How homely was Anne Hathaway? Griselda Heppel tries to untangle fact from fiction
Some
years ago, a friend defended a film version of Mansfield Park that portrayed sexual abuse within Fanny Price’s
birth family by saying, ‘Oh come on, don’t think that kind of thing didn’t go
on in the nineteenth century just as much as today.’ It didn’t matter that the
film showed something that never appeared in the book; according to my friend, if
Jane Austen could have written it in, she would have done, and that was good
enough for her.
But
reading Anthony Holden’s biography of Shakespeare (1999) has brought the Mansfield Park conversation straight
back to me. Not because of any suggestion of abusive family relationships here
(phew), but because of Holden’s attitude towards his material. While he builds
a good case for the 15 year-old Shakespeare’s being employed as tutor in the
Hoghton family, he can’t prove it; yet after a few pages, ‘would have’ and ‘highly
likely’ melt imperceptibly into ‘Shakespeare had clearly impressed his first
employer.’ Guesses that begin ‘probably’ are asserted as facts a few pages
later, while legends such as the deer-poaching one are discarded in one place
and upheld in another. Lacking other evidence, Holden falls into the trap of
taking clues from the works: Shakespeare shows knowledge of horses, so he must
have earned his keep as an ostler; he writes tellingly about ‘the green-eyed
monster’, therefore he, like Othello, must have suffered terrible jealousy. All
of which shows a blithe misunderstanding of how the creative mind works. By
this token, Lady Macbeth’s
Worst of all – and Holden isn’t alone here – comes the treatment of poor Anne Hathaway. We know nothing about her looks or her character, but the simple fact that she’d reached the advanced old age of 26 when 18 year-old Shakespeare impregnated her has branded her ‘on the shelf’, a desperate, ‘homely’ woman who may have set out deliberately to trap a young man into marriage.
Jane Austen; gagged by 19th C taboos |
While
this made no sense at all to me, what I found shocking was that this person was
by profession a historian; someone who deals in fact, not fiction. Yet here she
was, happy to discount the integrity of a classic novel because it didn’t fit
her historical view. Perhaps that was her point: Mansfield Park is fiction, not history, so it really doesn’t matter
what you do with it. For her, ‘would have,’ in Jane Austen’s case, glided
easily into ‘did’.
It is
difficult for historians. Novelists can make up anything they like, but where
evidence is missing, historians have to piece together what clues they have to
build a credible picture. For no one is this truer than William Shakespeare,
whose life I’m researching at the moment for a book idea (what else?) Between
his birth in 1564 and his growing fame as a playwright and poet in 1590's
London, only a few certain dates stand out, among which are his marriage, in
1582, to Anne Hathaway, and the baptism of his children in 1583 and 1585. It’s
only fair that biographers should follow any lead that might account for his ‘lost’
years, including one that has him employed as schoolmaster in a leading
Catholic recusant family in Lancashire; or the legend that a spot of
deer-poaching caused him to fly Stratford to escape the wrath of landowner Sir
Thomas Lucy.
Will Shakespeare: no oil painting |
I have given suck, and know
How tender ‘tis to love
the babe that milks me
arises from direct personal experience. Er….
Ostler and Horse by George Morland |
Worst of all – and Holden isn’t alone here – comes the treatment of poor Anne Hathaway. We know nothing about her looks or her character, but the simple fact that she’d reached the advanced old age of 26 when 18 year-old Shakespeare impregnated her has branded her ‘on the shelf’, a desperate, ‘homely’ woman who may have set out deliberately to trap a young man into marriage.
'Homely': Anne Hathaway |
Homely. Ye gods. Why is a 26 year-old
woman automatically homely, while an 18 year-old boy isn’t spotty, sweaty and
frankly, not much of an oil painting himself? Anne can’t have been a
looker, runs the opinion among many biographers, or Shakespeare would have
loved her too much to leave Stratford and live all those years in London. So
what happened? There must have been attraction, at least to begin with, and the
arrival of two more children some years later doesn’t speak of total aversion
to this much, much older woman. And where else could an ambitious young actor
and playwright earn a living if not in London? Might there not be more to the
situation than allowed for here?
Untangling fact from fiction in this biography, trying to work out what is certain and what conjecture in Holden's impressively rounded portrait of his subject, while dealing with the somewhat dated attitude to women
displayed above, I have to keep reminding myself that I am a historical fiction
writer reading the work of a historian.
Not the
other way round.
Funny, that. Maybe
the two disciplines are not so far apart after all.
Find out more about Griselda Heppel here:
Comments
Oh and Shakespeare! Who knows how often Bill travelled back to Stratford, or Anne went to stay with him? Travel was hard but not impossible. We know nothing about their marriage - no diaries, no letters. All we have is some legal documents. It's like trying to reconstruct a modern marriage where one partner travels a lot, from a few grocery bills.
I agree with you about your friend and Jane Austen too. Yes, child abuse undoubtedly existed in her day as in ours. But there are novels written today which aren't about child-abuse. It is, even today, possible to live a life in which child abuse doesn't form a part. Jane Austen wrote a novel like that in her day. So how is crowbarring child abuse into it justified?
As for what Shakespeare got up to, I like the image Don Marquis paints of him in the ancient but still highly entertaining 'Archy and Mehitabel', where a parrot claims to carry the transmigrated soul of another parrot who lived in the Boar's Head Tavern in Eastcheap. The latter swears that Skakespeare resented his agent's insistence that he keep on writing (commercial) plays because all he really wanted to do was concentrate on his sonnets.
So we know hardly anything about Shakespeare's life or about King Arthur (pure legend or based on something real?) and so people would prefer to hear fictitious tales about either of these than nothing.
I'd better not start to comment on the Jane Austen thing or I will be here all day...
As opposed to TV dramatisations of history, which look so well done that viewers will accept them, even unconsciously, as accurate versions of events, rather than artful rehashing to make a good story. I'm thinking of Victoria (good first series, not so much the second) and the Crown (which I'm really enjoying, though cross at its inventing a fictional person to kill off, just to make Churchill look out of touch and heartless grr).
And Bill, I knew I should read 'Archy and Mehitabel' - now I really must! I love this picture of Shakespeare railing against all these commercial pressures when he just wants to be a poet.
Griselda, what a lovely post. I have to say I take an even more censorious view of your historian friend's observation. It misunderstands both history and the novel and ends up wretchedly meaningless. I agree that Anne Hathway's treatment by subsequent writers is dreadful. Yes, the Hoghton episode is tempting to accept as fact, but it depends on WS's family being secret Catholics. I did once believe this, after hearing many years ago a lecture by AL Rowse which sought to prove it conclusively. His reasoning, I remember, depended in particular forms of words in wills. Looking back over the years, I now believe I was more dazzled by his rhetoric than convinced by his argument, but there you go. But it can lead to the 'biography by hearsay' tha Anthony Holden, whose book I have not read, seems to have written. Interesting that you're writing a book about WS. Many years ago (in 2000 actually) I wrote a 'biography' for kids of WS in Miles Kelly's 'Spilling the beans on ...' series. It gave me a chance to fulfil an idea I'd previously put to Scholastic as a sort of spin-off from 'Horrible Histories, a proposal which Scholastic sadly didn't think much of. My main source was Park Honan's 'Shakespeare, A Life' (OUP 1998), which I found objective, able to weigh evidence sensibly and manage to dispense with a lot of the 'highly likelies' merging so easily into fact. However, good though it was, it couldn't rival Stephen Greenblatt's 'Will in the World' (Cape 2004), which came out after I'd written 'Spilling the Beans'. Reading it was a true experience! I did not mean my little book to be a 'spoof' - though I tried to be funny, I intended it as a serious teaching aid. After WS, I did Buffalo Bill and Charles Darwin - and then rewrote somebody-else's Boudicca. I don't suppose Buffalo Bill featured much in the likely Stage 2 history syllabus but WS and Darwin certainly did. Sadly, I've lost an email from a girl reading English at Toronto University telling my that my little Spilling the Beans had taught her more about WS than three terms of lectures! But writing it taught me a lot about problems in following the lives of shadowy figures and I recognised everything you wrote instantly. If you like, I'll lend you a copy (I only have two and they seem like hen's teeth now). Though I mention it, I fear I rather gloss over the Hoghton Hall!
Ann, yes, Upstart Crow is a delight. And the second series is so much better than the first
I agree that Upstart Crow which began really terribly has improved, almost to the point of being witty (if that's not damning it with faint praise, sorry)... but did anyone notice the real howler in the Catholic episode, showing the Catholic recusant giving mass in bread AND wine? One of the biggest principles of the Reformation appeared to have passed David Mitchell by completely.