The Reactionary Utopian
September 13, 2005
HAMNET'S FATHER
by Joe Sobran
Biographers of Shakespeare -- or the Stratford
gentleman who has been mistaken for him, anyway --
typically try to refute doubts of his authorship by
assuring us that "we know more about Shakespeare than
about any other playwright of his time except Ben
Jonson."
Well, in a way. We know a lot about Mr. Shakspere's
personal life, his family, his business dealings; we just
have no real proof that he was a writer.
The comparison with Ben Jonson is instructive by
contrast. Jonson (1572-1637) is often ranked beside the
Bard as the second-greatest dramatist of the age. In
fact, during the seventeenth century and after, he was
widely considered the greatest, a model of classical
"Art," whereas Shakespeare, the poet of "Nature," was
sometimes disparaged as somewhat uncouth. Voltaire
sneered that Shakespeare's work amounted to "a few pearls
on a dunghill."
Reading David Riggs's fine life of Jonson recently,
I was impressed: It's exactly the kind of thorough
biography scholars have always tried in vain to write
about the Stratford gent. Jonson's huge, combative
personality bursts out on every page -- his friendships,
his feuds, his sorrows, his opinions, his political
alliances, and of course his literary achievements.
Jonson is so vivid a character that a "Jonson
authorship question" is simply impossible. Nobody can
doubt that he wrote the works ascribed to him.
When Jonson's little son Benjamin died at age seven,
Jonson wrote a touching poem about him. Two lines of it
run: "Rest in soft peace, and, ask'd, say here doth lie /
Ben Jonson his best piece of poetry."
In 1596 Mr. Shakspere lost his only son, Hamnet, who
died at the age of eleven. The biographers pass over this
crushing event quickly, but it must have been the
cruelest experience of his life; every parent can
understand. Watching your child buried is something you
never forget.
Yet "Shakespeare" never wrote about Hamnet's death.
Here is a real mystery the scholars neither explain nor
even notice. Yet it demands our attention as a baffling
gap in the great poet's work.
Many of the Sonnets urge a young man to beget a son;
their theme is that fatherhood is a means of
self-perpetuation and defeating death. Is it humanly
possible that if the poet had seen his own small son
buried, he would have failed to express his grief in his
most personal verses, which bewail so many lesser griefs?
He promises to immortalize the name of his young friend;
why wouldn't he do as much for his own boy?
To my mind this alone makes it very hard to believe
that Mr. Shakspere could have been "Shakespeare," our
most eloquent poet of love. The deaths of our parents are
sad occasions, but even from childhood we expect to
outlive them in the course of nature. But the death of
your child is more than sad; it's agonizing. It may cause
you to question divine justice, like Job's wife: "Curse
God, and die." If the Bard had been Hamnet's father,
surely he would have written lines about the boy that
would still bring us to tears.
Some biographers speculate that Hamlet, in the play,
is somehow based on Hamnet. But Hamnet and his twin
sister Judith were named after two of Mr. Shakspere's
Stratford neighbors, Hamnet and Judith Sadler.
Mr. Shakspere's will, written shortly before his
death in 1616, fails to give any indication that he had
ever been a writer, or that he expected to be remembered
for having written the greatest plays and poems of the
age. It leaves small bequests to several of his friends
in Stratford and "fellows" in the theater, but no fellow
writers. Later legends would link him closely to Jonson,
but Ben isn't mentioned at all. Nor is the poet Michael
Drayton, another supposed friend, who lived near
Stratford.
Posthumous legends, some promoted by Jonson himself,
would link "Shakespeare" and Jonson as friendly rivals.
One of these stories said the Bard had died of "an ague"
after drinking "too hard" with Jonson and Drayton.
In doubting Mr. Shakspere's authorship, we needn't
belittle him as a "country bumpkin"; we can grant him the
dignity of a separate existence, a life lived on its own
modest terms, with its own implicit tragedies. We can try
to view him with sympathy and imagination rather than
contempt. And I think we can assume he mourned Hamnet; he
just didn't do it in immortal poetry.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Read this column on-line at
"http://www.sobran.com/columns/2005/050913.shtml".
Copyright (c) 2005 by the Griffin Internet Syndicate,
www.griffnews.com. This column may not be published in
print or Internet publications without express permission
of Griffin Internet Syndicate. You may forward it to
interested individuals if you use this entire page,
including the following disclaimer:
"SOBRAN'S and Joe Sobran's columns are available
by subscription. For details and samples, see
http://www.sobran.com/e-mail.shtml, write
PR@griffnews.com, or call 800-513-5053."