Page:The Green Bag (1889–1914), Volume 12.pdf/258

 An Argument for Hamlet. disputing with her brother the place of first or greatest mourner, might he not have been unconsciously influenced by an idea of atone ment? In Horatio, Hamlet found and immediately recognized a true friend; one who satisfied, as far as it was in the power of a single per son to do so, his craving for intelligent sym pathy. He acted freely with this friend alone, not only because he has with him the secret imparted by the ghost, but chiefly because he felt that Horatio understood his nature and appreciated the motives by which he was influenced. Horatio, at first, feared that the prince in his excitement at seeing the ghost would be led to the brink of mad ness or beyond. Later he exhibited no dis trust of his friend's sanity, for he knew the apparent frenzy under which he labored had an adequate, explicable cause. To Horatio, Hamlet was sweet and noble, worthy of his admiration, love' and devotion; not a lunatic who should be either feared and avoided, or carefully guarded. Again the plans which were fully formet! and skilfully carried out by Hamlet, were the result of intellect and thought, not of in sane cunning; and the readiness with which he made use of circumstances shows a mind under complete control. This is specially the case in regard to the players, through whose presence he quickly found a means to prove to his own satisfaction the king's guilt. He embarked for England without protest, in charge of Rosencrantz and Guildenstern, but presently made good his escape by a pre arranged plan which included the punishment of these false friends; he considered them despicable and treacherous, and the desire to bring retribution upon them and to foil the King's project against himself, explains his assumed willingness to take, the journey, an attitude otherwise lending color to the theory of insanity. The Prince's irresolution of itself, or by its nature offers a strong evidence of a mind capable of reason and intelligent thought.

231

The insane are vacillating, capricious and for getful, but never can be strictly called irres olute. That state of mind implies thought upon a certain plan of action in connection with an ability, as well as a tendency to pre sent deterrent reasons. The insane are never prevented from carrying out an idea of which they have become possessed, by any reason ing against it deduced entirely from their own minds. Fear may teach them caution and lead them to exhibit a pertinent cunning in what they do or attempt to do : but it is the unreasoning fear said to be shown by wild animals when first brought into the pre sence of a human being, a fear superinduced by a superiority instinctively recognized. Hamlet did not fear to act; when he was finally convinced that it was his right and duty to avenge his father's death he hesitated because he shrank from murder, and also be cause he was doubtful of methods as well as of results. Moreover, he did not dwell sim ply upon one phase of his trouble; he made it the subject of serious contemplation and was thus constantly tempted to wander from the great point at issue; it was, in short, reflection that made him a waverer— "The native hue of resolution Was sicklied o'er with the pale cast of thought."

Again a certain deliberateness may be dis covered in all the acts of a lunatic, even in those resulting from a sudden impulse. That is, their action is preceded by positive in tention. Hamlet's deeds, on the other hand, may be called accidental. Through an acci dental impulse he killed Polonius. Through accident he caused the death of Rosencrantz and Guildenstern. Finally, accident led him at last to deal the king a mortal blow. If Hamlet, subjected as he was to the influence of supernatural powers, and goaded to de spair by a sense of his wrongs and sorrows, had become really insane no time would have been given him for irresolution, as his desire to murder the king would have been uncon trollable and the play as written impossible.