DOLAN, Francis E.. Shakespeare and Marriage: an open question. Literature o!pass "#$ %&'((): *&'+*,-, ('.((((#..(/-(0-((,.&'((.''"&&.1.

Dispon23e4 e!: http:##eng4ish.ucda3is.edu#peop4e#director5#6do4an#Shakespeare0Marriage.pd6. Acesso e! ,( De7 (,. 8he 6requent recourse to Shakespeare 6or readings at 9eddings is a re!inder that, ho9e3er 9e understand the union o6 :Shakespeare and Marriage;, neither ter! is 4odged sa6e45 in the past. Shakespeare re!ains a resource 6or i!agining and e1pressing our e1pectations o6 !arriage toda5. %p. *&() <ecent scho4arship on the histor5 o6 !arriage has unsett4ed !an5 o6 the assu!ptions that once go3erned discussions o6 ear45 !odern !arriage and its representation on the stage. =...> ?ncreasing45, discussion o6 ear45 !odern !arriage 6ocuses on the coe1istence o6 continuit5 and change, 9hat @eith Arightson descriBes as :enduring structures; and :une3en; processes o6 change %(&+,). Ne9 3a4ues .ocke5ed against o4d ones. Di66erent peop4e had di66erent !oti3es 6or !arr5ing or not !arr5ingC one !arriage di66ered 6ro! anotherC an5 gi3en person !ight ha3e !i1ed 6ee4ings and !i1ed !oti3es. Men and 9o!en !arried 6or a 9ide range o6 reasons. %p. *&() ?t used to Be assu!ed that !arriage 9as ine3itaB4e, not on45 6or the heroines o6 Shakespeare;s co!edies, But 6or 9o!en in ear45 !odern Eng4and. =D> Eut, as the presence o6 an un!arried queen on the throne constant45 re!inded peop4e, that 9asn;t a49a5s true o66 the stage. Not e3er5one got !arried. %p. *&() Long Be6ore !arriage 4icenses and B4ood tests, !arriage 9as transacted Bet9een husBand and 9i6eC neither a priest nor a 4a95er 9as strict45 necessar5. ?ndeed, the <e6or!ation insistence that !arriage 9as not a sacra!ent p4aced !ore e!phasis than e3er on the spouses as those 9ho !ade the !arriage, through 3o9s and se1ua4 consu!!ation, e3en as the hurch o6 Eng4and atte!pted to e1ert !ore contro4 o3er the sancti6ication and regu4ation o6 !arriage. oup4es 9ho had !arried the!se43es !ight Be Brought Be6ore a church court 6or their :irregu4arit5; and punished 6or their conduct B5 e1co!!unication, penance, or a 6ee. Eut un4ess one spouse or the other 9as a4read5 !arried to so!eone e4se, the !arriage cou4d not Be disso43ed, especia445 i6 the coup4e had chi4dren. ?n the aBsence o6 chi4dren, there !ight Be so!e roo! 6or interpretation and negotiation. ?n church court suits 6or !atri!onia4 en6orce!ent %i.e., suits that seek to co!pe4 a part5 or parties to recogni7e that the5 are 4ega445 Bound in !arriage), testi!on5 o6ten 6ocuses on the e1change o6 3o9s or gi6ts, or on se1ua4 consu!!ation, as proo6 that a 4ega445 Binding !arriage had Been transacted or pro!ised irre3ocaB45. Eut it 9as a !atter o6 deBate and negotiation. An :irregu4ar; !arriage !ight Be denied or escaped, especia445 i6 Both spouses 9ished to !o3e on to another choice and no one e4se had a reason to !ake an issue o6 it.& Since, as 9e 9i44 see, it 9as harder to get out o6 a !arriage then than it is no9, so!e peop4e !ight ha3e 9ished to cu4ti3ate or e1p4oit a!Biguities regarding 9hether the5 9ere !arried. %p. *&&) Despite the proB4e!s 9ith 4ega4 separations, sur3i3ing church court records suggest that 9o!en sued !ore o6ten 6or separation than !en did. 8he grounds 9ere distinct45 gendered: !en accused their 9i3es o6 adu4ter5, 9hi4e 9o!en accused their husBands o6 crue4t5 %A!ussen (&/+$C Fo9ing ("'+&,(). =D> Desertion 9as o6ten an uno66icia4 so4ution to irreconci4aB4e di66erences, But it 9as hard on 9o!en, especia445 those 9ith chi4dren, since it 4e6t the! 9ithout 6inancia4 support. As a consequence, !en tended to desert their 9i3es, !ore than 9i3es did their husBands. %p. *&,) ?n Shakespeare;s p4ots, 9e see historica445 speci6ic options put to use in 6antastica4 9a5sC the p4ots dra9 our attention to the e!otiona4 i!p4ications o6 the a3ai4aB4e 9a5s to !ake and un!ake !arriages. 8he5 operate 9ithin the rea4 options But, 6or a44 the scho4ar45 attention to the technica4ities o6 3o9s in the present or 6uture tense, 9hat the p4a5s tend to e1p4ore is the e!otiona4 4ogic o6 .oining or putting asunder, o6 choosing or Being suB.ect to the 3agaries o6 6ate, 9hether spousa4 .ea4ous5 or ship9recks.. %p. *&-) As se3era4 scho4ars ha3e recent45 re!inded us, ear45 !odern Eng4ish cu4ture idea4i7ed 6riendships Bet9een !e!Bers o6 the sa!e se1 and the sa!e status as the !ost equa4, consensua4, and precious re4ationships %Era5, Masten, 8rauB &/*+,&G). Laurie Shannon argues that, in contrast, ear45 !odern discourses depict !arriage as the .oining o6 those 9ho are un4ike and unequa4. A44 !arriages, B5 this 4ogic, are :!i1ed;. 8hough heterose1ua4 coup4ingHit goes 9ithout sa5ingHis a sine qua non o6 socia4

reproduction and so dra9s support 6ro! a range o6 other cu4tura4 i!perati3es, its !erger o6 disparate, inco!!ensurate kinds, especia445 in !arita4 or ce4eBrator5 6or!s, poses so!ething o6 an inte44ectua4 proB4e!. Io9e3er nor!ati3e it !a5 Be as hierarch5, it contradicts the 4ikeness topos at the center o6 positi3e ideas aBout union. Jerhaps, Shannon suggests, !arriage is so constant45 discussed and en.oined in the ear45 !odern period Because a specia4 case needs to Be !ade in 6a3or o6 directing one;s a66ect to9ard !arriage, to9ard the opposite se1, and, in !en;s case, to9ard an in6erior. Marriage;s apo4ogists had to argue, then, not .ust against a tradition o6 3a4uing 3irginit5 and ce4iBac5 o3er !arriage But a :sa!e0 se1 econo!5; that :e1p4icit45 esche9s or do9ngrades cross0se1 association; %Shannon G*, *-+*G, */). Shannon;s e5e0opening argu!ent presents !arriage as Both a sine qua non o6 socia4 reproduction, as 9e ha3e 4ong assu!ed it to Be, and as a conceptua4 proB4e! and there6ore a tough se44. %*&-) EiB4ica4 4anguage aBout 6orsaking a44 others and Beco!ing one 64esh articu4ated the in3est!ent in the !arita4 Bond as unique and ph5sica4. %p. *&-) Stephanie oont7;s 9onder6u4 de64ation o6 the idea4i7ed A!erican 6a!i45 o6 the ($G's as :the 9a5 9e ne3er 9ere; can Be e1tended to Stone;s description o6 an ear45 !odern :reduced, nuc4ear, patriarcha4 6a!i45;. Such a 6a!i45 9as not the ear45 !odern nor!. ?ndeed, the 9ord :6a!i45; inc4uded ser3ants and 6riends %8ad!or). Most histories o6 !arriage ackno94edge this 6act B5 de6ining their oB.ect o6 stud5 as !arriage and the 6a!i45. Marriage 9as not, then, a !erger on45 Bet9een indi3idua4s, But a 9a5 o6 connecting the spouses; 6a!i4ies, o6 estaB4ishing a househo4d that 9ou4d inc4ude ser3ants and re4ati3es, and o6 uniting 6riends. 8he ro4e o6 !arriage in uniting 6riends is particu4ar45 3isiB4e in the dra!a, 9hich so!eti!es suBordinates or e3en sacri6ices Bonds Bet9een spouses to those Bet9een 6riends, especia445 !a4e ones %EachC DiFangiC Aa44). %p. *&G) A4though !an5 ser!ons and conduct Books de6ended !arriage as a !eans o6 do!esticating se1ua4 i!pu4ses, a 9ide range o6 e3idence + and a 6resh set o6 questions + suggest that !arriage did not de6ine and contro4 se1ua4 e1pression. ?t 9as 9ide45 assu!ed that spouses o9ed one another a :con.uga4 deBt; Because !arriage oB4igated one to pro3ide se1ua4 so4ace to one;s spouse. Eut not a44 !arried spouses had se1.=D> On the 64ip side o6 the oB4igation to ha3e se1 in !arriage 9as unease aBout en.o5ing se1 too !uch or doting on one;s spouse in an undigni6ied !anner. Ser!ons and conduct Books 9arn spouses against using endear!ents, But this !ight not te44 us an5thing aBout 9hether spouses the!se43es 6e4t one cou4d o3erdo se1ua4 desire 9ithin !arriage. Shakespeare;s tragedies o66er another resource 6or thinking aBout attitudes to9ard con.uga4 se1ua4it5. Ahat 9e 6ind therein is pro6ound a!Bi3a4ence. =D>?n the dra!a as in so!e other kinds o6 e3idence, 9e 6ind Both queasiness aBout intercourse as an :e1pense o6 spirit; and a :4itt4e death; and rapturous ce4eBrations o6 9hat Mi4ton ca44ed :9edded 4o3e;. %p. *&G) Note: Add Kohn Mi4ton;s VIII. Wedded Love - Adam to Eve, in Jaradise Lost, Eook ?L to BiB4iograph5. Kust as !arriage did not in3ariaB45 inc4ude or 4egiti!ate se1 Bet9een spouses, a 9ea4th o6 se1ua4 practices e1isted outside or a4ongside !arriage. %p. *&G) Jenetration usua445 de6ined the se1ua4 conduct that attracted 4ega4 scrutin5. Other 6or!s o6 se1ua4 e1pression o6ten appear to ha3e gone unre!arked Because the5 9ere not de6ined and censured as cri!es or sins, Because the5 9ere :i!possiB4e; to i!agine, at 4east 6or so!e, or Because the5 9ere 9ith socia4 suBordinates and there6ore, so!eti!es, either acceptaB4e or in3isiB4e. Ae can on45 specu4ate aBout practices that 9ere possiB4e precise45 Because the5 9ere o66 the record, But opening up such specu4ations, and 6inding traces o6 these possiBi4ities in representations outside the 4ega4 pa4e, has !ade it possiB4e 6or us to consider se1ua4 practices that had nothing to do 9ith !arriage or !ight e3en ha3e Been enaB4ed under the co3er o6 !arriage. %p. *&*) 8he p4a5s o66er us no one !ode4 o6 the re4ationship Bet9een spouses, no nor!. =D> Ae so!eti!es see spouses side B5 sideC 9hen 9e do, equa4s can so!eti!es appear to Be !ight5 opposites 6acing o66 toe to toe, since parit5 so o6ten Beco!es ri3a4r5 in the p4a5s %as in Anton5 and 4eopatra, in 9hich Anton5 !eets his !atch in Both 4eopatra and Octa3ius). %p. *&*)

Ae see !an5 re4ationships Bet9een those 9ho are depicted as si!i4ar, e3en as douB4es, in the p4a5s. Eut !arriage so!eti!es appears to supp4ant such attach!ents. =D> Sti44, as Ku4ie ra96ord has argued, the p4a5s; endings do not a49a5s or success6u445 erase those queer possiBi4ities, 9hich !ight e3en Be 6aci4itated B5 !arriage and the appearance o6 c4osure. %p. *&") ?n the (*th and (/th centuries, se1ua4 !isconduct 9as on45 a 6e4on5 + a cri!e punishaB4e B5 death + 6or queens. =...> For !ost peop4e other than Ienr5;s 9i3es, se1ua4 cri!e 9as not a 6e4on5 + e1cept on the stage and especia445 in p4a5s set in 6oreign countries as i6 to sa5 :5ou cou4d Be ki44ed 6or that there;. =D> ?t 9as not 4ega445, !ora445, or socia445 c4ear e1act45 9hat one shou4d or cou4d do 9ith a 9o!an 9ho had se1 outside o6 !arriage. Ahat happens to Iero !ight Be 3ie9ed as 9ish6u4 thinking: a 9o!an 9ho is unchaste 9ou4d si!p45 drop dead. %p. *&$) Ahereas Being a 9o!an is Being 9i44ing to die to redee! 5our honor, as Iero does, Being a !an is Being 9i44ing to ki44. %p. *,') Note: See MacBeth and support te1t on !urder as a ritua4 o6 passage. ?t has o6ten Been oBser3ed that 9hi4e :cucko4d; descriBes a !an 9hose 9i6e is un6aith6u4, there is no 9ord 6or a 9o!an 9hose husBand is un6aith6u4 e1cept :9i6e; =...>. %p. *,') Shakespeare is a resource 6or 9eddings Because he pro3ides a 4anguage 6or passionate desire, inti!ac5, attach!ent, and 4o3e. Ahen Eruce S!ith con6ides, parenthetica445, that :4et !e not to the !arriage o6 true !inds; 9as the icing on his 9edding cake %("(), he re!inds us o6 the enduring po9er o6 that suB.uncti3e, as 9e44 as the possiBi4ities that 64o9er 9hen 9e re3ise our understanding o6 9hat our tradition inc4udes, as S!ith;s reading o6 the sonnets so po9er6u445 does. Iere, Shakespeare articu4ates and stands 6or a 4ong histor5 o6 recogni7ing that the !arriage o6 true !inds !ight occur Bet9een t9o !en despite the 6act that so!e sti44 decr5 this as a dangerous inno3ation. Eut i6 Shakespeare;s 9ords can Be the icing on the cake, the so!ething o4d that anchors and authori7es 9hat on45 appears ne9, the5 can a4so Be the 6unera4 Baked !eats co4d45 6urnishing 6orth a !arriage 6east, 4e6to3ers that under!ine the possiBi4it5 o6 a ne9 Beginning. So!eti!es one 6ee4s one has heard this stor5 Be6ore. And it doesn;t necessari45 end 9e44. 8here are erotic and a66ecti3e possiBi4ities 6or 9hich Shakespeare isn;t the script, the sanction, or the 4icense. %p. *,&)