The Bard’s Infinite Malady

Did William Shakespeare actually suffer from a sexually transmitted disease such as Chlamydia or Syphilis?   To date, we have no definitive evidence such as physicians’ records, personal correspondence or direct quotations about the illness.   However, by assembling the circumstantial proof that is available in the Bard’s writings and what we know about the end of his life, a case can be made that William Shakespeare was probably suffering from some form of “the pox.”

Examination of Shakespeare’s writings gives many clues about his knowledge, perhaps personally, about the symptoms and treatments of Syphilis (and other sexually transmitted diseases) during the late 16^th century.   If we are to believe that the Sonnets are

autobiographical and very personal in nature, (another topic for a research paper!), there are some very graphic references contained in the Sonnets.    These references such as “my plague” (Sonnet 141.13) and “My love is as a fever” (Sonnet 147.1) are found in 10 of Shakespeare’s Sonnets.   A complete listing and evaluation of these disease references are found in Peter Jensen’s book, Secrets of the Sonnets, Shakespeare’s Code. The author presents a convincing argument stating, “He has a fever from the disease.   Perhaps it went dormant during his later life and flared up again when his fever came back during his fatal illness in 1616.  Many feel that he went to the springs at Bath to try hot water as a cure” (Jensen).

Dr. John J. Ross writes in an article for The Medical News, that “mentions of the “pox,” the “malady of France,” the “infinite malady,” and the “hoar leprosy” in his writings seem to indicate that the Bard knew—perhaps from personal experience—how torturous venereal disease could be. Shakespeare’s knowledge of syphilis is clinically precise. A line in Sonnet 154, “Love’s fire heats water,” apparently refers to an STD causing burning urination” (Ross).

Medical treatments for venereal diseases in Elizabethan England were almost as dangerous as the disease itself.   The inhalation of Mercury vapors was one such “cure.”    Dr. Ross suggests that Shakespeare’s tremulous signature on his will, his social withdrawal in later years, and even his baldness might all be due to a mild degree of mercury vapor poisoning (Ross).   The Elizabethan practice of using very hot baths may have been more effective than even they knew at the time.   The high temperature fever causing baths could possibly kill the organisms that cause the infections.   The only effective “cure” to the “French Pox” was still a few hundred years in the future with the discovery of antibiotics in 1939.

In Sonnets #153 and #154 there are references to “Seething bath” and “came there for the cure”.   Did William Shakespeare make a trip to Bath, England to soak in the healing waters?    He certainly was aware that people who were suffering from the symptoms of syphilis felt the baths were healing.   Why would he make so many references to this cure if he did not feel it was worthy?

Shakespeare makes these references in the lines of the Sonnets, but can we take him literally?    A number of scholars seem to want to make the “leap” to a full bore case of tertiary syphilis.    From the references in the sonnets and in plays about the sexually transmitted diseases of the day, I feel that there is good evidence that he had some form of sexually transmitted disease.   With the devastating effects of syphilis later in life, I would think that Shakespeare would have not been able to function as a playwright or an actor on stage.    Dr. Ross theorizes that, “It’s unlikely that he would have been performing if he had been suffering from the ravages of tertiary syphilis.  Nor did the Bard exhibit the mental problems toward the end of his life that would indicate severe mercury poisoning, judging from the quality of his writing, so any mercury treatment he received was probably limited” (Ross)  The symptoms of the late stages of syphilis would prove to be extremely debilitating and would have surely been noticed and documented by Shakespeare’s peers.

The possibility that William Shakespeare was not infected with the more devastating venereal diseases, but with Chlamydia presents a more plausible scenario.   The symptoms and long term complications are far less severe than with tertiary syphilis.   According to the CDC, “complications among men are rare. Infection sometimes spreads to the epididymis (the tube that carries sperm from the testis), causing pain, fever, and, rarely, sterility.   Rarely, genital chlamydial infection can cause arthritis that can be accompanied by skin lesions and inflammation of the eye and urethra (Reiter’s syndrome) (CDC).   These symptoms are like the ones Shakespeare so eloquently placed into his sonnets.

My reading of the Sonnets and their references to “the pox”  leads me to believe that Shakespeare was writing about himself, his loves and loves lost.   The study of the Sonnets could make for an entire career for a Shakespearean Historian.   There is more to them than just a well-written love poem.   It seems to me there are just too many connections within the Sonnets to Shakespeare’s life that would not make them seem autobiographical .    Was Will sharing his most personal feelings and innermost thoughts with the world?   Maybe not the world, but surely with the people in his life.

Works cited

Jensen, Peter. Secrets of the Sonnets, Shakespeare’s Code. Eugene, Walking Bird Press, 2007. 57-59.

Ross, John MD, Shakespeare may have had syphilis, The Medical News. Jan 2005. 6 Feb 2010. Web.

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Chlamydia – CDC Fact Sheet. Dec 2007. 6 Feb 2010. Web.

William Shakespeare’s interpretation of history is closer to real events than one might expect in a stage production.   Shakespeare’s histories are small vignettes of famous characters in the rich chronicles of England’s monarchies.    He relates the actual history to his audience with both accuracy and dramatic license.  The constraints of the “boards” can be challenging when trying to depict an epic battle scene such as Shrewsbury.

The actual battle was a major event  in the Wars of the Roses during the early 15^th century.   During  the Battle of Shrewsbury in July 1403, King Henry IV led an army of about 20,000 to a river plain near the strategic town of Shrewsbury.   Sir Henry “Hotspur”  Percy, leader of the rebellion forces was outnumbered, leading a force of possibly 15,000.   The archers he had gathered in Cheshire were superior to those of the King.   This was the first great battle where longbow faced longbow, and many of the casualties, believed to be about 3,000 on each side, came from the arrow-storms in the early part of the battle.  Henry IV faced more rebellions through his reign, so Shrewsbury was far from decisive. But it did show the future Henry V the power of the English longbow, an arm he deployed to devastating effect in France at Agincourt  in 1415(Britain).

Of course, the logistics of staging an epic battle scene are challenging to a playwright.   Shakespeare takes the real history of the battle and presents  it to his audience within the scope of the characters’ experiences on the battle field.   This gives the overall feeling of a huge dynamic conflagration and yet still furthers the plot of the play.   Shakespeare brings the two sides of the battle together on stage as Prince Hal and Hotspur confront each other in Act 5 scene 4.  While not historically correct, this hand to hand combat scene personalizes the entire Battle of Shrewsbury and its importance to England’s monarchy.  Hotspur himself was killed, not by Hal’s sword, but by an arrow through the mouth when he opened the visor of his helmet to get some fresh air.

Shakespeare gives us  accurate insights into history with Falstaff’s account of recruiting soldiers through the use of the “King’s Press” (Act 4, Scene 2).   The Elizabethan audiences would have been able to relate to this speech directly  or even personally.   Falstaff gives a historically accurate account of how armies were formed during the medieval period.   The King of  England’s professional, free standing army was still 200 years in the future.   The use of press gangs was in use  for Royal Navy recruits well into the 18^th century, even though the life of a British Sailor was far superior to the poverty that they came from.     As a historian, Shakespeare got quite a few details of the period correct.    Where did Shakespeare get his information about English history?

As I learned through my research of Richard III, Shakespeare relied on Sir Thomas Moore’s Chronicles for a background of the history of that period.   I am convinced that for the history of Henry IV, there are two main chronicles that Shakespeare most likely had for reference.   There is substantial evidence that the historian Rafael Holinshed’s The Chronicles of  England, Scotland  and Ireland published in 1587 (Holinshed) could have been of great influence.   Being the consummate history geek that I am, I spent a couple of hours of research time reading the actual 1587 volume available online from the Furness Collection.   Although difficult to read in the Elizabethan English, I was able to find real details of Holinshed’s account of Henry IV and his negotiations surrounding the battle of Shrewsbury.   Based on this Chronicle, I am convinced that not only did Shakespeare get much of the history correct; he probably got it from this chronicle.

There is  also evidence that Shakespeare used John Hardyng’s Chronicle for information to develop Hotspur’s character.   In a journal article for Shakespeare Quarterly, Gilian West proposes: “It is hard to believe that  Shakespeare did not read this autobiographical declaration linking John Hardyng to the household of Sir Henry Percy, for, in writing I Henry IV, he seems to have studied with keen interest Hardyng’s brief account of Percy’s rebellion”(West).   The author presents a compelling argument listing some of Shakespeare’s lines for Hotspur that directly relate to Hardyng’s Chronicle.  She goes on to state: “More important, the play’s interpretation of the rebellion seems strongly influenced by the favorably biased narrative of Hotspur’s loyal retainer.” (West)   I agree with the interpretation that this Chronicle would be a secondary source that Shakespeare probably used to bring Sir Henry Percy to life on stage.

I have found through my historical study of both Richard III and I Henry IV that Shakespeare expertly weaves actual historical facts into beautiful stories that entertained the Elizabethan audiences on his stage.   Being able to portray an epic battle scene such as Shrewsbury with character- driven vignettes is truly one of Shakespeare’s greatest strengths as a dramatist.   Shakespeare’s Histories are turning out to be more than just great plays; they are new portals for my ongoing journey as a History Major.

Information Britain.com. “The 21st of July 1403 Ad, Battle of Shrewsbury, Famous Dates in History”. 2007. 23 Jan 2010. web.

Holinshed, Rafael. Holinshed’s Chronicles (1587). The Chronicles of England, Scotland and Ireland. Ed. Schoenberg Center for Electronic text and Image. London, 1587.

West, Gilian. “Hardyng’s “Chronicle” And Shakespeare’s Hotspur.” Shakespeare Quarterly Vol. 41, No. 3 (Autumn, 1990) (1990): 348-51.

Shakespeare in Love – Historical Inaccuracies

In the 1998 blockbuster hit Shakespeare in love the film makers present a wonderful romance, a rich story and spectacular costumes.   However, in the very first frame of the movie, they make the mistake of throwing down the gauntlet to Elizabethan historians by flashing “London 1593″.   One must have the ability to exercise suspension of disbelief to enjoy this movie at face value.   With the date set at 1593 this immediately ties the events in the film to known history.   It is however, just a film, a fictional love story and is filled with wonderful historical tidbits (when you can find the accurate ones…).

For this exercise, we need to differentiate between the historical inaccuracies based on three criteria: “sight gags” and comedy “bits” that have no pretence of being historically accurate; incorrect Elizabethan period references and facts; and finally actual blatant historical inaccuracies in the film.   Given that this is a fictional Hollywood production and not a documentary of Shakespeare’s London, the general viewing public was probably oblivious to what Historians find issue with.

A few of the “stage business gags” of note are illustrated here: Shakespeare on the pseudo psychiatrist’s “couch” being analyzed about his writers block.   The souvenir mug on his desk that reads “A present from Stratford-on-Avon” rests on the playwright’s desk.    We hear individuals in the streets speaking “future” lines from his plays as Shakespeare walks by somehow not noticing.    Shakespeare jumping into a ferryboat on the Thames and shouting “follow that boat!   There are many more examples of these gags throughout the film.   I find these small bits non offensive to my Historian principles and accept them for what they are, entertainment.  These small bits only add to the feel of Shakespeare’s London as being the “Hollywood” of Elizabethan times.  This is probably best illustrated by the ferryman with a “script” that he tries to get Will to read.

This brings us to the second level of inaccuracy, incorrect items or images of Elizabethan London in the late 1500s.   One of the most glaring inaccuracies takes place in the tavern where the actors are celebrating and hear of Marlowe’s murder.   In this scene, everyone is drinking their ale from glass beakers.   They look like a modern day pilsner glass.   This is a major period error as the vessels would most probably be made of pewter.

The second major historical inaccuracy is Queen Elizabeth attending the performance of Romeo and Juliet in the movie.   She is in disguise and reveals herself at the end of the production.   Of course, this is a most improbable scenario, the Queen had the plays brought to her instead.   While this plot piece works in the movie it is totally wrong historically.

Another problem harkens back to the first frame “London 1593″ reference.   The period that this film is supposed to be taking place in was during a closure from the plague.   As noted by Andrew Gurr, “The 1592–4 period was difficult for the acting companies of London; a severe outbreak of bubonic plague meant that the London theatres were closed almost continuously from June 1592 to May 1594.” (Gurr, p.38)  Even though there was a scene to cover this inaccuracy, the fact still remains that London’s theaters were not open during the year of this movie.

Perhaps it was Tom Stoppard’s poetic license, but it also should be recognized that the names of the acting companies and the theaters are not correct historically.  Are the Admiral’s Men, possibly relating to Sir Walter Raleigh?   These inaccuracies can be excused based on the fictional basis for the story.  It was in 1594 that Shakespeare founded the Chamberlain’s men, a full year after their mention in the movie.

There is a reference to Titus Andronicus by one of the actors as if they had already performed the play.   Another reference to the play by Will,   “Marlowe’s touch was in my Titus Andronicus” alluding he received “help” from Marlowe in the writing.   Here is an obscure reference to the theory (totally unfounded) that Shakespeare did not write his own plays.  Again, historically inaccurate as it was first recorded performance was in early 1594.   This is just the beginning of the major historical inaccuracies that are related to the now infamous frame…London 1593.

As a Historian, the rather blatant and most troubling historical inaccuracies of Shakespeare in Love revolve around two distinct themes.

First, the multiple references by Lord Wessex about taking Viola DeLesseps to his “plantation” in Virginia.   Again, with the stated date of 1593 for this movie, there lies one of the most blatant historical inaccuracies within.   Eric Foner, in his American history textbook states: “The colonists, mostly young men under military leadership abandoned the venture (Virginia colony 1586) and returned to England.  A second group of 100 settlers, composed of families was dispatched that year.   Their fate remains a mystery.    When a ship bearing supplies arrived in 1590, the sailors found the colony abandoned…”(Foner) Tobacco plantations were not established in Virginia until a full 20 years past the date of this reference in the movie.   Additionally, one other glaring inaccuracy in the very last scene of the movie adds to this theme of the “Americas”.    Viola (implied) is shown walking across a vast expanse of beach alone.   As the shot pans away and the scene of a sandy beach, probably a mile wide is shown.   This is panoramic and visually powerful, however, totally inaccurate historically.   The only possible place that Lord Wessex could have taken Viola would be the Jamestown colony (founded 1607).   The settlements were established inland on the Chesapeake where there was a viable harbor.    This historical bobble is my “Secret ace in the hole!”

The other great historical inaccuracy of the film revolves around the story itself.  Given that this film is a fictional work about the Bard in London 1593, some allowances can be made…but!     The whole idea that Romeo and Juliet was inspired by Shakespeare’s love for Viola is a nice romantic fable, but is probably far from the truth.   And again, the date of 1593 has its issues as well.   The connection with Marlowe and his murder (May 30, 1593)    sort of fits the timeline of the movie, but not a relationship with Romeo and Juliet.   If there is to be a romantic connection with Shakespeare’s works, the dark lady of the sonnets would have been a better choice for the movie.  (I eagerly anticipate the opportunity to research this in forthcoming papers for ENG 203)   The portrayal of Shakespeare having a torrid love affair that inspires Romeo and Juliet is for the movie going masses and is a red flag to Shakespearean Historians.

And to top all of this off, the final scene where we see Shakespeare writing the play “Twelfth Night” and transforming Viola into a character.  This play may have been in Shakespeare’s “to do” list, but was not written for another seven years (1600).   I prefer to think that the Viola reference is botanical and not romantic.

Being the consummate history geek, I had to watch this movie twice for this exercise.  One time, with a keen eye for all of the historical inaccuracies, and again, with great suspension of disbelief to enjoy the movie for its art.