Dear Robin,
I've been following the discussion with great interest. I read your email this morning, and then
happened to come across the following entries in the Daily Occurence Docket of the Philadelphia
Almshouse. This entry is dated July 3rd, 1800.

"Eloped Matthew Richards, and notwithstanding his being seventy years of age, scaled the fence
this Morning by break of day. He had been out but a short time, when he was brought back in a
Cart, and he has now jumped it again; said Old man is much addicted to liquor for which reason and
the disturbance he makes in the streets when in that condition, has been often put into prison; he
has been here often, and always took this method getting out; his Wife who is a striving
industrious body, but cannot live with him on account of his frequent intoxications and abuse?but
rather than he should expose himself, and his family too, in the manner he does, she obtained an
Order of Admission for him the 31st of last May from James McGlathery and James Collings on
promising them at the same time, that she would call at this house every week & pay One dollar for
his board, which she has done. Credit Southwark."

Also, on June 26th of 1800:
"Admitted Charles Knockenower a German hath legal residence is much addicted to liquor, which
occasions temporary insanity and leaves him unfit to take care of himself; he was brought here in
a very bruised condition, per Order Isaac Tatem Hopper. Debit City.?

In general I have found this usage of "addicted" to be very rare in the medical literature of the
period. But, at the Philadelphia Almshouse anyway, it seems to have been common.
Best,
Matthew Osborn

On Tue, 5 Oct 2004 15:14:10 +0200
  Robin Room <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>Jay --
>   Thanks very much for this reference, which I found fascinating (also to 'cdiana' for the Henry
>IV part 2 quote).
>   A new and interesting idea to me in Kezar is the idea that the modern concept of addiction is
>formed at least as much around tobacco as around alcohol (Kezar is mainly concerned with
>interpreting Othello in terms of addiction to tobacco).  It makes some sense that it is the "new"
>drug of their age that the Elizabethans would have focused on in terms of its powers.
>   Kezar discusses the history of the term "addiction": "According to the Oxford English
>Dictionary, 'addiction' is invented by Othello in 1604."  As Jay notes, Kezar has turned up an
>earlier use (in 1599/1600), and notes forms of it were also in other intervening Shakespeare
>plays.  "It would be also be a mistake simply to conflate the word's modern usage with Otehllo's
>Early Modern meaning; not until 1779, according to the OED, is addiction used in the specific
>sense of 'a compulsion and need to continue taking a drug' (the drug that illustrates 'addiction'
>here is tobacco)."
>   But Kezar uses the OED to show that there was a "shift in usage from a legal sense derived
>from Roman law (to call to court or indict, to 'deliver over formally by sentence of a judge'...)
>to the increasingly common meaning of 'inclination, bent. Leaning, penchant, habit.'" In Henry V
>and Hamlet, Kezar argues, Shakespeare is using "addicted" or "addiction" in the "newer meaning".
> Kezar argues that the new uses of the word for "forces other than the law [again, he mentions
>the 'innovation of tobacco'] ... that nevertheless have a lawlike power to sentence behaviour.
>Addiction, a word that first appears only at the end of the 16th century, would seem to be the
>most concentrated form of this response; for the noun fuses the subject and object of habit, the
>subject and object of abuse."
>   What Kezar is saying, then, is that there are three meanings of "addiction" historically in
>English, with the modern drug-specific one only appearing in the Romantic/revolutionary period
>around 1800.  But the interesting implication in his analysis is that psychoactive substances
>(specifically tobacco) were the midwives of the second meaning in the Elizabethan period.  So the
>possibility of the more specific meaning was presumably always there, at least latently.
>   His analysis also taught me that the more extended meaning of "addiction" criticized by
>Stanton Peele and others is actually older than the restricted meaning.
>       Robin
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Alcohol and Drugs History Society
>[mailto:[log in to unmask]]On Behalf Of jay williams
>Sent: Monday, October 04, 2004 7:14 PM
>To: [log in to unmask]
>Subject: Alcoholism/addiction
>
>
>Consider also Dennis Kezar, "Shakespeare's Addictions," Critical Inquiry 30
>(Autumn 2003): 31-62. Kezar cites John Marston's 1599-1600 play Antonio and
>Mellida as one of the first instances of the "modern"-use of addiction. He
>also proposes an interesting definition or redefinition of addiction: "the
>emphatic ascription of agency and causality to time-bound matter that
>cannot completely support such investment." The word "completely" takes
>care of the question of chemistry, but he's more interested in the
>subject-position of the addict, the person who "appears so hopelessly
>confused about the boundaries between matter and metaphor."
>
>Jay Williams