Steven Weissman and Hannah's Complaint

[c***@ttu.edu]

Hi all,

Yes, I'm still alive, and in the process of reading the Weissman bio,
which is apparently being well received in Europe. While I
congratulate Weissman for finishing this book, which he started
researching many years ago, I am not entirelyf enthusiastic about some
of his arguments. He does offer some intriguing and plausible
suggestions about Hannah's ambition and her attempt to advance herself
through her relationships with men, but I am not sure why Weissman
thinks it is so important to argue that her mental breakdown was
caused by syphillis. This is of course possible, but if she indeed
returned to England in 1885 both recently infected with syphillis and
pregnant with her first son Sydney, as Weissman argues, then why
wasn't Sydney born with congenital syphillis, since the disease is
highly contagious during the early stages? Weissman claims that women
infected with syphillis do not necessarily pass it on to their
children, but that is true mainly during the latency period following
stages 1 and 2.

Syphillis was commonplace among artists in the nineteenth century, so
it would not be surprising if Hannah conttracted it, but what
difference does this make to our understanding of Cha[lin's life and
films? The fact that Chaplin took precautions against STD. or that
Calvero suspected that Terry might have contracted syphillis, hardly
need to be explained by Hannah's supposed case of it. We don't need to
theorize that Shakespeare's mother had syphillis in order to account
for the many references to the "French fisease" in his plays.

Since one doctor did diagnose Hannah with syphillis, this fact can
reasonably be included in a biography, but I don't see it having the
importance Weissman seems to attach to it.

Connie K.

[Derek Gee]

Post by c***@ttu.edu
Hi all,
Yes, I'm still alive, and in the process of reading the Weissman bio,
which is apparently being well received in Europe. While I
congratulate Weissman for finishing this book, which he started
researching many years ago, I am not entirelyf enthusiastic about some
of his arguments. He does offer some intriguing and plausible
suggestions about Hannah's ambition and her attempt to advance herself
through her relationships with men, but I am not sure why Weissman
thinks it is so important to argue that her mental breakdown was
caused by syphillis. This is of course possible, but if she indeed
returned to England in 1885 both recently infected with syphillis and
pregnant with her first son Sydney, as Weissman argues, then why
wasn't Sydney born with congenital syphillis, since the disease is
highly contagious during the early stages? Weissman claims that women
infected with syphillis do not necessarily pass it on to their
children, but that is true mainly during the latency period following
stages 1 and 2.
Syphillis was commonplace among artists in the nineteenth century, so
it would not be surprising if Hannah conttracted it, but what
difference does this make to our understanding of Cha[lin's life and
films? The fact that Chaplin took precautions against STD. or that
Calvero suspected that Terry might have contracted syphillis, hardly
need to be explained by Hannah's supposed case of it. We don't need to
theorize that Shakespeare's mother had syphillis in order to account
for the many references to the "French fisease" in his plays.
Since one doctor did diagnose Hannah with syphillis, this fact can
reasonably be included in a biography, but I don't see it having the
importance Weissman seems to attach to it.
Connie K.

Welcome back, Connie! There seems to be very few left reading this
newsgroup, so don't be surprised if you don't get too many responses to your
post.

Derek

[c***@ttu.edu]

On Dec 31 2009, 10:21 pm, "Derek Gee"

Post by c***@ttu.edu
Hi all,
Yes, I'm still alive, and in the process of reading the Weissman bio,
which is apparently being well received in Europe. While I
congratulate Weissman  for finishing this book, which he started
researching many years ago, I am not entirelyf enthusiastic about some
of his arguments. He does offer some intriguing and plausible
suggestions about Hannah's ambition and her attempt to advance herself
through her relationships with men, but I am not sure why Weissman
thinks it is so important to argue that her mental breakdown was
caused by syphillis. This is of course possible, but if she indeed
returned to England in 1885 both recently infected with syphillis and
pregnant with her first son Sydney, as Weissman argues, then why
wasn't Sydney born with congenital syphillis, since the disease is
highly contagious during the early stages?  Weissman claims that women
infected with syphillis do not necessarily pass it on to their
children, but that is true mainly during the latency period following
stages 1 and 2.
Syphillis was commonplace among artists in the nineteenth century, so
it would not be surprising if Hannah conttracted it, but what
difference does this make to our understanding of Cha[lin's life and
films? The fact that Chaplin took precautions against STD. or that
Calvero suspected that Terry might have contracted syphillis, hardly
need to be explained by Hannah's supposed case of it. We don't need to
theorize that Shakespeare's mother had syphillis in order to account
for the many references to the "French fisease" in his plays.
Since one doctor did diagnose Hannah with syphillis, this fact can
reasonably be included in a biography, but I don't see it having the
importance Weissman seems to attach to it.
Connie K.

Welcome back, Connie!  There seems to be very few left reading this
newsgroup, so don't be surprised if you don't get too many responses to your
post.
Derek- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -

Hi Derek. Delighted to see you're still here. I imagine a few others
will check in eventually if there's something they want to discuss.
I also see Steve is busy promoting his book, so I decided to put out
some bait.

Connie K.

[yrow]

Post by c***@ttu.edu
Hi all,
Yes, I'm still alive, and in the process of reading the Weissman bio,
which is apparently being well received in Europe. While I
congratulate Weissman  for finishing this book, which he started
researching many years ago, I am not entirelyf enthusiastic about some
of his arguments. He does offer some intriguing and plausible
suggestions about Hannah's ambition and her attempt to advance herself
through her relationships with men, but I am not sure why Weissman
thinks it is so important to argue that her mental breakdown was
caused by syphillis. This is of course possible, but if she indeed
returned to England in 1885 both recently infected with syphillis and
pregnant with her first son Sydney, as Weissman argues, then why
wasn't Sydney born with congenital syphillis, since the disease is
highly contagious during the early stages?  Weissman claims that women
infected with syphillis do not necessarily pass it on to their
children, but that is true mainly during the latency period following
stages 1 and 2.
Syphillis was commonplace among artists in the nineteenth century, so
it would not be surprising if Hannah conttracted it, but what
difference does this make to our understanding of Cha[lin's life and
films? The fact that Chaplin took precautions against STD. or that
Calvero suspected that Terry might have contracted syphillis, hardly
need to be explained by Hannah's supposed case of it. We don't need to
theorize that Shakespeare's mother had syphillis in order to account
for the many references to the "French fisease" in his plays.
Since one doctor did diagnose Hannah with syphillis, this fact can
reasonably be included in a biography, but I don't see it having the
importance Weissman seems to attach to it.
Connie K.

There are two separate but inter-connected issues in your recent
post:
#1:the diagnostic accuracy of Hannah Chaplin’s psychiatric problems
#2:the relevance of those psychiatric condition(s) to her son’s life
and films
***************************
As to the first issue, you write: “I am not sure why Weissman
thinks
it is so important to argue that her mental breakdown was 
caused by
syphilis.”

Actually, Weissman says he thinks that Hannah’s initial psychotic
episode was caused by a combination of third-stage neuro-syphilis
(based on the admitting physician’s official diagnosis) and severe
malnutrition (based on her impressionable young son’s painful
recollections of their horrific living conditions at the time of that
first breakdown).

Dr. Weissman then pointsout that all of Hannah Chaplin’s subsequent
breakdowns occurred at much more financially prosperous times later
in her life when she was no longer suffered from malnutition

Weissman therefore concludes that a fundamental (and chronically
progressive) underlying psychiatric illness—other than hunger and
starvation--has to be evoked diagnostically as the primary cause of
those chronic and recurrent psychotic episodes that followed over
the years. (A late-life photo of her in Chaplin A Life clearly
reveals Hannah was well nourished).

And so, what do you think Hannah Chaplin’s psychosis was caused
by?

Kenneth Lynn’s (retrospective and non-medically trained) armchair
diagnosis of Hannah Chaplin’s mental breakdown was schizophrenia.
“Doctor” Joyce Milton’s was manic-depression.

What’s yours? And upon what evidence do you base your diagnosis?
*********************************************
As to the second (related) issue of relevance, you write:

“what 
difference does this [Weissman’s diagnosis of psychosis caused
by neuro-syphilis] make to our understanding of Chaplin's life and
films?”

Your last sweeping generalization about the irrelevance of this
mother’s psychiatric diagnosis to understanding Chaplin life and art
is a matter of opinion. There is legitimate room for honest
disagreement between other highly respected Chaplin experts (like
yourself).

What are some of their opinions?

In his introduction to Stephen Weissman’s original essay (Charlie
Chaplin’s Film Heroines) about Hannah Chaplin’s mental breakdown--
which he gave a place of prominence in his seminal collection of
Chaplin essays (The Essential Chaplin. 2006)—the film critic Richard
Schickel writes: “This essay, though ostensibly about Chaplin’s
portrayal of women in his films, is more important for its persuasive
speculation about his mother’s sudden and mysterious illness, with its
disastrous effects on Chaplin’s childhood. So far as I know, no one
else has offered so radical (and tragic) an interpretation of this
formative experience in Chaplin’s life.”


In her introduction to Chaplin A Life, Charplin’s daughter echoes that
same view (read the book).

Go figure!
*********************************
Finally, you conclude: “The fact that Chaplin took precautions against
STD. or that 
Calvero suspected that Terry might have contracted
syphillis, hardly 
need to be explained by Hannah's supposed case of
it.”

I strongly suspect that you have no intellectual problem whatsoever
in attributing Chaplin’s scene of being driven mad by hunger in The
Gold Rush to his childhood experiences in that department but that
you balk when it comes to Chaplin’s referring to his ballerina
mother’s syphilis in Limelight and Footlights (the novel) as
autobiographical. Is that correct? If so, what’s that about?

[c***@ttu.edu]

Post by yrow

Post by c***@ttu.edu
Hi all,
Yes, sI'm still alive, and in the process of reading the Weissman bio,
which is apparently being well received in Europe. While I
congratulate Weissman  for finishing this book, which he started
researching many years ago, I am not entirelyf enthusiastic about some
of his arguments. He does offer some intriguing and plausible
suggestions about Hannah's ambition and her attempt to advance herself
through her relationships with men, but I am not sure why Weissman
thinks it is so important to argue that her mental breakdown was
caused by syphillis. This is of course possible, but if she indeed
returned to England in 1885 both recently infected with syphillis and
pregnant with her first son Sydney, as Weissman argues, then why
wasn't Sydney born with congenital syphillis, since the disease is
highly contagious during the early stages?  Weissman claims that women
infected with syphillis do not necessarily pass it on to their
children, but that is true mainly during the latency period following
stages 1 and 2.
Syphillis was commonplace among artists in the nineteenth century, so
it would not be surprising if Hannah conttracted it, but what
difference does this make to our understanding of Cha[lin's life and
films? The fact that Chaplin took precautions against STD. or that
Calvero suspected that Terry might have contracted syphillis, hardly
need to be explained by Hannah's supposed case of it. We don't need to
theorize that Shakespeare's mother had syphillis in order to account
for the many references to the "French fisease" in his plays.
Since one doctor did diagnose Hannah with syphillis, this fact can
reasonably be included in a biography, but I don't see it having the
importance Weissman seems to attach to it.
Connie K.

There are two separate but inter-connected issues in your recent
#1:the diagnostic accuracy of Hannah Chaplin’s psychiatric problems
#2:the   relevance of those psychiatric condition(s) to her son’s life
and films
***************************
As to the first issue, you write: “I am not sure why Weissman
thinks
it is so important to argue that her mental breakdown was 
caused by
syphilis.”
Actually,  Weissman says he thinks  that Hannah’s  initial psychotic
episode was caused by a combination of third-stage  neuro-syphilis
(based on the admitting physician’s official  diagnosis) and severe
malnutrition (based on her impressionable young son’s  painful
recollections of their horrific living conditions at the time of that
first breakdown).

Yes, you do grant some possible role to the strain of their living
conditions at
that time, but that's just one point in numerous references to the
etiology of the
disease--the time being aboust right for the end of the latency
period, etc.
On the whole I think you attribute more explanatory power to this
hypothesis than
the facts warrant.

Post by yrow
Dr. Weissman  then pointsout that all of Hannah Chaplin’s  subsequent
breakdowns occurred at much more financially prosperous  times later
in her life when she was no longer suffered from malnutition

I doubt that relapses are confined to syphillis.

Post by yrow
Weissman therefore  concludes that a fundamental (and chronically
progressive) underlying   psychiatric illness—other than hunger and
starvation--has to be evoked diagnostically as the primary cause of
those chronic and recurrent psychotic episodes   that followed over
the years. (A late-life photo of her  in Chaplin A Life clearly
reveals Hannah was well nourished).
And so,     what  do you think Hannah Chaplin’s  psychosis  was caused
by?

I don't think there's enough evidence to draw a definite conclusion.

Post by yrow
Kenneth Lynn’s (retrospective and non-medically trained) armchair
diagnosis of Hannah Chaplin’s mental breakdown was schizophrenia.
“Doctor” Joyce Milton’s was manic-depression.

Don't buy either of those, though there's a lot of evidence to suggest
that
Charlie was mildly bipolar, and that he feared his mother's insantiy
might
be inherited, and also feared he might pass it on to his children,
which seems
odd if he thought hers was caused by syphillis, Perhaps Chaplin
developed
this theory later.

Post by yrow
What’s yours? And upon what evidence do you base your diagnosis?

Well, if I was going to make one, which I'm not, I'd prefer some
irrefutable
physical evidence, like a Wasserman test, to speculations about time
line
in a idsease that is notoriously variable.

I do think you make a much better case for this hypothesis in the
book
than in a previous article.

Post by yrow
*********************************************
“what 
difference does this [Weissman’s diagnosis of psychosis caused
by neuro-syphilis] make to our understanding of Chaplin's life and
films?”
Your  last sweeping generalization  about the irrelevance of this
mother’s psychiatric diagnosis to understanding Chaplin  life and art
is a matter of opinion. There is   legitimate  room for honest
disagreement between other highly respected Chaplin experts (like
yourself).
What are  some of their  opinions?
In his introduction to Stephen  Weissman’s  original essay (Charlie
Chaplin’s Film Heroines) about Hannah Chaplin’s mental breakdown--
which he gave  a place of prominence  in his seminal collection of
Chaplin essays  (The Essential Chaplin. 2006)—the film critic RichardSchickel writes: “This essay, though ostensibly about Chaplin’s
portrayal of women in his films, is more important for its persuasive
speculation about his mother’s sudden and mysterious illness, with its
disastrous effects on Chaplin’s childhood. So far as I know, no one
else has offered so radical (and tragic) an interpretation of this
formative experience in Chaplin’s life.”

I'm not sure how that addresses the question of relevance. Her illness
obviously
had a powerful formative influence regardless of its cause.

Post by yrow
In her introduction to Chaplin A Life, Charplin’s daughter echoes that
same view (read the book).

I've read it.

Post by yrow
Go figure!
*********************************
Finally, you conclude: “The fact that Chaplin took precautions against
STD. or that 
Calvero suspected that Terry might have contracted
syphillis, hardly 
need to be explained by Hannah's supposed case of
it.”
 I  strongly suspect that you have no intellectual  problem whatsoever
in attributing Chaplin’s scene of being driven mad by hunger in The
Gold Rush to his childhood experiences in that department but that
you balk when it comes to Chaplin’s referring to his ballerina
mother’s syphilis in Limelight and Footlights (the novel) as
autobiographical. Is that correct? If so, what’s that about?- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -

What it's about is that Chaplini's films are full of references to
food and hunger, so
the connection to his early experience is clear (and hardky a new
insight). His one
reference to syphillis in _Limelight_ might be there for a number of
reasons.
He also refers in his autobiograpahy to a girl in the Karno touring
company who
contracted the disease. Can we also explain this by reference to his
mother?
He seemed rather amused by the "poor girl's" plight, since everyone
knew what
her problem was, and in fact this could be taken for he origin of the
reference in _Limelight_.

I have no problem with the knowledge or theory that Baudelaire,
Flaubert, and Keats all
had syphillis. I don't think that clarifies a line of Keats' poetry
(though I'm open to
arguments), even though Keats himself was infected.

Connie K.