John Hall and Thomas Greene
John Hall
John Hall – Shakespeare’s medical doctor son-in-law, married to Shakespeare’s eldest daughter Susanna, executor of Shakespeare’s will – was living in Stratford in April 1616 and probably had been living there since 1607 when his marriage to Susanna took place. John Hall kept a medical notebook and in it he names patients, treatments, medications, follow-up visits, end-results etc; not unlike the way doctors today keep patient notes. Hall names patients by name, but not Shakespeare, if in fact, Hall ever treated his father-in-law.
Hall biographer/researcher of Hall’s notebook, Joan Lane, writes “the question of whether Hall attended on William Shakespeare in his last illness in 1616 has long intrigued scholars and, if he did, why the details were not given in the Casebook…”[1] [2] Perhaps a more accurate statement would simply opine if Hall attended on Shakespeare prior to his death – and leave out the un-factual stuff. If Shakespeare’s son-in-law treated him prior to his death in April 1616, Hall never wrote of it; unlike his recording of attending to hundreds of his other patients including his wife, Susanna, their daughter Elizabeth and poet Michael Drayton.[3] On treating his daughter, Hall writes about “Elizabeth Hall, my only Daughter”[4] and “Mrs. Hall of Stratford, my Wife.”[5]
One very logical reason Hall makes no mention of treating Shakespeare might be due to the fact he never treated Shakespeare. Very possible; possibly, due to the fact Shakespeare wasn’t ill. Maybe Shakespeare wasn’t, in fact, ill notwithstanding every writer and researcher for some reason puts him in the sick column.
Perhaps Shakespeare was ill, but maybe Hall didn’t treat him. Maybe Shakespeare had a fatal illness but refused treatment; it happens, even today. Maybe Shakespeare was in final, end stage Parkinson’s or had something else going on. If Shakespeare had an illness or a debilitating neurological condition that had no cure and Hall attended on his father-in-law maybe Hall decided not to write of it for no particular reason.
Or, when you change the way you look at things, maybe there were other reasons not to write of treatment of Shakespeare if Hall did, in fact, treat his father-in-law. Maybe there was a reason Hall stayed silent. If Hall treated Shakespeare maybe it was a type of treatment not normally characterized as such. Is it possible he wanted to stay silent about his involvement in Shakespeare’s last days, if he had any involvement? Did John Hall, the medical doctor, know something modernity doesn’t? If he did know something, he certainly wouldn’t want to write of it and let the cat out of the bag considering it could be used as evidence in a suspicious death investigation.[6] All the coroner would have to do would be to look in Hall’s notebook and find a suspicious notation and from there an interview would occur, and from there all hell could break loose; it was incredibly difficult for a jury to prove a death was suicide based on physical evidence alone.[7] Better to record nothing; and say less. Every researcher who has assumed Shakespeare was sick and wondered if John Hall attended on his father-in-law is miffed why Hall never made note of it. The Project finds the puzzlement puzzling.
Sir Thomas More (1478-1535), in his 1516 Utopia,[8] wrote about medically-assisted suicide – exactly 100 years before Shakespeare’s 1616 death. Being approximately 500 years ahead of his time in parts of his thinking, More’s attitude towards suicide can be distilled down to two important beliefs:
- Utopians living in “excruciating pain” and unable to live a normal life should seriously consider taking their own lives; those ill persons are visited by a priest and government official and are encouraged to end their lives; if they do, in fact, resort to suicide, either by starvation or ingesting a soporific (permanent sleeping potion) given to them by the authorities, their deaths are considered honourable;
- but if a Utopian kills themselves for reasons which the priest and government official do not consider adequate, they “forfeit all rights to either burial or cremation, and your body is just thrown unceremoniously into a pond.”[9]
It is interesting More has both the Utopian clergy and government officials encourage certain types of suicide; both being the authoritative bodies that oversaw suicide laws – the crime of self-murder – and church doctrine – a sin against God. Today, many countries have government regulated and government assisted-suicide regimes as part of national health care programs to ease insufferable, terminal pain and to alleviate other inevitably fatal conditions; not entirely different from a More’s Utopian suicide who is given a permanent sleeping potion – from the government.
More says a soporific – a permanent sleeping potion – is the preferred method; it was extremely difficult to detect in the 17th century.[10] If the coroners and forensic experts had a hard time detecting it, why risk incriminating anybody with a written notation documenting your patient’s last days – if the notation involved soporifics?
Should someone want to commit self-murder in 1616 and give themselves the best chance of not being identified as a suicide and give their family the best chance of avoiding forfeiture, a soporific sleeping potion might be, as More postulated, the preferred method. There would be no need to explain a swinging body. Poison via a soporific would do the trick; think, no external evidence left behind. Though a permanent sleeping potion could be viewed as the preferred method, suicides didn’t resort to self-poisoning that often, under 5% between the 15th and 17th centuries.[11] Maybe the low numbers can be partially due to scarce availability of said potion and knowing where to find such a potion. Come to think of it, where would one go to actually get their hands on a vial of sleeping potion, such soon-speeding gear dram of poison? Other than a wretched apothecary, a medical doctor who knew about such things might not be a bad start. Who might not make note of it in his medical handbook.
Thomas Greene
Thomas Greene was associated with Shakespeare in various ways. As far as this research is concerned Greene started out as an unremarkable, albeit somewhat curious, person of interest; however, he is involved enough to merit inclusion based on his diarizing, where he was and what he was doing during the year of Shakespeare’s death, 1616. And, if for nothing else, to show the trend continues – nobody said a thing.
Rupert Taylor,[12] relying on the research of Sir Edmund K. Chambers,[13] suggests Greene was, in some degree, related to Shakespeare; possibly a cousin. Regardless – for whether Greene was in fact related to Shakespeare is unimportant for this investigation – Greene had lengthy dealings with Shakespeare and Stratford.
Greene, a lawyer, was Stratford’s legal counsel commencing in 1601 and town clerk from 1603 to 1617[14] – a year after Shakespeare’s death; Greene had extensive – personal and business – dealings with Shakespeare. Greene lived in Stratford from at least 1601 until 1617, by which time he had resigned from his then current position as town clerk and moved to Bristol. Shakespeare and Greene must have been close, or close enough, in order to provide the foundation for transactional business dealings between them and for Shakespeare to rent or, otherwise, permit Greene to stay at his new house[15] on Chapel Street. Further evidence of a close personal relationship between Greene and Shakespeare is the fact Greene named his two children Anne and William.
The historical record serves up notes writ by Greene himself where he says he “might stay another yere” as a tenant, or guest, of Shakespeare’s while waiting to take possession of a house that he purchased – a house adjoined to the churchyard at Holy Trinity Church.[16] Therefore, Greene rented, or otherwise stayed at, Shakespeare’s new house on the corner of Chapel Street and Chapel Lane during parts of his Stratford employment, likely starting before 1609.
Greene also had business dealings with his famous landlord.[17] Later notes, covering 2 November 1614 – 19 February 1617, speak to the business dealings he was involved in with Shakespeare, occurring simultaneously when Shakespeare died.
These small bits of information – that he was living at Shakespeare’s second house on Chapel Street prior to 1609 and he had some business dealings with Shakespeare – are preserved in the historical record by Greene’s own hand.[18] Greene’s contemporaneous notes about the fact he was still living at a property owned by Shakespeare and was waiting to take possession of a house he had already purchased – which was adjoined to Holy Trinity’s churchyard – illustrate Greene documented stuff.
Both sets of notes by Greene are made contemporaneously with the event he was recording. Recall Shakespeare died in 1616 which would put his death in the middle of his joint business venture with a close associate, former tenant and town clerk.
Interestingly, Greene made no mention of his ‘cousins’ death in 1616; and this, from a lawyer who seemed to keep contemporaneous notes about current events in his life on everything from where he lived to his business dealings – both of which involved Shakespeare. Yet, not one word from the note-maker was jotted down contemporaneously with Shakespeare’s death. Alas, Greene must have fallen prey to the same debilitating silence sickness that seemed to be going around at the time.
Greene’s notes, therefore, are being made right in the middle of Shakespeare’s death period; like, his notebook would likely have been on his desk and not in a drawer under it. Yet, there was nothing writ about the death of his close friend. If Shakespeare died of illness, a notation “23 April 1616 – Will died, illness” might reasonably be viewed as forthcoming from a guy who made contemporaneous notes of what was going on in his life. Of course, there is no obligation on Greene to jot the death of his friend down, or cause thereof, and no suspicious conspiracy arises from the fact he didn’t. It’s just an interesting observation made in light of the fact Greene documented contemporary events in his life. But, there was silence surrounding his friend’s death.
When you change the way you look at Greene’s silence the silence might be seen as a reasonable course of action instead of documentation; maybe even the preferred, expected course of action.
But make no mistake, two things emerge from the previously-regarded unimportant Greene: 1) he knew how Shakespeare died and 2) after Shakespeare’s death he resigned his position as town clerk, sold his house and picked his life up and moved to Bristol. Shakespeare’s death must have affected him deeply; perhaps it was the suddenness of it all. Fripp suggests Greene’s life turned from “sunshine to night.”[19]
Not all deaths are created equally. Some deaths linger longer and hurt more than others, for various reasons. The death of a child might cause more grief than the death of a well-lived, much-accomplished elderly person who had led a full life. A murder might linger longer in the hearts of survivants as opposed to somebody dying of illness. Shakespeare’s death must have affected Greene deeply; perhaps it was the suddenness of it all.
Was Shakespeare’s death just a run-of-the-mill death, caused by illness – claimant of thousands of lives in the 17th century – that prompted Greene to leave Stratford? Just the grief of a friend passing away from a normal death? Or, was something else involved – circumstances so hurtful, so powerful, so piercing that made Greene leave? Was it the manner of death, the cause of death, that had such a profound impact on Greene? Was Shakespeare’s death of such a type that left an unrelenting blackness in Greene’s heart that he had no choice but to leave town? Was Greene’s ‘sunshine turned to night’ caused by normal grief or the added grief of an irregular death? Did he leave Stratford because living there would be a constant reminder of the passing of his dear friend? Or a reminder of something else? Those questions will likely never be answered.
Maybe there is a very simple, logical reason both men – John Hall and Thomas Greene — didn’t make note of Shakespeare’s death. The other side of that coin is that when these two instances of silence are viewed from a different angle, an entirely new reason emerges as to why neither made note of it; a very real reason that had real consequences.
One more Investigative Finding can be added to the growing list:
IF – John Hall and Thomas Greene – Stratford residents at the time of Shakespeare’s death and both intimately close to Shakespeare and both known for their diarizing and note-keeping – interestingly, made no note of Shakespeare’s death. Maybe there was a practical reason, contrary to their known personal characteristics, for not recording it.
Not only has the lack of documentation surrounding Shakespeare’s death confounded scholars for centuries but trying to determine if Shakespeare died on his birthday has also puzzled researchers. The Project decided to look at Shakespeare’s possible birth-date and death-date.
SDRP
[1] Joan Lane, John Hall and his Patients: The Medical Practice of Shakespeare’s Son-in-Law (Shakespeare Birthplace Trust, 1996), xx.
[2] Lane’s conclusory statement noting, as supposed fact, Shakespeare had a last illness presupposes he had more than one. Not only does custom have Shakespeare die from an unsupported illness it appears he suffered from more than one unsupported illness.
[3] Lane, John Hall, 40.
[4] Lane, John Hall, 66-69.
[5] Lane, John Hall, 35.
[6] MacDonald and Murphy, Sleepless Souls, 228. If no visible signs of self-murder were evident the authorities would start interviewing those who were around the deceased during their final days.
[7] MacDonald and Murphy, Sleepless Souls, 225.
[8] Thomas More, Utopia (1516), ed. Paul Turner, Penguin Classics: Thomas More – Utopia, (Penguin Books, 1965).
[9] More, Utopia, ed. Paul Turner, 102.
[10] MacDonald and Murphy, Sleepless Souls, 227.
[11] MacDonald and Murphy, Sleepless Souls, 227.
[12] Rupert Taylor, Shakespeare’s Cousin, Thomas Greene, and His Kin: Possible Light on the Shakespeare Family Background (PMLA, Vol. 60, No. 1, Mar 1945), 81-94.
[13] Chambers, Study of Facts.
[14] https://shakespearedocumented.folger.edu/resource/document/thomas-greene-stratford-upon-avon-s-town-clerk-or-steward-notes-he-might-stay. Accessed 24 November 2023.
[15] I.e., New Place. This house, now, is universally known as ‘New Place’ but Shakespeare called it ‘the new place.’ i.e., the new house, my new place. Calling it New Place is equating it to a titled property, like, Buckingham Palace or Windsor Castle; it was not. Shakespeare only referred it to as ‘the new place.’ Similar to the way rural-dwellers named things: the old barn, the new place, my new horse, the old donkey. Over time, Shakespeare’s ‘new house’ became to be identified as the titled property, New Place. Shakespeare’s new house no longer stands; only some excavations and gardens are present today.
[16]https://shakespearedocumented.folger.edu/resource/document/thomas-greene-stratford-upon-avon-s-town-clerk-or-steward-notes-he-might-stayAccessed 02 March 2024.
[17] https://shakespearedocumented.folger.edu/resource/document/thomas-greene-s-notes-progress-proposed-enclosures-welcombe-include-five Accessed 24 November 2023.
[18] See generally, Dr. Robert Bearman, Shakespeare in the Stratford Records (Alan Sutton Publishing Inc, 1994).
[19] Edgar I. Fripp, Shakespeare’s Stratford (Oxford University Press, 1928), 60.