Theory[ edit ] The theory of the objective correlative as it relates to literature was largely developed through the writings of the poet and literary critic T. Eliotwho is associated with the literary group called the New Critics. According to Eliot, the feelings of Hamlet are not sufficiently supported by the story and the other characters surrounding him.
And Hamlet the character has had an especial temptation for that most dangerous type of critic: 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.
The kind of criticism that Goethe and Coleridge produced, in writing of Hamlet, is the most misleading kind possible. We should be thankful that Walter Pater did not fix his attention on this play.
Two recent writers, Mr. 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: 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 Spanish Tragedy and Arden of Feversham; and what this play was like we can guess from three clues: The alteration is not complete enough, however, to be convincing.
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.
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.
The upshot of Mr.
Of the intractability there can be no doubt. In several ways the play is puzzling, and disquieting as is none of the others. 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.
The versification is variable. The lines in Act v. Both workmanship and thought are in an unstable condition. And probably more people have thought Hamlet a work of art because they found it interesting, than have found it interesting because it is a work of art.
Robertson is undoubtedly correct in concluding that the essential emotion of the play is the feeling of a son towards a guilty mother: This, however, is by no means the whole story. The subject might conceivably have expanded into a tragedy like these, intelligible, self-complete, in the sunlight.
Hamlet, 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. Hamlet the man is dominated by an emotion which is inexpressible, because it is in excess of the facts as they appear.
And the supposed identity of Hamlet with his author is genuine to this point: 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.
It is thus a feeling which he cannot understand; he cannot objectify it, and it therefore remains to poison life and obstruct action. None of the possible actions can satisfy it; and nothing that Shakespeare can do with the plot can express Hamlet for him. 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.
For Shakespeare it is less than madness and more than feigned. The levity of Hamlet, his repetition of phrase, his puns, are not part of a deliberate plan of dissimulation, but a form of emotional relief.
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.
The intense feeling, ecstatic or terrible, without an object or exceeding its object, is something which every person of sensibility has known; it is doubtless a study to pathologists. It often occurs in adolescence: The Hamlet of Laforgue is an adolescent; the Hamlet of Shakespeare is not, he has not that explanation and excuse.Theory.
The theory of the objective correlative as it relates to literature was largely developed through the writings of the poet and literary critic T.S. Eliot, who is associated with the literary group called the New initiativeblog.comg define the objective correlative, Eliot's essay "Hamlet and His Problems", republished in his book The Sacred Wood: Essays on Poetry and Criticism discusses his.
Hamlet and His Problems is an essay written by T.S.
Eliot in that offers a critical reading of Hamlet. The essay first appeared in Eliot's The Sacred Wood: Essays on Poetry and Criticism in /5. Hamlet and His Problems. T.S.
Eliot. The Sacred Wood; Essays on Poetry and Criticism Hamlet and His Problems: FEW critics have even admitted that Hamlet 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.
T.S. Eliot's famous poem The Love Song of J. Alfred Prufrock shares many correlating themes with William Shakespeare's Hamlet. Despite their evident similarities in style, Eliot criticizes Shakespeare's Hamlet in his essay Hamlet and His Problems, calling it "a . A towering figure of 20th century poetry, T.S. Eliot also did much to shape critical opinion about poetry, drama, and literary history through his essays, reviews, and work as an editor at Faber and Faber. Hamlet and His Problems. T.S. Eliot. The Sacred Wood; Essays on Poetry and Criticism Hamlet and His Problems: FEW critics have even admitted that Hamlet 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 .
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.
The Tragic Hero Of Hamlet - It angers young hamlet that after a month of his father 's death, King Hamlet, Hamlet 's mother, Gertrude, married his father 's brother even though his uncle, Claudius, is nothing compared to his father who was a great leader.
A towering figure of 20th century poetry, T.S. Eliot also did much to shape critical opinion about poetry, drama, and literary history through his essays, reviews, and work as an editor at Faber and Faber.