SHAKESPEARE'S IGNORANCE.-Dr. Alderson. Dr. Alderson was the Author of an Essay upon Apparitions, in which, as usual, he refers Apparitions to a diseased state of the Brain, and after stating his cases, expresses himself thus :— "From what I have related, it will be seen why it should happen, that only one at a time ever could see a Ghost, and here we may lament that our celebrated Poet, whose knowledge of Nature is every Englishman's boast, had not known such cases, and their causes, as I have related; he would not then, perhaps, have made his Ghosts visible and audible on the stage. Every expression, every look, in Macbeth and Hamlet, is perfectly natural and consistent with men so agitated, and quite sufficient to convince us of what they suffer, see, and hear; but it must be evident that the disease being confined to the individual, such object must be seen and heard only by the individual " Thus far Dr. Alderson. Nevertheless, that Shakespeare, both in his Macbeth and in his Hamlet, has shewn himself fully conversant with the Disease Theory, the following passages will evince. "MACBETH. Is this a dagger which I see before me, The Handle toward my Hand? come, let me clutch th e: I have thee not, and yet I see thee still. Art thou not, fatal vision, sensible To feeling, as to sight? or art thou but A dagger of the mind, a false creation, Proceeding from the heat-oppressed Brain?" Again, Lady Macbeth exclaims "O proper stuff! This is the very painting of your fear." Also, the Queen in Hamlet "This is the very coinage of your brain, This bodiless creation ecstacy Seeing then that Shakespeare did know of such a theory as Dr. Alderson's, a few remarks will be offered upon it. According to that theory then, we are to think that Disease is the efficient cause of Apparitions. Now, let it be observed, that an eye, in the course of nature, is the organ of seeing. Forms and colors seem to require an eye, on which they shall be imprest, in order that they may be seen. But here we have a set of cases in which certain Forms and Colors become visible which yet are evidently not imprest upon the Retina of the bodily eye, and then the conclusion is at once jumpt at, that they are mere Images in the brain, having no Objective Reality whatsoever. Nay, more, it must be a diseased brain. It does not avail for you to point out, that in many cases the visions are beautiful to the eye, and also that beautiful Music is perceived, which seems to require an Ear: all must be referred to Disease as the efficient cause. Such are the things which the Incredulous can bring themselves to believe. Beautiful Forms and beautiful Sounds, tho' in themselves essentially Order, are thus held to spring from Disorder. All this, however, is only assertion, and no real reason has yet been given why the Apparitions and the Sounds. should not be impressions upon the Ghostly Eye and Ear, and from objects in the Spiritual World, which is the proper habitation of the Ghost, as the material world is of the body "the gross dimension," "the muddy vesture of decay." Dr. Alderson begs the question altogether when he asserts that Apparitions are never seen but by one person at a time, and that one in an abnormal state. But grant that it were so, that would not at all touch the question of the Objective Reality. Why should not the Disease be the occasional cause only, and not the efficient one. In nervous states, the senses which deal with the external world are often so highly raised, that, for instance, a conversation taking place in a remote part of the house, shall be heard perfectly, which could not have been heard at all had the person been in a normal state. So the Disease, disturbing for awhile the harmony between the Ghost and the body, causes the former to have its perceptions more or less opened, to the objects of its own proper world. Again, when real Objectivity is spoken of, it must never be forgotten, that even in the material world there are very different kinds of Realities, and this is a point which we have never seen at all met, or, apparently, even dreamt of, by the skeptics. A Phantasmagoria is real, yet not really what it seems to be; and a Portrait is a real representation of a man, altho' it is not a real Man. Now allow that the Spiritual World, being also the world of Causes, must, as such, have its real representations of its Realities, and all the difficulties attendant upon waking or other dreams, will fast begin to vanish. In the meanwhile, we may rest assured of one thing: namely, that whatever Shakespeare has done, it has not been from such ignorance as Dr. Alderson has attributed to him. SHAKESPEARE AND HIS SPIRIT OF INQUIRY. We have seen then, that it was certainly not from ignorance on Shakespeare's part, that in his great work he has a Ghost who is visible, not only to one, but to three persons at once. Perhaps it was from knowledge, for how is it possible to believe that so great an Artist did not use every means for thinking justly upon supernatural themes, while writing upon them, to say nothing of the possibility of his even having had experimental evidence in his own person. However, be that as it may, he well knew what the true Spirit of Inquiry should be. Hamlet's words, "There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, are continually quoted, but I would call special attention to the lines immediately preceding these. When Horatio exclaims, "O day and night, but this is wondrous strange," Hamlet makes this fine rejoinder, "And therefore as a stranger give it welcome." A piece of advice utterly at variance with the feelings and practice of all the persons who write against the supernatural or indeed anything else that to them seems strange. To the Ghost-Believers it appears that the true Spirit of Inquiry is embodied in this single line. Welcoming the strange fact, gives it its chance of being admitted as a Truth, if it really be such: Welcoming it as a stranger will secure us from being ultimately imposed upon. We believe that Shakespeare, as a Philosopher and an Artist, acted upon the Axiom he has assigned to Hamlet, and we lament that the very contrary is the almost universal practice. SHAKESPEARE AND "OUR PHILOSOPHICAL PERSONS." In "All's well that ends well," Shakespeare has made the old Lord, Lafeu, exactly characterize that unphilosophical Skepticism, which sets itself above the wise Axiom allotted to Hamlet; at the same time he administers a grave rebuke. "LAFEU. They say, Miracles are past, and we have our philosophical persons, to make modern and familiar, things supernatural and causeless. Hence is it, that we make trifles of terrors, and ensconce ourselves into seeming knowledge, when we should submit to an unknown fear."* 66 How justly does this passage censure that spirit, which assuming to be philosophical, explains away the operations of the Internal World into States of the Brain, Deceptions of the Senses, or Impostures. This is, indeed, ensconcing themselves into seeming knowledge," on the part of the "philosophical persons," who really ought to know that every true thing is simulated, and that indeed the simulation is in itself a testimony to some underlying truth. Mr. Coleridge has made a remark upon Shakespeare's use of the word "causeless" in Lafeu's speech, which I will here transcribe. (6 Shakespeare, inspired, as it might seem, with all wisdom, here uses the word "Causeless," in its strict philosophical sense, (cause being truly predicable only of Phenomena, that is, things natural, and not of Noumena, or things supernatural.)" This is an excellent observation of Mr. Coleridge's, and * This passage is generally printed with the comma after "things," instead of after "familiar," a most unfortunate mistake. "Modern" is here used by Shakespeare for "common." |