Introduction to T.S. Eliot
T.S. Eliot (1888-1965) stands as a towering figure in modern literature, renowned for his multifaceted contributions as a poet, essayist, publisher, playwright, literary critic, and editor during the Modern Period. Some of his most celebrated poems include “The Love Song of J. Alfred Prufrock”, “The Waste Land” (1922), “The Hollow Men” (1925), and “Ash Wednesday” (1930). Beyond poetry, Eliot made significant strides in the realm of drama with plays such as “Murder in the Cathedral” (1935) and “The Cocktail Party” (1949). His literary achievements were recognized with the Nobel Prize in Literature in 1948, honouring his profound impact on contemporary poetry. Eliot’s critical essays, notably “Tradition and the Individual Talent”, “The Metaphysical Poets”, and “Poetry and Drama”, among others, have re-evaluated long-held cultural beliefs and heavily influenced the New Criticism movement, which focuses on close reading to appreciate literature as self-contained aesthetic objects.
Analysis of T.S. Eliot’s “Hamlet and His Problems”
T.S. Eliot, an influential literary critic and poet, profoundly impacted modernist literature and criticism. In his essay “Hamlet and His Problems,” Eliot controversially critiques one of Shakespeare’s most celebrated plays, arguing that “Hamlet” is an “artistic failure.” This essay, first published in “Athenaeum” on September 26, 1919, and later included in “The Sacred Wood: Essays on Poetry and Criticism” (1920), introduces the concept of the “objective correlative,” which Eliot uses to support his arguments against the play.
Eliot’s Main Argument
Eliot’s essay centres on his assertion that “Hamlet” fails as a work of art. He describes the play as the “Mona Lisa of literature,” intriguing yet flawed. According to Eliot, the problem lies not in the character of Hamlet, but in the play itself. He believes that previous critics, like Goethe and Coleridge, projected their own sensibilities onto Hamlet, leading to biased and incomplete critiques. Goethe, for example, saw Hamlet through the lens of his own character Werther, while Coleridge infused Hamlet with his introspective tendencies. This projection, Eliot argues, distracts from addressing the actual issues within the play.
Critique of the Play’s Structure
Eliot begins his essay by addressing what he perceives as the play’s artistic failure. He argues that “Hamlet” lacks a unified plot and focuses excessively on Hamlet’s character, which detracts from the play’s overall coherence. Eliot asserts that Shakespeare failed to integrate Hamlet’s character with the play’s main action effectively, leading to a disjointed narrative structure. This critique reflects Eliot’s belief in the importance of a unified dramatic structure, akin to classical drama, where character and plot are tightly interwoven to achieve a coherent whole.
Analysis of Hamlet’s Character
Eliot’s most controversial argument revolves around Hamlet’s character. He contends that Hamlet is an artistic failure as a character because Shakespeare failed to provide a “sufficient objective correlative” for Hamlet’s emotions and actions. Eliot argues that Hamlet’s profound emotions and moral dilemmas are not adequately supported by the play’s external circumstances or by the actions of other characters. This leads Eliot to assert that Hamlet’s character is an artistic anomaly, unable to evoke genuine empathy or emotional engagement from the audience.
The Concept of the Objective Correlative
Central to Eliot’s critique is his introduction of the “objective correlative,” a term he uses to describe a set of objects, situations, or events that effectively evoke specific emotions. Eliot argues that for a work of art to be successful, it must have a clear objective correlative. In “Hamlet,” he claims, Shakespeare fails to provide an adequate objective correlative for Hamlet’s emotions. The surrounding events and characters do not sufficiently convey Hamlet’s internal turmoil, leaving the audience disconnected from his psychological state.
Eliot praises Shakespeare’s use of the objective correlative in other works, such as the sleepwalking scene in “Macbeth” and the storm scene in “King Lear.” These scenes effectively translate the characters’ inner experiences into tangible actions and imagery, creating a clear emotional resonance. In contrast, “Hamlet” lacks this clarity, resulting in what Eliot sees as an artistic breakdown.
Source Material and Structural Issues
Eliot delves into the historical and literary sources of “Hamlet” to further illustrate his point. He identifies three primary sources: Thomas Kyd’s “The Spanish Tragedy,” the so-called Ur-Hamlet (possibly written by Kyd), and a German adaptation of the play. Shakespeare’s modifications of these sources, Eliot argues, are incomplete and unconvincing. The original motivations for revenge in the sources are straightforward, driven by circumstantial obstacles. However, in Shakespeare’s version, Hamlet’s delay and feigned madness introduce layers of ambiguity that muddle the narrative.
This structural confusion, according to Eliot, stems from Shakespeare’s inability to effectively merge the themes of revenge and psychological depth. The play’s alterations from its sources do not achieve the necessary artistic coherence, leaving it fragmented and unsatisfying.
Critique of Previous Critics
Eliot is particularly critical of earlier interpretations by renowned critics like Goethe and Coleridge. He accuses them of projecting their personal ideals and philosophies onto Hamlet, thus distorting the character and diverting attention from the play’s inherent flaws. Goethe’s transformation of Hamlet into a figure akin to his own Werther and Coleridge’s introspective analysis are seen as misinterpretations that overlook the play’s structural deficiencies.
In contrast, Eliot commends J.M. Robertson and Elmer Edgar Stoll for their more holistic approach to “Hamlet.” These critics, he notes, focus on the broader scope of the play rather than getting entangled in character analysis. Robertson’s historical interpretation and Stoll’s contextual understanding provide a clearer picture of the play’s shortcomings.
Emotional Ineffectiveness and Artistic Failure
The crux of Eliot’s argument is that “Hamlet” fails to achieve “artistic inevitability” and “emotional adequacy.” The play’s inability to provide a coherent objective correlative for Hamlet’s emotions results in a disjointed and confusing narrative. The audience, Eliot argues, is left grappling with a protagonist whose internal conflicts are not convincingly externalized through the surrounding characters or events.
Eliot contrasts this with the successful use of the objective correlative in other Shakespearean tragedies. In “Macbeth,” for instance, the imagined sensory impressions in the sleepwalking scene effectively convey Lady Macbeth’s guilt and psychological disintegration. Similarly, the storm in “King Lear” mirrors Lear’s internal chaos, providing a tangible representation of his mental state. These examples highlight Shakespeare’s potential for artistic success, which Eliot believes is lacking in “Hamlet”.
Conclusion
Eliot’s essay, while controversial, offers a rigorous and thought-provoking critique of “Hamlet.” By introducing the concept of the objective correlative, he provides a new lens through which to examine the play’s emotional and structural dynamics. His argument that “Hamlet” is an artistic failure challenges long-held perceptions and invites readers to reconsider the complexities of Shakespeare’s work. Despite the polemical nature of his critique, Eliot’s analysis underscores the importance of emotional coherence and structural integrity in literature. His examination of “Hamlet” serves as a cautionary tale about the dangers of overcomplicating narrative and character development at the expense of artistic clarity. According to Eliot, the play does not adequately express the protagonist’s emotions, leading to its designation as an artistic failure. He further asserts that “Coriolanus” and “Antony and Cleopatra” represent Shakespeare’s most assured ‘artistic successes’.