"Hamnet" and the History of History
"Hamnet" is the 2025 film which depicts a fantasy version not only of Shakespeare's life but of the cultural and technological environment of rural England circa 1590. The fictional film won Best Drama at the Golden Globes last weekend and is a very engaging and emotional work of cinema. The BBC characterizes it as "a powerful story that fills in many blanks."
But Spielberg and Zhao's "Hamnet" does more than 'fill in blanks' -- it ignores well established facts. In doing so it provides a great example of the obstacles that the discipline and practice of history faces as it moves toward science and accuracy.
The word "story" implies fiction, in some cases 'lying'. Many older histories are obvious about their lies. For example the traditional history of Rome says that Romulus and Remus were nursed by a wolf. There are statues depicting this. Many, perhaps most, ethnic histories have included paranormal or unscientific elements. A very common one across time and cultures is that a former leader or king is not really dead but rather is asleep in a mountain, often together with elite troops, and they will re-awaken at the time of greatest need. Those who categorize myths have logged dozens of versions of this myth which range from Theseus in ancient Greece to King Arthur to Walt Disney who is allegedly in whole or in part, cryogenically frozen beneath the Matterhorn. Like the iconic figures in these myths, this kind of history also refuses to die.
Jumping forward we get to Thomas Jefferson and the Age of Reason. Jefferson famously issued his own version of the gospels but with all of the miracles taken out. This rejection of obvious paranormal elements was not a turning point for religion but it was for history as a discipline. Consider the contrast between Jefferson and the 17th century Puritans who preceded him. For the Puritans, and many today, there is no such thing as secular history. In their view everything that has happened or will happen is part of a divine plan and this comes across in the way that they talk about both recent and ancient events. On NFL fields this takes the form of 'God granted me this touch down.'
At colleges History remains part of the Arts. It was a branch of Literature, of fiction. The emphasis has been solidly on the side of patriotism and the high level integration of anecdotes and outright lies into patriotic literature and stories about "great men" who fulfilled their destiny.
We are reaching a crisis point for fictional and nationalistic history. Software has enabled the digitization and translation of millions of primary source documents. It allows us to search and cross-reference multiple sources which were in multiple languages, written by people who do not share nationalities or narratives. This is breaking history out of the silos it has always been in. Meanwhile, we now have a generation who has grown up focused on primary source materials and individual POVs. Gen Z is allergic to spin and very good at finding the original unspinnable letters, speeches and actions of historic figures.
LiDAR, ground penetrating radar, DNA, and other forensic tools are being adopted by historians. All of this has created a crisis for nationalistic histories especially. One of many recent examples of the way cross-cultural sources conflict with nationalistic history is seen in the secret 1613 letter from Don Diego de Molina who was a prisoner of the Jamestown outpost of the Virginia Company. Written in Spanish and never included in patriotic histories:
https://encyclopediavirginia.org/primary-documents/letter-of-don-diego-de-molina-to-don-alonzo-de-velasco-1613/
Clearly the writer has his own bias and agenda but we factor that in. In a similar way we now have access to most of the records of slave holding and trading via searchable databases. All kind of other uncomfortable and complicated source material is available to us and to large software systems.
Ah but people LOVE 'Hamnet'. There's the rub. Shakespeare is a secular saint in the English narratives. And the glow around Shakespeare extends to everything of that period. The traditional story is on full display in the movie which opens with schoolboys reciting Latin. Science tells us that less than 10% of England was able to read and write in that period. And that the dialect spoken in Warwickshire was unintelligible in London even 150 years later. Boo! Shakespeare's will, a primary source document, clearly says that he left his wife nothing but the "second best bed". Doesn't sound too romantic. Other primary source documents show us that "Hamlet" was being performed in London in late 1587 so it is impossible for it to have anything to do with the death of Hamnet Shakspeare in 1596. Hamnet and his twin sister Judith were named after neighbors and friends in Stratford -- Hamnet and Judith Sadler. Cross cultural referencing shows us that "Hamlet" was adapted from earlier legends, most obviously "Amleth". So 'Hamnet' is not filling in blanks -- it is denying the facts that exist. It is over-writing inconvenient truths with a very emotional and nationalistic myth.
The docent of a local museum told me that many people come to her library and resources right after they have heard that a relative was in the Revolution or some other noble behavior. They donate and visit and are very supportive until they find out their story was not true. At which time they disappear. Similarly, every 10th house in my neighborhood claimed to be "a stop on the Underground Railroad" (even houses built in the 1880s) and those who love these stories are hostile to facts which contradict them, the most basic being that no one would have made it to Canada if they just moved north one block at a time. Again, when truthful or scientific history does not conform to preferred narratives it becomes much less popular.
But I am hopeful. I think the truth matters and is more interesting than myth and nationalism. I think history must become a science if it is to survive and with tools like the ones emerging now there is no reason it can't get there.