T. S. Eliot (1888–1965), one of the foremost figures of literary modernism, offered a critical interpretation of Shakespeare’s Hamlet that challenged both Romantic and psychological readings. In his essay “Hamlet and His Problems” (1919), Eliot famously calls Hamlet “an artistic failure”, coining the notion of the “objective correlative” to explain why the play’s emotional content does not achieve satisfactory artistic expression. For Eliot, Hamlet is a problem play: it possesses immense psychological insight and profound thematic ambition but fails to integrate emotion, structure, and poetic technique into a harmonious artistic whole.
Eliot’s criticism is rooted in modernist aesthetics, emphasizing objective form, emotional precision, and structural coherence, contrasting sharply with Romantic idealizations of Hamlet’s interiority or ethical reflection. This essay explores Eliot’s reading in depth, examining his analysis of Hamlet’s character, the notion of the “objective correlative,” the “problem play” thesis, and the broader implications for literary criticism.
1. Modernist Critical Framework
Eliot’s approach to literary criticism is defined by several key principles:
- Objective correlative: The need for an external, structured set of symbols or events to evoke a precise emotion in the audience. Emotion must be expressed through form, not mere description or reflection.
- Artistic impersonality: The poet or playwright must transcend personal sentiment to achieve universality and precision.
- Structure over psychology: Psychological insight alone cannot make a work effective; dramatic and poetic structures must communicate emotion coherently.
- Synthesis of form and feeling: Emotion and structure must coalesce to produce artistic wholeness.
Within this modernist framework, Eliot evaluates Hamlet critically, assessing both its aesthetic achievement and its structural deficiencies.
2. Hamlet as a “Problem Play”
2.1 Definition of the Problem Play
Eliot categorizes Hamlet as a problem play, a term he uses to indicate:
- A work that contains extraordinary genius but artistic imbalance
- A drama that reveals psychological insight yet fails to translate emotion into effective dramatic form
- A play whose central character’s introspection overshadows external action, disrupting dramatic harmony
“The main difficulty of Hamlet is that the poet’s mind has not been able to find an adequate objective correlative for the emotion he felt… Hamlet himself is the problem” (Eliot, 1919).
Eliot’s concept of the problem play frames Hamlet as a work of genius hindered by structural and emotional inconsistency, rather than a flawless exemplar of tragedy.
2.2 The Central Dilemma
Eliot argues that Hamlet’s extraordinary introspection produces dramatic imbalance:
- Hamlet’s reflection is exquisite and profound, but Shakespeare does not supply an objective correlative—a set of events or symbols that would fully justify the emotional weight of Hamlet’s internal struggle.
- The play is therefore emotionally excessive, leaving the audience impressed by Hamlet’s consciousness but unsatisfied in dramatic terms.
For Eliot, Hamlet’s brilliance as a character paradoxically undermines the play’s artistic cohesion, making it both innovative and problematic.
3. Objective Correlative and Hamlet
3.1 Concept of Objective Correlative
Eliot’s most influential idea, the objective correlative, asserts:
- Emotion in art must be externalized through events, situations, or objects that evoke precise responses in the audience.
- Mere description of feeling or introspection is insufficient for dramatic or poetic effectiveness.
“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” (Eliot, 1919).
This principle is pivotal for evaluating Hamlet: Eliot sees the character’s inner turmoil as lacking a corresponding external structure, producing a play that is psychologically rich but artistically imperfect.
3.2 Application to Hamlet
Eliot identifies several problems in Hamlet:
- Hamlet’s indecision: While psychologically plausible, it fails to find structural reinforcement. His hesitation is not consistently reflected in external events.
- The ghost of King Hamlet: Serves as the moral and narrative impetus, yet its influence is ambiguous in dramatic effect, insufficiently correlating Hamlet’s profound reflection with action.
- Ophelia’s death: Emotional significance is suggested but not fully dramatized in correspondence with Hamlet’s inner state.
“Hamlet’s own emotions are so complex and subtle that they find no adequate objective formula in the play; hence, the dramatic result is uneasy and disproportionate” (Eliot, 1919).
Eliot’s critique is structural and formal, not psychological: the failure lies in Shakespeare’s inability to externalize Hamlet’s internal complexity within a coherent dramatic architecture.
4. Hamlet’s Character and Psychological Insight
While critical of the play’s structure, Eliot acknowledges Hamlet’s psychological sophistication:
- Hamlet is extraordinarily intelligent, reflective, and morally aware.
- His deliberation demonstrates moral consciousness and existential inquiry, reflecting the dilemmas of modern human experience.
- Eliot praises Shakespeare’s ability to render consciousness with precision, but notes that this very precision creates dramatic imbalance.
Hamlet is therefore both a triumph of character portrayal and a failure of dramatic synthesis, highlighting Eliot’s tension between admiration and criticism.
4.1 Hamlet’s Soliloquies
Eliot emphasizes that Hamlet’s soliloquies are poetically and psychologically brilliant, yet insufficiently dramatized:
- “O, that this too too solid flesh would melt” (Act 1, Scene 2) – a vivid meditation on grief and moral decay.
- “To be or not to be” (Act 3, Scene 1) – a profound ethical and existential reflection, unmatched in literary history.
Eliot argues that the excellence of introspection contrasts with the play’s failure to translate this into effective dramatic action, leaving the soliloquies as isolated moments of emotional depth rather than fully integrated components of the drama.
5. The Problem of Hamlet’s Emotional Excess
Eliot’s central concern is disproportion in Hamlet:
- The character’s emotional intensity exceeds the structural capacity of the play.
- Psychological realism is not matched by dramatic articulation, producing tension between character and plot.
- Hamlet’s emotions—moral, ethical, and existential—are too vast and complex for the dramatic situation to contain effectively.
“The emotion felt by Shakespeare is not expressed in the play; Hamlet himself is the embodiment of this unsatisfied emotion” (Eliot, 1919).
This analysis situates Eliot firmly within modernist priorities, emphasizing structural unity and emotional precision over Romantic celebration of moral and psychological interiority.
6. Hamlet and the Idea of the “Problem Play”
Eliot’s identification of Hamlet as a problem play has had enduring influence:
- Problem plays are characterized by intellectual or emotional brilliance but structural inadequacy.
- Hamlet’s genius is undeniable, but the play’s artistic coherence is compromised.
- Other critics often praise Hamlet’s moral or psychological complexity; Eliot stresses dramatic form as the arbiter of artistic success.
This categorization differentiates modernist criticism from Romantic readings that valorize interiority, ethical reflection, or historical consciousness.
7. Critique of Romantic Readings
Eliot is particularly critical of Romantic interpretations, such as those by Coleridge or Schlegel:
- Overvaluation of introspection: Romantic critics celebrate Hamlet’s moral and psychological depth without considering whether this depth functions effectively in dramatic form.
- Neglect of structural coherence: Romantic readings often ignore how plot, action, and character interaction must support the emotional impact.
- Idealization of character: Eliot insists that dramatic art must balance character brilliance with objective external structure; otherwise, it is aesthetically incomplete.
8. Hamlet’s Ethical and Existential Dimensions
Despite his critique, Eliot recognizes the existential and ethical sophistication of Hamlet:
- Hamlet embodies modern reflective consciousness, struggling with moral responsibility, familial duty, and existential uncertainty.
- The play addresses questions of revenge, justice, mortality, and human action, anticipating later existentialist thought.
- Hamlet’s consciousness is therefore both psychologically compelling and philosophically significant, even if its dramatic realization is imperfect.
9. Textual Illustrations of Eliot’s Critique
| Scene/Soliloquy | Eliot’s Observation |
|---|---|
| Act 1, Scene 2 – “O, that this too too solid flesh…” | Excessive introspection; lacks structural externalization |
| Act 3, Scene 1 – “To be or not to be” | Philosophical brilliance; insufficient objective correlative |
| Act 3, Scene 2 – Play-within-the-play | Intellectual test; emotion not fully dramatized |
| Ophelia’s death | Emotional impact underrepresented in structure |
| Duel and climax | Structural resolution exists but does not fully satisfy emotional complexity |
These textual moments illustrate Eliot’s principle: Hamlet’s emotions are not fully expressed through dramatic form, producing the problem play effect.
10. The Objective Correlative in Modernist Terms
Eliot’s concept of objective correlative extends beyond Hamlet to modernist poetics:
- Emotion must be externalized through form and action, not merely narrated.
- Hamlet’s failure demonstrates the need for structural precision in conveying complex emotion.
- Modernist criticism, inspired by Eliot, emphasizes technique, structure, and discipline as essential to literary art.
“Where there is no adequate objective correlative, the emotion is unsatisfactorily expressed” (Eliot, 1919).
This principle became foundational for 20th-century literary analysis, influencing critics from F. R. Leavis to New Criticism.
11. Comparison with Other Critics
| Aspect | Schlegel | Hegel | Eliot |
|---|---|---|---|
| Focus | Romantic moral and ethical depth | Philosophical-historical consciousness | Modernist structural and emotional form |
| View of Hesitation | Moral and aesthetic tension | Ethical and historical necessity | Excessive introspection disrupts dramatic form |
| Hamlet’s Genius | Tragic consciousness, freedom | Ethical reflection, historical engagement | Psychological brilliance but structural failure |
| Tragic Significance | Romantic heroism | Modern ethical consciousness | Problematic artistic synthesis |
| Primary Critique | None; celebrates depth | None; celebrates modern ethical tension | Hamlet’s emotion exceeds objective correlative; structure fails |
Eliot’s reading is unique in modernist aesthetics, emphasizing form, coherence, and the externalization of emotion, contrasting with Romantic and philosophical interpretations that valorize interiority or moral consciousness.
12. Legacy of Eliot’s Criticism
- Modernist literary theory: Eliot reshaped Shakespearean criticism to focus on structure, coherence, and artistic precision.
- Problem play concept: Influenced both literary analysis and staging of Hamlet in modern theater.
- Objective correlative: Provided a tool for evaluating the relation between emotion and dramatic or poetic form.
- Critical balance: Recognizes psychological and ethical brilliance while insisting on aesthetic and structural accountability.
Eliot’s essay remains a cornerstone of 20th-century Shakespearean criticism, bridging literature and modernist theory.
13. Conclusion
T. S. Eliot’s criticism of Hamlet offers a modernist lens on a canonical tragedy:
- The play is a problem play, brilliant in psychological and philosophical depth but structurally incomplete.
- Hamlet’s hesitation reflects intellectual and moral sophistication, yet lacks an adequate objective correlative.
- Modernist principles demand externalized, structured expression of emotion, highlighting the tension between character brilliance and artistic form.
- Eliot’s critique emphasizes the discipline of literary art, complementing Romantic, philosophical, and psychoanalytic readings.
Ultimately, Eliot presents Hamlet as a masterpiece of character and ethical reflection, yet imperfect as a dramatic whole, offering insight into both Shakespearean genius and the principles of modernist literary criticism.