Folk-lore of Shakespeare

A form of superstition very common in days gone by was the supposed influence of the “Evil eye,” being designated by the terms “o’erlooked,” “forelooked,” or “eye-bitten,” certain persons being thought to possess the power of inflicting injury by merely looking on those whom they wished to harm. Even the new-born child was not exempt from this danger, and various charms were practised to avert it. In the “Merry Wives of Windsor” (v. 5), Pistol says of Falstaff:

“Vile worm, thou wast o’erlook’d, even in thy birth.”

This piece of folk-lore may be traced back to the time of the Romans, and, in the late Professor Conington’s translation of the “Satires of Persius,” it is thus spoken of: “Look here! a grandmother or a superstitious aunt has taken baby from his cradle, and is charming his forehead against mischief by the joint action of her middle-finger and her purifying spittle; for she knows right well how to check the evil eye.”701 Is is again alluded to in the “Merchant of Venice” (iii. 2), where Portia, expressing to Bassanio her feelings of regard, declares:

“Beshrew your eyes,They have o’erlook’d me, and divided me;One half of me is yours, the other half yours;”

and in “Titus Andronicus” (ii. 1), Aaron speaks of Tamora as:

“faster bound to Aaron’s charming eyesThan is Prometheus tied to Caucasus.”

This superstition, however, is not yet obsolete, but lingers on in many country places.

We may also compare a similar phrase made use of by Cleopatra (“Antony and Cleopatra,” iii. 7), in answer to Enobarbus:

“Thou hast forspoke my being in these wars,”

the word forespeak having anciently had the meaning of charm or bewitch, like forbid in “Macbeth” (i. 3):

“He shall live a man forbid.”702

Among the numerous customs associated with the birth of a child may be mentioned the practice of giving presents at the announcement of this important event. In “Henry VIII.” (v. 1), on the old lady’s making known to the king the happy tidings of the birth of a princess, he says to Lovell:

“Give her an hundred marks. I’ll to the queen.”

The old lady, however, resents what she considers a paltry sum:

“An hundred marks! By this light, I’ll ha’ more.An ordinary groom is for such payment.I will have more, or scold it out of him.”

It was an ancient custom – one which is not quite out of use – for the sponsors at christenings to offer silver or gilt spoons as a present to the child. These were called “apostle spoons,” because the extremity of the handle was formed into the figure of one or other of the apostles. Such as were opulent and generous gave the whole twelve; those who were moderately rich or liberal escaped at the expense of the four evangelists, or even sometimes contented themselves with presenting one spoon only, which exhibited the figure of any saint, in honor of whom the child received its name. In “Henry VIII.” (v. 2) it is in allusion to this custom that, when Cranmer professes to be unworthy of being a sponsor to the young princess, Shakespeare makes the king reply:

“Come, come, my lord, you’d spare your spoons.”

A story is related of Shakespeare promising spoons to one of Ben Jonson’s children, in a collection of anecdotes entitled “Merry Passages and Jests,” compiled by Sir Nicholas L’Estrange (MSS. Harl. 6395): “Shakespeare was godfather to one of Ben Jonson’s children, and after the christ’ning, being in a deepe study, Jonson came to cheere him up, and ask’t him why he was so melancholy. ‘No faith, Ben (sayes he), not I; but I have been considering a great while what should be the fittest gift for me to bestow upon my godchild, and I have resolv’d at last.’ ‘I pr’y thee, what?’ sayes he. ‘I’ faith, Ben, I’le e’en give him a douzen good Latin spoones, and thou shalt translate them.’” “Shakespeare,” says Mr. Thoms,703 “willing to show his wit, if not his wealth, gave a dozen spoons, not of silver, but of latten, a name formerly used to signify a mixed metal resembling brass, as being the most appropriate gift to the child of a father so learned.” In Middleton’s “Chaste Maid of Cheapside,” 1620:

“2 Gossip. What has he given her? What is it, gossip?

3 Gossip. A fair, high-standing cup, and two great ’postle spoons, one of them gilt.”

And Beaumont and Fletcher, in the “Noble Gentleman” (v. 1):

“I’ll be a gossip, Beaufort,I have an odd apostle spoon.”

The gossip’s feast, held in honor of those who were associated in the festivities of a christening, was a very ancient English custom, and is frequently mentioned by dramatists of the Elizabethan age. The term gossip or godsip, a Saxon word signifying cognata ex parte dei, or godmother, is well defined by Richard Verstegan, in his “Restitution of Decayed Intelligence.” He says: “Our Christian ancestors, understanding a spiritual affinity to grow between the parents and such as undertooke for the child at baptism, called each other by the name of godsib, which is as much as to say that they were sib together, that is, of kin together through God. And the childe, in like manner, called such his godfathers or godmothers.”

As might be expected, it is often alluded to by Shakespeare. Thus, in the “Comedy of Errors” (v. 1), we read:

“Abbess. Thirty-three years have I but gone in travailOf you, my sons: and till this present hourMy heavy burthen ne’er delivered.The duke, my husband, and my children both,And you the calendars of their nativity,Go to a gossip’s feast, and go with me;After so long grief, such festivity!Duke. With all my heart I’ll gossip at this feast.”

And again, in “A Midsummer-Night’s Dream” (ii. 1), the mischievous Puck says:

“sometime lurk I in a gossip’s bowl,In very likeness of a roasted crab;And, when she drinks, against her lips I bob,And on her wither’d dewlap pour the ale.”

And, once more, we find Capulet, in “Romeo and Juliet” (iii. 5), saying to the Nurse:

“Peace, you mumbling fool!Utter your gravity o’er a gossip’s bowl;For here we need it not.”

Referring to entertainments at christenings, we find the following in the “Batchelor’s Banquet,” 1603 (attributed to Dekker): “What cost and trouble it will be to have all things fine against the Christening Day; what store of sugar, biskets, comphets, and caraways, marmalet, and marchpane, with all kinds of sweet-suckers and superfluous banqueting stuff, with a hundred other odd and needless trifles, which at that time must fill the pockets of dainty dames,” by which it appears the ladies not only ate what they pleased, but pocketed likewise. Upon this and the falling-off of the custom of giving “apostle spoons” at the christening, we read in “Shipman’s Gossip,” 1666:

“Especially since gossips nowEat more at christenings than bestow.Formerly when they us’d to troulGilt bowls of sack, they gave the bowl;Two spoons at least; an use ill kept;’Tis well now if our own be left.”

Strype tells us that, in 1559, the son of Sir Thomas Chamberlayne was baptized at St. Benet’s Church, Paul’s Wharf, when “the Church was hung with cloth of arras, and after the christening were brought wafers, comfits, and divers banqueting dishes, and hypocras and Muscadine wine, to entertain the guests.”

In “Henry VIII.” (v. 4), the Porter says: “Do you look for ale and cakes here, you rude rascals?”

A term formerly in use for the name given at baptism was “Christendom,” an allusion to which we find in “All’s Well that Ends Well” (i. 1), where Helena says:

“with a worldOf pretty, fond, adoptious christendomsThat blinking Cupid gossips,”

the meaning evidently being, a number of pretty, fond, adopted appellations or Christian names to which blind Cupid stands godfather. The expression is often used for baptism by old writers; and Singer704 quotes from “King John” (iv. 1):

“By my christendom,So I were out of prison, and kept sheep,I should be as merry as the day is long.”

Steevens observes that, in the Puritanical times, it was usual to christen children with the names of moral and religious virtues – a practice to which allusion seems to be made in “The Tempest” (ii. 1) by Antonio:

“Temperance was a delicate wench.”

So Taylor, the Water-Poet, in his description of a strumpet, says:

“Though bad they be, they will not bate an ace,To be call’d Prudence, Temperance, Faith, or Grace.”

In days gone by a “chrisom” or “christom child” was one who had recently been baptized, and died within the month of birth, the term having originated in the “face-cloth, or piece of linen, put upon the head of a child newly baptized.” The word was formed from the chrism, that is, the anointing, which formed a part of baptism before the Reformation. Thus, in “Henry V.” (ii. 3), the hostess, Mrs. Quickly, means “chrisom child” in the following passage, where she speaks of Falstaff’s death: “’A made a finer end, and went away an it had been any christom child.” In a beautiful passage of Bishop Taylor’s “Holy Dying” (chap. i. sec. 2), this custom is thus spoken of: “Every morning creeps out of a dark cloud, leaving behind it an ignorance and silence deep as midnight, and undiscerned as are the phantoms that made a chrisom child to smile.” Referring to the use of the chrisom-cloth in connection with baptism, it appears that, after the usual immersion in water, the priest made a cross on the child’s head with oil, after which the chrisom was put on, the priest asking at the same time the infant’s name, and saying, “Receive this white, pure, and holy vestment, which thou shalt wear before the tribunal of our Lord Jesus Christ, that thou mayest inherit eternal life. Amen.” It was to be worn seven days; but after the Reformation, however, the use of oil was omitted, and the chrisom was worn by the child till the mother’s churching, when it was returned to the church. If the child died before the churching, it was buried in the chrisom, and hence it may be that the child itself was called a chrisom or chrisomer.705 Thus, it will be seen that Dame Quickly simply compares the manner of Falstaff’s death to that of a young infant. In registers and bills of mortality we find infants alluded to under the term “Chrisoms.” Burn, in his “History of Parish Registers” (1862, p. 127), gives the subjoined entry from a register of Westminster Abbey: “The Princess Ann’s child a chrissome bu. in ye vault, Oct. 22, 1687.”

In Graunt’s “Bills of Mortality,” cited in Johnson’s Dictionary, we read: “When the convulsions were but were but few, the number of chrisoms and infants was greater.” The “bearing-cloth” was the mantle which generally covered the child when it was carried to the font. It is noticed in the “Winter’s Tale” (iii. 3), by the Shepherd, who, on the discovery of Perdita, says to the Clown: “Here’s a sight for thee: look thee, a bearing-cloth for a squire’s child! Look thee here; take up, take up, boy: open’t.” In Stow’s “Chronicle” (1631, p. 1039), we are told that about this time it was not customary “for godfathers and godmothers generally to give plate at the baptisme of children, but only to give ‘christening shirts,’ with little bands and cuffs, wrought either with silk or blue thread. The best of them, for chief persons, were edged with a small lace of black silk and gold, the highest price of which, for great men’s children, was seldom above a noble, and the common sort, two, three, or four, and six shillings a piece.”

CHAPTER XIII

MARRIAGE

The style of courtship which prevailed in Shakespeare’s time, and the numerous customs associated with the marriage ceremony, may be accurately drawn from the many allusions interspersed through his plays. From these, it would seem that the mode of love-making was much the same among all classes, often lacking that polish and refined expression which are distinguishing characteristics nowadays. As Mr. Drake remarks,706 the amatory dialogues of Hamlet, Hotspur, and Henry V. are not more refined than those which occur between Master Fenton and Anne Page, in the “Merry Wives of Windsor,” between Lorenzo and Jessica, in the “Merchant of Venice,” and between Orlando and Rosalind, in “As You Like It.” These last, which may be considered as instances taken from the middle class of life, together with a few drawn from the lower rank of rural manners, such as the courtship of Touchstone and Audrey, and of Silvius and Phœbe, in “As You Like It,” are good illustrations of this subject, although it must be added that, in point of fancy, sentiment, and simplicity, the most pleasing love-scenes in Shakespeare are those of Romeo and Juliet and of Florizel and Perdita.

The ancient ceremony of betrothing seems still to have been in full use in Shakespeare’s day. Indeed, he gives us several interesting passages upon the subject of troth-plight. Thus, in “Measure for Measure” (iii. 1), we learn that the unhappiness of the poor, dejected Mariana was caused by a violation of the troth-plight:

“Duke. She should this Angelo have married; was affianced to her by oath, and the nuptial appointed: between which time of the contract, and limit of the solemnity, her brother Frederick was wrecked at sea, having in that perished vessel the dowry of his sister. But mark how heavily this befell to the poor gentlewoman: there she lost a noble and renowned brother, in his love toward her ever most kind and natural; with him, the portion and sinew of her fortune, her marriage-dowry; with both, her combinate husband, this well-seeming Angelo.

Isabella. Can this be so? Did Angelo so leave her?

Duke. Left her in her tears, and dried not one of them with his comfort; swallowed his vows whole, pretending in her discoveries of dishonour; in few, bestowed her on her own lamentation, which she yet wears for his sake; and he, a marble to her tears, is washed with them, but relents not.”

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:

“Now go with me and with this holy manInto 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 soulMay live at peace. He shall conceal it,Whiles you are willing it shall come to note:What time we will our celebration keepAccording 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):

“what thou dost knowHath newly pass’d between this youth and me.”

The priest answers:

“A contract of eternal bond of love,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 compactSeal’d in my function, by my testimony:Since when, my watch hath told me, toward my graveI 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:

“Florizel. … O, hear me breathe my lifeBefore 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 boltedBy the northern blasts twice o’er.Polixenes. What follows this? —How prettily the young swain seems to washThe hand, was fair before! – I have put you out: —But, to your protestation; let me hearWhat you profess.Florizel. Do, and be witness to’t.Polixenes. And this my neighbour too?Florizel. And he, and moreThan 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 youthThat ever made eye swerve; had force and knowledgeMore than was ever man’s, I would not prize themWithout her love; for her employ them all;Commend them, and condemn them, to her service,Or to their own perdition.Polixenes. Fairly offer’d.Camillo. This shows a sound affection.Shepherd. But, my daughter,Say you the like to him?Perdita. I cannot speakSo well, nothing so well; no, nor mean better:By the pattern of mine own thoughts I cut outThe purity of his.Shepherd. Take hands, a bargain!And, friends unknown, you shall bear witness to’t:I give my daughter to him, and will makeHer portion equal his.707Florizel. O, that must beI’ 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.Shepherd. Come, your hand;And, daughter, yours.”

To the argument of Polixenes, that the father of Florizel ought to know of his proceeding, the young man answers:

“Come, come, he must not.Mark our contract.”

And then the father, discovering himself, exclaims:

“Mark your divorce, young sir.”

Here, then, as Mr. Knight remarks,708 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:

“Take hands, a bargain!”

The friends are to bear witness to it:

“I give my daughter to him, and will makeHer portion equal his.”

The impatient lover then again exclaims:

“Contract us ’fore these witnesses.”

The shepherd takes the hands of the youth and the maiden. Again the lover exclaims:

“Mark our contract.”

The ceremony is left incomplete, for the princely father discovers himself with:

“Mark your divorce, young sir.”

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.709 It was derived from the Roman law, and still prevails in the Lutheran Church.

Besides exchanging kisses,710 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):

“Ferdinand. Ay, with a heart as willingAs bondage e’er of freedom; here’s my hand.Miranda. An mine, with my heart in’t; and now farewell,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:

“Gloster. Vouchsafe to wear this ring.Anne. To take, is not to give.Gloster. Look, how my ring encompasseth thy finger,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:

“Julia. Keep this remembrance for thy Julia’s sake (giving a ring).Proteus. Why, then, we’ll make exchange: here, take you this.Julia. And seal the bargain with a holy kiss.”

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.):

“A curious artist wrought them,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.711 Hence such a ring was known as a “Sponsalium Annulis,” to which Herrick thus refers:

“Thou sent’st me a true-love knot, but IReturned a ring of jimmals, to implyThy love hath one knot, mine a triple tye.”

The term is used by the Duke of Anjou, in “1 Henry VI.” (i. 2):

“I think, by some odd gimmors or device,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,

“in their pale dull mouths the gimmal bitLies 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:

“I give them with this ring;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,712 often had posies engraved on them, and were worn by men on the left hand. Gratiano, for example, says:

“About a hoop of gold, a paltry ringThat she did give me; whose posy wasFor all the world like cutlers’ poetryUpon a knife, ‘Love me and leave me not.’”

Again Bassanio exclaims:

“Why, I were best to cut my left hand off,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:

“Petruchio. Give me thy hand, Kate: I will unto Venice,To buy apparel ’gainst the wedding-day. —Provide the feast, father, and bid the guests;I will be sure my Katharine shall be fine.Baptista. I know not what to say: but give me your hands;God send you joy, Petruchio! ’tis a match.Gremio. Tranio. Amen, say we; we will be witnesses.Petruchio. Father, and wife, and gentlemen, adieu;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

“A sly and constant knave,Not to be shak’d; the agent for his master,And the remembrancer of her, to holdThe 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 the church, nor in the street. After the handfasting and making of the contract, the church-going and wedding should not be deferred too long.” The author then goes on to rebuke a custom “that at the handfasting there is made a great feast and superfluous banquet.” Sir John Sinclair, in the “Statistical account of Scotland” (1794, vol. xii. p. 615), tells us that at a fair annually held at Eskdalemuir, Dumfriesshire, “it was the custom for the unmarried persons of both sexes to choose a companion according to their liking, with whom they were to live till that time next year. This was called ‘handfasting,’ or hand-in-fist. If they were pleased with each other at that time then they continued together for life; if not, they separated, and were free to make another choice as at the first.”