A spirited and speculative defense of Ann Hathaway Shakespeare
Shakespeare's Wife
By Germaine Greer
Harper, 406 pp., $26.95
History has not been kind to Ann Shakespeare. She is variously described as an unfaithful wife, a conniving old maid who trapped a boy into marriage (she was 26 and he 18), and a relentless harpy who was impossible to live with (hence William Shakespeare's departure to London to live and work).
The problem with these theories is there's no evidence to support them. We don't know and can't know what was in the minds of young Will Shakespeare and Ann Hathaway, and it was quite common for provincial married men to pursue careers in London.
In "Shakespeare's Wife," Germaine Greer strikes back against centuries of defamation, producing a spirited defense of Ann Hathaway Shakespeare as a loving (and loved) wife who possibly helped rescue the Shakespeare family's fading fortunes.
But the problem with these theories is there's almost as little evidence to support them as those of Mrs. Shakespeare's detractors. The documentary record of her life is barely enough to support an undergraduate history paper, let alone a full-length book: the entry of her marriage in the parish records, the baptisms of her children, bequests in wills, and the inscription on her tomb. There's also the possibility that Sonnet 145 is written to her (the phrase "hate away" is read as a pun on Ann's maiden name as it was probably pronounced). All enough to prove that she exists, and tempt writers to speculation, but not much else.
But that's fine, because Greer seems happy to speculate - for hundreds of pages. In her efforts to place the Shakespeares' marriage firmly in its social and historical context she introduces a wealth of information about life in 16th-century Warwickshire and London: political feuds, wedding customs, religious practices, women's work, business dealings - all of which tells us a great deal about Ann and William Shakespeare's world but nothing about them. Instead Greer makes numerous suppositions on how what we are learning might or might not have related to Ann and William Shakespeare. Did Ann wear white on her wedding day? (Doubtful, says Greer.) Might they have had a Catholic ceremony? (Catholicism was essentially illegal in England at the time, so they would have had an additional, Protestant wedding for cover.)
In one of the more interesting sections of the book, Greer analyzes the economics of the theater business in Shakespeare's London. He possibly received no more than 4 or 5 pounds ($1,600 to $2,000) per play, and even when he was a shareholder in a theater company his income still would have been a fraction of what was left over after actors, stagehands, musicians, and costume makers had all been paid. Furthermore, government records of the 1590s make it quite clear that Shakespeare defaulted on his London taxes. Greer speculates that much of the family's prosperity was not due to the husband at all. Many Elizabethan women made solid livings through a combination of trades. Greer writes that Ann might have done so through malt making (a prominent industry in Stratford), beer brewing, baking, and raising pigs. The income from these activities, Greer suggests, not the London theater, may have financed the property purchases that historians point to as proof of her husband's success.
It's a tempting theory, but again, there's nothing to support it. Greer cites a shepherd's will authorizing Ann to give 40 shillings of his she had in safekeeping to the poor of Stratford as possible evidence that Shakespeare's wife was "economically active in her own right." The will named Ann, she notes, not William, who as head of household would have been legally liable regarding family finances. Thus, Greer concludes, the shepherd's will suggests that even if Ann had no money except what her husband earned, she was trusted to handle financial matters as she saw fit.
All this conjecture about a single bequest is (forgive me) much ado about nothing. It does not prove that Ann was an independent businesswoman. And that Shakespeare trusted his wife to make financial decisions is to be expected: What else could he do, considering the bulk of his property was in Stratford and he was three days' travel away in London?
Readers of "Shakespeare's Wife" will learn a great deal about Elizabethan religious life, women's work, and Warwickshire politics - usually in support of such creative speculations. But readers wishing to actually learn anything substantive about Ann Shakespeare will find themselves wishing, like Hamlet's mother, for more matter and less art.
Kevin O'Kelly is a regular reviewer for the Globe. He has a blog at notesandcomments1.blogspot.com. 