Abstract

With Shakespeare's Physic, John Crawford Adams joins that group of physicians so fascinated by the medical aspects of Shakespeare that they cannot resist a foray into medical and literary history. Adams follows men like R. R. Simpson, whose Shakespeare and Medicine was until recently the best book available on the subject. Like Simpson, Adams is not a historian, nor is he a literary critic, and like Simpson's book, Shakespeare's Physic has consequent strengths and deficiencies.To be sure, Adams's book has a charming energy. He quotes widely and admiringly from Shakespeare's work and demonstrates considerable reading in medical history. His training in medicine, moreover, allows him to provide an interesting modern perspective on the illnesses that would have afflicted Shakespeare's contemporaries. Additionally, Adams, as neither a historian nor a literary critic, does not get bogged down in theory or minutiae, and so the book is accessible to nonspecialists.Often, however, one wishes Adams had been a historian so that he might have been more scrupulous in his work, for the lack of historical rigor here seriously detracts from the book's usefulness. Aside from quotations from Shakespeare, and notwithstanding the brief bibliography that is included, Adams fails to cite any of his sources. We have no way of directly checking his facts, and there is no way to build on his work.Moreover, if Adams had been more attentive to citing evidence for his claims, he might have more easily noticed when those claims were questionable. The bacterium that causes the plague, for example, is now properly called Yersinia pestis, not Pasteurella pestis, as Adams has it . More significantly, Adams's suggestion that madness was understood almost exclusively as a result of demonic possession and that it was treated only by exorcism is clearly incorrect . Richard Napier's early modern practice frequently employed physical treatments for madness since some forms of madness, including melancholy, were thought to proceed from the same sorts of humoral imbalances that were held to produce other maladies . Moreover, Winfried Schleiner has discussed the therapeutic uses of illusion in the period and links that mode of treatment to several Shakespeare plays . David Hoeniger has shown how Shakespeare demonstrates knowledge of the early modern use of music as treatment for mental illness .Also troubling is Adams's unscholarly tendency to assume that the medical aspects of Shakespeare's theater “must generally have been an accurate reflection of the world as it existed outside” . Similarly, Adams repeatedly assumes that characters speaking on medical and spiritual matters must be voicing Shakespeare's own particular philosophy. Literary scholars now acknowledge that such claims are unreliable, if not naive. Malvolio in Twelfth Night, for example, firmly rejects the Pythagorean notion of metempsychosis or reincarnation; Feste, in the same play, insists that it is true; Graziano in The Merchant of Venice has thought it false but is tempted by Shylock's wolfish temperament to believe it. Which is the view of the general public? Which is Shakespeare's?