Shakespeare and Renaissance Medicine: The Limitations of Physic and Remedy in The Merry Wives of Windsor and Other Plays

The purpose of this essay is to discuss Shakespeare’s intention in using medical detail within his plays. The use of medical allusion is a frequent occurrence in Shakespeare’s works, touching upon a wide variety of topics in the sphere of physic; modern physician R.R. Simpson concludes that the plays contain 440 major medical references (Hoeniger 1992: 11). However, the focus of this essay shall be on the theme of remedy and curative methods, beginning with a discussion centred on these concepts in Hamlet (c.1599) and Macbeth (c.1606). The discussion shall then be expanded out to consider the connection between playwright and purgation or healing, and also the attitude towards physicians in the late Elizabethan and early Jacobean era.

Before engaging in the proposed discussion, it is important to initially consider the general extent of medical understanding and physical knowledge during the period. Medical knowledge in the early modern era derived from the dominant theory of practice established by Ancient Greek physicians, such as Hippocrates and Galen. As trained physicians were scarce in Shakespeare’s England, most Tudor noblemen and gentlemen owned a number of medical books and many housewives regarded it as their duty to acquire medical knowledge in order to care for their own health (Hoeniger 1992: 26). Renaissance understanding of the human anatomy resulted in the belief that every disease was caused by an imbalance or unnatural levels of one of the four humours: blood, phlegm, choler and melancholy. Early modern medicine also explained mental and bodily illness in the same terms without a distinction between the two, thus having a significant impact on the remedy of both. On a first inspection of Shakespeare’s relation to medicine, it may appear that he has an unexpected level of medical knowledge, yet it becomes apparent that the impressive clinical detail he provides within his plays is parallel to the medical understanding of his contemporary writers. However, despite this, there is no denying that Shakespeare was personally familiar with the medical practices of the day due to his close acquaintance with two physicians, Thomas Lodge, and his son-in-law John Hall (Hoeniger 1992: 51).

With this in mind, it is interesting to consider Shakespeare’s presentation of mental illness. A common malady frequently referred to throughout renaissance literature is the melancholy illness; melancholy was acknowledged as a physical condition between sanity and madness. In Hamlet, Shakespeare presents melancholy with an almost tragic attractiveness. For example, in Act III, Scene i, Claudius contradicts Hamlet’s supposed insanity by referring to him as ‘melancholy’, stating, “Not like madness. There’s something in his soul, O’er which his melancholy sits.” (III.I.165-166)By acknowledging Hamlet’s state of neither madness nor sanity, Shakespeare is able to draw upon the artistic value of a melancholic tragic protagonist; melancholy is often credited with introspection and insight thus resulting in Hamlet’s poetic and philosophical mentality. This is evident in the most famous lines of the play, during Hamlet’s soliloquy in which he muses on the consequences of human existence, “To be, or not to be- that is the question.” (III.I.56)It is notable that even within Hamlet’s melancholic monologue, Shakespeare adopts the semantics of medical language, thus relating Hamlet’s melancholy back to physical illness, “Thus conscience does make cowards of us all And thus the native hue of resolution Is sicklied o’er with pale cast of thought.” (III.I.83-85)However, Shakespeare further deepens the complexity of Hamlet’s character, through his attributed melancholy, by simultaneously depicting his instability and erratic mentality evident in his violence and frantic murder of Polonius in Act III. Therefore, it is possible that Shakespeare has used Hamlet’s internal melancholy as an external exhibit of his moral shortcomings, such as his intense desire to seek revenge.

Similarly, in Macbeth, both Macbeth’s fear and Lady Macbeth’s guilt are treated as illnesses. Macbeth’s sleep deprivation caused by his fear of usurpation and death is denied treatment by the family doctor, whilst Lady Macbeth’s sickness is concluded to be incurable due to it stemming from her transgressions; the Doctor states, “Unnatural deeds Do breed unnatural troubles; infected minds […] More needs she the divine than the physician.” (V.I.61-64)Here, Shakespeare suggests the severe consequences of sin, creating an almost cautionary tone within the scene by asserting that only God can help those who have morally offended. Two scenes later, Macbeth finally acknowledges his own guilt as the source of his anxiety, referring to a ‘rooted sorrow’, pleading with the Doctor to treat him, “Canst thou not minister to a mind diseased, Pluck from the memory a rooted sorrow.” (V.III.41-2)By comparing the two scenes, it becomes evident that Shakespeare has created a disparity between the way moral perpetrators refer to their state, and the manner in which those in positions of authority view them; for example Macbeth consistently refers to his state through medical lexis, such as ‘diseased’, whereas the Doctor’s view is decidedly more religious and judgemental. Therefore, it is evident that Shakespeare has used both the Macbeths’ and hamlet’s mental illnesses as a metaphor for moral corruption, presenting an allegorical message that moral failure cannot be remedied.

In a similar manner, Shakespeare also uses the concept of medicine and remedy in Hamlet and Macbeth, to express the ‘sickness’ or corruption of the state. Within Hamlet, the state of Denmark is presented as in need of a cure, with frequent references to its depravation, for example, Marcellus states, “Something is rotten in the state of Denmark.” (I.IV.65)Shakespeare presents Denmark as a microcosm of a civilisation in which society encourages murder to succeed, seen in Claudius’ murder of Hamlet’s father, and inspires an intense need for revenge, evident in both Hamlet and Laertes. Shakespeare’s Denmark is in desperate need for a moral or social cure, thus resulting in the symbolic bloodletting at the end of the play, resulting in the deaths of Hamlet, Gertrude, and Claudius. Similarly, Macbeth’s realm is also depicted to be in a state of illness in need of violent surgery. However, the death of Macbeth remains to the end of the play to be the only cure for the states sickness, thus suggesting that Shakespeare has perhaps used Macbeth as a generic symbol of men within society who are easily tempted into sin by the prospect of power and glory.

When discussing the theme of cure and remedy in Shakespeare it is important to consider the connection between tragedy, and more simply drama, and purgation. It is possible to view the role of the playwright as medicinal, providing a ‘cure’ for the audience in a form of escapism. A form of pleasure is achieved by observing tragic and morbid concepts from a safe contained space, and thus indulging in these aspects through theatre provides the outlet for a cathartic release within the audience member; the moral effects of watching a play can restore the audiences’ sometimes-restricted emotions. It is very likely Shakespeare was aware of this catharsis, and thus intended to achieve this audience reaction, due to the popularity of this thought amongst his contemporaries. For example, Philip Sidney presents an analogy between tragedy and medicine within his An Apology for Poetrie (1595) by referring to corrupted ulcers, “Tragedy, that openth the greatest wounds, and sheweth forth the Vlcers that are couered with Tissue; […] coulde not resist the sweet violence of a Tragedie.” (Sidney 2002: 98)Here, Sidney suggests, in medical terms, the pleasure of sudden release of pain and emotion, thus alluding to the necessity of indulging in catharsis. Similarly, an analogy between playwright and physician can be draw, creating a connection between playwright and audience that may be manipulated for power by playwright, as seen in Hamlet. In Act III, scene II, Shakespeare uses the device of an embedded narrative, or a play-within-a-play when Hamlet stages a play illustrating regicide in an attempt to evoke an emotional reaction from Claudius in the hope that he will betray himself and reveal his murdering. Hamlet orders Horatio to, “Observe mine uncle. If his occulted guilt Do not itself unkennel in once speech It is a dammned ghost we have seen.” (III.II.78-80)In this scene, Shakespeare draws upon the concept of performance, and consequently the moral implications of watching a play, by including a dumb show, a device characteristic of early modern revenge tragedy; the stage directions state, “a fellow, takes off his crown, kisses it and pours poison in the King’s ears and exits.” (III.II.132-33)Therefore, providing evidence that Shakespeare was aware of the cathartic value, or ‘cure’, of watching a play, and thus attempted to utilise the heightened emotions of the audience to his advantage resulting in an inherently more tragic play. It is similarly interesting to consider the early modern attitude towards physicians by analysing Shakespeare’s presentation of Doctors. In both Macbeth and Hamlet, physicians are suggested to be well respected and admired members of society. For example, in Macbeth, the family doctor’s medical knowledge is esteemed and greatly respected by the other characters, whilst his characterisation is decidedly religious suggesting a man of significant moral upstanding.

Similarly, although less overt, it is evident that physicians are considered to have status and authority within society as within a argument with his mother, Hamlet attempts to gain power and subordinate his mother by assimilating the role of a physician. For example, Hamlet adopts the lexis of a doctor, treating his mother’s moral corruption as a physical illness, stating, “It will but skin and film the ulcerous place Whilst rank corruption mining all within Infects unseen.” (III.IV.138-140)Here, Shakespeare again alludes to Sidney’s analogy of corrupted ulcers to suggest that moral transgressions result in physical decay of the individual. It is interesting to note the striking difference between the authoritative and morally sound presentation of the doctor in Macbeth, and the farcical and ridiculous presentation of the doctor in The Merry Wives of Windsor, thus suggesting that there was a stark difference in the presentation of doctors in Shakespeare’s tragedies and comedies.

In The Merry Wives of Windsor, the figure of Doctor Caius is illustrated as a satirical stock-type character, typical of the 17th century presentation of the physician; Doctor Caius, is presented as an incompetent and overly-pretentious man who is motivated by greed; Doctor Caius himself alludes to his dishonesty, stating “What shall de honest man do in my closet? Dere is no honest man dat shall come in my closet.” (I.IV.67-8) Here, Shakespeare also hints at Caius lowly status through his speech in prose and his absurdly farcical French accent. It is very likely that Shakespeare’s Doctor Caius is based upon the real-life figure of Doctor John Caius (1510-1573), the most famous physician in the country, who introduced anatomical dissection to England (Hoeniger 1992: 60). Caius was known to be a figure of satire due to his intolerance and tyranny as president of the Royal College of Physicians, and thus he most likely appeared to Shakespeare as an attractive figure to burlesque. However, Shakespeare’s Caius is characterised as French, unlikely the real Caius. This is possibly an attempt to make the figure of the physician more accessible to his audience as Shakespeare’s audience would be particularly familiar with the French physicians who were welcomed to England after fleeing Huguenot persecution in France (Hoeniger 1992: 60).

Similarly, in All’s Well That Ends Well, the doctors are presented as similarly incompetent due to their inability to cure the King’s fistula. The physician’s daughter, Helena, eventually restores the King’s physical body, after all the physician’s fail at remedy. Therefore, it is evident that there was a general dissatisfaction amongst the public regarding physicians, resulting in the figure of the doctor becoming a popular satirical trope within Elizabethan and Jacobean comedy; it is likely that the reason for the incongruity between this attitude towards doctors and the presentation of the Doctor in Macbeth is because the comic figure of the renaissance physician would be jarring with the tragic nature of the play.

Within Macbeth and Hamlet, Shakespeare has used the mental sickness of his characters to represent both their own individual moral shortcomings, but also the moral corruption of a society that breeds such people. It is evident that within his tragedies, Shakespeare has manipulated the connection between drama and purgation to maximise the effects of the catharsis on the audience. However, when examining his comedies, it becomes apparent that there is a decided difference in the presentation of medicine, remedy, and the figure of the physician, presenting an almost farcical impression of a popularly satirised figure of the day.

Bibliography

Primary Texts

Elyot, Thomas. 1595. The Castell of Health, London: Printed by the Widdow Orwin, and are to be sold by Matthew Lownes.Shakespeare, William. 1997. Macbeth. Edited by Kenneth Muir. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.———. 2003. All’s Well that Ends Well. Edited by Russell A. Fraser. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.———. 2006. Hamlet. Edited by Ann Thompson & Neil Taylor. London: Arden Shakespeare.———. 2000. The Merry Wives of Windsor. Edited by Giorgio Melchiori. London: Arden Shakespeare.Sidney, Philip. 2002. An apology for poetry, or, The defence of poesy. Edited by Geoffrey Shepherd & R. W. Maslen. Manchester: Manchester University Press.

Secondary Texts

Babb, Lawrence. 1951. The Elizabethan Malady, A study of Melancholia in English Literature from 1580 to 1642. East Lansing: Michigan State College Press.Hoeniger, F.D. 1992. Medicine and Shakespeare in the English Renaissance, Delaware: University of Delaware Press.