The Death of Hamnet Shakespeare

He and his twin sister, Judeth, were baptized February 2, 1584-5.  He died, just 11 1/2 years later and was buried August 11, 1596 at Stratford.  He was Hamnet Shakespeare, the poet's only son.  (Halliwell-Phillipps, The Life of William Shakespeare, p. 31: "Baptisms, Feb. 2, 1584-5, Hamnet and Judeth sonne and daughter to William Shakspere. Burials, Aug. 11,1596, Hamnet filius William Shakspere").  The twins had been named after the Stratford baker Hamnet (or as it is sometimes given Hamlett) Sadler and his wife Judeth, who undoubtedly stood as godparents.  Shakespeare's relationship with Hamnet Sadler lasted a lifetime, because he is remembered in his will with a bequest of 26s 8d in order to purchase a memorial ring--the same bequest left to his fellows Burbage, Heming and Condell (see Sidney Lee, A Life of William Shakespeare, p. 285).  Undoubtedly, then, the Sadlers were present at the burial of Shakepeare's only son, as would his mother and sisters, grandparents and uncles and aunt Joan have been, but was the poet himself present?  How would he have learned of the death?  And what effects of the death of his only son are discerned in his work, if any?

According to Michael Wood, Shakespeare's company was on tour in the first week of August, 1596.  In Kent, to be exact (see Shakespeare, p. 166): "Hamnet was very likely buried before his father got the bad news."  On the other hand, Peter Ackroyd in his Shakespeare: The Biography, has it that "There is every reason to suppose that Shakespeare hastened from Kent to Stratford, for the funeral on August 11" (p. 287).  The truth is, both are speculations.  We simply don't know.  It seems impossible for Shakespeare biography to avoid phrases like "was very likely" or "is every reason to believe."  We want so desperately to make the immaterial material when it touches Shakespeare.

We also don't know how or when Shakespeare received the news of Hamnet's death.  News traveled very slowly in provincial England in 1596.  It would have taken a special messenger to ride to London to find Shakespeare, and if he were out on tour, to further discover his whereabouts.  Anthony Burgess, in Nothing Like the Sun, has Richard Field, Shakespeare's printer friend, bring him the news when Shakespeare is in compromising circumstances.  But this is fiction.  James Shapiro, in A Year in the Life of William Shakespeare: 1599, notes helpfully that William Greenaway was most likely the messenger of the news:

"Greenaway was Stratford's main carrier.  He had been plying the route between his hometown and London since at least 1581, and for the next twenty years played an indispensable role carrying letters, messages, food, goods, and gossip back and forth.  The Greenaways were near neighbors of the Shakespeares, living a few houses down on Henley Street.  Greenaway probably conveyed the terrible news to Shakespeare of his son Hamnet's death...Leading citizens of Stratford who needed to contact Shakespeare had Greenaway serve as a go between..." (p. 232).

This is a remarkable piece of historical detective work, and gives us confidence that it was probably, indeed, Greenaway who carried the sad news.  But whether in time for the funeral or not will probably never be known.

Whatever the timing, the news must have been a heavy blow.  It is true Shakespeare was an absentee parent, and one much consumed with other affairs in London.  He may barely have spoken to Hamnet after he took to the stage, perhaps around 1587.  Nevertheless, it must have been a terrible shock.  Those looking for its expression in Shakespeare's work most often point to Constance's grief in King John, III,iv,93-98:

Grief fills the room up of my absent child,
Lies in his bed, walks up and down with me,
Puts on his pretty looks, repeats his words,
Remembers me of all his gracious parts,
Stuffs out his vacant garments with his form.
Then have I reason to be fond of grief.

Is this a secret window into the poet's grieving soul?  It is more.  A window into every parent's soul who has lost a child.  Shakespeare, and few others, could open such windows.  But is it personal with him?  The timing was right.  Shakespeare must have written John in 1595 or more likely 1596.  Ackroyd makes the case for Shakespeare being the original author of The Troublesome Reigne of King John (see p. 164 of Shakespeare: The Biography), most likely written around 1588.  The case is compelling.  He later must have revised the play for performance by the Lord Chamberlain's Men.  Perhaps the condition of King John also suggests a man too racked by grief and other cares to make the effort of major revision, in that it parallels the much earlier play so closely.  A case, perhaps, of a seasoned professional pulling one out of the trunk to meet the current need when invention has been driven from him.

It's speculation, true, but based on known facts.  How sad it must have been for Shakespeare the remainder of that year.  Should we see his purchase of New Place early the next year as an overreaction, a compensation to his neglected family?  Perhaps.