Elizabethan Marriage Politics

Well, my renewed efforts to get some feedback from the Shakespeare forum on Goodreads were successful! I re-phrased my question to get more general help on the topic of marriage during the Renaissance, particularly in reference to Measure for Measure, and a wonderful gentleman in the UK recommended a chapter of a book on British history that I was able to find in the BYU library. Pretty cool.
My Grandfather's online feedback on what kinds of things to look for when exploring/developing my topic helped direct my general search for specific contextual information regarding marriage customs/conflicts during Shakespeare's time.
I've also been talking with roommates about the topic, and trying to explain my paper, just like with the video exercise, has helped me clarify my argument and my understanding of how I want to develop it.
I found the majority of my most helpful sources on JSTOR and in the Shakespeare reference section of the HBLL (5th floor), as well as Tudor history books in the reference section on the 1st floor.

Brinn Bullough

English 382

11/13/12

Marriage Politics in Measure for Measure

“For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again” (Matt. 7:2).

When what is morally acceptable in public opinion and practice comes in conflict with the regulations and ideologies of new leadership, is legal justice best served by enforcing new policies with absolute strictness towards a few of the erring majority, to intimidate the rest into mending their ways? Or is it actually both more just and effective to temper justice with mercy, by forgiving culturally common prior offences and encouraging future adherence to the law? What if legal administrators themselves are guilty of the same offences? These challenges, spurred by social and governmental changes in Elizabethan society, especially affected perceptions of what was acceptable and legal in shifting marriage practices at the time. In addition, more widespread access to Biblical texts, and differing perspectives between Puritan leadership and Catholic popular tradition led to a variety of interpretations regarding the appropriate course of action in enforcing new marriage policies. Responding to these conflicts in his play, Measure for Measure, Shakespeare contrasts elements of unforgiving Mosaic Law with merciful “Sermon on the Mount” doctrine to question the enforcement of of newly imposed Puritan marriage regulations over traditionally accepted marriage practices.

Interestingly, his most truly pious character, Isabella, is also his most forgiving towards the offences of repentant others, while Antonio, his most Pharisaic character, is the most relentless and hypocritical in his demand for absolute justice. Isabella is willing to recognize traditionally accepted marriage practices as valid, although supporting the publicly formalized sanction of the Church in establishing a legal marriage contract. Antonio, on the other hand, denies the validity of any marriage not officially sanctioned by religious authority, rejecting the long-practiced tradition of marriage by common verbal and physical consent between the married parties.

Seeking mercy for Claudio’s offence, Isabella invites Antonio to recognize his own faults before passing judgment, saying, “Go to your bosom,/ Knock there, and ask your heart what it doth know/ That’s like my brother’s fault. If it confess/ A natural guiltiness, such as is his, /Let it not sound a thought upon your tongue/ Against my brother’s life” (Measure for Measure 2.2.143-148). Recognizing the validity of her argument, Antonio concedes, “She speaks, and ‘tis/ Such sense that my sense breeds with it” (2.2.148-149), but though he is morally guiltless at the time of her challenge, his pride leads him to resist her pleading, and eventually to demand her compliance with his own sexual advances in exchange for her brother’s pardon. Although Antonio rationalizes that sparing one offender will justify his own sin, his intentions to break both the institutional law and social mores regarding chastity make him guilty from both perspectives, and therefore remove from him the right to pass judgment at any level.

Unlike Antonio, Claudio and Juliet’s belief that they are “husband” and “wife,” at least in practice, reflects a prevalent attitude regarding what constituted a valid marriage in their time, and renders them essentially guiltless in public opinion. In an article regarding British marital customs, scholar Christopher Lasch explains: “According to the canon law of the Middle Ages, engagements to marry, especially if they were followed by sexual intercourse were as binding as marriage itself” (Lasch 90). Further, even certain types of verbal contracts were recognized as legally binding, regardless of whether they were followed by intercourse. Viewed in this light, Claudio’s assertion that “upon a true contract/ I got possession of Julietta’s bed;/ You know the lady, she is fast my wife” (Measure for Measure 1.3.29-31), becomes more accessible. 

Although this attitude may seem unusual by modern Western marriage standards, Professor Lasch clarifies that it is consistent with views held during Shakespeare’s day that “an exchange of binding promises and physical union were the essential elements of marriage, not the publication of banns, parental consent, clerical intervention, or even, indeed the presence of witnesses” (Lasch 90). Since Claudio and Juliet’s union was not publicly or clerically sanctioned, Claudio acknowledges his remissness in that aspect, saying that although privately they are married in all respects, “…we do the denunciation lack/ Of outward order” (Measure for Measure 1.3.32-33). This “outward order” would have concretized their marriage as legal in public opinion. In Claudio and Juliet’s eyes then, it was the clandestine nature of their union, and not the consummation itself, which constituted their sin.

As a representative of the law, however, Antonio is less willing to forgive their oversight, in spite of its being so commonly practiced among the people at large. In fact, it is his desire to quell this practice that leads to his harsh ruling against Claudio’s life as punishment for his offence.  Antonio hopes, by this means, to frighten the people into adherence with newly-enforced marriage legalities that they might otherwise ignore. As Lucio tells Isabella, Antonio hopes “to give fear to use and liberty,” and in condemning her brother to death, Antonio “follows close the rigor of the statute/ to make him an example” (Measure for Measure 1.5.67-68).

This behavior is perhaps reflective of British legislation which may have caused conflict during Shakespeare’s time. In her article, Ceremony versus Consent: Courtship, Illegitimacy, and Reputation in Northwest England, 1560-1610, author Jennifer McNabb explains this transition between informal to legalized marriage practices, saying:

“Despite the validity of marriages made by consent alone, the church in England attempted to introduce a more formalized means of matrimony, requiring three readings of the banns (or a marriage license) and a public reading in a parish church officiated by a minister between partners over the age of consent” (McNabb 61).

Antonio’s extreme denouncement of Claudio, however, is unjust in its enforcement, regardless of the his desires to uphold justice and law, as the offence has gone unpunished in thousands of other instances, and Claudio openly expresses his intentions to publically formalize his marriage to Juliet. Mocking Antonio’s decree, Pompey asks: “Does your worship mean to geld and splay all the youth of the city?” (Measure for Measure 2.1.210-211). Then, referring to the widespread tradition of informal marriage practices, he suggests, “If you head and hang all that offend that way but for ten year together, you’ll be glad to give out a commission for more heads” (Measure for Measure 2.1.218-220). Ironically, Isabella’s trickery causes Antonio’s attempt at forcibly seducing her to backfire, as he becomes irrevocably bound up in the same type of valid but “irregular” marriage through the physical consummation of his prior betrothal to Mariana.

            In order to understand why the bed trick is effective in “marrying” Antonio to Mariana, it is crucial to be aware of the significant power of verbal contracts in British marriage laws. In an article regarding English marriage practices during Shakespeare’s day, Shakespeare scholar Margaret Ranald explains:

[Both] English customs and civil law “recognized two kinds of [verbal] betrothal contracts, whose effects were determined by the tense employed. A vow made in words of the present tense constituted an agreement to enter into the married state immediately. A vow in words of the future tense was merely a promise to marry at some future time” (Ranald 71).

These vows were considered fully binding, although vows made in the future tense could be disbanded if some tenet of the contract was broken and the marriage had not been physically consummated (Ranald). In the case of Antonio and Mariana, their betrothal had been made in the future tense, and Mariana’s loss of a dowry had freed Antonio from any obligation to marry her. However, upon consummating their betrothal through sexual intercourse, the marriage became immediately binding, though not yet officially sanctioned by the Church.

            Claudio and Juliet’s marriage was likely a private exchange of marital vows in the present tense, and regardless of whether it was followed by sexual intercourse would have been declared irrevocable in a court of law, as common law marriages were still recognized as legally valid, though such private contracts were discouraged. Speaking about marriage rites during the Renaissance, author T. G. A. Wilson observes: “as for the actual contract, the presence of one or more witnesses, preferably including a priest … were understandably felt to make the marriage firmer than one performed by words alone” (Wilson 365). In addition, Claudio and Juliet’s union may also have been considered sinful because of their deliberate choice to keep the marriage secret from Juliet’s family in order to receive dowry money when it became available by publicly announcing their marriage at a later date. Claudio acknowledges that they chose to conceal their marriage “Only for propagation of a dower/ Remaining in the coffer of her friends,/ From whom we thought it meet to hide our love/ Till time had made them for us”  (Measure for Measure 1.4.34-37). The lack of involvement and approval of the marriage by their friends and families is the greatest contributor to the sense of guilt they feel, while the need for solemnization of their vows through a Church ceremony is viewed with less concern.

            Informal as Claudio and Juliet’s marriage agreement may have been, it was still considered a mutually binding commitment which was largely recognized as pardonable by their community, though not by Antonio. Sexual intercourse, however, without the strength of verbal marriage contracts, was not considered a valid form of marriage, but rather was viewed as an abhorrent and highly punishable sin. Because of this, the Duke shows great mercy in pardoning Lucio’s impregnation of a woman who is not his wife, and his sentence that Lucio should marry this woman, whom Lucio calls “a whore,” because of her involvement in his own sin, is an apt punishment. Indeed, Lucio’s own avoidance of the marriage commitment is what makes the Duke’s sentence both merciful and necessary in restoring both Lucio and his lover in public esteem. If not married, the Duke would have been obligated to sentence Lucio to a more severe punishment of “death, whipping, [or] hanging” (Measure for Measure 5.1. 518).

            Indeed, during Elizabethan rule, Puritan emphasis on personal morality and sexual purity left little room for mercy in this arena, as, according to Renaissance scholar Debora Shuger, “those who argued for making adultery a felony were almost all Puritans … [while] the Tudor church courts punished sexual misconduct by the wearing of a white sheet during the Sunday service for three consecutive weeks” (Shuger 10).  Some of the cultural tension reflected in the marriage laws of Measure for Measure is a result of such English Puritanism, which involved a “determination to impose godly behavior upon all residents, and a willingness to use physical punishment … to enforce proper conduct” (11).

Further, Puritan goals focused on the “reformation of manners, work ethic, English ‘Rezeption’ of the Mosaic penal code, and capital punishment for adultery and ‘rape,’ which … includes consensual clandestine marriage” (Shuger 11). It is perhaps this unyielding, self-righteous agenda that leads Shakespeare to question the validity of Christian motives behind the Puritan “eye for an eye” (KJV Ex. 21:24) attitude towards justice, especially in contrast with the Savior’s “he who is without sin” response to the woman taken in adultery (KJV John 8:7). Shakespeare would have taken for granted that his audience was familiar with both these Biblical concepts and the political renovations of the time, so without an understanding of these contextual references, it would be easy for a modern reader to be led astray, as the marital, religious, and political structure of today’s world is vastly different from that of Shakespeare. By being aware of the Biblical and political undertones of his text, however, a reader’s ability to understand and analyze “Measure for Measure” is greatly enhanced.

Works Cited

Holy Bible: King James Version. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Canada: Intellectual Reserve, 2008. Print.

Lasch, Christopher. "The Suppression of Clandestine Marriage in England: The Marriage Act of 1753." Salmagundi, No. 26. Skidmore College. JSTOR, 5 Nov. 2012.

Marcus, Leah. “London.” Critical Essays on Shakespeare’s Measure for Measure. Ed. Richard P. Wheeler. New York: G. K. Hall & Co., 1999.

McNabb, Jennifer. "Ceremony versus Consent: Courtship, Illegitimacy, and Reputation in Northwest England, 1560-1610." The Sixteenth Century Journal, Vol. 37, No. 1. JSTOR, 5 Nov. 2012.

Nelson, T. G. A. “Doing Things with Words: Another Look at Marriage Rites and Spousals in Renaissance Drama and Fiction.” Studies in Philology, Vol. 95, No. 4. University of North Carolina Press. JSTOR, 5 Nov. 2012.

Ranald, Margaret Loftus. “As Marriage Binds, and Blood Breaks”: English Marriage and Shakespeare.” Shakespeare Quarterly. JSTOR, 5 Nov. 2012.

Shakespeare, William. “Measure for Measure.” Ed. Grace Ioppolo. NY: W. W. Norton & Co., 2010. Print.

Shuger, Debora Kuller. “The Rebel Codpiece and the State.”  Political Theologies in Shakespeare’s England. NY: Palgrave, 2001. Print.