ever sweet
Was used in giving gentle doom,
And taught it thus anew to greet:
'I hate' she alter'd with an end,
That follow'd it as gentle day
Doth follow night, who like a fiend
From heaven to hell is flown away;
'I hate' from hate away she threw,
And saved my life, saying 'not you.'
The poem is often remarked on for its simplistic qualities compared to the complex, multilayered language of most of the sonnets. "Hate away" and Hathaway are sound alikes in Warwickshire dialect (Wood p. 86). Andrew Gurr suggests the obvious pun on "Hathaway." In the final line, "And saved my life" would sound like "Anne saved my life." Is this an example of Shakespeare's early versifying? Perhaps his earliest, written in the summer of 1582? It is not known (but see Andrew Gurr, Essays in Criticism, 1971, p.221), but it certainly does not belong with the "narrative" of the sonnets or the dense quality of their language. Why, then, did Shakespeare insert it for publication, and why in position 145? And if it really is about Anne and William, why did Anne say "I hate" in line 2, and what circumstance or act on William's part brought about the saving "not you" in line 14?
As with so much of Shakespeare, the answers aren't definite, but it is at least one piece of evidence, if evidence it might be, that the relationship between Shakespeare and Anne was not a barren one but one built on love and mutual ebracement.
Whatever the circumstances, we can be sure of the human consequences to the Shakespeare-Hathaway marriage: A daughter, Susanna, born to William and Anne Shakespeare, was baptized in Stratford on May 26, 1583.
For more details, see Samuel Schoenbaum, William Shakespeare A Documentary Life, p. 62 ff. (with full-sized reproduction of the bond; the same for Richard Hathaway's will; and the notice in the bishop's register); and William Shakespeare A Compact Documentary Life, pp. 76-94; for elaborations on the Whateley "romance" see Anthony Burgess' biography Shakespeare; and his novel Nothing Like the Sun; for the Catholic marriage ceremony, see Peter Ackroyd, Shakespeare: The Biography; for the Catholic tendencies in Warwickshire and an analysis of sonnet 145, see Michael Wood, Shakespeare.
This is the blog for the web site Mr. William Shakespeare and the Internet
can you tell me why did shakespeare leave his wife
Posted by: d | March 25, 2009 at 04:52 AM
interesting subject... dont know its fact or not but was fun to read :)
Posted by: Phim Online | March 02, 2009 at 05:05 AM