And the afternoon, the evening, sleeps so peacefully! The kind of criticism that Goethe and Coleridge produced, in writing of Hamlet, is the most misleading kind possible. And indeed there will be time To wonder, Do I dare? Why he attempted it at all is an insoluble puzzle; under compulsion of what experience he attempted to express the inexpressibly horrible, we cannot ever know. Eliot Few critics have even admitted that Hamlet the play is the primary problem, and Hamlet the character only secondary. Eliot sees what we mortals cannot see. Do I dare Disturb the universe? Few critics have even admitted that Hamlet the play is the primary problem, and Hamlet the character only secondary. We should be thankful that Walter Pater did not fix his attention on this play. Robertson and Professor Stoll of the University of Minnesota, have issued small books which can be praised for moving in the other direction.
Shakespeare creates the character possessing emotion in excess because the emotion has no equivalence to the action of the character and the other facts and details in the play. And Hamlet the character has had an especial temptation for that most dangerous type of critic: the critic with a mind which is naturally of the creative order, but which through some weakness in creative power exercises itself in criticism instead. It was first published in 1919. These minds often find in Hamlet a vicarious existence for their own artistic realization. Of all the plays it is the longest and is possibly the one on which Shakespeare spent most pains; and yet he has left in it superfluous and inconsistent scenes which even hasty revision should have noticed.
In the character Hamlet it is the buffoonery of an emotion which can find no outlet in action; in the dramatist it is the buffoonery of an emotion which he cannot express in art. Eliot said that the main theme, the effect of a mother's guilt upon her son, was a failure because Hamlet's feelings were too strong to be stirred solely by his mother. It is thus a feeling which he cannot understand; he cannot objectify it, and it therefore remains to poison life and obstruct action. Robertson believes to be scenes in the original play of Kyd reworked by a third hand, perhaps Chapman, before Shakespeare touched the play. او در این باره می نویسد: تنها شیوه ی بیان احساس به زبان هنری, یافتن ربط عینی ست. We find Shakespeares Hamlet not in the action, not in any quotations that we might select, so much as in an unmistakable tone which is unmistakably not in the earlier play.
The madness of Shakespeare's character, according to Eliot, is a result of the inexpressible things that Hamlet feels and the playwright cannot convey. And it must be noticed that the very nature of the données of the problem precludes objective equivalence. The grounds of Hamlet's failure are not immediately obvious. Shall I part my hair behind? Eliot believes that Hamlet makes so much fuss about his mother that he's not believable. There are two reasons for it.
And he concludes, with very strong show of reason, that the original play of Kyd was, like certain other revenge plays, in two parts of five acts each. جان کلام مقاله را ولی در نقد دکتر بهرام مقدادی بر نمایشنامه ی مکبث فهمیدم. Hamlet is up against the difficulty that his disgust is occasioned by his mother, but that his mother is not an adequate equivalent for it; his disgust envelops and exceeds her. That is to say, he is neither fully mad nor is always feigning. The subject might conceivably have expanded into a tragedy like these, intelligible, self-complete, in the sunlight. The alteration is not complete enough, however, to be convincing. We should have, finally, to know something which is by hypothesis unknowable, for we assume it to be an experience which, in the manner indicated, exceeded the facts.
The lines in Act v. Both workmanship and thought are in an unstable condition. These minds often find in Hamlet a vicarious existence for their own artistic realization. Eliot also realizes that in the case of Hamlet interpretation is futile and that only criticism is relevant. The presentation of facts and external situation should be adequately used for the full realization of the pent up emotional energies. My morning coat, my collar mounting firmly to the chin, My necktie rich and modest, but asserted by a simple pin They will say: But how his arms and legs are thin! Of all the plays it is the longest and is possibly the one on which Shakespeare spent most pains; and yet he has left in it superfluous and inconsistent scenes which even hasty revision should have noticed.
Eliot declared the play an artistic failure, as Shakespeare's depiction of Gertrude did not supply an adequate chain of events for the private sense of disgust with which the play was overburdened his Objective correlative. The essay first appeared in Eliot's The Sacred Wood: Essays on Poetry and Criticism in 1920. None of the possible actions can satisfy it; and nothing that Shakespeare can do with the plot can express Hamlet for him. For Shakespeare it is less than madness and more than feigned. As a critic Eliot wrote widely on multiple literary traditions, paying special attention to the metaphysical poets, Dante and Shakespeare. If you examine any of Shakespeare's more successful tragedies, you will find this exact equivalence; you will find that the state of mind of Lady Macbeth walking in her sleep has been communicated to you by a skilful accumulation of imagined sensory impressions; the words of Macbeth on hearing of his wife's death strike us as if, given the sequence of events, these words were automatically released by the last event in the series. Eliots idea is valid and it has many good points, but I tend to disagree with him.
It is thus a feeling which he cannot understand; he cannot objectify it, and it therefore remains to poison life and obstruct action. In several ways the play is puzzling, and disquieting as is none of the others. Qua work of art, the work of art cannot be interpreted; there is nothing to interpret; we can only criticize it according to standards, in comparison to other works of art; and for interpretation the chief task is the presentation of relevant historical facts which the reader is not assumed to know. In order to establish his contentions, Eliot goes on to examine the play from a historical perspective. And it must be noticed that the very nature of the données of the problem precludes objective equivalence. To have heightened the criminality of Gertrude would have been to provide the formula for a totally different emotion in Hamlet; it is just because her character is so negative and insignificant that she arouses in Hamlet the feeling which she is incapable of representing.