Luis Alcala 11/30/2010

HONS 3379 Final Paper

Hamlets Problems: Our Problems

Critics have been puzzling over Shakespeares Hamlet, the play and the character, for centuries. Although Hamlet is one of the most celebrated, well-regarded plays in all of world literature, the literary figure of Hamlet is one of the most perplexing characters of Shakespeares plays. One of the questions that have baffled many readers is the question of Hamlets delay from the time he learns of his fathers murder until he acts upon it. T.S. Eliot argues that Hamlet, the play and the character, is fraught with problems, hardly a masterpiece worthy of the attention and fanfare it has received, that the play is most certainly an artistic failure (Eliot 182). I disagree with Eliot, however. Although the reason for Hamlets grief and excessive delay may be nebulous, this complexity of his character is necessary for the plays coherence and greatly contributes to its quality and beauty. Eliot argues that Hamlet is deficient because Prince Hamlet, the protagonist, lacks an objective correlative for his grief; in other words he lacks a set of objects, a situation, or a chain of events that represent his grief and evoke the compulsory emotions even of their own right. Hamlet cannot objectify his grief, which is the reason he is baffled and cannot act upon it decisively. Eliot says that Shakespeares Hamlet was too great of an artistic problem to begin with (in its former versions from which Shakespeare acquired his ideas) for him to make any good of it. Hamlets bafflement at the absence of objective equivalent to his feelings is a prolongation of the bafflement of his creator in the face of his artistic problem. According to Eliot, Shakespeare could not figure out how to tame the intractable text of Ur-Hamlet and thus

his own Hamlet is deficient as a work of art, mainly because of Prince Hamlets lack of a precise objective correlative, as Eliot puts it (183). No doubt Prince Hamlets grief is severe and often inexplicable: many times throughout the play it is hard to distinguish the exact cause of it at the moment. However, I believe that Hamlet does indeed have an objective correlative for his grief even though it may not be explicit or inherently precise. One must holistically examine Hamlets circumstances to understand the causes of his incredible grief and anxiety. The first and most obvious cause of Hamlets grief is the death of his father, whom he clearly loves. This is evident because Hamlet still grieves for his father months after his passing and does not easily let him go from memory; we see this in Gertrudes and Claudiuss pleas for him to refrain from mourning for his father too long (Hamlet 1.2.68-170). Hamlet is also undoubtedly disgusted by the hasty marriage of his Uncle Claudius to his mother; he is not too impressed by his uncle, stating that he was a lowly satyr in comparison to the Hyperion, his father (1.2.140). Additionally, marrying ones sister-in-law is viewed as incest in Denmark and in the play, and for that Hamlet resents his mother and King Claudius. Hamlets grief and anger is epitomized in the revelation he receives from the ghost of his dead father: his uncle Claudius killed King Hamlet and took his queen for himself. Although it seems that Hamlet suspected foul play (O my prophetic soul!), his suspicions were verified by the Ghosts declaration of his murder by his brother, Claudius. These psychological blows Hamlet received, the death of his father, his mothers incestuous union with his uncle, the news of the truth behind his fathers death, all constitute the objective correlative of Hamlets grief. Just as important as the reason for Hamlets grief is what it effects in Hamlets heart and life. Hamlets incredible grief breeds within him a melancholy spirit and plunges him into depression and madness. His grief gives way to other emotions, such as anger, frustration, and
2

bewilderment, which in conjunction work upon Hamlets soul to no good end. Hamlets grief is normal, however, and should receive the compassionate attention of his loved ones. What he receives, however, is admonishment to refrain from his grief. King Claudius commends Hamlet for his obvious love for his father, evidenced by his mourning duties, but then belittles his integrity and manhood, saying that his grief is unmanly and childish (1.2.87). First of all, Hamlet does not need the consolation and advice, but sympathy, which he does not get, neither from his mother nor Ophelia nor his friends. He especially does not need this sort of consolation from King Claudius; indeed, this speech by King Claudius is grossly hypocritical and repugnant, in my opinion, seeing as he is the one who murdered King Hamlet! I agree with Arthur Kirsch when he says it is a dispiriting irony of scholarship that any critic should use such words from such a king (Claudius) as a text for their own indictment of Hamlets behavior (Kirsch 20). It is not reasonable to ask Hamlet to not grieve for his father, considering the circumstances. In The Tragic Conflict in Hamlet, J.J. Lawlor gives some valuable insight on the interpretation of Hamlets character and procrastination. One way of searching for a solution to the problem of Hamlets delay comes about by examination of the genre to which Hamlet belongs the Revenge play. Revenge tragedies came to be a dominant form of play in Elizabethan theatre. Thomas Kyds Spanish Tragedy set the precedent of carnage needed to satisfy the crowd, where the delay only intensified the main end of vengeance being taken up the wrongdoer. Plays that came after Shakespeares Hamlet, such as Tourneurs Atheist Tragedy and Chapmans Revenge of Bussy dAmbois, really showed that his immediate audience and fellow playwrights understood from Hamlet that a reluctance to act on the part of the protagonist sprung from a scruple about the justice of Revenge (Lawlor 98-100). There is one problem with this

interpretation: Hamlet never explicitly states this notion that he feels bound to requite justice by means of revenge. Now, why then, did Hamlet delay his revenge if not because he was confounded as to the proper role of justice and personal revenge? T.S. Eliot viewed this delay as yet another artistic shortcoming of this unwieldy work. However, it seems that this delay is inescapable, for it seems that it is an outworking of Hamlets internal struggle. First of all, from the outset Hamlet is unsure as to the exact identity of this Ghost which appears to him: is it a spirit of health or goblin damned (1.4.21)? He initially accepts the apparition as his father, but continues to doubt its veracity and reliability; after all, it may be a devil seeking to deceive into doing something that would damn his soul (2.2.575-580). The uncertainty of the whole situation should be reason enough for Hamlets delay. Uncertainty produces fear and anxiety, which can paralyze anyone. When one considers the different factors, one need only place oneself in Hamlets situation to see that immediate action is difficult and inadvisable. The grief at the loss of his father, the disgust he feels towards his mother, and now this possibility that his uncle may have murdered his father looming over his head, together produce a jumble of emotions that cause this indecisiveness within Hamlet. Hamlet is compelled by his fathers ghost to a duty which he cannot escape: to avenge his fathers murder by killing his uncle. The problem is that he does not know why he cannot bring himself to do it. He calls in question everything under the sun, and rebukes himself when he again delays action, but still he cannot pinpoint the cause of his excessive deliberation. What then is the purpose or value of such a delay to this play and its development? Why did Shakespeare not simply give more reasonable and explicit cause to Hamlets grief (and

ensuing emotions) and subsequent delay? Lawlor says that in a play it is the artists immediate end and condition of success to persuade us of the real existence and momentous fate of persons who in their own kind are but shadows (Lawlor 1). It is precisely through Hamlets delay that this persuasion of Hamlets real existence is achieved. We may like the explicit connectedness between a characters actions and what drives him to that action, but this may not necessarily be realistic. Hamlets procrastination is realistic: in real life, many times, we do not even know why we feel the way we do, and thereby fail to do anything profitable. Shakespeare does not make Hamlet conform to our expectations of him, to have an explicit reason for his delay of revenge, and that makes Hamlet believable. Shakespeare elaborates the facts of his play in terms of universal human nature, which needs no explanation, seeing that we are familiar with our own nature. Another invaluable addition to the play which comes about by Hamlets indecision is his multiple soliloquies. They are indeed beautiful: poetic, rich, and human. In them, he relates to us his confusion and disillusionment with life, his plans, and his decline into desperation and depression. We see the struggle of Hamlets soul, and the near loss of it, before our very eyes on the stage (Gottschalk 170). C.S Lewis describes beautifully how we can relate to Hamlets emotions and position: I believe that we read Hamlets speeches with interest chiefly because they describe so well a certain spiritual region through which most of us have pass and anyone in his circumstances might be expected to pass, rather than because of our concern to understand how and why this particular man entered it (Lewis 199).

So, Hamlets incredible grief and his inability to act upon it decisively is not a drawback to the play, but rather an enhancement, and necessary to its credibility and cohesiveness. Hamlets delay contributes to the plays beauty because we can relate to it. His dilemma is reminiscent of a universal human condition grief at the loss of a loved one, madness in the face of injustice, and vacillation in bewildering circumstances. Hamlet is so rich and so real, and this is due to its complexity and subtlety. The fact that there are numerous possible interpretations testifies to the fact of the plays richness. Hamlets delay makes him a realistic figure, and from this figure we can learn more about mankind and learn that many times we fail to know ourselves fully.

Works Cited
Eliot, T.S. "Hamlet and His Problems." Selected Essays. By T.S. Eliot. N.p.: Harcourt Brace Javonovich, 1978. N. pag. Print. Excerpt from Hamlet. Ed. Cyrus Hoy. 2nd. ed. New York: W.W. Norton and Company, Inc., 1963. 180-183. Gottschalk, Paul. "Hamlet and the Scanning of Revenge." Rev. of Hamlet, by William Shakespeare. Shakespeare Quarterly 24.2 (1973): 155-170. JSTOR. Web. 27 Nov. 2010. <http://www.jstor.org/stable/2868854>. Kirsch, Arthur. "Hamlet's Grief." Rev. of Hamlet. ELH 48.1 (1981): 17-36. JSTOR. Web. 27 Nov. 2010. <http://www.jstor.org/stable/ 2873010>. Lawlor, J.J. "The Tragic Conflic in Hamlet." Rev. of Hamlet. The Review of English Studies 1.2 (1950): 97-113. JSTOR. Web. 27 Nov. 2010. <http://www.jstor.org/stable/510608>. Lewis, C.S. "Hamlet: The Prince or the Poem?" They Asked for a Paper. By C.S. Lewis. London: Curtis Brown Ltd., 1962. N. pag. Print. Excerpt from Hamlet. Ed. Cyrus Hoy. 2nd. ed. New York: W.W. Norton and Company, Inc., 1963. 196-199.