Hours later, after she has tried all the methods known to her, Agnes is asleep next to Judith’s pallet. Hamnet, overwrought that he is about to lose the “other side to him,” crawls from his pallet to Judith’s side, beginning to feel poorly also. He arranges himself next to Judith in a way that made it almost impossible for people to tell them apart, hoping as Death came to take her, it would be fooled into taking him instead. “And if either of them is to live, it must be her. He wills it. He grips it…He, Hamnet, decrees it. It shall be.” (p. 169) 

When Agnes awakens, she eventually discerns that “her daughter has been spared…but, in exchange, it seems that Hamnet may be taken.” (p. 208) She reinitiates the treatments she had tried on Judith, but nothing works. Hamnet takes his last breath. Agnes wonders how she could have saved him, how she could have missed Hamnet being at risk before she is able to comprehend: “he is dead, he is dead, he is dead.” (p. 219) 

From this event on, O’Farrell constructs the trajectory of the family’s grief with a particular focus on Agnes. Her grief is amplified by resentment and incredulousness over her husband’s return to London soon after the burial because he feared his work as an actor and playwright would lose irretrievable ground with a prolonged absence. These emotions and grievances reach a crescendo over a period of years before understandings are reached and catharsis experienced. 

The Plague Comes for the Twins 

Easily lost in the gripping story O’Farrell tells and the emotional torrents she evokes is the chapter explaining how the plague reached the twins. She takes the modern-day, biomedical understanding of the complex chain of events involved in the spread of plague and weaves it into how she imagines it could happen amidst everyday life in the countryside outside London during the 1590s.  

A basic biomedical reference O’Farrell could have consulted in piecing together a credible sequence of events leading to the twins’ infections would likely include the same details provided in a summary of plague spread published in the 2021 volume of the American Journal of Medicine*: 

An ancient disease, its bacterial agent (Yersinia pestis) is an aerobic, gram-negative coccobacillus in the family Enterobacteriaceae. Its primary vector for transmission is the Xenopsylla cheopis flea, although roughly 80 species of fleas can carry it. During the Black Death, the flea was transported by the black rat or Rattus. A controversial new theory argues that ectoparasites such as human fleas and lice also spread the disease during the second plague pandemic [1347-1665]. Fleas can also survive in infected clothing or grain. The bacteria multiply in infected rodents and block the fleas’ alimentary canal, causing the fleas to regurgitate the Y. pestis bacteria into its animal host…Plague transmission is generally from infected fleas by rodent vectors or, rarely, in clothing or grain but may also occur through ingesting contaminated animals, physical contact with infected victims, or direct inhalation of infectious respiratory droplets. 

O’Farrell could also find plenty of well-researched historical accounts of the plague impacts at the time and place she set the novel. The plague affecting Stratford then is thought to have first entered England in 1348 from ships docking in cities along the southwestern coastline. England struggled with it almost constantly for more than 300 years until it dissipated after 1665. From this biomedical and historical background, O’Farrell created a realistic framework for the story, and a reasonable representation of the all the factors needed for the infection to find the twins in 1596 Stratford.   

She starts her explanation of how the twins got infected by specifying that,  

two events need to occur in the lives of two separate people, and then these people need to meet. The first is a glassmaker on the island of Murano in the principality of Venice; the second is a cabin boy on a merchant ship sailing for Alexandria on an unseasonably warm morning with an easterly wind. (p. 140) 

The glassmaker is filling an order for decorative glass beads received from a dress shop in Stratford, England. But, because of a recent hand injury, a fellow worker is given the job of packing the order. This worker doesn’t know that the glassmaker “usually pads and packs the beads with wood shavings and sand to prevent breakage. He grabs instead a handful of rags from the glassworks floor and tucks them in and around the beads.” (pp. 140-141).  

Meanwhile, the merchant ship has docked in Alexandria, and the cabin boy has been sent ashore for provisions. He quickly encounters a man with a monkey, and the monkey quickly jumps on the cabin boy, and then all over the boy, passing along three infected fleas. One of them accompanies the boy back onboard ensconced “in the fold of the red cloth tied around the boy’s neck, given to him by his sweetheart at home.” (p. 144) The flea doesn’t stay there long. It jumps into the fur of one of the ship’s cats the boy picks up and nuzzles. Soon after the cat is sickened by its passenger and seeks comfort on the hammock of a midshipman, who upon approaching his hammock for a night’s sleep, finds a dead cat. The flea, now needing a new place to live “makes its way, by springing and leaping, to the fecund and damp armpit of the sleeping, snoring midshipman, there to gorge itself on rich, alcohol-laced sailor blood.” (p. 144) Three days later, the midshipman is dead. 

The ship arrives in Murano to pick up cargo including the glass beads. The cabin boy and the glassmaker come eye to eye as the glass beads are loaded onto the ship. And at that moment, the monkey flea, which had found a way back to the boy after time with some of the ship’s rats and its chef, leaped onto the glassmaker. He and many others in his factory subsequently succumb to “a mysterious and virulent fever.” (p. 149) 

In the hold of the ship now heading to England, the progeny of the monkey flea leap from dying rats to cats lying on top of the boxes filled with the glass beads until the cats die. The fleas eventually “crawl down into these boxes and take up residence in the rags padding the hundreds of tiny, multi-coloured millefiori beads (the same rags put there by the fellow worker of the master glassmaker…)”. (p. 148) The ship arrives in London and the boxes of glass beads are taken to a wharfhouse where they are stored for about a month before picked up for further transport. 

O’Farrell ends her tale of how the plague found the twins through the delivery of the box with infected fleas to their final destination. The box of beads “still wrapped in rags from the floor of the Venetian glassworks” is transported to an inn located near the northern reaches of London. (p. 149) Then, a messenger collects the box and takes them by horseback on a two-day journey to another inn near Stratford. O’Farrell adds how during this ride the mass of infectious plague vectors and organisms intensifies. 

The fleas in the rags crawl out, hungry and depleted by their hostless stay in the wharfhouse. Soon, however, they are recovered, rejuvenated, springing from horse to man and back again, then out on to the various people the rider encounters along the way…By the time the rider reaches Stratford, the fleas have laid eggs: in the seams of his doublet, in the mane of the horse, in the stitching of the saddle, in the filigree and weave of the lace, in the rags surrounding the beads. These eggs are the great-grandchildren of the monkey flea.  

The box with the beads and the fleas is now in the town where the twins live. An innkeeper there has it, and gives a boy a penny to deliver the box to the dress shop that ordered it many months before. The fleas have found Hamnet. 

Judith is at the dress shop helping out when the box is delivered.  

The seamstress holds aloft the box. ‘Look,’ she says to the girl, who is small for her age, and fair as an angel, with a nature to match. 
        The girl clasps her hands together. ‘The beads from Venice? Are they here?’ 
        The seamstress laughs. ‘I believe so.’ 
        ‘Can I look? Can I see? I cannot wait.’ 
The seamstress puts the box in her counter. ‘You may do more than that. You may be the one to open them. You’ll need to cut away all these nasty old rags. Take up the scissors there.’ 
 She hands the girl the box of millefiori beads and Judith takes it, her hands eager and quick, her face lit with a smile. (pp. 150-151) 

The fleas have found Judith. 

When Literary Narrative Serves as Biomedical Text 

O’Farrell’s narrative, fictional model of plague spread embedded in her story imagining what could have caused the death of an eleven-year-old boy in 1596 takes into account both the virulence of the infection and the many and varied ways it can spread. To make that point, she, much as would any epidemiologist, tells of others killed as the fleas made their way from Murano to Stratford, such as workers in the glassmaker’s factory, midshipmen on the boat, and various people encountering land-based messengers carrying the box of beads to those awaiting it. In that way, her model also explains how the mortality estimates of one-tenth to one-third of the populations from frequent plague visitations over three centuries could be generated. 

O’Farrell could have left this part out of the novel without losing much of the core storyline or emotion and drama of it. Indeed, the movie version gives it only a few seconds of attention showing the twins’ father walking by a street puppet show during a scene representing the spread of and death from plague delivered from a ship. By including the chapter, however, O’Farrell compounds the drama and emotion, and reveals the complexities involved in our fates.  

And, as I recall the drudgery of reading and mastering the intricacies of infectious disease spread and pathology such as those of bubonic plague, I wish I had O’Farrell’s novel Hamnet at the time. The experience would have been enjoyable and memorable where the experience with biomedical texts were not in either way. Perhaps this application was not in O’Farrell’s mind for the book, but it could go a long way in ridding us of the plague of turgid, mind-numbing, and indecipherable biomedical prose. Whether or not she knows it, O’Farrell has in this novel brought attention to a plague of another house.  

Hamnet
Maggie O’Farrell
Alfred A Knopf; 2020

*From: Glatter JA, Finkelman P. History of the Plague: An Ancient Pandemic for the Age of COVID-19.  American Journal of Medicine 2021; 134(2): 176–181. 

Image Credits

The path of infection of plague from rats via fleas to man, by A.L. Tarter from the Wellcome Collection. Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0). 
A rat on board a ship, carrying the plague further afield, by A.L. Tarter from the Wellcome Collection. Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0) 
The word plague hovers above a victim’s face, by A.L. Tarter from the Wellcome Collection. Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0) 

In Sophocles’s Oedipus Rex, a plague ravages Thebes as divine punishment for an unpunished crime—the murder of the eponymous king’s predecessor.

Two and a half millennia later, illness remains a metaphor in Robert Icke’s buzzy retelling of the Freud-genic tragedy, now on Broadway after a West End run last fall. Susan Sontag, who cautioned that portraying disease as a symbol of social decay can stigmatize patients, would likely disapprove. (Perhaps, apotheosized on Mount Olympus, she cursed Lesley Manville, who plays Oedipus’s wife and—spoiler alert—mother Jocasta, with an illness; Denise Cormier filled in when I saw the production.)

At curtain rise, on a stage-wide video screen, Oedipus (a charismatic and commanding Mark Strong)—reimagined as a politician on the cusp of electoral victory—tells a throng of eager reporters and supporters: “The civic body is ill. And that isn’t… chemicals in lakes—it’s us; we’re sick… The water got poisoned, and we got used to the taste.”

Economic inequality and xenophobia abound, as do rumors surrounding the death of Laius, the former ruler and Jocasta’s former husband. And so Oedipus promises to open an investigation. This off-script announcement exasperates his campaign manager and brother-in-law Creon (John Carroll Lynch), but Oedipus is steadfast in determining what happened. In Icke’s adaptation, probing the metaphorical plague is less a divine mandate and more a political act of narrative control. And, as Oedipus doubles down on transparency, what he uncovers about a fateful crossroads unravels his sense of self.

The truth of Oedipus’s identity is old news for most viewers, and we know that he is going to win. Yet Hildegard Bechtler’s set—an office with a hodgepodge of furniture, TV screens, and a clock counting down until the release of the election results—cultivates a palpable sense of uncertainty.

The successful set embodies Mikhail Bakhtin’s notion of the chronotope, or the inextricable fusion of time and space in literature. The literary theorist cites the road as one example of a chronotope. Social divisions such as class, nationality, and religion collapse, and time unfolds unpredictably through chance encounters rather than routine.

In Oedipus, as election night comes to a close, movers strip the campaign headquarters bare, transforming the space into a chronotope that mirrors how our hero is stripped of everything he once believed about himself. The ticking clock heightens the temporal pressure, heralding the landslide victory while portending the inexorable revelation that Oedipus did what every little boy dreams: killed Dad and married Mom.

Bakhtin also argues that chronotopes allow abstract ideas about philosophy, society, and cause and effect—say, the limits of free will and the illusion of power—to “take on flesh and blood.” Oedipus highlights the vital role chronotopes play in narratives, even if the coda transports us to the start of the campaign, undoing everything.

And even if much of the script doesn’t sparkle. For instance, Jocasta telling Oedipus “You’ll be the death of me” and calling him “baby boy” feels heavy-handed. Modern updates to Oedipus’s family dynamic have mixed success. The parts of adoptive mother Merope (Anne Reid) and daughter Antigone (Olivia Reis) are a welcome addition and expansion, respectively, bringing understated humor and wisdom. On the other hand, Icke casts one of Oedipus’s sons, Polyneices (James Wilbraham), as gay and the other, Eteocles (Jordan Scowen), as unfaithful. This framing raises an uneasy question: Are we meant to read queerness as a moral transgression on par with infidelity or incest? (Sontag, who was bisexual, probably wouldn’t be thrilled by this either.)

Icke’s greatest writing, however, is Jocasta’s hesitatingly revealed, harrowing backstory: She was only 13 when Laius raped her and forced her to abandon the resulting child. Jocasta recalls the delivery in visceral detail: the fluorescent lights of the hospital, the newborn Oedipus’s mucus-slick body. But she is denied the opportunity to share her traumatic account on her own terms; in his relentless quest for answers, Oedipus forces her long-hidden narrative, precipitating the discovery of their true relationship.

Narrative medicine emphasizes that this kind of listening can be destructive to both patient and listener. Indeed, Jocasta kills herself, and Oedipus gouges out his eyes with her heels. (Not very healing.)

Some narrative humility would have served Oedipus well. As Sayantani DasGupta writes, “narrative humility acknowledges that our patients’ stories are not objects that we can comprehend or master, but rather dynamic entities that we can approach and engage with, while simultaneously… engaging in constant self-evaluation and self-critique about issues such as our own role in the story.” With greater narrative humility, Oedipus might have better seen Jocasta—and himself.

Icke’s Oedipus teaches us that listening must be humble, ethical, and emotionally attuned; had it been so, perhaps the drama’s seemingly inevitable ending could have been averted.

Oedipus, through Feb. 8 at Studio 54 in New York; oedipustheplay.com.

Bakhtin, Mikhail. “Forms of Time and of the Chronotope in the Novel: Notes toward a Historical Poetics.” The Dialogic Imagination: Four Essays by M.M. Bakhtin, edited by Michael Holquist, translated by Caryl Emerson and Michael Holquist, University of Texas Press, 1981, pp. 84-258.

DasGupta, Sayantani. “Narrative Humility.” The Lancet, vol. 371, no. 9617, 2008, pp. 980-981. thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736%2808%2960440-7/fulltext

Web image from Sonia Friedman Productions Limited.

Commonly argued among readers is whether fiction or nonfiction brings the most value to understanding any particular issue. These arguments sometimes end with one interlocutor saying, “I only read nonfiction,” and the other saying, “I only read fiction.” Choosing either one alone, however, can deprive readers of valuable knowledge and perspectives that only both together can provide. Such is the case when reading Laura Spinny’s history, Pale Rider: The Spanish Flu of 1918 and How it Changed the World, and Kathryn Anne Porter’s “short novel”—as she insisted it be called—Pale Horse, Pale Rider. Spinny researches the effects the pandemic had on exposed populations and Porter conjures the effects it had on infected individuals.

The titles for both Spiney’s book and Porter’s story draw from the the Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse in the Book of Revelation (6:8) in the New Testament, and one of the horsemen in particular.

And I looked, and behold, a pale horse! And its rider’s name was Death, and Hades followed him. And they were given authority over a fourth of the earth, to kill with sword and with famine and with pestilence and by wild beasts of the earth.

Both books speak of death, not as the natural course of human life, but resulting from an apocalypse of a biblical scale, of a vengeful god, and of a plague in form. Spinney applies the apocalypse metaphor to peoples and Porter to persons.  

Spinny’s account focuses on how the 1918 flu pandemic altered history.

The flu resculpted human populations more radically than anything since the Black Death. It influenced the course of the First World War and, arguably, contributed to the Second. It pushed India closer to independence, South Africa to Apartheid, and Switzerland to the brink of civil war. (p. 8)

She also describes how national public health and global health organizations reorganized and generated momentum towards today’s more sophisticated agencies. She suggests further that the flu pandemic affected literature and art as well, and speculates about why it’s not remembered in any way like the two world wars of the same century. The bulk of the book, though, describes what happened to populations, and how this pandemic could be considered an apocalypse.

The number of dead could have been as high as 100 million—a number so big and so round that it seems to glide past any notion of human suffering without even snagging on it. It’s not possible to imagine the mystery contained within that train of zeroes. All we can do is compare it to other trains of zeroes—notably, the death tolls of the First and Second World Wars—and by reducing the problem to one of maths, conclude that it might have been the greatest demographic disaster of the twentieth century, possibly of any century.(p. 171)

This is where Porter’s literary contribution to capturing “any notion of human suffering” comes in—the personal apocalypse. Based to a degree on her own experience surviving a case of the 1918 flu, her short novel follows Miranda, a reporter for a local newspaper in Denver, Colorado, during a time when she is early in a courtship with Adam, a soldier on leave from camp but who is soon to be shipped overseas to the battlegrounds of WWI. Together they start to see the flu engulf the area.

“I wonder,” said Miranda. “How did you manage to get an extension of leave?”
“They just gave it,” said Adam, for no reason. The men are dying like flies out   there, anyway. This funny new disease. Simply knocks you into a cocked hat.”
“It seems to be a plague,” said Miranda, “something out of the Middle Ages. Did you ever see so many funerals, ever?” (p. 281)

Then, the flu engulfs Miranda, and Porter helps us imagine what a personal apocalypse could be like when an individual succumbs to it. She imagines the Pale Rider pulling her away from her physical moorings on Earth.

I must give up, I can’t hold out any longer. There was only that pain, only that room, and only Adam. There were no longer any multiple planes of living, no tough filaments of memory and hope pulling taut backwards and forwards holding her upright between them. There was only this one moment and it was a dream of time, and Adam’s face, very near hers, eyes still and intent, was a shadow, and there was to be nothing more… (p. 304)

Eventually the Pale Rider tries to pull her away from even any vestige of her corporeal being itself, and were it for a mere particle of life force would have done just that.

Silenced she sank easily through deeps under deeps of darkness until she lay like a stone at the farthest bottom of life, knowing herself to be blind, deaf, speechless, no longer aware of the members of her own body, entirely withdrawn from all human concerns, yet alive with a peculiar lucidity and coherence; all notions of the mind, the reasonable inquiries of doubt, all ties of blood and the desires of the heart, dissolved and fell away from her, and there remained of her only a minute fiercely burning particle of being that knew itself alone, that relied upon nothing beyond itself for its strength; not susceptible to any appeal or inducement, being itself composed entirely of one single motive, the stubborn will to live. This fiery motionless particle set itself unaided to resist destruction, to survive and to be in its own madness of being, motiveless and planes beyond the one essential end. Trust me, the hard unwinking angry point of light said. Trust me. I stay. (p. 311)

Many published histories of the 1918 flu pandemic concentrate on the devastation visited upon nations and populations. Most stop at the individual, because historians rely on tangible and verifiable facts, but literary fiction writers can turn personal narratives into stories that render pictures of what individuals could experience with particular illnesses. These two books referencing Pale Horse, Pale Rider in their titles—one a nonfiction history and the other a literary fiction—work well in combination to capture the experiences and consequences of this flu on both populations and individuals. Further, these two books show why fiction and nonfiction accounts of particular subjects should not be considered a choice, but rather as opportunities to get fuller accounts of diseases on populations and individuals.

Revelation 6:8, English Standard Version (ESV). © 2001 by Crossway; text edition: 2025.
‘Pale Horse, Pale Rider’ In The Collected Stories of Katherine Anne Porter, Harvest, 1979.
Spinney L. Pale Rider: The Spanish Flu of 1918 and How it Changed the World. New York; Public Affairs, 2017)
Web image generated by Gemini AI