FEW critics have even admitted that Hamlet tragedy essay 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.
These minds often find in Hamlet a vicarious existence for their own artistic realization. Robertson and Professor Stoll of the University of Minnesota, have issued small books which can be praised for moving in the other direction. Of the intractability there can be no doubt. In several ways the play is puzzling, and disquieting as is none of the others.
Both workmanship and thought are in an unstable condition. Measure for Measure, to a period of crisis, after which follow the tragic successes which culminate in Coriolanus. 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. Shakespeare handled the suspicion of Othello, the infatuation of Antony, or the pride of Coriolanus.