Talk:Hamnet Shakespeare

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.	Biography Portal
Stub	This article has been rated as Stub-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]

	Hamnet Shakespeare is part of WikiProject Shakespeare, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to Shakespeare on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
Stub	This article has been rated as stub-Class on the quality scale. (If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.

[edit] Hamnet and Hamlet…

I see the article has amassed further speculation on the similarity of Hamnet's name to that of the eponymous character of the play Hamlet since last I looked at it. The relevant change is here.

I've read the cited Greenblatt article and it boils down to Greenblatt saying he feels there must be a connection given the similarly sounding names, and he then spends over six thousand words making speculation and supposition that sound plausible, but of which none is actually supported by any facts (I particularly like the part where he describes the scene at Hamnet's burial — down to the details of the tears on John, Anne, and Judith and Susanna's faces! — and how his supposition that Shakespeare and his immediate family had Catholic sympathies, but were forced into a Protestant burial, proves that Hamlet is a covert Catholic Mass for Hamnet). Eloquently as Greenblatt paints this picture for the reader, in the absence of new facts, here Chambers must trump Greenblatt. Also, somewhat beside the point, I just plain don't find his speculation plausible; the mother's lament in King John I'll buy, but I see no thematic or specific echo of Hamnet's death in Hamlet.

So I'm going to get rid of the parts that were added that relies on Greenblatt (which is essentially all of this theory).

Further, the added bits make reference to Will's will and the spelling of Hamnet Sadler's name. Aside from the fact that Will didn't write his own will — that would have been Francis Collins, his lawyer, or more likely Collins' hired scribe — and that the will was not in final form (it was a crude and much amended draft), so any given spelling of the name has at least three possible sources of typos and misunderstandings, the cited transcription of Will's will — and all other transcriptions of it that I've so far seen on the web — are just plain wrong. The one cited here is a better attempt than most, but I still found mistakes within 30 seconds of casual study.

IOW, I'm going to get rid of the bits that support themselves on that particular reference (which is the last bit of the added text).

Are there any better sources than Greenblatt around that might justify keeping this? Preferably something supported by objective facts and not appeals to a mother's tear-streaked face and a father's desperate regret at having abandoned his only son, now dead, in infancy.--Xover (talk) 09:09, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

• Hmmm. I'm always a bit sceptical of dismissing the ideas of the guys who write the reliable sources just because we disagree with their ideas. That seems to me to be what the original research policy is there to discourage. Also, I have seen writers who are more sympathetic to the idea of a Hamnet/Hamlet connection than you have just been, and than the comment added by Wrad a few months ago to the Hamlet article. Having said that, I'm sympathetic to the view you've expressed above, I'm very much in the "don't edit with your brain switched off" camp, and I don't object to your proposed removals. I'll keep an eye out while reading in the next few weeks, though, and if I see anything good that will add balance to this piece, I'll add it in. AndyJones (talk) 20:15, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

As the editor who made this change, let me offer some arguments against reverting it.

1. It is supported by reliable sources. In addition to Greenblatt's works, I believe a similar position is taken by Park Honan, Shakespeare: A Life (Oxford: Oxford UP, 1998), p. 236 (although, admittedly, I haven't seen Honan's work myself, and therefore didn't cite it). Also taking a broad view of the importance of Hamnet's death is Richard P. Wheeler, "Deaths in the Family: The Loss of a Son and the Rise of Shakespearean Comedy," Shakespeare Quarterly (Summer 2000), Vol. 51, pp. 127 - 53, although Wheeler is more focused on Hamnet's influence on other plays than Hamlet.

2. It is supported by the known fact that "Hamlet" and "Hamnet" were interchangeable names. This is not just based on Shakespeare's will, where the text refers to "Hamlett Sadler," but Sadler himself, a witness, signed as "Hamnet Sadler." (In this regard, I consider it irrelevant that the will itself would have been set down by a solicitor or scrivener, not Shakespeare himself. Multiple transcriptions of the will give these spellings, so I don't think they're the result of transcription errors.) We know virtually nothing of poor Hamnet Shakespeare other than his baptism and death (on which occasions his name was spelled "Hamnet" both times), but Sadler's name occurs several times in the Stratford Register, where it is spelled as "Hamnet" three times, "Hamlet" three times, "Hamletti" once, and "Hambnet" once. (My source here is the article on the Stratford Register in this 1821 edition of Shakespeare's plays and poems, Vol. II, pp. 612 - 13. I haven't had a chance to compare to the more recent version of the Register, which I believe was published in scholarly form a few years ago.) Both "Hamnet" and "Hamlet" derive from the Norman name "Hamo" or "Hamon," according to Notes and Queries, Sept. 21, 1907.

3. It is consistent with our intuition. We know that the loss of an only son is a shattering development. If anything, it would have been more so in Shakespeare's time, when it was considered all-important to have a male heir. While the names of Shakespeare's son and the Prince of Denmark may be coincidental, it's hard to imagine that Shakespeare did not have his son on his mind when he wrote the play. Writers in the 19th and early 20th centuries were far too free with their speculations, leading to a reaction by writers like Sisson and Chambers to avoid all such speculation. More recent scholars are trying to find a middle ground. I am not, of course, suggesting that Wikipedia should indulge in speculation as to the effect of Hamnet's death on Shakespeare, just that it is appropriate to discuss the scholarly sources who address the subject. John M Baker (talk) 23:16, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

As a neutral party, I'm reminded of the many arguments our project has had over Shakespearean authorship. In most cases, the idea that Shakespeare wrote his works wins out, because that's what scholars say. When the authorship crowd is challenged to bring up academic, peer reviewed sources, their pickings are very slim. For this debate, though, it seems that the Hamnet = Hamlet crowd have a proportionally larger support among academics. I think the information should stay in, making it clear that it is very much a minority opinion. Wrad (talk) 00:17, 4 March 2008 (UTC)