sciencetech-blog

comments

Centuries after he became famous, Shakespeare's well-delivered lines are being blamed for creating stigma for millions of people suffering skin disease

William Shakespeare was a master of insult, particularly when it came to a character's appearance.

From 'foul moles and eye-offending marks' to 'a plague sore, an embossed carbuncle', the playwright had a sharp tongue when it came to physical imperfection.

And now, centuries after he became famous, Shakespeare's well-delivered lines are being blamed for creating a painful stigma for millions of people suffering skin disease.

The world's most famous playwright has been the subject of new research being revealed to doctors during the annual conference of the British Association of Dermatologists.

Researchers from Nottingham, Leicester and Derby, analysed Shakespeare's language and found that it reflected the Elizabethan obsession with perfect, unmarked, pale skin.

They speculate that the playwright's status as the most well-known English language writer of all time may be helping to fuel ongoing stigma around skin disease.

For instance King Lear describes his daughter Goneril as 'an embossed carbuncle' and a prostitute calling a soldier a 'scurvy companion' in Henry IV part II.

King Lear describes his daughter Goneril as 'an embossed carbuncle' (right), while in The Tempest, the deformed Caliban (right) is cast as the subhuman son of the malevolent witch, Sycorax

In Henry IV part I, a man with a red nose is described as 'an everlasting bonfire-light' and 'knight of the burning lamp'.

Dr Catriona Wootton, Dermatologist at Queen's Medical Centre in Nottingham, said: 'Rat-infested and with open sewers, overcrowding and sexual promiscuity, Elizabethan London was a melting pot for diseases such as plague, syphilis and smallpox.

'Many of the diseases of the time involved lesions or sores on the skin, so skin imperfections were seen as a warning sign for contagious disease.

'This was not limited to signs of infection, but to any blemishes or moles, which were considered ugly and signs of witchcraft or devilry.'

In Shakespeare's defence, he highlights the innocence of affected individuals in Hamlet: 'that for some vicious mole of nature in them, as in their birth – wherein they are not guilty, since nature cannot choose his origin.

'Their virtues else, be they as pure as grace, as infinite as man may undergo, shall in general censure take corruption from that particular fault'.

However, researchers say many far less tolerant examples can be found in Shakespeare's work and it is argued that his success has led to strengthening of the stigma around skin disease.

Nina Goad of the British Association of Dermatologists said: 'It is interesting to note that much of the Elizabethan stigma over disfiguring skin disease still persists today.

'Over the last few decades dermatologists have tried to address the effect this can have on patients.

In A Midsummer Night's Dream (pictured), a blessing to young couples includes the line: 'Never mole, hare-lip nor scar... shall upon their children be.' Professor Michael Dobson, the director of Birmingham University's Shakespeare Institute, believes the suggestion that Shakespeare was to blame for skin stigma is ridiculous

'However, even now, many examples exist in films and literature where visible disfigurements are used to represent villainy or malice.

'Nobody is suggesting that we edit Shakespeare but maybe we should ensure that new films and books don't reinforce this stereotype

Professor Michael Dobson, the director of Birmingham University's Shakespeare Institute, believes the suggestion that Shakespeare was to blame for skin stigma is ridiculous.

He told the Independent: 'Has any writer in history ever suggested that the symptoms of skin disease are attractive?

'And have audiences for the last 400 years really been coming out of theatres saying "Ah yes – I'd nearly forgotten – pox is to be avoided."

'What a genius Shakespeare was!' Next week: has the fairy tale of Snow White been creating a misleadingly favourable impression of dwarfism?'