Libby Maia: "WERE THERE TWO SHAKESPEARES?"

William Shakespeare is undoubtedly one of England's most well-known and

treasured authors. His plays were exceedingly popular during his life, and according to

legend, they brought him and his family much fame and affluence. Since his death,

however, evidence has been uncovered which suggests that the William Shakespeare of

playwright fame may not have been the same individual documented in the historical

records of Stratford-upon-Avon. According to The Shakespeare Conspiracy, a book by

Graham Phillips and Martin Keatman,the actual documentation of Shakespeare's life is

meager at best.

Of all his contemporary poets and dramatists--such as Christopher

Marlowe, Edmund Spenser, Gabriel Harvey, Thomas Nashe,

John Donne, John Fletcher, Thomas Lodge, Robert Greene,

Philip Sidney, George Chapman, Thomas Heywood, Francis

Beaumont, John Lyly, Ben Jonson, Thomas Kyd, George Peele,

Thomas Dekker, Thomas Middleton and John Webster--Webster

is the only  playwright of whom we know less, but, unlike

Shakespeare, Webster was not recognized in his day. (15-16)

An examination of the few existing historical details of Shakespeare's life raises more

questions than it provides answers. According to the evidence available in our time, it

appears as if there may have been two Shakespeares: one a grain merchant from

Stratford-upon-Avon, and the other a famous actor and playwright from London,

working under an assumed name.

Popular legend tells us that on April 23, 1564, a male child was born to John

and Mary Shakespeare at Stratford. Of course, nobody is certain if this was the exact

date on which William Shakespeare was born. The historical records of Stratford's parish

show that a child by the name of Gulielmus [fr. for William] Shaksper was christened on

April 26th of the same year, but no birth date was ever reported (Phillips and

Keatman 9). John Shakespeare was a fairly prosperous glover in the town of Stratford, and

his family lived in relative comfort for the formative years of [young Gulielmus

Shaksper's] life.  Because his parents were comparatively high-standing members of

Stratford society, William Shaksper would have been able to attend the local grammar

school. Most people assume that this is where Shakespeare received the formal education

that is so apparent in his plays. According to Phillips and Keatman, however, there is no

historical record of Shaksper's attendance at Stratford's grammar school. Participation

wasnot compulsory by any means, and whether or not a child was educated depended

mainly upon the whims of his father (10). Irving Leigh Matus' book, Shakespeare: In Fact,

states that records show Shaksper's father had not been formally educated. Documents

remain in which John Shaksper's signature appears as a mark, indicating that he was

illiterate (30). It appears as if John Shaksper did not place a high value on education, and

all historical records point to the conclusion that his son never attended school.

Another confusing account (in fact, the next historical record mentioning

Shaksper) is the documentation of his marriage. In Alias Shakespeare: Solving the

Greatest Literary Mystery of All Time, a book byJoseph Sobran, it is noted that the day

before Shaksper registered to marry Anne Hathaway, he had registeredto marry "Anna

whatley [sic] de Temple grafton [sic]" (21). The name was changed to Anne Hathaway of

Stratford the next day, and they were married swiftly, without the usual ceremony of the

reading of the banns. Sixmonths into the marriage, Anne gave birth to their first child, and

the reason for the rushed marriage becameevident. However, it raises a puzzling question.

How could the man whose plays are some of the most romantic works ever composed be

the same man who nearly ran out on his pregnant lover by attempting to marry someone

else, rather than owning up to his responsibility?

The historical records of Shaksper's life, as mentioned in The Mysterious

William Shakespeare: The Myth and the Reality, by Charlton Ogburn, are non-existent for

nearly ten years after the birth of his children (26). In Peter Sammartino's book, The Man

Who Was William Shakespeare, it is stated that some of the plays later attributed to

William Shakespeare were appearing anonymously in London around the end of the ten-

year gap in the records. There was still no documented evidence, however, indicating that

the Stratford Shaksperhad done anything but remain in his hometown tending to this

business and family (19). Ogburn remarks that the itemized records kept by London

theater owner Philip Henslowe never mention Shakespeare's name, even though

the titles of many of Shakespeare's plays were included in the same records as having

been performed (99). Seven years after Shakespeare supposedly began gaining fame in

London, Shaksper bought the second-largest house in Stratford, while William

Shakespeare defaulted on a mere five-shilling tax in London (Phillips 37).

Shaksper of Stratford appered by all means to be a wealthy businessman, while London's

Shakespeare was a struggling, poor actor.

Poverty was somewhat commonplace for most of the actors and playwrights in

late sixteenth century London. Sammartino notes that the Elizabethan era actors hardly

made a tenth of the income that Shaksper was bringing in with his Stratford enterprises

(25). As mentioned before, Shakespeare's name wasn't

even included in the extensive theatrical records of the time. More importantly, no records

exist claiming thatShakespeare was ever paid for being an actor or a playwright (Ogburn

101). The Stratford records show, however,that Shaksper made a comfortable living,

especially when he bought the second-largest house in town for his family to live in.

Shaksper had to get his wealth from somewhere, and all of the available records show that

he did so through his grain mercantile.

The next set of records for Shaksper of Stratford appeared upon his death in

1616. The well-off businessman left a will, and this document contains many odd details

that raise even more questions about whether or not he was the famous actor and

playwright of London fame. Strangely enough, according to Ogburn, Shakespeare never

actually mentioned any of his writings by name when bequeathing them to his relatives.

No reference appears in Shakespeare's will to books or

manuscripts. The books, we are told, would have been lumped

under 'goods . . .& household stuff.' Goods and household stuff--

the beloved library on which the impoverished villager would have

soared to the highest literary pinnacle! (35)

If Shaksper had really been the London playwright Shakespeare, those manuscripts would

have been how he amassed his wealth. His literary accomplishments had been renowned

throughout England, and the many plays he had written would have been proof of this.

Most dying men would have made special note of such valuable potential heirlooms in

their wills, and passed them along to a favorite child, a friend, a wife, or another loved one.

Shaksper instead makes no mention of any sort of manuscripts in his will, which leads most

people to believe thathe didn't actually write for a living at all.

Yet another curious question raised by Shaksper's will involves his treatment

of his wife. According to his will, Shaksper only left his "second best bed" to his wife,

Anne (Phillips and Keatman 12). Apparently, the rest of his worldly possessions went

elsewhere. By law, part of his estate had to go to Anne in order to provide for her in her

old age. However, it seems peculiar that Shaksper left her what basically amounts to

nothing of any personal value. If Shaksper was the man who was responsible for such

remarkably tender sonnets and plays such as Romeo and Juliet, he must have had a

phenomenal imagination. It seems as if he knew very little of love in his own marriage.

The most unusual and inexplicable aspect of the will, however, are the

signatures upon it. Three of them are from his will, and three are from other historical

documents, written earlier in his life. As can be seen, all of the signatures are highly

illegible, and it seems that a different person wrote each one [I will scan these in,

when I have time: Dr.H.]. "His half-dozen surviving signatures have themselves aroused

skepticism, not so much because they are barely legible as because they are so irregular,

lacking the consistency of a man who wrote habitually" (Sobran 25). The signatures cast

quite a bit of doubt on just how literate Shaksper actually was. It is difficult to believe that

Shaksper could have handwritten so many plays and sonnets without being able to master

a simply autograph. The aforementioned signatures are reproduced on the final page of

this paper.

William Shaksper's signatures, along with some signatures of John Shaksper

survive to this day. The manuscripts of the original plays, however, have never been

found. It seems out of the ordinary that Shaksper's will, along with other legal documents

containing his signature, were found intact, but his manuscripts have apparently been lost

forever.

Even though centuries have passed since his death, Shakespeare's tomb is still

one of the most-visited tourist attractions in all of Stratford. It is an ornate marble slab

with a quote engraved upon it that has, in the centuries since his death, become a

household utterance. "Good friend for Jesus sake forbear/To dig the dust enclosed

here/Blessed be the man that spares these stones/And cursed be he that moves my

bones." Next to the tomb is a bust, showing Shaksper holding a quill pen. This, however, is

a more recent addition to the tomb, having been created in 1748 for a restoration (Phillips

and Keatman 43). The book goes on to saythat there are drawings of the original

tombstone which depict Shaksper holding large sack of grain. "As it was traditional to

depict the profession in a person's monument, it would seem that Shakespeare was not

honoured as a literary figure, but as a dealer in bagged commodities, which is exactly how.

. .Shakespeare of Stratford made his money, in malt and grain" (48). Again, this indicates

that Shaksper of Stratford evidently had no connection at all with the literary world.

The London literary world didn't seem to mourn the death of the Stratford

man, either. As mentioned in Sobran's book, although Shakespeare's contemporaries

would usually publish letters of sympathy and eulogize their peers, nothing appeared in

London papers after Shaksper's death in Stratford (25). Even though Shakespeare had not

published anything for a few years before his death, his older plays were still being

performed in London. It seems doubtful that the news of his death would not have reached

London if Shaksper were actually famous there.

All of this information supports a stunning conclusion. William Shakespeare,

"The Bard" of  England's fame, was not the man we think he is today. It seems that

somebody took on "William Shakespeare"as a stage name in London. If this person

needed to hide his or her identity in order to follow a passion for acting and writing, it

would have been a perfect ruse to attribute the published literature to an illiterate grain

merchant who lived miles away and probably would never see any of "his" plays.

The true identity of "Shakespeare" will not be discussed in this essay. Most of

the evidence supporting the various claimants seems sketchy and farfetched at best,

unsubtantiated conjecture at worst. This enigmatic puzzle will probably not be solved

unless some previously concealed documents are uncovered and brought into the public

eye. However, according to the historical facts at hand today, there certainly appears

to be a great deal of mystery as to who wrote the plays and sonnets of William

Shakespeare.

[Separate Page] Works Cited

Matus, Irving L. Shakespeare: In Fact. New York: Continuum, 1994.

Ogburn, Charlton. The Mysterious William Shakespeare: The Myth and the Reality.

         McLean: EPM, 1992.

Phillips, Graham, and Martin Keatman. The Shakespeare Conspiracy. London: Random

         House, 1994.

Sammartino, Peter. The Man Who Was William Shakespeare. New York: Cornwall, 1990.

Sobran, Joseph. Alias Shakespeare: Solving the Greatest Literary Mystery of All Time.

         New York: Free Press, 1997.

TOP OF PAGE

Shakespeare, both for words and metaphors, drew abundantly from the

language of the theater. Terms like "argument, prologue, player, scene, act, actor, show,

and audience" occur again and again throughout his plays with dramatic connotations that

range from literal and technical meanings to highly figurative and symbolic ones. The

constant utilization of dramatic vocabulary suggests an analogy in Shakespeare's mind

between life and the theater, conceiving man as an actor and the world as a stage. Hamlet

embodies Shakespeare's most personal statements on drama. Inga-stina Ewbank's

"Self-Conscious Speakers"explains that "it is a vision of the human condition realized in

the whole visual and verbal language of the theater" (271). There is a definite theme of

"acting" that is supported by the theatrical symbolism offered in this tragedy. Each

character in the play becomes a symbol for making unseen realities seen by taking on a

"role" or "disguise," while the setting becomes a stage for them to perform.

Charles R. Forker's "Symbolism in Shakespeare" argues that at the very

outset of Hamlet, Shakespeare provides a scene within a scene. The first few lines of the

opening act show that people do not always recognize each other in their shifting roles:

Bernardo: Who's there?

Francisco: Nay, answer me. Stand and unfold yourself.

Marcellus and Horatio enter, and it is apparent that they are there to watch an appearance

of some kind--the Ghost. The Ghost serves as a kind of "show" while the other characters

on stage are its audience. This relationship immediately raises the appearance-reality

question since the audience is unsure what to make of the apparition, yet "references to

the theater in a public performance elicit a double or multi-conscious reaction from

the audience, establishing a dual plane of reality; they are aware of the play-world and the

real world at once, yet the appearance seems more real and the fiction more true"

(442-43).

In the next scene, after Claudius' formal speech, Hamlet refuses to be drawn

into Denmark's "act"by bitterly commenting on the difference between what "seems" and

what "is": "These indeed seem,/ For they are actions that a man might play;/ But I have

that within which passeth show--/These but the trappings and the suits of woe" (1.2.83-86).

He later compares himself to Hercules, Gertrude to Niobe, the dead king to Hyperion,

and Claudius to a satyr; realizing that he too must play a "role" in his quest for truth.

The theme of "acting" is established while other characters begin shifting their

"roles." Laertes, about to depart for France, adopts the role of a big brother and warns

Ophelia not to give in to Hamlet's love for her by remaining chaste: "The chariest maid is

prodigal enough/ If she unmask her beauty to the moon" (1. 3.36-37). Ophelia sees

through his performance since he has obviously ignored his own advice. Polonius

enters and speaks to his son in the same manner Laertes spoke to Ophelia. However, his

advice is a lesson in "appearance": "Give thy thoughts no tongue,/ Nor any

unproportion'd thought to his act" (1. 3. 59-60). He tells them to learn when to keep quiet

and when to put on an "act." His concluding words, "This above all--to

thine own self be true" (1. 3. 78), maintain this difference in self and "actor."

During the Ghost's second appearance, the theatrical symbolism is the same

as before, only now Hamlet is the principle spectator. This "show" provided by the Ghost

offers insight into the double roles the king and queen have been playing in which "the

whole ear of Denmark" has been "Rankly abus'd" (1. 5. 36-38). Both Claudius and

Gertrude "act" as a noble and moral king and queen even though they are truly dishonest

and deceitful royalty. The Ghost also refers to Gertrude's hypocrisy by calling her "my

most seeming-virtuous queen"(1. 5. 46), which strengthens the fact that she is playing a

"role." After the revealing information, the Ghost tells Hamlet to "Remember me," in

which he responds by saying: "Ay, thou poor ghost, while memory holds a

seat/ In this distracted globe" (1.5. 96-97). Several aspects of reality are combined into a

single phrase. Hamlet's reaction to what the Ghost has told him underlines the split

between his true self and his "acting" self. Hamlet is now caught between two worlds--that

which reveals the truth and that which conceals it, and he must "act"accordingly. The

audience also becomes connected in the play--those who experienced Hamlet at the Globe

Theater.

Hamlet's dual role becomes more apparent through his role of madness.

Within the second scene of Act 2, Hamlet plays himself to the audience and his insane self

to others. He enters this scene pretending to have gone mad while the king and queen

leave to let Polonius talk to him. "Actor" confronts "actor" as Hamlet attempts to

uncover Polonius' "sincere disguise": "Ay sir. To be honest, as this world goes, is to be

pick'd out of ten thousand" (2. 2. 177-79). In other words, which "act" is truthful to you?

A little later, the players are announced and serve as a literal as well as

figurative symbol. Literally, the players provide a play-within-a-play, or art-within-art.

However, figuratively, these actors reinforce the duality of Hamlet's role. He appreciates

their profession, having to be an "actor" himself, while also rejecting them because the

players represent the symbolic link between acting and the hypocrisy of the real

world. Yet the strong identity Hamlet shares with the players is heightened when he

requests a particular speech and interchanges roles with the players. In "What Happens

in Hamlet," Dover J. Wilson argues that "[t]he fact that Hamlet himself gives part of his

speech indicates how closely he identifies himself and his own situation with its content;

for the lines dramatize for him the very feelings about which he is otherwise constrained to

be silent--grief for his murdered father, his mother's lack of grief, his uncle's cruelty, and

the pressing necessity for revenge" (155). The speech provides Hamlet with a cue for

action.

The third act, which contains the play's crisis, forces all "actors" to take

action. Hamlet is learning to "Suit the action to the word. . ." (3. 2. 19). Now the "mouse

trap" begins and theatrical symbolism takes over. Claudius maintains his deceitful "act"

to Hamlet while also being a spectator to the actors of the "mouse-trap." Similarly,

Hamlet continues his role towards Claudius while carefully observing the play and how

others will react to it. As guilt overcomes Claudius, both his mask and Hamlet's mask are

unveiled while the player-king ironically states the truth of the situation: "Our wills and

fates do so contrary run/ That our devices still are overthrown. . ." (3. 2. 221-22). Their

"devices," or shifting "roles," are exposed--it doesn't matter how well they played them.

Another "staged" scene enables Hamlet to watch Gertrude "play" her

assigned part. Parallel to Claudius, she is forced to look at her inner self, and comes to the

realization of her corruption. Yet Gertrude mustcontinue with her previous "act" for the

sake of virtue. "Gertrude, like both Hamlet and Claudius, must continue to live upon the

world's stage" ( Forker 455). The pretense must go on to salvage the kingship of

Claudius.

In the last act of the play, all paradoxes of appearance and reality merge and

are resolved in death. "In the end, all appearances come to dust; the actors on the world's

stage must have exits as well as entrances"(Wilson 161). Even in death, Hamlet is eager

to speak: "You that look pale and tremble at this chance,/ That are but mutes or audience

to this act,/ Had I but time (as this fell sergeant, Death/ Is strict in his arrest) O, I could

tell you--/ But let it be" (5. 2. 345-49). He wishes to "tell all" like a player, to uncover the

truth for those who remain. He commands Horatio, who is free from any disguise, to "tell

my story" (5. 2. 360). As others enter as the audience to this tragic scene, Horatio fulfills

Hamlet's wish:

. . .give orders that these bodies

High on a stage be placed to the view;

And let me speak to th' yet unknowing world

How these things came about. So shall you hear

Of carnal, bloody, and unnatural acts;

Of accidental judgments, casual slaughters;

Of deaths put on by cunning and forc'd cause;

And, in the upshot, purposes mistook

Fall'n on th' inventors' heads. All this can I

Truly deliver. (5. 2. 388-97)

Fortinbras answers: "Let us haste to hear it,/ And call the noblest to the audience" (5. 2.

397-98). It's as if Horatio has given the prologue of the play which has already taken

place. The play ends as it had begun in terms of theatrical symbolism: "Bear Hamlet like

a soldier to the stage. . ." (5. 2. 407). The shifting "roles" and "disguises" each character

portrayed have finally brought out the truth, making unseen realities seen. Shakespeare's

audience, through his theme of "acting," can now relate to the connection between life and

the theater, conceiving man as an actor and the world as a stage.

[SEPARATE PAGE] Works Cited

Boyce, Charles. Shakespeare: A to Z. New York: Dell, 1990.

Ewbank, Inga-stina. "Self-Conscious Speakers." Shakespearean Criticism. Ed. Laurie

         Harris. Detroit: Gale Research, 1984.

Forker, Charles R. "Symbolism in Shakespeare." Essays in Shakespearean Criticism.

         New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, 1970. 441-458.

Matus, Irvin L. Shakespeare: In Fact. New York: Continuum, 1994.

Shakespeare, William. Hamlet. The Complete Works of Shakespeare. Ed. David

         Bevington. 4th ed. New York: Addison-Wesley, 1997. 1060-1116.

Wilson, J. Dover. "What Happens in Hamlet." Shakespearean Criticsm. Ed. Laurie

         Harris. Detroit: Gale Research, 1984.

TOP OF THE PAGE

William Shakespeare is a very widely read playwright, even today, long after his death.

Many claim that the continued interest in his works is due to the fact that most people can

easily put themselves into the places of Shakespeare’s lead characters, understanding and

identifying with the motivation behind their actions. In reality, a mentally healthy person

usually will not be able to relate to many of Shakespeare’s lead characters because, as

their motivations and actions reveal, many of them had what are now diagnosed as serious

mental disorders and even psychoses.

One example of a lead character who obviously had mental disorders is Othello, from

Shakespeare’s tragedy Othello: The Moor of Venice. In the play, Iago tells Othello that his

wife, Desdemona, is having an affair with a man named Cassio. Though Desdemona has

always been good and chaste, and there is very little evidence to support the theory that

she is having an affair, Othello becomes convinced that it is true. No amount of reasoning

from Desdemona can convince him that she is actually faithful. Othello’s belief in her

affair with Cassio drives him to murder her. In Who’s Who in Shakespeare, Peter

Quennell states that Othello, "inhabits a nightmare world, where every thought is lethal

and every object is distorted" (204).

In How Therapists Diagnose, Dr. Bruce Hamstra describes this type of distorted thought

as a kind of psychotic disorder called delusional disorder, jealousy type. Hamstra explains

that a person who has this type of delusional disorder is one who wrongly believes that his

or her spouse or lover is having an affair and misinterprets benign things as evidence of

the affair (256).

Because of the fact that he murdered his wife, Othello could also be a good candidate for

explosive disorder. Hamstra describes people with this mental disorder as people who are

usually very pleasant and nonviolent, but who "grossly overreact to stressful situations,

interpersonal conflict, or perceived slights" (230-231). This obviously applies to Othello,

who exploded with rage because of a "perceived slight" by his wife. Also, even if

Desdemona had been cheating on him, murdering her would definitely be categorized as a

"gross overreaction."

Another example of a lead character who has delusional disorder, jealousy type, is

Leontes, the King of Sicilia from Shakespeare’s romance, The Winter’s Tale. Unlike

Othello, who at least had a small bit of evidence to fuel his delusion, Leontes suddenly

becomes convinced that his wife, Hermione, is having an affair with his friend since

childhood, Polixenes, although he has absolutely no reason to believe this or any evidence

to support it. He also has a delusion, which is also completely unfounded, that Hermione

has been conspiring with his friend Camillo to kill him. This delusion would fall under the

category of delusional disorder, persecutory type, because, as Hamstra describes the

disorder, it involves the false belief that one is being conspired against (255).

Even more evidence against Leontes’ mental sanity is the fact that he ordered his own

child killed because he wrongly believed that she was not his. Though he later decided

simply to abandon the baby in the woods, any person who would consider killing or

abandoning an innocent baby obviously has some severe mental disturbances, possibly

antisocial personality disorder.

Hamstra describes a person with antisocial personality disorder as someone who feels little

or no guilt or remorse for their actions, simply blaming others for bad behavior (276). This

describes how Leontes thinks nothing of allowing a baby to die just because it is not his,

and how he blames his ordered abandonment of the infant on his wife’s perceived

infidelity. People with this disorder also display callous disregard for others (276). Leontes

obviously displayed callous disregard for his wife as he threw her in jail and also showed

callous disregard for a helpless infant as he ordered her abandoned.

Shakespeare’s tragedy Macbeth is yet another example of a play that contains a mentally

ill lead character. In this play, Macbeth hears some witches make the prophecy that he

will become king. This, along with much prodding from his wife, who implies that he must

do whatever it takes to become king or else he is not a real man, drives him to murder

King Duncan, even though he knows that it is wrong. Much of the reason that Macbeth

committed the murder was to impress his wife, Lady Macbeth. Though deep down

Macbeth did not seem really to want to murder Duncan, who was a good king, he goes

against his feelings and moral standards and decides to become a murderer mainly

because of the pressure from his wife. This fact could very well indicate the presence of

dependent personality disorder in Macbeth. This disorder is described by Hamstra as a

disorder that results in a person avoiding responsibility for major life decisions, allowing

others to assume that power. People with this disorder also go to great lengths to win the

approval of others (288).

In Essays on Shakespeare, William Empson states that Macbeth tries to somehow "get

away from or hoodwink his consciousness and self-knowledge and do the deed without

knowing it." This behavior could signify a disorder called depersonalization disorder

where, according to Hamstra, a person feels outside of himself or herself for a short time

(189-190).

Though The Complete Works of Shakespeare claims that Macbeth "leaves us with little

assurance that we could resist his temptation" (1222), people free of mental disorders can

rest assured that they probably could.

Macbeth also contains another main character who suffers from mental disorders. Lady

Macbeth is obviously an ill person to tell her husband that it is all right to murder someone

to gain power. She feels she deserves to be queen and therefore uses her husband,

disregarding his feelings, to attain this. This behavior could signal that she has narcissistic

personality disorder, in which a person will have an overinflated view of himself or herself,

have no capacity to feel for, understand or consider the needs of others, and will often

carelessly use other people to achieve selfish purposes (Hamstra 283). Later in the play,

however Lady Macbeth begins to feel guilty about her actions. She thinks obsessively

about the murder, dreams of it as she sleepwaiks, and washes her hands repeatedly, trying

to get imagined blood off them. This behavior is that of a person with

obsessive-compulsive disorder. Someone with this disorder has obsessive thoughts and

repeats compulsively actions such as counting, checking and washing (Hamstra 177-178).

Even Lady Macbeth’s sleepwalking is the sign of a mental disorder called sleepwalking

disorder in which a person walks around and performs actions while he or she is asleep

(Hamstra 220).

In Shakespeare’s romance, The Tempest, a man named Prospero rules a small island.

Throughout the play he uses the power he has because of his slave spirit, Ariel, to try to

morally correct those around him. The Complete Works of Shakespeare states that, "Such

an assumption of godlike power is close to arrogance, even blasphemy, for Prospero is no

god." This type of behavior indicates that Prospero may have delusional disorder, much

like Shakespeare’s previously mentioned lead characters, Othello and Leontes. Unlike

those two, however, Prospero does not suffer from jealous type or persecutory type.

Instead, he seems to suffer from grandiose type, a disorder wherein people develop

delusions of grandeur (Hamstra 256). This disorder, which causes him to feel above

everyone else, is also probably the reason he feels that it is not morally wrong for him to

keep Ariel and the deformed witch’s child, Caliban, as his slaves.

Even Shakespeare’s comedies contain examples of mental illness. In his comedy Twelfth

Night or, What You Will, one of the main characters, Olivia, totally withdraws from

society to mourn the death of her brother. She is sad, rejects romance in favor of being

alone, wants her household to remain somber and seems to take some pleasure in her

self-denial. Though she lat recovers, her time spent mourning was probably a major depressive episode, a mood disorder defined by Hamstra as containing the symptoms of

sadness, isolation and failing to take pleasure in things that used to be enjoyed (157-158).

Orsino, who was wooing Olivia during her period of mourning, continues for a long period

to love her, although his affections are not returned. In fact, Olivia will not even receive

his messages. The Complete Works of William Shakespeare states that Orsino has not

seen Olivia in so long that "his passion has become unreal and fantastical, feeding on

itself’ (327). It seems that he goes on trying to win Olivia’s love simply for the sake that

he enjoys pitying himself because of his unrequited affections, not because of any real

hope of winning her.

Quennell describes Orsino as a man who "enjoys having a woman who rejects him: he

acclaims the ‘tyranny of love’ and prefers to lie on ‘beds of flowers’ thinking

‘love-thoughts’ rather than do anything" (201). This type of behavior is described by

Hamstra as self-defeating personality disorder, which is when a person purposely

"chooses people or enters into situations that are likely to bring on hurt and

disappointment" (295-296).

Sir Toby Belch, the drunken uncle of Olivia, spends the play concocting cruel tricks to play

on people. First, he tricks Sir Andrew Aguecheek, who looks up to him and is supposed to

be his friend, into believing that Olivia loves him. Sir Andrew ends up losing two thousand

pounds to Sir Toby as a result of this mean-spirited trick. Later, Sir Toby also tricks

Malvolio into believing that Olivia loves him, which results in Malvolio being proclaimed

insane and sent to jail. Malvolio is also very humiliated. Sir Andrew did absolutely nothing

to provoke Sir Toby’s cruelty. All Malvolio did was preach his morals to others and try to

break up any merriment, which may be annoying, but is definitely not grounds for the kind

of abuse he had to endure at the hands of Sir Toby and Maria, who helped with the

scheme.

Sir Toby’s actions could indicate a mild form of sadistic personality disorder. Hamstra

describes a person with this disorder as someone who takes a "perverse pleasure in the

suffering they inflict on others" (298). This suffering can be emotional or physical. People

with this disorder also have "a lack of empathy and respect for people. They work to

humiliate and demean others." (Hamstra 298). Though Maria and Sir Toby do not cause

others any physical pain, they do seem to delight in the emotional suffering that they have

inflicted on other people.

Shakespeare’s history play Julius Caesar also contains people who have mental disorders.

In the play, Cassius decides, for no reason and with no real evidence, that Caesar, a good

man and a good ruler, will soon turn into a tyrant. He pushes his belief on Brutus, who is

supposed to be Caesar’s friend who loves and admires him. Soon there is a whole land of

people believing in this ridiculous theory. The people in the group conspire to kill Caesar

and succeed. It is obvious that the conspirators in this play, like so many other characters

in several of Shakespeare’s other plays, suffer from delusional disorder.

Several of Shakespeare’s other plays also contain characters with mental disorders. In the

tragedy Romeo and Juliet, both the lead characters probably have some form of

depression, judging from the fact that they both kill themselves over each other, even

though they have only known one another for a week.

It is well known that in the tragedy Hamlet, Prince of Denmark, Ophelia goes insane and

drowns herself because Hamlet has rejected her love. Hamlet himself also goes crazy near

the end of the play. Quennell states, "The Prince may have at first feigned madness; but

as when he wantonly kills Polonius, and brutalizes the innocent Ophelia, something akin to

madness seems to gradually overtake him" (114).

Shakespeare also had different people in several of his plays described as "drunkards,"

such as Falstaff from the history plays 1 and 2 Henry IV and Henry V. A person who is

often drunk is usually diagnosed as an alcoholic, which is both a physical addiction and a

type of mental disorder.

Many characters who have mental disorders are spread throughout several of

Shakespeare’s plays. Each type of play, history, comedy, romance and tragedy, contains

these mentally disturbed people. So, while Shakespeare’s plays may be great insights into

the minds of the mentally ill, a mentally healthy person will probably not be able to relate

to or identify with the actions and motives of most of the characters in the majority of

Shakespeare’s plays.

TOP OF THE PAGE

WEEKLY SYLLABUS

BULLETIN BOARD