We must simply admit that here Shakespeare tackled a problem which proved too much for him. Maria Schildknecht as Ophelia, 1914. Yet through the quagmire of confusion surrounding the tragedy none have spoken than T. This, however, is by no means the whole story. Eliot also realizes that in the case of Hamlet interpretation is futile and that only criticism is relevant. Eliot in 1919 that offers a critical reading of Hamlet.
None of the possible actions can satisfy it; and nothing that Shakespeare can do with the plot can express Hamlet for him. The essay first appeared in Eliot's The Sacred Wood: Essays on Poetry and Criticism in 1920. It is impossible to say just what I mean! For I have known them all already, known them all: Have known the evenings, mornings, afternoons, I have measured out my life with coffee spoons; I know the voices dying with a dying fall Beneath the music from a farther room. یعنی بافتن سلسله ای از چیزها, شرایط و زنجیره ای از رویدادها که در کنار هم بت اصل مقاله در دسترس است. And would it have been worth it, after all, After the cups, the marmalade, the tea, Among the porcelain, among some talk of you and me, Would it have been worth while, To have bitten off the matter with a smile, To have squeezed the universe into a ball To roll it toward some overwhelming question, To say: I am Lazarus, come from the dead, Come back to tell you all, I shall tell you all If one, settling a pillow by her head, Should say: That is not what I meant at all; That is not it, at all.
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. A towering figure of 20th century poetry, T. In a minute there is time For decisions and revisions which a minute will reverse. The Hamlet of Laforgue is an adolescent; the Hamlet of Shakespeare is not, he has not that explanation and excuse.
And it must be noticed that the very nature of the données of the problem precludes objective equivalence. Some critics have also pointed out that Eliot offers no formal critique or concrete suggestions of how to improve the play. The Hamlet of the earlier play also uses his perceived madness as a guise to escape suspicion. We should be thankful that Walter Pater did not fix his attention on this play. And I have known the arms already, known them all Arms that are braceleted and white and bare But in the lamplight, downed with light brown hair! We should have to understand things which Shakespeare did not understand himself.
The subject might conceivably have expanded into a tragedy like these, intelligible, self-complete, in the sunlight. Eliot published an essay that elevates literary contrarianism to heights that have rarely been equaled. 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. Hamlet, like the sonnets, is full of some stuff that the writer could not drag to light, contemplate, or manipulate into art. He points out that the play is the longest and there are superfluous and inconsistent scenes with the versification being variable. Of the intractability there can be no doubt.
This is actually very good article about writing and publishing book. The Literary Dictionary Company Ltd. 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 Shakespeares 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. If you examine any of Shakespeares 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 wifes death strike us as if, given the sequence of events, these words were automatically released by the last event in the series. Furthermore, there are verbal parallels so close to the Spanish Tragedy as to leave no doubt that in places Shakespeare was merely revising the text of Kyd.
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. Of the intractability there can be no doubt. 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. In Hamlet it is the buffoonery of an emotion which he cannot express in art. Hamlet the man is dominated by an emotion which is inexpressible, because it is in excess of the facts as they appear.
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. For those people who lived in the Elizabethan era it may have been a little more straightforward, but to us it seems to have lost its hold and our understanding. Robertson believes to be scenes in the original play of Kyd reworked by a third hand, perhaps Chapman, before Shakespeare touched the play. In his analysis Eliot recalls the work of other authors who have talked the subject of Hamlet. Robertsons examination is, we believe, irrefragable: that Shakespeares Hamlet, so far as it is Shakespeares, is a play dealing with the effect of a mothers guilt upon her son, and that Shakespeare was unable to impose this motive successfully upon the intractable material of the old play. The Hamlet of Laforgue is an adolescent; the Hamlet of Shakespeare is not, he has not that explanation and excuse. Both workmanship and thought are in an unstable condition.
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 particular emotion; such that when the external facts, which must terminate in sensory experience, are given, the emotion is immediately evoked. In Shakespeare's version, however, Eliot believes Hamlet is driven by a motive greater than revenge, his delay in exacting revenge is left unexplained, and that Hamlet's madness is meant to arouse the king's suspicion rather than avoid it. Footnotes: ¹ Coriolanus is still Shakespeare, however, and superior to all non-Shakespearean tragedies. Eliot is not impressed with Shakespeare's efforts to copy, revise and amend his subject matter. This action can be considered as a warnning back to the narrator. 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.
Hamlet, like the sonnets, is full of some stuff that the writer could not drag to light, contemplate, or manipulate into art. These minds often find in Hamlet a vicarious existence for their own artistic realization. We should be thankful that Walter Pater did not fix his attention on this play. We have lingered in the chambers of the sea By sea-girls wreathed with seaweed red and brown Till human voices wake us, and we drown. Good night ladies, good night, sweet ladies, good night good night.