Observations and questions relating to Cannabis and Shakespeare

J. Francis Thackeray Transvaal Museum,

, South Africa

email:       

 

February 3, 2003

Chemical analysis of organic residues in 17th century clay pipes from Stratford-upon-Avon has suggested the smoking of a variety of substances, in addition to the leaves of Nicotiana (tobacco) introduced to England by Sir Walter Raleigh and others. The scientific results were cautiously reported two years ago in the South African Journal of Science (Volume 97, pp. 19-21), with particular attention being given to the possible use of Cannabis.  Although there is no proof that Shakespeare used any of the pipes selected for analysis in a pilot study of pipe fragments from Stratford-upon-Avon, there is no question that the clay pipes were used for smoking several substances, not only tobacco from America.  

17th century texts deserve attention to explore the suggestion that chemical compounds in addition to nicotine from “American” tobacco were smoked more than 300 years ago in England.  Notably, Alexander Craig, a contemporary of Shakespeare, wrote a sonnet that refers to a "pype of loame" (a clay pipe) and "flegm-attractive far-fett Indian smoke". Professor Duncan-Jones associates this verse with "wild changes in mood" (Arden Shakespeare's Sonnets, 1997).  “Indian" tobacco of the kind obtainable from India, otherwise known as Cannabis, is not only a substance which may induce changes of mood, but is also anti-phlegmatic (cf. "flegm-attractive”). As early as 1563, a Portuguese explorer, Garcia de Orta, reported the stimulating and medicinal properties of Cannabis in his book entitled “Colloquies on the Simples and Drugs of India”, and Christopher Marlowe has Tamburlaine referring to the value of “inestimable drugs”, in the context of exploration and exploitation of Asia and the New World.

These texts can be examined in the light of a play entitled "The Merry Devill of Edmonton", written by an anonymous playwright in the early 17th century. Published in 1608, it had been "sundry times acted, by his Majesty's Servants, at the Globe, on the bank-side".  It includes reference to a substance "more chargeable than cane-tobacco". If this substance was more "chargeable" than "American" tobacco, was it more "explosive" (one might say more "mind-blowing") than regular tobacco of the kind imported from the New World with leaves rolled cane-like in the shape of a cigar? And if this substance was indeed more "chargeable" than "cane-tobacco", is it possible that it was Cannabis?

Cannabis was accessible in England in Shakespeare's time, since hemp fibre from stalks of the plant was used for clothing, as reflected by "what hempen homespuns have we swaggering here?" (Midsummer Night’s Dream). Furthermore, durable fibres of Cannabis were also used to manufacture canvas sails and rope for English sailors fighting the Spanish fleet in Shakespeare's time. (The very word canvas is linguistically associated with Cannabis).  Paper was manufactured from Cannabis, and even Shakespeare's First Folio was printed on the fibre of this plant. Queen Elisabeth I effectively legalised Cannabis when she ruled that wealthy individuals owning more than 60 acres of land should plant it.

It is unfortunate that there is no certainty as to who wrote "The Merry Devill of Edmonton".  It has been attributed by some to Shakespeare. Be that as it may, the line "more chargeable than cane-tobacco" is interesting in the context of forensic analysis of organic residues in 17th century clay pipes.  The results of these chemical studies are also relevant to John Lily’s reference to "witching tobacco".

Lily was born in 1553 and died in 1606, having once served as secretary to the 17th Earl of Oxford. He is known for his work on Eupheus, written in a "eupheustic" style that was parodied by Shakespeare. Lily was nominated for the position of Master of the Revels, but was disappointed by the fact that this prestigious post was not conferred upon him.   A poem attributed to him and beginning with the lines "It was a tyme when silly bees could speake" may relate to the fact that Lily ran out of favour in courtly society after he had been relieved from Oxford's service. Perhaps it was on account of such misfortunes that Lily wrote the poem in which he makes use of bees as a metaphor for his exclusion from the courtly "hive" in which royalty enjoyed products of the busy "humble" bees.

Whether or not the poem was written by Lily, attention can be drawn to lines which refer to substances which had a "bewitching" effect. Metaphorically, the poet complains that as a "bee", he is denied the opportunity to feed on flowers such as the rose and eglantine, which are reserved for other "bees" more favoured by royalty in the court (hive). Instead he is relegated "to feed on henbane, hemlock, nettles, rue", and "from those leaves...their head-strong [fury] did my head bewitch". Later, the poet states "I work on weeds". As an isolated bee "did I see by flying in the field fowl beasts to browse upon the Lilly fayre...All's provender for asses". Still further in the poem, the poet refers to "Aegyptian flowers having [no savour], bitter sap they have". If such plants were not available, he is reduced to "bite on nightshade growing by the grave". This leads to the statement:

"If this I cannot have, as Hapless Bee

witching Tobacco I will fly to thee".

Does the poet intend to mean that, metaphorically, as a "hapless bee", he would "fly" to a substance associated with "witching tobacco", with a play on the word "bewitching"? The question remains open as to whether "witching tobacco" is a hidden reference to Cannabis. To try to address this question, one may turn to work by Francois Rabelais.

Rabelais was the 16th century French author of Gargantua and Pantagruel, a satirical book ridiculing the church. Christopher Bennett has recently identified Cannabis as the herb which Rabelais cryptically called pantagruelion, a five or seven-leafed plant which Pope Innocent VIII banned on account of its perceived association with witchcraft (Cannabis and Culture, June issue, 2001, pp 24-25).   In 16th and 17th century Europe, it is probable that writers would have had to be cryptic rather than explicit about the plant, in fear of their books being burnt on account of its association with witchcraft.

It is after Macbeth's meeting with witches, and immediately before his assassination of King Duncan, that Macbeth hallucinates and says "Is this a dagger I see before me?". The dagger is the instrument of assassination, a word reputedly invented by Shakespeare and used in Macbeth (“if the assassination could trammel up the consequence”), but assassination is without doubt derived from Arabic hassas and hassasin, associated with the use of Cannabis (hashish) by assassins to encourage them to do their deadly deeds. A link between assassination and hallucination is apparent in Macbeth in the context of “Is this a dagger I see before me?”, but it is expressed without direct reference to Cannabis. Moreover, in Julius Caesar, an impending assassination is said to be preceded by a “phantasma” or “hideous dream”, when “genius and mortal instruments are then in council”. 

In the 19th century,  French authors belonging to the “Club de Hashischin” were highly productive, and it is not improbable that their prolific literature, if not their genius, was linked to Cannabis as a stimulant or “source of inspiration”. As noted by Conrad (Hemp for Health, p. 200), Cannabis can stimulate creativity, lateral thought, allegory and associations of ideas.

Shakespeare’s creative English is rich in word play.  Of course, this does not necessarily imply that he used Cannabis.  However, chemical analysis of clay pipes from Stratford-upon-Avon indicates that, at least potentially, Cannabis was accessible to him.  Moreover, as a wealthy landowner, possessing more than 120 acres of land by 1602, he could have maintained a practice of growing Cannabis in line with a royal instruction to do so.

The results of forensic analyses of organic residues in 17th century clay pipes from Stratford-upon–Avon are remarkable in that they suggest the smoking of Cannabis and other "compounds". In Shakespeare's time "compounds" was a term used to refer to drugs. The word occurs in the very same sonnet in which we find reference to the "noted weed" in the context of creative writing (“invention”).

There is absolutely no doubt that Sonnet 76 refers to literary style in the context of the “noted weed". Unquestionably, Sonnet 76 relates to a preference for a style of writing, likened to a style of garment and a rejection of "compounds strange" (literary compounds). However, relevant here is the fact that garments in the time of Shakespeare were manufactured from the durable fibres of Cannabis (cf. "hempen homespuns"), which has variable concentrations of the hallucinogenic compound tetrahydrocannabinol (THC).

Questions pertinent here are these:

      1.  Is the "noted weed" in Sonnet 76 indirectly if not directly identifiable (through a play on  words) with the herb Cannabis, also known in the 16th century by Rabelais by the deliberately cryptic term pantagruelion, the five-leafed plant which is known to have stimulating properties, used by artists and writers alike in recent centuries ?

2. Through a play on words, are "compounds strange" likened not only to literary compounds, but also to compounds (drugs) which in Shakespeare's time were identifiable with substances obtained from plants (e.g. Cymbeline, 1, v) ?

3. Just as certain "compounds" otherwise known as drugs were "sources of inspiration" for prolific Cannabis-using writers belonging to the "Club de Hashischin” in recent centuries, was Cannabis used by writers in Shakespeare's time? There appears to be  no direct historical evidence for this, but chemical evidence from forensic analysis of 17th century clay pipes from Shakespeare's home town of Stratford-upon-Avon supports it as a possibility.

 4.  Was Shakespeare's reference to a "Tenth Muse" (Sonnet 38, coincidentally half of 76) related to Cannabis, as an addition to the list of nine classical muses which included sources of inspiration for poetry, and as an alternative to mind-altering and deleterious properties of "compounds strange" (Sonnet 76)? The sonneteer clearly prefers a "noted  weed", turning away from "strange" compounds.  Chemical analysis of 17th century clay pipes from England provides evidence for the use of one compound, cocaine, more mind-altering and deleterious than Cannabis, and this is at least one drug that could be placed in the category of “compounds strange”. Leaves of the coca plant Erythroxylon would have been known to Europeans in the 16th and 17th century, through exploitation of Peru when Spanish conquistadores and English explorers under Sir Francis Drake interacted with Incas and others in South America.  Quinoline and butylquinone detected in pipes from Stratford-upon-Avon confirm that Englishmen had access to plants from South America in the 17th century. 

 5. Is the expression “a journey in my mind” (Sonnet 27) a reference to an experience of what might otherwise be colloquially described as a “trip” under the influence of a drug?  Indivuals under the influence of hallucinogens have reported perceptions of travel, “adventure”, as well as euphoria and sensations of timelessness or time-prolongation (Shulgin and Shulgin, Tikhal: The Continuation; Conrad, Hemp for Health).  Perhaps it is not coincidental that in the dedication to the Sonnets, referenceis made to an “adventurer setting forth”, happiness, eternity, and the “everliving                       poet”.    

 6. Is the statement “to make my appetite more keen, with eager compounds we our palates urge” (Sonnet 118) a reference to the well-known fact that Cannabis is an Appetite stimulant, as reported by Mechonlam and Fride in the prestigious scientific journal Nature (Volume 410, pp. 763-765)?  Sonnet 118 also refers to “drugs” and is suggestive of homeopathy. Historically,Cannabis is known to have been associated with homeopathic practice (Conrad, Hemp for Health, pp. 38-40)

 In the poem attributed to John Lily, we have the line: " ‘Twas not tobacco that stupified my brain". Then follows a Latin line translated as "Since I have wretchedly lost my talent, zeal, money, hope, time and friends, it is a trivial matter to waste my words" (cited by P. Streiz, in Oxford).

The lines of this poem can at least potentially be linked to a despairing John Lily, having lost his friendship with the 17th Earl of Oxford, and having been disappointed in failing to win the position of Master of the Revels, after once enjoying success as the author of Eupheus. Even more interesting are the lines: "O vertuous fume let it be graved in oke...Wordes, hopes, witts and all the world's but smoke". In these lines we see direct associations between "fume", "smoke" and "wordes".

Scholars can be encouraged to explore evidence at hand, not only from literary analyses, but also from chemical (forensic) analyses of 17th century clay pipes from Stratford-upon-Avon. As noted previously "The notorious association between narcotics and creativity has been assumed to be a post-Romantic phenomenon in European culture, but our research gives reason to question this assumption" (Thackeray et al, 2001, South African Journal of Science, Volume 97, pp 19-21).

I thank Dr Peter Knox-Shaw for his help and stimulating encouragement in the preparation of this article.