01 - "Documents in Madness"
01 - "Documents in Madness"
01 - "Documents in Madness"
REFERENCES
Linked references are available on JSTOR for this article:
https://www.jstor.org/stable/2870846?seq=1&cid=pdf-
reference#references_tab_contents
You may need to log in to JSTOR to access the linked references.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide
range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and
facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
https://about.jstor.org/terms
Oxford University Press is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to
Shakespeare Quarterly
It has long been recognized that England in the period from 1580 to 1640
was fascinated with madness, although some aspects of this obsession have
been overestimated or misreported. The signs of its fascination are to be
found in the treatises on the topic by Battie, Bright, Jorden, Wright, and
Burton; in the theatrical representations of madness in the plays of Kyd,
Shakespeare, Dekker, Middleton, Fletcher, and Webster; in the large num-
bers of patients who consulted such well-known doctors as Richard Napier
and John Hall (Shakespeare's son-in-law) with symptoms of mental distress;
and in the widespread references to and representations of Bethlem, or
Bedlam, the popular name for Bethlehem Hospital, the main institution in
England in this period which confined the insane. Bedlam, according to a
1598 visitation report made a couple of years before Hamlet and Twelfth
Night were written, contained only twenty inmates: nine men and eleven
women (or perhaps ten of each). The thirty-one inmates listed in a 1624
report caused overcrowding in the institution, which was tiny, "loathsomely
and filthely kept," and badly mismanaged. The term "Bedlam" was in
widespread use in early modern England not so much because of the impact
of the institution itself (which had been in existence as a hospital since about
1330 and may have started accepting disturbed patients sometime before
1403, when a visitation record reports the presence of six men "mente capti")
but because it had become a code word in Elizabethan and Jacobean culture
for the confused, charged, and contested topic of madness.6
7 The OED records this shift in a cautionary paragraph following the first definition of mad
("Suffering from mental disease; beside oneself; out of one's mind; insane, lunatic"), which
prescribes: "The word has always had some tinge of contempt or disgust and would now be
quite inappropriate in medical use or in referring sympathetically to an insane person as the
subject of an affliction." Insane, from the Latin root insanus, means not sound, not healthy, not
curable, and does not come into widespread use until the eighteenth century, when it appears
first in medical and legal contexts. Madness, the earlier term, is not the opposite of not-mad
but on a continuum with it.
8 Szasz, The Myth of Mental Illness: Foundations of a Theory of Personal Conduct (New York:
Harper and Row, 1974); Laing, The Divided Self: A study of sanity and madness (London:
Tavistock, 1960).
9p. 12.
10 Michel Foucault, Madness and Civilization: A History of Insanity in the Age of Reason, trans.
Richard Howard (New York: Tavistock, 1967), and Elaine Showalter, The Female Malady:
Women, Madness, and English Culture, 1830-1980 (New York: Pantheon, 1985). Showalter looks
only at women's experience of madness and only after 1830, and the category of gender is
missing from Foucault's large intuitive canvas. The discussion of the period from the Middle
Ages to the end of the seventeenth century is the most sketchy and least supported part of his
book (at least in the English translation), for his concept of the modern centralized state does
not make sense of early modern institutions. Mental institutions like Bedlam often developed
early out of medieval hospitals; unlike leper houses, they attempted cures and declared
patients recovered. Confinement of the mad is also more varied, more historically continuous,
and more complicated in its representations, aims, and consequences than Foucault or
Showalter allows. But Foucault's intuitions about the transformation of the madman from
supernatural voyager to secular case study are useful, as are Showalter's analyses of th
associations among women, madness, and sexuality which developed in representations o
madwomen. For criticism of Foucault by an historian, see H. C. Erik Midelfort, "Madness a
Civilization in Early Modern Europe: A Reappraisal of Michel Foucault" in After the Reform
tion: essays in honor ofJ. H. Hexter, Barbara C. Malament, ed. (Philadelphia: Univ. of Pennsy
vania Press, 1980), pp. 247-66. For criticism of Showalter by an historian of medicine, s
Nancy Tomes, "Historical Perspectives on Women and Mental Illness" in Women, Health, an
Medicine in America: A Historical Handbook, Rima D. Apple, ed. (New York: Garland, 1990), p
143-71. I am grateful to Nancy Tomes for allowing me to read her review essay in manuscri
form before its publication.
1I See especially pages 45-55 in Judith S. Neaman, Suggestion of the Devil: The Origins of
Madness (New York: Anchor Books, 1975), a study of the medical, theological, legal, and soc
contexts of madness in the Middle Ages. See also Penelope Doob, Nebuchadnezzar's Children
Conventions of Madnes.s in Middle English Literature (New Haven: Yale Univ. Press, 1974), ch
1; and MacDonald, Mvystical Bedlam, pp. 3-4.
12 In the original edition of Bright (London: Thomas Vautrollier, 1586), as in the 1969
Theatrum Orbis Terrarum facsimile, this chapter, number 36, pages 207-42, is misnumbered
chapter 30.
13 Jorden's treatise (London: Iohn Windet, 1603) is available in a 1971 facsimile reprint from
Theatrum Orbis Terrarum; quotation at fol. C r. See Michael MacDonald's reprint ofJorden's
pamphlet in Witchcraft and Hysteria in Elizabethan London: EdwardJorden and the Mary Glover Case
(London: Routledge, 1991).
14 Keith Thomas, Religion and the Decline of Magic (New York: Scribners, 1971), pp. 451-52.
15 fol. B1 r.
16 fols. F4r, G3r, F4v-G1r, H1r. Jorden is the first to find the source of hysterical symptoms
in the brain as well as in the uterus. See Ilza Veith, Hysteria: The History of a Disease (Chicago:
Univ. of Chicago Press, 1965), pp. 122-23.
17 The Anatomy of Melancholy, What it is. With all the Kindes, Cau
Severall Cures of it, 4th ed. (Oxford: J. Lichfield, 1632), pp
MacDonald's statistics, although far larger numbers and perce
to report distress in connection with courtship, love, sex, an
these sufferers were untitled (Mystical Bedlam, Table 3.6
aristocratic women suffered less stress in matters of courtsh
little or no choice in the matter.
18 For discussion of the political climate that produced Jorden's and Harsnett's pamphlets in
1603, see Thomas, pp. 482-86; Stephen Greenblatt, "Shakespeare and the Exorcists" in
Shakespearean Negotiations: The Circulation of Social Energy in Renaissance England (Berkeley:
Univ. of California Press, 1988), pp. 94-128; MacDonald, Witchcraft, pp. vii-lxiv.
19 Two other plays of the period that contain scenes in which characters undergo a test for
madness are Dekker's The Honest Whore, Part I (1604) and Middleton and Rowley's The
Changeling (c. 1623).
20 Ascriptions of madness occur elsewhere in Shakespeare, beginning with Titus Andronicus,
The Comedy of Errors, and Twelfth Night and concluding with the extended portrait of the Jailer's
Daughter in The Two Noble Kinsmen. Her characterization has connections with Ophelia's and
with that of the madwomen and groups of madpersons in other Jacobean plays, for example,
Dekker's Honest Whore, Part I, Webster's Duchess of Malfi, Fletcher's The Pilgrim, Middleton and
Rowley's The Changeling. Such representations will be the subject of another essay.
21 Robert Rentoul Reed, Jr., Bedlam on theJacobean Stage (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard Univ.
Press, 1952); Lawrence Babb, The Elizabethan Malady: A Study of Melancholia in English Literature
from 1580-1642 (East Lansing: Michigan State Univ. Press, 1951); and Bridget Gellert Lyons,
Voices of Melancholy: Studies in literary treatments of melancholy in Renaissance England (London:
Routledge, 1971). The discussion closest to mine is Lillian Feder's analysis of Lear's madness
in Madness in Literature (Princeton, N.J.: Princeton Univ. Press, 1980), p. 6 and pp. 119-46.
22 Shakespearean Tragedy: Lectures on Hamlet, Othello, King Lear, Macbeth (New York: St.
Martin's Press, 1985), pp. 132-33. As a result of this attitude, Bradley did not give Ophelia's
mad scenes the detailed analysis that he is elsewhere known for.
23 These interpretations of Ophelia replicate feminist theorists' polarized interpretations of
the association between women and madness. For positive readings of the textual represen-
tations of the connection, see Sandra Gilbert and Susan Gubar, The Madwoman in the Attic (New
Haven: Yale Univ. Press, 1979); of Ophelia, see Carol Thomas Neely, Broken Nuptials in
Shakespeare's Plays (New Haven: Yale Univ. Press, 1985), pp. 103-4. For the negative aspects of
the connection, see Showalter, The Female Malady, and for an extended discussion of repre-
sentations of Ophelia, see Showalter, "Representing Ophelia: women, madness, and the
responsibilities of feminist criticism" in Shakespeare and the Question of Theory, Patricia Parker
and Geoffrey Hartman, eds. (London: Methuen, 1985), pp. 77-94. Showalter discusses how
different periods represent Ophelia according to their stereotypes of female insanity.
24 See, among many examples, Robert Bechtold Heilman, This Great Stage: Image and
Structure in King Lear (Baton Rouge: Louisiana State Univ. Press, 1948), pp. 173-223; Paul A.
Jorgensen, Lear's Self-Discovery (Berkeley: Univ. of California Press, 1967), pp. 78-82.
29 The phrase "document in madness" occurs at 4.5.178. Other mad characters are given
equally precise and explicit introductions: see the conversation between Lady Macbeth's
waiting woman and the doctor (5.1.1-20) and Edgar's commentary as he disguises himself as
Poor Tom in Lear (2.3.1-21).
33 Some form of Christian burial might be possible, even in cases of suicide; cf. Michael
MacDonald, "Ophelia's Maimed Rites," SQ, 37 (1986), 309-17, esp. pp. 314-15. For other
discussions of suicide, see Michael MacDonald, Mystical Bedlam (cited in n. 4, above), pp.
132-38; "The Inner Side of Wisdom: Suicide in Early Modern England," Psychological Medi-
cine, 7 (1977), 565-82, esp. pp. 566-67; "The Secularization of Suicide in England 1660-
1800," Past and Present, 111 (May 1986), 52-70; see also Michael MacDonald and Terence R.
Murphy, Sleepless Souls: Suicide in Early Modern England (Oxford: Oxford Univ. Press, forth-
coming).
34 MacDonald, "Ophelia's Maimed Rites," p. 311, and "Inner Side of Wisdom," p. 567.
35 Immersion is both conventional to the iconography of madness and a traditional cure for
it. Cf. Foucault (cited in n. 10, above), pp. 162, 166; Basil Clarke, Mental Disorder in Earlier
Britain: Exploratory Stdie.s (Cardiff: Univ. of Wales Press, 1975), pp. 229-30.
36 "Macbeth and witchcraft" in Focus on Macbeth, John Russell Brown, ed. (London: Rout-
ledge, 1982), pp. 189-209.
37 I see the relationship between the witches and Lady Macbeth as more ambiguous and
unstable than does Janet Adelman ("'Born of Woman': Fantasies of Maternal Power in
Macbeth" in Cannibals, Witches, and Divorce: Estranging the Renaissance, Marjorie Garber, ed.
[Baltimore: Johns Hopkins Univ. Press, 1987], pp. 90-121). I do not see their relationship as
an "alliance" (pp. 97, 98) either literal or symbolic, nor do I find the witches or Lady Macbeth
as unstintingly malevolent or powerful as Adelman does. In fact the witches wish Macbeth to
fail while Lady Macbeth wishes him to succeed, and their relation to the supernatural is quite
different from hers. Both the witches and Lady Macbeth lose what power they have by the end
of the play, though Adelman never discusses the implications of Lady Macbeth's somnambu-
lism and suicide. Whatever power each has exists only contingently; neither the witches nor
Lady Macbeth have agency or control except through Macbeth.
38 Witchcraft n1 Tudor and Stuart England: A regional and comparatlie study (London: Routledge,
1970).
39 Thomas, in chapter 14 of his book (cited in n. 14, above), discusses how Continental views
of witchcraft, conceived as a heresy marked especially by a pact with the devil, were only
gradually and incompletely filtered into England, where witchcraft was defined more usually
as harmful activities. The fact that the witches in Macbeth are also called "weird women" (3.1.2)
and compared with "elves and fairies" (4.1.42) emphasizes their shifting representations. If
Hecate and the songs from Middleton's The Witch were later interpolations, somewhat at odds
with the earlier portrayal of the witches, this strengthens my claim that the witches are
ambiguously portrayed, reflecting the conflicting ideas about witches in the period. For
arguments that 3.5.39-43 and 4.1.125-32 are interpolations, see Macbeth, The Arden Shake-
speare, ed. Kenneth Muir (London: Methuen, 1951), pp. xxxv-xxxviii. That the witches are
dramatically more powerful early in the play when presented more naturalistically may also be
connected to the weakening of beliefs in possession and witchcraft in England.
Noreen Goldman, "Patterns of Diagnoses Received by Men and Women," both in The Mental
Health of Women, Marcia Guttentag, Susan Salasin, and Deborah Belle, eds. (New York:
Academic Press, 1980), pp. 31-55, 21-30.
44 Cf. MacDonald, Mystical Bedlam, pp. 243-45. Selected comparisons:
While the stage does not associate madness more with one class or gender
than another, in King Lear, as in the records of Richard Napier and of
Bethlehem Hospital, madness and distress are conceived of as treatable
illnesses with mental and physical components. By underlining the distinc-
tion between Lear's natural madness and Edgar's feigned supernatural
possession and by including two cures, one physical (administered by a
doctor) and one mental (administered by Edgar, a layperson), the play
contributes to the secularization, psychologizing, and medicalization of
madness and extends conventions for representing it.
Edgar, victimized by his bastard brother, Edmund, assumes the speech of
demonic possession as a role-as a disguise.48 Quotation in his speech is, in
effect, quadrupled. Disinherited Edgar speaks in the voice of Poor Tom, the
Bedlam beggar, who speaks in the voice of the devil, who quotes Samuel
Harsnett's melodramatic exposure of the drama of bewitchment and exor-
cism.49 Tom's mad speech, like Ophelia's, is made up of quoted, that is
47 The removal of more men may merely indicate that the distribution of space in the facility
makes the confinement of similar numbers of men and women patients a convenience; hence
more men are designated removable. I cannot tell whether Bedlam was sex-segregated as some
later asylums were.
48 This use of madness as disguise derives perhaps from Kyd's Spanish Tragedy and is
common in other Jacobean plays, for example The Changeling and The Pilgrim. William C.
Carroll, "'The Base Shall Top Th'Legitimate': The Bedlam Beggar and the Role of Edgar in
King Lear," SQ, 38 (1987), 426-41, analyzes the period's identifications of Tom o' Bedlams as
feigning, lower-class con men. While this may not be the only Poor Tom stereotype, it does add
associations with feigning at another level to Edgar's role-playing.
49 This is the point developed by Greenblatt in "Shakespeare and the Exorcists" (cited in n.
18, above). Kenneth Muir, "Samuel Harsnett and King Lear," Review of English Studies, 2 (1951),
11-21, finds over fifty separate fragments from Harsnett embedded in the play, many of them
connected with the role of Poor Tom.
50Janet Adelman, in her introduction to Twentieth Century Interpretations of King Lear
(Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice Hall, 1978), pp. 1-21, has a fine discussion of the role and
language of Poor Tom and the ways in which this disguise allows Edgar to protect and preserve
himself. In contrast, William Carroll sees the Poor Tom disguise as a source of pain and
suffering for Edgar as well as a release from them (p. 436).
51 Although my students have long been unable to identify this moment and have refused
to accept it as marking a decisive break with sanity, Lillian Feder (p. 132 [cited in n. 21, above]
and PaulJorgensen (p. 80 [cited in n. 24, above]) concur. The definitiveness of Lear's delusion
is emphasized by his four-times-repeated claim that Tom's daughters are to blame for his state
"Didst thou give all to thy daughters?" "What, has his daughters brought him to this pass?"
"Now . .. plagues ... light on thy daughters!" "Nothing could have subdued nature / To such
a lowness but his unkind daughters" (3.4.48, 62, 66-67, 69-70). This theatrical moment
manifests one of the places where the boundary between sanity and madness was defined and
crossed.
54 Weimann uses the range and scope of Hamlet's and Lear's mad speech to exemplify the
flexible alternation possible in Renaissance popular theater between the illusionistic locus
position, staging dialogue of the psychologically naturalistic character, and the non-illusionistic
platea position, staging monologue which draws on popular tradition, induces audience
identification, and permits social critique (Shakespeare and the Popular Tradition in the Theater:
Studies in the Social Dimension of Dramatic Form and Function, ed. Robert Schwartz [Baltimore:
Johns Hopkins Univ. Press, 1978], pp. 120-35 and 215-20). This flexibility also reveals "the
twofold function of mimesis ('enchantment' and 'disenchantment'), which we have seen to be so
fundamental a part of traditional popular drama" (p. 132). More recently, in "Bifold Authority
in Shakespeare's Theatre," SQ, 39 (1988), 401-17, Weimann again uses the "impertinent"
language of Hamlet and Lear to define the bifold authority generated by the language and play
space of the Elizabethan theater (pp. 410, 416). This highly particularized form of discourse
perhaps cannot stand as the theatrical norm, but Weimann's analysis does get at the combi-
nation of individual psychology and cultural discourse that I argue characterizes this speech.
Although Weimann (curiously) does not discuss Ophelia's madness, it functions in many of the
same ways. She too speaks impertinently, proverbially, bawdily, disturbingly; she too is both
actress and character, partly an object of the audience's gaze, partly a spokesperson for their
contempt for Claudius and his court. Ophelia, as much as (or perhaps even more than) Lear,
"disrupts the authority of order, degree, and decorum" ("Bifold Authority," p. 417).
55 p. 188 (cited in n. 10, above).
Edgar's uses of the illogic of madness in the service of logic and sanity,
like Feste's claims that he but reads madness to exonerate himself from the
charge of being mad, demonstrate how the purpose of reading madness,
propounding definitions, and prescribing cures is usually to dissociate
oneself from the condition and to regulate its disruptiveness. In these
Shakespeare tragedies, as in the treatises and the medical practices, the
representation of madness permits a restoration of normality, a restoration
in which madmen and madwomen participate differently. The disguise of
Poor Tom is abandoned, Gloucester eschews suicide, and Lear is returned
to sanity. The mad women characters in tragedy, however, are not cured
but eliminated. Ophelia is reabsorbed into cultural norms by her narrated
drowning and her Christian burial. The report of Lady Macbeth's suicide,
abruptly announced in the play's final lines, reduces the supernatural to a
simile to vilify and dismiss her as a "fiendlike queen, / Who, as 'tis thought,
by self and violent hands / Took off her life" (5.8.69-71).
Likewise, in the culture, constructions of madness tended to support
established institutions in preserving the status quo. Preferred treatments
were those undertaken by Anglican ministers, not Catholic exorcists or
56 Clarke (cited in n. 35, above), p. 226, quoting Du Laurens. He describes such ingenious
cures as part of "the folk-lore tradition of the profession" (p. 222). He discusses (pp. 222-23,
226) cases cited by Levinus Lemnius in The Touchstone of Complexions (trans. Thomas Newton
[London: Thomas Marsh, 1576], pp. 150v-52r) and by M. Andreas Du Laurens in A Discourse
of the Preservation of the Sight: of Melancholike Diseases ... (trans. Richard Surphlet [London: Felix
Kyngston, 1599], pp. 100-40). See also Burton (cited in n. 17, above), pp. ii, 114-15, and
Jorden (cited in n. 13, above), chap. 7.
59 The Place of the Stage: License, Play, and Power in Renaissance England (Chicago: Univ. of
Chicago Press, 1988), chap. 2; Foucault, pp. 3-7.
60 The Studio Theater performed this Hamlet at the University of Illinois at Urbana-
Champaign, 12 February 1989. "Ophelie Song" was a co-production by Ange Magnetic and Mon
Oncle d'Amerique, collaborated on by French director Antoine Campo and American choreog-
rapher Clara Gibson Maxwell and produced in 1989 in Paris, in New York, and at the
Edinburgh Fringe Festival.