Nashville Union And American

Dr. Callender's Reply to Rev. T. A.
Hoyt
The announcement of a lecture last
night by Dr. Callender, upon the "Insanity
of Hamlet," was sufficient to fill McClure's
Hall with a large and highly intelligent
audience. The interest that would natural-
ly be aroused to listen to the discussion of
such a subject by one of the most forcible
and elegant writers, and at the same time
one of the greatest in the world in treating
and detecting insanity, was in this instance
heightened by the fact that a discussion
upon the same subject, and the conse-
quence thereof, is one of the most interest-
ing episodes in Charles Reade's novel of
Hard Cash. It will be remembered by the
readers of that book that Alfred Hardie is
falsely imprisoned as insane by his father,
in order to prevent the disclosure of his
father's evil conduct, and his statements of
his father's misdoings, to which he had
been an eye witness, are made by his
father the evidence of his lunacy.
Dr. Wycherly, one of the custodians of
Alfred in a private insane asylum, is de-
scribed as a collector of mad people, who
accounted for the idiosyncracies of nearly
all the great dead by attributing to them
various phases of insanity, but without in-
tending any disrespect to any of these gen-
tlemen, he assigned the golden crown of
insanity to Hamlet. He offered proofs, but
Alfred declined the subject as too puerile.
"A man must exist before he can be in-
sane," said the Oxford philosopher. The
rest of the episode is hardly applicable to
the lecture of last night.
The proofs which Dr.
Callender adduced in support of his theory were
too convincing; and as to the idea advanced
by Alfred Hardie that a man must
exist before he can be insane, as if to
anticipate this objection, his opening sen-
tences were to the effect that the portrayals
of character in Shakspeare's plays
were so real, so life-like and so true to
nature that they had as real and as im-
mortal an existence as though they had ac-
tually lived. Of all these characters, Hamlet
was the most remarkable, and had been
the subject of volumes of criticism. His
character could only be considered under
three heads.
First, was Hamlet, gifted by nature and
of noble lineage, simply doubting and a
dastard under pressure of trying circum-
stances?
Second, did he, under the pressure of
circumstances, feign insanity in order better
to accomplish his plans?
Third, was he so wrought upon and per-
plexed by his terrific surroundings that he
actually became insane?
Dr. Callender maintained that the last
proposition presented the only true solu-
tion of his character. It is a curious fact
known only to few that metaphysicians
have less knowledge of the mind than do
poets and writers of fiction. To study
insanity one would not look to the pages of
Locke or Sir Wm. Hamilton so soon as to
Shakspeare or Sir Walter Scott. The reason
is that metaphysicians study mind in the
abstract, novelists in the concrete. The one
looks at the general laws which control the
operations of the mind, while the other
studies with care the individual minds which
come under his observation.
Shakspeare had peculiar difficulties to
contend with. He had to divest himself
of many popular delusions, which existed
then and still exist concerning insanity and
he had few opportunities for observation.
He did observe some cases of insanity, it is
true, but he did it as the comparative
anatomist observes a single fossil bone from
which he can reconstruct the entire animal
as it lived in ages past. So, Shakspeare
was able to infer from the symptoms of in-
sanity which he saw, the existence and
nature of other symptoms which he had not
seen, appreciating both the wildness and
disorder and the melancholy and dejection,
which are its characteristics.
No other writer has succeeded like
Shakspeare in the delineation of insanity,
although many have attempted it. Compare
Shakspeare with Fletcher, of Beaumont &
Fletcher. The Jailer's Daughter, of the
latter, is but a feeble imitation of Ophelia,
showing in every respect an extravagance
of thought and a constant dwelling upon
the cause of her derangement, far more
characteristic of simulated than real
insanity. Lear, in his calmer moments,
often talks of the character of his daughter,
but never when raving mad. To give
individual scenes is easy, but it requires
genius to delineate the method in madness.
In the hands of inferior writers, madness is
made to appear too much like a continued
existence of derangement. They omit to
notice and preserve the glimmerings of
intellect that manifest themselves. Thus,
when Gloster accosts Lear, asking, "Is not
that the King?" he answers proudly, "Ay,
every inch a King," and feels within himself
for the moment his royalty, but soon falls
to raving again. The jailor's daughter of
Fletcher is gross, and of the earth, earthly.
She is only a poor mad woman, whom the
boys would pelt with stones, and in the
delineation of her character there are none
of those exquisite touches with which
Shakspeare has adorned his conception of
Ophelia.
Hamlet, as the picture of a disordered
Intellect, attracts the attention of all readers.
It is singular that until within a few years
his insanity was regarded by all the critics
as feigned. It is difficult to see the
foundation for this opinion unless it be that
it has been handed down from one
generation to another like an heir-loom.
In the second act his genuine insanity can
readily be detected in the impression it has
made upon the King, who says to
Rosencrantz and Guildenstern:
Something have you heard of Hamlet's
transformation: so I call it since not the ex-
terior, nor the inward man that it was.
And a little later in the same scene
Polonius reports to the Queen:
Your noble son's mad:
Mad call I it: for to define this madness.
What is't but to be nothing else than mad.
In his confidential interview with his old
friends, Rosencrantz and Guildenstern,
whom, had he been feigning insanity, he
would have been most anxious to deceive,
a true insanity is clearly manifested, while
in Polonius' description of his symptoms is
a perfect picture of real madness.
And he repulsed (a short tale to make)
Till into a sadness; then into a fast;
Thence to a watch; thence into a weakness;
Thence to a lightness; and, by this declension
Into the madness wherein now he raves,
And all we mourn for.
No medical work so accurately and vividly
describes the symptoms of true insanity as
do these six lines. The lecturer said there
was one man in the audience (referring to
Dr. Cheatham) who could appreciate the
justice of this description, and probably but
one.
The fault of the reasoning of those who
argue that Hamlet was only simulating
insanity, lies in a misunderstanding of the
nature of the case. If one who simulates
insanity could act real insanity, he would
not deceive those whom he wished to. The
records of jurisprudence show that while
many simulators have escaped in criminal
prosecutions, many really insane have
suffered. The manifestations of the real
disease are not obtruded upon us, and may
escape the attention of any but trained
observers for months and years. It is in the
power of simulators to figure overt acts, but
the perversion of the moral affections and
the earnestness of the belief in the delusion
which characterize true insanity, are beyond
the power of simulation.
Some critics take a kind of eclectic view
of the character of Hamlet. They concede
that his misfortunes and the circumstances
of his life cast a cloud upon his mind, but
are reluctant to ascribe to madness those
profound reflections upon the deepest
problems of life. These persons do not know
the fact that madness is perfectly compatible
with some of the highest manifestations of
the human intellect. Hamlet's mental
condition furnishes abundant pathological
and intellectual proof of madness, and the
assumption of this fact throws a flood of
light upon his character. The trouble is that
Shakspeare's knowledge of character was
more profound than that of his critics. The
cause of the failure of the critics to
understand Hamlet's character is because
they have overlooked the pathological
element working in his intellect.
Hamlet was not naturally weak and
indecisive, as shown in his actions. He
instantly and resolutely follows the ghost. In
his killing of Polonius he shows no lack of
MADE TO ORDER!
Now is the time to leave
your Measure for Fine Dress
and Business Shirts, made of
the very best Materials and
at Prices within the reach
of all, at
HUNTINGTON'S
Opposite the Maxwell House.
feb17"eod2w 4thp
energy.
His will was strong by nature, but
paralyzed by disease. In one interview with
Ophelia he manifests that the strong, deep
currents of his mind have been turned to
eddies and whirlpools. His strongest
thoughts have turned with doubts that
torture the diseased mind. He can talk but
not act, and can support the strongest
actions by the weakest reasons.
Hamlet differs from Lear, in that the suc-
cessive steps of madness are not so strongly
marked. An acute general mania like that
of Lear, in his character, would have been
out of place. Simply to have been a
monomaniac would not have been enough.
He is mad enough to excite attention, but
yet with sufficient power of intellect to plan
if not to execute. The poet made him a man
of refined and cultivated intellect, in whose
character the manifestations of disease are
not always easy to distinguish.
After the death of his father his mind is
affected with depression, manifested in his
response to the King-
"A little more than kin and less than kind."
In the next scene the depression has entered
deeper into his soul, and there are indica-
tions of the torture. In the scenes with his
mother this disease is about increasing,
while a moment after bewailing the outward
things, he harbors thoughts of self-
destruction in the famous soliloquy
commencing:
"Oh, that this too, too solid, flesh would melt."
It is a stroke of genius that Shakspeare
attributed to Hamlet in this and other
soliloquies thoughts common to all afflicted
with melancholy. In Hamlet's first interview
with Ophelia there was not a word spoken.
Only looks and actions, and only she who
witnessed them could decide whether they
were the simulation of insanity or the
involuntary indications of real madness.
These she describes in such a manner as to
leave no doubt of the impression in her
mind:
"With his doublet all unbraced;
No hat upon his head; his stockings fouled,
Ungartered and down gyved to his ankle;
Pale as his shirt, his knees knocking each other."
His piteous reading of her face and all his
actions were the strongest proof of his
insanity. We can as little believe this to
have been a sham as we could the wailing
of a new born infant, or the hectic blush of
consumption. Such actions might deceive a
man, but not the vigilant eye of woman's
love. Such scenes with madmen have
transpired a thousand times in real life,
when they have thrust themselves into the
presence of their mistresses, as Hamlet did.
and Ophelia's perception of the truth is ex-
pressed in the lines,
"O, what a mind is here o'erthrown.
Now, see that noble and most sovereign reason,
Like sweet bells jangled out of tune and harsh."
It had been said that the conduct of
Hamlet towards Polonius and the King,
and his language to them savors more of
malice than of madness, but nothing is more
characteristic of the insane than annoying
anything or person they dislike, and in
doing so they display a malice, ingenuity
and readiness seldom rivalled by the sane.
Had Hamlet been sane, his actions would
not have been consistent with his character.
In his interview with Rosencrantz and
Guildenstern, who had been his former
friends, he shows his true character with an
occasional burst of insanity, such as that.
"O God! I could be bounded in a nutshell and
count myself a King of infinite space, were it
not that I have bad dreams."
It is well known that insanity is always
accompanied by absence of sleep.
If Hamlet had been simulating and
anxious to spread the belief of his madness,
he would not have neglected this opportunity.
But in his outburst, "this most excellent
canopy, the air, look you, this brave
overhanging firmament, this majestical roof
fretted with golden fire. why, it appears no
other thing to me than a foul and pestilent
congregation of vapors." we have a vivid
picture of his mental condition in the
deepening shadow of an eclipse.
Like every other person he was far from
considering himself insane. That he is able
to continue the plan of the players only
shows that he was yet in the initial stage of
madness, before the intellectual faculties
had shared in that derangement which had
already attacked the moral senses.
Hamlet's treatment of Ophelia can only
be explained on the ground of madness, and
that change which insanity brings over the
affections of the heart, by which the golden
chains of love and kindness are broken.
In the scene following the famous soliloquy,
"To be or not to be," when Ophelia returns
to him his gifts, we see how the current of
his life is changed. The courtesy of the
gentleman and the tenderness of the lover
are gone, and in their place is the very gall
of bitterness. How very natural this is on
the supposition of insanity, and how un-
natural it is if he was acting a part. To do
violence to his affections in such a matter
would have been beyond his power. So also
in the scene with his mother, the vivid
emotion displayed would be beyond the
power of the most skillful actor. Like most
insane people, he repels the idea that he is
mad, and proposes as a test to repeat what
he had said: but this is no evidence of his
sanity. In chronic dementia one cannot
remember what was said, but in some cases
the power to repeat is not lost. His conduct
towards Ophelia was madness in its purest
sense.
The final events of the play finish the
story of Hamlet, and the shattered wreck of
a once noble intellect ceases to exist.
Dr. Callender concluded the lecture with a
brief but most touching and eloquent de-
scription of the madness of Ophelia, in
which he pictured her moving sadly about
the court, singing snatches of her sweet
songs, with no method in her madness, and
fading swiftly like a flower, spared by the
loss of reason the realization of the sorrows
of her life.