Guest Essay: “A mind diseased”: Examining the evolution of madness using Shakespeare’s Macbeth by Sarah Ahmed

 

INTRODUCTION

Over the years, our understanding of what it means to be mad has evolved. Ancient civilisations held the belief that madness was as a result of spiritual possession; the Enlightenment’s concept of rationality remade madness into an external manifestation of internal grief; in the last century we have started to develop biological theories of mental health as we begin to understand more about how the brain works on a synaptic level.[1] It has even been suggested by prolific writers such as Szasz and Foucault that madness is not a disease at all but rather “a cultural construct, sustained by a grid of administrative and medico-psychiatric practices”.[1 (p.3)] It follows that as our understanding of madness has developed, so too have our readings and interpretations of madness in literature as we apply new theories of illness to fictional characters (perhaps in an attempt to empathise more strongly). Bossler said that “Shakespeare’s characters have always been a fertile field for the application of psychological principles”[2 (p.436)] and Shakespeare’s graphic descriptors of a “mind diseased”[3 (5.3.41)] have leant Macbeth to continuous reinterpretation.

In many readings of Macbeth the play has been approached using a particular literary theory or frame of reference. For example, Freud and his followers have analysed the play using the lens of psychoanalysm,[4] prion-based theories of madness have been applied to the text[5] and some have suggested that Macbeth’s madness is a result of battle fatigue.[2] Alternatively the play has been analysed using an approach more in line with New Historic theories of interpretation by considering the historical and social context of the time: the humoral theory of health[6, 7] has been applied to the play and the characters’ dramatic evolutions have been examined from a religious[8] or gendered perspective.[6] Each interpretation presents a new way of understanding old characters and each will be explored below as we examine how our understanding of madness has evolved and argue that if a frame of reference is important to our understanding of Macbeth, a deeper appreciation might be achieved by considering the notion of madness from the perspective of the Elizabethans.

 

FRAMES OF REFERENCE

By simply using a literary approach it is clear both Macbeth and Lady Macbeth undergo dramatic evolutions over the course of the play, be this into madness or something else. Macbeth, who is initially seen to cower beneath his wife’s ambition, “grows ever more frightening…as he becomes the nothing he projects”; conversely, Lady Macbeth implodes and withdraws from society.[9 (p522)]

Macbeth’s decline begins almost immediately following the couple’s decision to take the crown – the great warrior Macbeth is seen to be anxious about the proposed murder, saying “If it were done when ‘tis done, then ‘twere well/It were done quickly”.[3 (1.7.1-2)] Even before the murder his worries manifest themselves as hallucinations when he sees the now famous “dagger of the mind”,[3 (2.1.38)] which first appears clean before being doused with “gouts of blood”.[3 (2.1.46)] His deterioration progresses when he returns to the stage after murdering the King and claims auditory hallucinations, hearing “a voice cry, ‘Sleep no more:/Macbeth does murder sleep”’.[3 (2.2.38-39)] In saying this Macbeth becomes almost premonitory (like the Weird Sisters) as he does indeed suffer sleep disturbances later on, a “symptom” which is often quoted in discussions of his madness.

Lady Macbeth’s fall is more measured and gradual – whilst Macbeth is hearing noises she admonishes him as she would “shame/ To wear a heart so white”.[3 (2.2.67-68)] Here the colour white has connotations not only of innocence and purity but of cowardice; it evokes the white feathers of World War One which were given to the men refusing to enlist. Most of Lady Macbeth’s dramatic evolution occurs off-stage as is typified by the change in her mode of speech. In the banquet scene of Act3 Scene 4 Lady Macbeth’s gravitas and assurance is obvious in how she address the nobles in verse:

Think of this, good peers,

But as a thing of custom. ‘Tis no other,

Only it spoils the pleasure of the time.[3 (3.4.96-98)]

She is the very embodiment of regality. This is contrasted against Act 5 where she speaks only in prose. In Shakespeare’s plays prose was often reserved for the lower classes, or for conversations between characters who are knew each other well, such as Rosalind and Celia in As You Like It.[10] It was also used in the speech of characters who were mad or feigning insanity, as verse was apparently “too regular and orderly for expressing madness”.[10] As such Hamlet, Ophelia and King Lear all speak in prose at some point in their respective plays.

 

The (d)evolutions of Macbeth and his wife have also been subject to particular frames of reference. A psychoanalytic reading would suggest that Macbeth’s madness is due to a “psychic catastrophe”,[4 (p. 1483)] which is a direct result of his murder of the King. In this reading the King acted not only as Macbeth’s Superego, but that of the whole country, representing “the unifying power which bound the warrior’s destructiveness and directed it towards external enemies in order to preserve stability in the kingdom”.[4 (p.1488)] This goes some way to explaining why Macbeth is so affected by this particular killing as the King was not only his head of state but the means through which “Belladonna’s bridegroom”[3 (1.2.54)] could funnel his inner destructive nature. Conversely, the witches represent a “malignant regression to primitive states of mind”[4 (p.1484] and the other extreme of Macbeth’s psychic spectrum. In taking heed of their premonitions Macbeth turns towards his Id; in returning to them for help and validation Macbeth gives in to his base nature.

A Freudian reading doesn’t label Macbeth’s behaviour with a diagnosis but instead strives to understand why the Thane behaves the way he does. A Freudian would believe that Shakespeare merely described behaviour which he had observed in mankind but never had a frame of reference to explain what he saw; Freud’s theory provides this context.[4] The ease with which some of Shakespeare’s plays lend themselves to a Freudian interpretation has been used as evidence for this view with the most famous example being Hamlet and its connection to the Oedipus story. This idea that Shakespeare described human nature accurately but was missing the terminology to explain what he saw has been used repeatedly in various literary theories and evokes Lawrence Olivier’s famous proclamation that Shakespeare was, or is, “the nearest thing in incarnation to the eye of God.”

 

More recent theories of madness, which have originated as our understanding of both biology and psychology has developed, have also been applied to Macbeth. One such theory is that Macbeth suffered from Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease (CJD), or another similar prion disease.[5] The paper which proposed this theory was published in the Clinical Infectious Diseases Journal, highlighting how a person’s background can be used to form the frames of reference they use in their interpretation not only of the scientific world but of literature. It is important to note that the authors of the paper admit that Shakespeare may not have intended Macbeth’s dramatic evolution to mirror the natural history of a prion disease; similar to advocates of psychoanalysm they believe the playwright showed “an uncannily prescient understanding of prion disease transmission via exposure to neural tissues”[5 (p.299)]but lacked the context to explain it. The variety of human and animal offal present in the witches’ brew is considered the possible source of transmission.[5]

In creating their theory that Macbeth may have suffered from CJD the authors look beyond the usual symptoms of traditional madness – sleep disturbances and hallucinations – and find quotative evidence for more specific indicators of prion disease such as “neurological and cognitive deterioration”[5 (p299)] as well as “myoclonus and involuntary movements”.[5 (p.301)] However in most of the examples found it is possible to take what Shakespeare wrote and interpret it as a metaphor. For example, evidence for myoclonus is found in the following quote:

Take any shape but that, and my firm nerves

Shall never tremble. Or be alive again,

And dare me to the desert with thy sword;

If trembling I inhabit then, protest me

The baby of a girl.[3 (3.4.102-103)]

It may be that Shakespeare intended the reader to take the above literally and imagine Macbeth trembling; conversely it is just as likely that he meant it as a metaphor and Macbeth trembles in fear of the Ghost – even today we use similar expressions. After all, Shakespeare was foremost a poet. The following quote has also been attributed to myoclonus: “Then comes my fit again. I had else been perfect”.[3 (3.4.20)] It is similarly ambiguous as there is nothing in the script to suggest that Macbeth has an actual fit; it is more likely to metaphorically psychological in nature.

 

In a similar fashion, Macbeth’s dramatic evolution has been attributed to a diagnosis of battle fatigue.[2] Similar to explaining Macbeth’s madness as CJD, or even in examining it through the lens of psychoanalysm, the theory’s creator admits that although Shakespeare may not have set out to describe a case of battle fatigue, “the only thing new about [attributing a diagnosis of battle fatigue] is its name. Human nature remains the same”.[2 (p436)] Again it is interesting to note that the author of this paper is a military veteran.

The symptoms of battle fatigue are similar to those of traditional madness and CJD – “obsession of anxiety, jumpiness and inability to sleep”;[2 (p.437) however Macbeth has also been exposed to all the causes of battle fatigue.[2] The ceaseless toil of first the war and then the murder, combined with Macbeth’s powerful imagination, tips the balance of sanity towards dominant thoughts of blood and war.[2]Macbeth’s subsequent murders are explained as him returning to the place where he has known most success – the battlefield – in an attempt to cure himself of his malady; he tries to find peace by doing what he does best, except now he “enjoyed killing others too much to kill himself”.[2 (p437)]

 

IS IT ENOUGH?

In each of the above theories Macbeth is interpreted using a particular frame of thought; as was particularly prominent with the CJD and battle fatigue examples the frames of reference were drawn from the author’s life experiences. It is interesting to note that in each of the above readings it was claimed that Shakespeare merely described human nature (admittedly with some finesse and precision); what each new theory brings is context based on new interpretations of madness. Applying contemporary theories of (psychological) illness to diagnose literary characters is a phenomenon which is not just limited to Macbeth, or even to Shakespeare’s work: Winnie the Pooh’s Pooh and Piglet have been diagnosed with ADHD and General Anxiety Disorder respectively;[11] it has been suggested that Darcy may place on the Autistic Spectrum.[12] It is possible that our current biological theories will one day be disproved and appear outdated to future generations, and highly probable that as we develop new theories of madness these too will be applied to fictional characters, and we will have new ways of interpreting the actions of the Thane and his Lady.

However it is also probable that Shakespeare intentionally modelled his characters around Elizabethan notions of madness; unfortunately we can never know what Shakespeare meant when he described “a mind diseased”.[3 (5.3.41)] However by accepting that Shakespeare was an accurate portrayer of human nature we can begin to understand what Elizabethans thought about madness by examining the play in its historical and social context. Braunmuller agreed by saying that critical “claims are often false to the play’s complex relation with the social and political circumstances in which it was first written and first performed”.[3 (p.1)]Knowing more about these circumstances could be hugely useful, not only in giving readers a deeper understanding of the play but in showing us how mental illness was viewed in the 1500s/1600s. It is in this vein which we will continue.

 

HISTORICAL AND SOCIAL CONTEXT

Medicine, health and the medical professions feature heavily in Shakespeare’s plays and those of his contemporaries,[13] and “it has long been recognized that England in the period from 1580 to 1640 was fascinated with madness”.[6 (p.316)] However it has been suggested that Shakespeare’s knowledge is greater than that of a regular Elizabethan.[14] The reasons for this stretch beyond the scope of this essay but it can be assumed that Shakespeare knew about current theories of health and illness. It was during the Elizabethan era that madness started to become medicalised and was seen as humoral in nature; it was also associated with gender and religion. Each of these viewpoints have been used to interpret Shakespeare’s work.

 

Humoral theory stated that melancholy, now known as depression, was caused by an excess of black bile, the humor associated with winter and dryness. This resulted in a combination of “passivity, unsociability, fury, stupidity, paranoia, lust, anger, mania, but especially sorrow and fear”.[6 (p.319)] Most of these, in varying combinations, are seen in Macbeth and Lady Macbeth after they decide to kill the King. The use of humoral metaphors has been explored extensively in Shakespeare; in Macbeth it is especially with relation to Lady Macbeth and her ambitious nature.[7]

 

Despite more “scientific” theories it was also around this time that madness began to become gendered – although the frame of reference may have shifted from religion to reason, women were still seen as weak, second class citizens.[6] Melancholy in its purest form was associated with “the upper class, the literate, the masculine”.[6 (p. 319)] Conversely women were thought to suffer from melancholy’s sister, hysteria.[6] This idiosyncrasy can be clearly seen in Shakespeare’s Hamlet where Hamlet’s (possibly feigned) madness is always seen to be quite noble in nature – he is never anything less than the distressed Prince of Denmark – whereas Ophelia’s is seen almost to be “beautiful, sweet, lovable, pathetic”.[6 (p. 322)]

This gendered madness can also be seen in Lady Macbeth’s descent, which holds many similarities with Ophelia’s madness. Like Ophelia, Lady Macbeth speaks in riddles and without apprehension of her surroundings; both repeat key phrases in their deliriums with Lady Macbeth meditating on all the blood her and her husband have spilt; both return to the stage in their mad stage in the second half of the play after a prolonged absence; both their lives end in apparent suicides. The women of the play become “cultural scapegoats”[6 (p. 328)] as Lady Macbeth’s sex automatically acquaints her with the “so withered and so wild”[3 (1.3.38)] Weird Sisters. Conversely we sympathise with Macbeth, seeing him “not as the victim of a revengeful God, but as a victim of Macbeth himself”.[8 (p. xxii)] This is because Macbeth’s madness and feverish passion is seen as manly – at the start of the play even the strong Lady Macbeth expresses a desire to be “unsex[ed]”,[3 (1.5.39)] to possess the cruelty associated with ambition which her husband seemingly possesses.

 

The role of religion also plays an important part in the play. Although the theories of Enlightenment had started to permeate into society, religion and God still strongly influenced the way in which people interpreted their world. With this in mind it is possible to see the dramatic evolutions of Macbeth and his wife as religious punishments given due to breaches in their God-given consciences. It has been suggested that “the external phenomena associated with conscience manifest themselves more clearly in Macbeth and his wife than in any other of Shakespeare’s dramatic personages”.[8 (p. ix)] Madness aside, there are many Christian references throughout Macbeth. Lady Macbeth advises her husband to “look like th’innocent flower,/But be a serpent under’t”[3 (1.5.63-64)] in a reference to the story of Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden. By counselling her husband to be a serpent she equates murder with its patron, the Devil. In preparation for the murder Macbeth reassures himself that Duncan’s ‘virtues/Will plead like angels”.[3 (1.7.18-19)] Lennox wishes that “a swift blessing/May soon return to this our suffering country”,[3 (4.1.48-49)] suggesting that holy salvation is needed to save Scotland from Macbeth’s unholy crimes. The fact that the Doctor advises Lady Macbeth “more needs…the divine than the physician”[3 (5.1.64)] has been used as evidence to suggest that “Shakespeare wanted us to view her condition as the result of remorse, as the outcome of her guilty conscience”.[8 (p. 15)] However this statement can be viewed in one of two ways – either the Doctor is aware that Lady Macbeth has committed unholy crimes and so needs spiritual retribution more than a medical solution; it could also suggest that the Doctor believes all cases of somnambulism to be spiritual in nature and so recommends a divine solution.

Perhaps this conflict between religion and science is indicative of Shakespeare’s own, confused beliefs. It is not impossible that he realised that “by constructing a language through which madness can be represented, the popular theatre facilitated the circulation of the discourse; by italicizing the language of madness, it encouraged its interrogation and transformation”.[6 (p. 338)] Especially true in the Elizabethan age this is particularly poignant today; theatre provides us with a way of interpreting health and disease – it allows us to be privy to people’s perceptions of illness and influences how the public view a certain disease.

 

THE EVOLUTION OF MADNESS: A CONCLUSION

As we develop new ways of understanding health and disease we have returned to old texts to apply our knowledge. This is especially true with regards to psychological illness, and Shakespeare’s work is often subjected to these new readings. You can chart the evolution of madness through critical interpretations of Macbeth; the same applies for readings of depression in Hamlet or dementia in King Lear. On one hand it is interesting to consider why we do this – scientifically speaking quotes from Shakespeare do not count very highly on the ladder of evidence based medicine. I like to think it’s a question of human nature and empathy. We can be so affected by the actions of a fictional character that we are moved to tears or laughter; characters become real to us and we want to know why they behave the way they do, both to satisfy our human curiosity and to perhaps explain why we are so emotionally affected by fiction.

It is also interesting that many of the theories we have explored use the same quotes as evidence; one line can be interpreted in many different ways. Most of the authors considered have admitted this – human nature remains constant and we simply assign different labels to it. Perhaps madness has not evolved at all, but rather as a society we have outgrown one way of thinking and are eager to make our mark on the world by creating another; where better to find reassurance that what we believe is correct but in the great fictional works that define our society?

And what did Shakespeare mean when he described “a mind diseased”? Whilst every new reading brings something profound to a seminal work perhaps it is only by considering the historical and social context that we can fully appreciate what it was that the Bard was trying to convey. As much as we – as readers, critics, health care professionals – would like to diagnose his characters we should always remember that perhaps Shakespeare was simply being a writer and creating characters who would give good performances, characters which would appeal to the public’s expectations. Madness, like beauty is in the eye of the beholder: “in the drama, as in the culture outside it, madness is diagnosed by those who observe it”.[6 (p. 321)] Ultimately, readings and contexts aside, how we view a work of art is an inherently personal experience, influenced as much by our own lives as by society; perhaps it is enough that we feel something, rather than feel nothing at all.

 

References

  1. Porter R. Madness: A Brief History. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2002
  2. Bossler R. Was Macbeth a Victim of Battle Fatigue? College English 1947; 8 (8): 436-438
  3. Shakespeare W. Braunmuller AR, editor. Macbeth. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2008
  4. Tarantelli CB. “Till destruction sicken”: The catastrophe of mind in Macbeth. Int J Psychoanal 2010; 91: 1483-1501
  5. Norton SA, Paris RM, Wonderlich KJ. “Strange things I have in head”: Evidence of Prion Disease in Shakespeare’s Macbeth. Clin Infect Dis 2006; 42: 299-302
  6. Neely CT. “Documents in Madness”: Reading Madness and Gender in Shakespeare’s Tragedies and Early Modern Culture. Shakespeare Quarterly 1991; 42 (3): 315-338
  7. Fahey CJ [Internet]. Altogether governed by humours: The four ancient temperaments in Shakespeare. Graduate Theses and Dissertations 2008. URL: http://scholarcommons.usf.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1229&context=etd [Accessed July 2014]
  8. Toppen WH. Conscience in Shakespeare’s Macbeth. Groningen: JB Wolters; 1962
  9. Bloom H. Shakespeare: The Invention of the Human. London: Fourth Estate; 1998
  10. Schwartz DB [Internet]. Shakespearean Verse and Prose. Last Edited 2005. URL: http://cla.calpoly.edu/~dschwart/engl339/verseprose.html [Accessed 4th June 2013]
  11. Shea SE, Gordon K, Hawkins A, Kawchuk J, Smith D. Pathology in the Hundred Acre Wood: a neurodevelopmental perspective on A.A.Milne. CMAJ 2000; 163 (12): 1557-1559
  12. Bottomer PF. So Odd a Mixture: Along the Autistic Spectrum in ‘Pride and Prejudice’. London: Jessica Kingsley Publishers; 2007
  13. Spurgeon C. Shakespeare’s Imagery and what it tell us. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2005
  14. Davis FM. Shakespeare’s Medical Knowledge: How Did He Acquire It? The Oxfordian 2000; 3: 45-58

 

Other sources:

Barroll JL. Artificial Persons: The Formation of Character in the Tragedies of Shakespeare. South Carolina: University of South Carolina Press; 1974

Bradley AC. Shakespearean Tragedy: Lectures on Hamlet, Othello, King Lear, Macbeth. 3rd Edition. London: Macmillan Press; 1992

 

Sarah Ahmed is a final year medical student at the University of Birmingham, UK

A version of this article will be presented at the 7th Global Conference – Madness: Probing the Boundaries at Mansfield College, Oxford ( 5th-9th September 2014).

Correspondence to: 09saraha@gmail.com