Alleged Illness
The other possible cause of death scholars have glommed onto is illness not due to drinking. The Project decided to look into the actual, factual historical record to see what was actually going on in Shakespeare’s life around the lead-up to his death – say, January to April 1616. And what was Shakespeare’s life like in the months prior to his death? Busy. What was going on in his life just prior to his death? Lots – and not all of it was great.
Factual Events In Shakespeare’s Life From January To April 1616 Based On Documentary Evidence
– Shakespeare, with his lawyer, was undertaking will-drafting efforts starting in January 1616;[1]
– Shakespeare’s daughter Judith was engaged to be, or otherwise contemplated being, married;
– Judith married Thomas Quiney on 10 February;[2]
– Judith and Thomas, after their wedding, were cited by the church for failing to have the proper, necessary marriage licence issued prior to the wedding;[3]
– Thomas was summoned to the Consistory Court, failed to appear and was ex-communicated from the church on 12 March;[4]
– Three days later, on 15 March, Margaret Wheeler died during childbirth, with the child dying also.[5] The father of Margaret Wheeler’s child? Thomas Quiney, Shakespeare’s new son-in-law, now one month into his marriage with Judith;
– Ouch;
– By 25 March, 10 days later, Shakespeare and all the witnesses had signed an iteration of his will, making it valid and in force; this document became his ‘Last Will and Testament’;[6]
– The next day, 26 March, Thomas Quiney appeared in Ecclesiastical Court, also known as Bawdy Court;[7]
– Quiney confessed, in open court, to fornicating with said Margaret Wheeler;[8]
– Quiney was sentenced to do public penance by wearing a white sheet in church – before the whole congregation – on three consecutive Sundays; that sentence was thereafter commuted to a fine of five shillings to be paid to the poor;[9]
– Shakespeare died less than a month later on 23 April 1616; and
– The record thereafter goes silent, immediately.
Those are the known facts; confirmed by documentary evidence. That’s a lot going on in Shakespeare’s life in a very short period of time with some outrageous fortune to boot. The next list enumerates other ‘facts’ researchers have been tossing about and building upon onto which more conjecture has been added as if it were so.
So-Called ‘Facts’ Scholars Have Consistently Held To Be True
– Shakespeare was sick.
One of the biggest errors of modern Shakespearean scholarship – if not the biggest error – centers around the ongoing, self-perpetuating, exponentially increasing and ever-enduring notion Shakespeare was ill in January 1616. There is zero evidence of that. Zero. Not only has that conjecture taken hold and is held as fact in every book written about Shakespeare’s life but the notion that he was sick often turns into commentary that he was sick even prior to January 1616, knew his death was imminent and was, therefore, already sick enough by January to summon his lawyer to make a will.
There is as much independent evidence backing up Ward’s merry meeting diary entry as there is showing Shakespeare was ill in January 1616; yet, researchers – recent 21st century researchers – hold this as sacrosanct. It is not. For all modernity knows Shakespeare might have been sick, he might have been fit as a fiddle, he might have fallen off his horse and broke his hand, he might have been contemplating a dram of poison, he might have slipped and fell at Judith’s wedding or Anne might have clocked him one in a domestic.
Somehow, somewhere, somewhen scholarly commentary started to include the ‘fact’ Shakespeare was definitely sick in January 1616.[10] There was no evidence for this; but it gained traction nonetheless and started to creep into the official narrative until it became the official narrative.
How ingrained did this narrative become? So entrenched that Schoenbaum describes Shakespeare as an “invalid” who “mustered all this strength” to sign the final March 1616 version of his will;[11] Honan posits Shakespeare had fallen ill in January[12] and by the time March rolls around Honan has Shakespeare signing the final March version of his will thusly: “he was not confused on that day, though he was mortally ill” and “after that he became more feeble.”[13] Orlin suggests “we may then imagine, Shakespeare signed on his deathbed.”[14] Joan Lane wonders if Shakespeare’s medical doctor son-in-law “treated his father-in-law in his last illness.”[15] These are but a few examples of modern commentary on Shakespeare’s ‘illness’ pointing towards conclusory. Modern day scholars do not say ‘Shakespeare might have been sick’ they say he was an invalid, mortally ill and signed his will on his deathbed. These are conclusions written by competent scholars published by reputable publishers. There is zero evidence to support any of this. The ‘evidence’ modern researchers use to point to the fact Shakespeare was fatally sick just prior to dying was the notion a signature or signatures on his will differed, and to some, appear shaky, ergo, Shakespeare had a fatal illness because his signature was shaky.
This investigation concurs with the consensus one of the signatures may be by way of a shaky hand insofar that a couple of Shakespeare’s signatures do differ from each other. However, it is at this juncture where a huge inferential leap of conjecture entered the scholarship; a conjectural leap that was unsupported. It is at this juncture where previous scholarship has gone down one road, and one road only: i.e., the shaky signature was only due to infirmity. The Project is unwilling to follow a line of reasoning where it seems the conclusion is results-based as opposed to evidence-based.
It is a huge inferential leap to suggest a shaky signature implies illness or fever – and only fever or illness; it implies nothing of the sort. What it does suggest is that Shakespeare’s signatures differ; nothing more, nothing less. To jump to ‘Shakespeare was beset with a fatal illness’ as to the reason – the only reason – for that unsteady hand – if it was in fact unsteady in the first place – is too large of a jump to land safely without more evidence. The differing signatures could be due to illness but their differences could be due to plethora of other factors.
Signatures will vary depending on the circumstances under which the signature was made: time of day, lighting, mood of signer, mental acuity, how many times the signature must be made, type and quality of writing instrument, proper functioning of the writing instrument, type and quality of paper, how solid the underlying substrate foundation is under the paper such as a desk or lap or hand, was the signature made standing up, lying down, sitting, was the signature rushed, was it not, were other people in the room, was the signer distracted, did they have a broken hand, are they in the middle of a conversation, was the signature interrupted, where on the paper is the signature, is the signature in the middle of the document, is it at the bottom of a page or on a corner etc. The fact a signature varies from time to time or even within the same document is, without more known information, no evidence whatsoever the signer is ill. It could be – but equally possible is the obverse: no fevered illness.
It is curious every previous researcher says the shaky signature was due to a fatal illness; but what of a busted hand or hand tremors? Regardless, needing a cause of death a potential reason gets searched for; the shaky signature many previous scholars turned to gets highlighted; a reason for the shaky signature is now looked for; illness becomes the top pick for the shaky signature; and if illness produced a shaky signature then surely it also caused Shakespeare’s death. It’s entirely circular, an echo-chamber – feeding off each other looking for a complete picture to finish. And, of course, hand tremors or a broken hand won’t result in death, but a fatal illness will.
When researching Shakespeare’s cause of death researchers look at things from an academic’s point of view – not an investigator’s point of view who is more concerned with facts. Academics look at the fact Shakespeare died, then they look backwards and find a shaky signature; a fatal fever could have caused Shakespeare’s shaky signature. Voila, a fatal fever becomes the favoured cause of death. And why does academia feel Shakespeare died of a fatal fever? Well, look at his signatures, they differ and one is shaky; fatal fever causes shaky signatures, ergo, Shakespeare died of a fatal fever/illness.
Interestingly, recent research suggests one of the shaky signatures on one of the pages of Shakespeare’s final 1616 will might have been signed as part of an earlier c. 1613(?) will with that entire page being inserted into, and forming part of, Shakespeare’s final 1616 will.[16] Dr. Amanda Bevan, principal records specialist at The National Archives in London, and her team undertook spectral analysis of the ink and paper used for Shakespeare’s 1616 will. They conclude page 2 of Shakespeare’s three page 1616 will was likely re-used from an earlier will, possibly c. 1613.[17] It is this c. 1613 page – a page now forming part of Shakespeare’s 1616 will – that contains a signature in “what may be a shakier hand.”[18] Therefore, one of the ‘shaky’ signatures previous scholars have suggested was due to illness in 1616 was possibly signed three years earlier. Given the overall textual and spectral analysis Bevan – a principal records specialist – is unwilling to ascribe to the view Shakespeare was ill when he undertook his will-making efforts in 1616.[19] Bevan’s overall scholarship suggests Shakespeare started those efforts in contemplation of Judith’s marriage and not due to illness. Her team’s spectral analysis also concludes Shakespeare made some last minute changes to his will in March and/or early April.[20]
The Project feels comfortable enough to make a few more Investigative Findings:
IF – Shakespeare’s January 1616 will was likely started in contemplation of Judith’s marriage, not because he was sick.
IF – Based on Bevan’s research, the ‘shaky’ signature on Shakespeare’s 1616 will – which formed the foundation for the illness theory – was likely signed in 1613, three years before Shakespeare’s death.
IF – Shakespeare’s life was far from stress-free as of February-March 1616. This includes the outrageous fortune and shock of having Judith’s, his family’s and his reputation being irrevocably tarnished in the Quiney scandal.
IF – While it is possible illness might have prompted Shakespeare to start updating his will in 1616, this is far from certain.
IF – A heretofore unresearched, different reason might have prompted Shakespeare to make those few last minute changes to his will and therefore, corollary to that, this unknown reason might have caused or been a factor in Shakespeare’s death.
SDRP
[1] Shakespeare’s will transcribed in E.K. Chambers, William Shakespeare: A Study of Facts and Problems Vol ii (Clarendon Press, 1930),169-174. Also reproduced in Amanda Bevan and David Foster (2017), “Shakespeare’s original will: a re-reading, and a reflection on interdisciplinary research within archives”, Archives: The Journal of the British Records Association, 51, 32-34.
[2] https://shakespearedocumented.folger.edu/resource/document/parish-register-entry-recording-judith-shakespeare-and-thomas-quineys-marriage. Accessed 01 January 2024.
[3] https://shakespearedocumented.folger.edu/resource/document/thomas-quiney-and-judith-shakespeare-summoned-appear-bishop-s-court-their-citation. Accessed 01 January 2024.
[4] https://shakespearedocumented.folger.edu/resource/document/thomas-quiney-and-judith-shakespeare-summoned-appear-bishop-s-court-their-citation. Accessed 01 January 2024.
[5] https://shakespearedocumented.folger.edu/node/562. Accessed 01 January 2024.
[6] https://shakespearedocumented.folger.edu/resource/document/william-shakespeares-last-will-and-testament-original-copy-including-three. Accessed 01 January 2024.
[7] https://shakespearedocumented.folger.edu/resource/document/record-hearing-stratford-upon-avon-peculiar-court-following-charge-brought-against. Accessed 01 January 2024.
[8] https://shakespearedocumented.folger.edu/resource/document/record-hearing-stratford-upon-avon-peculiar-court-following-charge-brought-against. Accessed 01 January 2024.
[9] https://shakespearedocumented.folger.edu/resource/document/record-hearing-stratford-upon-avon-peculiar-court-following-charge-brought-against. Accessed 01 January 2024.
[10] The genesis of the sick theory might have started with Chambers, Study of Facts.
[11] Schoenbaum, Compact Documentary Life, 297.
[12] Honan, A Life, 394.
[13] Honan, A Life,405-406.
[14] Lena Cowen Orlin, The Private Life of William Shakespeare (Oxford University Press, 2021), 154.
[15] Joan Lane, John Hall and his Patients: The Medical Practice of Shakespeare’s Son-in-Law, (The Shakespeare Birthplace Trust, 1996), xiii. Therefore, Shakespeare is now allegedly in his last illness; meaning, he had a previous bout of something as well. Shakespeare’s son-in-law doctor was John Hall, married to Shakespeare’s oldest daughter, Susanna; not Thomas Quiney, married to his youngest daughter, Judith.
[16] Bevan and Foster, Original will, 17.
[17] Bevan and Foster, Original will, 15-17.
[18] Bevan and Foster, Original will, 25.
[19] Bevan and Foster, Original will, 18.
[20] Bevan and Foster, Original will, 29.