Does Shakespeare make us fear bad skin?

A new study by British dermatologists draws a connection between the bad attitude shown towards skin conditions in Shakespeare's works and the way we think of it today.

|
Courtesy of Manuel Harlan/Brooklyn Academy of Music
Ian McKellan (l.) and William Gaunt (r.) star in a production of 'King Lear' at the Royal Shakespeare Company Compete Works Festival.

Do we have a negative view of acne because of the writings of Shakespeare?

A study by dermatologists in the UK recently examined whether our culture views skin blemishes negatively because of the amount of negative writings in Shakespeare’s plays about skin conditions.

“While Shakespeare may not have accepted Elizabethan society’s negativity towards skin disease, it can be argued that his success has led to its perpetuation,” the study reads.

The dermatologists note that many of the Bard’s works include people insulting others by mentioning skin conditions or by trying to curse someone with a skin affliction. A character says he wishes “a pox upon” another character in “All’s Well That Ends Well,” while in the text of “King John,” one character says that if another was “patch’d with foul moles and eye-offending marks, then I should not love thee, nor thou become thy great birth, nor deserve a crown.” However, they write that the playwright does say in “Hamlet” that those with skin conditions are not evil because of them, writing, “that for some vicious mole of nature in them, as in their birth – wherein they are not guilty, since nature cannot choose hisorigin – 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.”

Fear of those with skin conditions arose from the dangers of diseases like the plague, write the dermatologists.

“Tell-tale cutaneous signs heightened the fear of contagion,” they wrote. 

According to the Telegraph, British Association of Dermatologists member Nina Goad urged that the attitude not be passed down to future generations.

“Even now, many examples exist in films and literature where visible disfigurements are used to represent villainy or malice,” she said. “This is particularly concerning when such films are aimed at children, who learn that beautiful, flawless people are kind and trustworthy, and scarred or blemished people are to be feared. Nobody is suggesting that we edit Shakespeare, but maybe we should ensure that new films and books don't reinforce this stereotype.” 

However, some are doubtful of the dermatologists’ connection between Shakespeare and fear of skin afflictions. Guardian writer Alison Flood wrote that she found the conclusion “a stretch.”

“It sort of assumes we might not have noticed that skin diseases aren't exactly the most pleasant thing in the world, if it wasn't for Mercutio gasping ‘A plague on both your houses,’” she wrote. 

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.
Real news can be honest, hopeful, credible, constructive.
What is the Monitor difference? Tackling the tough headlines – with humanity. Listening to sources – with respect. Seeing the story that others are missing by reporting what so often gets overlooked: the values that connect us. That’s Monitor reporting – news that changes how you see the world.

Dear Reader,

About a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”:

“Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.”

If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.

But you know what? We change lives. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in.

The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908.

We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. And we can prove it.”

If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to CSMonitor.com.

QR Code to Does Shakespeare make us fear bad skin?
Read this article in
https://www.csmonitor.com/Books/chapter-and-verse/2014/0702/Does-Shakespeare-make-us-fear-bad-skin
QR Code to Subscription page
Start your subscription today
https://www.csmonitor.com/subscribe