Folk-lore of Shakespeare - Thomas Firminger Thiselton Dyer (ereader iphone txt) 📗
- Author: Thomas Firminger Thiselton Dyer
- Performer: -
Book online «Folk-lore of Shakespeare - Thomas Firminger Thiselton Dyer (ereader iphone txt) 📗». Author Thomas Firminger Thiselton Dyer
It is evident that Angelo and Mariana were bound by oath; the nuptial was appointed; there was a prescribed time between the contract and the performance of the solemnity of the Church. The lady, however, having lost her dowry, the contract was violated by her “combinate” or affianced husband—the oath, no doubt, having been tendered by a minister of the Church, in the presence of witnesses. In “Twelfth Night” (iv. 3) we have a minute description of such a ceremonial; for, when Olivia is hastily espoused to Sebastian, she says:
Into the chantry by: there, before him,
And underneath that consecrated roof,
Plight me the full assurance of your faith;
That my most jealous and too doubtful soul
May live at peace. He shall conceal it,
Whiles you are willing it shall come to note:
What time we will our celebration keep
According to my birth.”
This, then, was a private ceremony before a single witness, who would conceal it till the proper period of the public ceremonial. Olivia, fancying that she has thus espoused the page, repeatedly calls him “husband;” and, being rejected, she summons the priest to declare (v. 1):
Hath newly pass’d between this youth and me.”
The priest answers:
Confirm’d by mutual joinder of your hands,
Attested by the holy close of lips,
Strengthen’d by interchangement of your rings;
And all the ceremony of this compact
Seal’d in my function, by my testimony:
Since when, my watch hath told me, toward my grave
I have travell’d but two hours.”
Again, in the “Winter’s Tale” (iv. 4), which contains many a perfect picture of real rustic life, it appears that, occasionally, the troth-plight was exchanged without the presence of a priest; but that witnesses were essential to the ceremony:
Before this ancient sir, who, it should seem,
Hath sometime lov’d: I take thy hand, this hand,
As soft as dove’s down and as white as it,
Or Ethiopian’s tooth, or the fann’d snow, that’s bolted
By the northern blasts twice o’er.
How prettily the young swain seems to wash
The hand, was fair before!—I have put you out:—
But, to your protestation; let me hear
What you profess.
Than he, and men; the earth, the heavens, and all;
That, were I crown’d the most imperial monarch,
Thereof most worthy; were I the fairest youth
That ever made eye swerve; had force and knowledge
More than was ever man’s, I would not prize them
Without her love; for her employ them all;
Commend them, and condemn them, to her service,
Or to their own perdition.
Say you the like to him?
So well, nothing so well; no, nor mean better:
By the pattern of mine own thoughts I cut out
The purity of his.
And, friends unknown, you shall bear witness to’t:
I give my daughter to him, and will make
Her portion equal his.[708]
I’ the virtue of your daughter: one being dead,
I shall have more than you can dream of yet;
Enough then for your wonder. But, come on,
Contract us ’fore these witnesses.
And, daughter, yours.”
To the argument of Polixenes, that the father of Florizel ought to know of his proceeding, the young man answers:
Mark our contract.”
And then the father, discovering himself, exclaims:
Here, then, as Mr. Knight remarks,[709] in the publicity of a village festival, the hand of the loved one is solemnly taken by her lover, who breathes his love before the ancient stranger who is accidentally present. The stranger is called to be a witness to the protestation, and so is the neighbor who has come with him. The maiden is called upon by her father to speak, and then the old man adds:
The friends are to bear witness to it:
Her portion equal his.”
The impatient lover then again exclaims:
The shepherd takes the hands of the youth and the maiden. Again the lover exclaims:
The ceremony is left incomplete, for the princely father discovers himself with:
It appears, therefore, that espousals before witnesses were considered as constituting a valid marriage, if followed up within a limited time by the marriage of the Church. However much the Reformed Church might have endeavored to abrogate this practice, it was unquestionably the ancient habit of the people.[710] It was derived from the Roman law, and still prevails in the Lutheran Church.
Besides exchanging kisses,[711] accompanied with vows of everlasting affection, and whispering lovers’ reassurances of fidelity, it was customary to interchange rings. In Shakespeare’s plays, however, espousals are made with and without the use of the ring. Thus, in the case of Ferdinand and Miranda, we read of their joining hands only (“Tempest,” iii. 1):
As bondage e’er of freedom; here’s my hand.
Till half an hour hence.”
In the passage already quoted from “Twelfth Night” (v. 1) there seems to have been a mutual interchange of rings.
Some, indeed, considered that a betrothal was not complete unless each spouse gave the other a circlet. Lady Anne, in “Richard III.” (i. 2), is made to share in this misconception:
Even so thy breast encloseth my poor heart:
Wear both of them, for both of them are thine.”
In “Two Gentlemen of Verona” (ii. 2) we read:
A joint, or gimmal, ring was anciently a common token among lovers, an allusion to which is made by Emilia, in “Othello” (iv. 3): “I would not do such a thing for a joint-ring.” Their nature will be best understood by a passage in Dryden’s “Don Sebastian” (1690, act v.):
With joints so close, as not to be perceiv’d;
Yet are they both each other’s counterpart,
... and in the midst,
A heart, divided in two halves, was plac’d.”
They were generally made of two or three hoops, so chased and engraved that, when fastened together by a single rivet, the whole three formed one design, the usual device being a hand. When an engagement was contracted, the ring was taken apart, each spouse taking a division, and the third one being presented to the principal witness of the contract.[712] Hence such a ring was known as a “Sponsalium Annulis,” to which Herrick thus refers:
Returned a ring of jimmals, to imply
Thy love hath one knot, mine a triple tye.”
The term is used by the Duke of Anjou, in “1 Henry VI.” (i. 2):
Their arms are set like clocks, still to strike on;
Else ne’er could they hold out so as they do.”
Again, in “Henry V.” (iv. 2), Grandpré tells how,
Lies foul with chew’d grass, still and motionless.”
Most readers of the “Merchant of Venice” remember the mirthful use which Shakespeare makes of lovers’ rings. Portia says (iii. 2), when giving her wealth and self to Bassanio:
Which when you part from, lose, or give away,
Let it presage the ruin of your love.”
The last act, too, gives several particulars about lovers’ rings, which, in Elizabethan England,[713] often had posies engraved on them, and were worn by men on the left hand. Gratiano, for example, says:
That she did give me; whose posy was
For all the world like cutlers’ poetry
Upon a knife, ‘Love me and leave me not.’”
Again Bassanio exclaims:
And swear I lost the ring defending it.”
In “Taming of the Shrew” Shakespeare gives numerous allusions to the customs of his day connected with courtship and marriage. Indeed, in the second act (sc. 2) we have a perfect betrothal scene:
To buy apparel ’gainst the wedding-day.—
Provide the feast, father, and bid the guests;
I will be sure my Katharine shall be fine.
God send you joy, Petruchio! ’tis a match.
I will to Venice; Sunday comes apace.
We will have rings, and things, and fine array;
And, kiss me, Kate, we will be married o’ Sunday.”
Although Katharina is only his spouse, and Baptista not yet his father-in-law, Petruchio, in accordance with fashion, calls her “wife” and him “father.” The spouses of old times used to term one another “husband” and “wife,” for, as they argued, they were as good as husband and wife.
Formerly there was a kind of betrothal or marriage contract prevalent among the low orders called “hand-fasting,” or “hand-festing,” said to have been much in use among the Danes, and which is mentioned by Ray in his “Glossary of Northumbrian Words.” It simply means hand-fastening or binding. In “Cymbeline” (i. 5) the phrase is used in its secondary sense by the Queen, who, speaking of Pisanio, declares that he is
Not to be shak’d; the agent for his master,
And the remembrancer of her, to hold
The hand-fast to her lord.”
In the “Christian State of Matrimony,” 1543, we find the following illustration of this custom: “Yet in this thing almost must I warn every reasonable and honest person to beware that in the contracting of marriage they dissemble not, nor set forth any lie. Every man, likewise, must esteem the person to whom he is ‘handfasted’ none otherwise than for his own spouse; though as yet it be not done in
Comments (0)