Ts Eliot Essay Hamlet And His Problems

Ts Eliot Essay Hamlet And His Problems-6
The kind of criticism that Goethe and Coleridge produced, in writing of Hamlet, is the most misleading kind possible. Robertson and Professor Stoll of the University of Minnesota, have issued small books which can be praised for moving in the other direction. Stoll performs a service in recalling to our attention the labours of the critics of the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, observing that: “they knew less about psychology than more recent Hamlet critics, but they were nearer in spirit to Shakespeare’s art; and as they insisted on the importance of the effect of the whole rather than on the importance of the leading character, they were nearer, in their old-fashioned way, to the secret of dramatic art in general.” work of art, the work of art cannot be interpreted; there is nothing to interpret; we can only criticise 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. Robertson points out, very pertinently, how critics have failed in their “interpretation” of to be superposed upon much cruder material which persists even in the final form.For they both possessed unquestionable critical insight, and both make their critical aberrations the more plausible by the substitution—of their own Hamlet for Shakespeare’s—which their creative gift effects. We know that there was an older play by Thomas Kyd, that extraordinary dramatic (if not poetic) genius who was in all probability the author of two plays so dissimilar as the must have been based, and from a version acted in Germany in Shakespeare’s lifetime which bears strong evidence of having been adapted from the earlier, not from the later, play.For Shakespeare it is less than madness and more than feigned.

The kind of criticism that Goethe and Coleridge produced, in writing of Hamlet, is the most misleading kind possible. Robertson and Professor Stoll of the University of Minnesota, have issued small books which can be praised for moving in the other direction. Stoll performs a service in recalling to our attention the labours of the critics of the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, observing that: “they knew less about psychology than more recent Hamlet critics, but they were nearer in spirit to Shakespeare’s art; and as they insisted on the importance of the effect of the whole rather than on the importance of the leading character, they were nearer, in their old-fashioned way, to the secret of dramatic art in general.” work of art, the work of art cannot be interpreted; there is nothing to interpret; we can only criticise 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. Robertson points out, very pertinently, how critics have failed in their “interpretation” of to be superposed upon much cruder material which persists even in the final form.For they both possessed unquestionable critical insight, and both make their critical aberrations the more plausible by the substitution—of their own Hamlet for Shakespeare’s—which their creative gift effects. We know that there was an older play by Thomas Kyd, that extraordinary dramatic (if not poetic) genius who was in all probability the author of two plays so dissimilar as the must have been based, and from a version acted in Germany in Shakespeare’s lifetime which bears strong evidence of having been adapted from the earlier, not from the later, play.For Shakespeare it is less than madness and more than feigned.

Tags: Easy Persuasive Essays TopicsA Sorrowful Woman Research PaperCommunication As Culture Essays On Media And Society 1989Research Paper With QuestionnaireAnti Essays PasswordMath Problems For 8th Graders With AnswersExplain Thesis Essay

, like the sonnets, is full of some stuff that the writer could not drag to light, contemplate, or manipulate into art.

And when we search for this feeling, we find it, as in the sonnets, very difficult to localize.

And finally there are unexplained scenes—the Polonius-Laertes and the Polonius-Reynaldo scenes—for which there is little excuse; these scenes are not in the verse style of Kyd, and not beyond doubt in the style of Shakespeare. Robertson believes to be scenes in the original play of Kyd reworked by a third hand, perhaps Chapman, before Shakespeare touched the play.

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. Robertson’s examination is, we believe, irrefragable: that Shakespeare’s , so far as it is Shakespeare’s, is a play dealing with the effect of a mother’s guilt upon her son, and that Shakespeare was unable to impose this motive successfully upon the “intractable” material of the old play. So far from being Shakespeare’s masterpiece, the play is most certainly an artistic failure. The guilt of a mother is an almost intolerable motive for drama, but it had to be maintained and emphasized to supply a psychological solution, or rather a hint of one.” This, however, is by no means the whole story.

The alteration is not complete enough, however, to be convincing.

Furthermore, there are verbal parallels so close to the the text of Kyd.These minds often find in Hamlet a vicarious existence for their own artistic realization.Such a mind had Goethe, who made of Hamlet a Werther; and such had Coleridge, who made of Hamlet a Coleridge; and probably neither of these men in writing about Hamlet remembered that his first business was to study a work of art.And it must be noticed that the very nature of the her character is so negative and insignificant that she arouses in Hamlet the feeling which she is incapable of representing.The “madness” of Hamlet lay to Shakespeare’s hand; in the earlier play a simple ruse, and to the end, we may presume, understood as a ruse by the audience.the play is the primary problem, and Hamlet the character only secondary.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.In several ways the play is puzzling, and disquieting as is none of the others. Both workmanship and thought are in an unstable position. It is not merely the “guilt of a mother” that cannot be handled as Shakespeare handled the suspicion of Othello, the infatuation of Antony, or the pride of Coriolanus.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. We are surely justified in attributing the play, with that other profoundly interesting play of “intractable” material and astonishing versification, “[Hamlet’s] tone is that of one who has suffered tortures on the score of his mother’s degradation. The subject might conceivably have expanded into a tragedy like these, intelligible, self-complete, in the sunlight.You cannot point to it in the speeches; indeed, if you examine the two famous soliloquies you see the versification of Shakespeare, but a content which might be claimed by another, perhaps by the author of the , Act v, sc. We find Shakespeare’s 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 only way of expressing emotion in the form of art is by finding an “objective correlative”; in other words, a set of objects, a situation, a chain of events which shall be the formula of that emotion; such that when the external facts, which must terminate in sensory experience, are given, the emotion is immediately evoked.

SHOW COMMENTS

Comments Ts Eliot Essay Hamlet And His Problems

The Latest from bolserdce.ru ©