Coriolanus and Hamlet, in T.S. Eliot's View

I read an essay by T.S. Eliot last Winter about Coriolanus and Hamlet. In it he stated that Coriolanus was Shakespeare's greatest artistic success (may be a direct quote, I'm not sure) and that Hamlet was his biggest artistic failure. Does anyone have any insight on what he might have meant by this? I asked this of one of my professors, and was told that perhaps it had something to do with Eliot's concern for artistic integrity, and that Hamlet was derived from historical material while Coriolanus was actually invented by Shakespeare. Does this sound plausible to anyone? I read the essay several times, and remained unable to extract his meaning (which seems unusual for one of Eliot's essays--he's a very good essayist.)

What, in your opinion, beyond what Eliot actually meant, could this mean--that Coriolanus was the biggest artistic success? Is there something inherent in it that you could point out as artistically successful? I ask the same for the statement about Hamlet; you can reiterate it for yourself.

This is just a question I've been tossing around in my own head for a year, and I thought I'd be generous and share it with all of you. Thanks for whatever bits of wisdom you might like to contribute. :)

I've heard the same, probably from the Harold Bloom book of late on all Shake's plays. Remember, Elliot spent some time for R&R in a sanitarium didn't he? - just kidding. He might mean that Corio., the play, runs like a more impersonal, sort of operatic production, rather than dealing with more personal issues; Corio. about political ideas, not as much with the domestic. Corio. more Brechtian.

However, I believe Corio.'s mom Volumnia talks about Corio. pulling the wings off butterflies as a boy, -- hmm, some hero. Hamlet would never do such; probably he would find a wounded butterfly and try to bring it back to health. Corio is a bit of a blockhead along with all his brawns; Hamlet is intellect-sharp, up to a point.

Corio. is a fascinating play and character; ultimate fearlessness and boldness. His problem is having a perfectionist, bad temper; some problem about ego and how people ought to behave. Nazi-ish if misdirected, perhaps, but that may be going too far. Hamlet is an inner feeling guy, dealing with the issues of good vs. evil. Hamlet is about "coming of age." Corio. seems to have been born an adult military machine.

Elliot can like it more and vote for its preeminence; maybe he saw an excellent production but never saw a good Hamlet production.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by byquist

He might mean that Corio., the play, runs like a more impersonal, sort of operatic production, rather than dealing with more personal issues

---

That sounds like a much more plausible answer. Eliot was a great proponent of the Universal, as opposed to personal things. His "Tradition and the Individual Talent" should have pointed me in this direction. Yes, Coriolanus does deal with more Universal, societal issues than merely an episode in one court and the conflict in one heart (I know that's a severe oversimplification of a very complex play). My favorite bit of Coriolanus, which it seems Eliot mentioned, illustrates nicely how horribly human, and unemotional Coriolanus is:

Quote:

---

CORIOLANUS
I sometime lay here in Corioli
At a poor man's house; he used me kindly:
He cried to me; I saw him prisoner;
But then Aufidius was with in my view,
And wrath o'erwhelm'd my pity: I request you
To give my poor host freedom.

COMINIUS
O, well begg'd!
Were he the butcher of my son, he should
Be free as is the wind. Deliver him, Titus.

LARTIUS
Marcius, his name?

CORIOLANUS
By Jupiter! forgot.
I am weary; yea, my memory is tired.
Have we no wine here?

---

Ugh! How utterly disgusting! You can say Nazi-ish, if you like. I think it's entirely warranted. It's still a great play.

Since I posted this question, I've been trying to decide which play I like better, Hamlet or Coriolanus. I've come to no decision. They are simply different.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by byquist

Hamlet is about "coming of age." Corio. seems to have been born an adult military machine.

---

That's a very good way of summing up.

Quote:

---

maybe [Eliot] saw an excellent production but never saw a good Hamlet production.

---

:lol: I'm sure that while he was couped up in the sanitorium :lol: he was busy judging Shakespeare's works by such superficialities as the skill of actors and producers. :lol:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jean-Baptiste

What, in your opinion, beyond what Eliot actually meant, could this mean--that Coriolanus was the biggest artistic success? Is there something inherent in it that you could point out as artistically successful? I ask the same for the statement about Hamlet; you can reiterate it for yourself.

---

Yes, I would like to venture an opinion. I suppose it would merely be pointing out the obvious to say that we must understand what Eliot meant by "art" in order to determine the nature of his criticism and praise. Despite the location of this thread, I think the attention should more be paid to Eliot's critique of Hamlet rather than that of Coriolanus, which is the same purpose of the essay of which you speak. Hence I will make the investigation of this the focus of my response.

From what I have read, Eliot considers Hamlet an artistic failure simply because of its incompleteness as a play. His model work of art here is an ideal play (Eliot obviously has an idea of what this might be for him). Eliot attacks Hamlet's lack of smoothness of plot, its lack of linkage and connection, and its indecisiveness, which, to no one's surprise, I indeed find to be the very strengths of Hamlet. Eliot wrote in this essay: "critics have failed in their "interpretation" of Hamlet by ignoring what ought to be very obvious: that Hamlet is a stratification, that it represents the efforts of a series of men, each making what he could out of the work of his predecessors." This is not a criticism that Shakespeare's work was not original, nor does this alone make it less a work of art. Eliot uses this fact rather to point out the cause of Shakespeare's inability to use the material effectively: "Shakespeare was unable to impose this motive successfully upon the "intractable" material of the old play." It is this that makes Hamlet an artistic failure, because Shakespeare aimed to deliver the points and emotions that the characters, actions, and plots of the original play were not designed to deliver; and did so unsuccessfully. This, of course, is only Eliot's opinion.

One of Eliot's biggest problems with Hamlet, I believe, is the nature of Shakespeare's Hamlet's madness. In the original play, madness was feigned in order to aid murder; and it serves well its purpose. This is assumed also for Shakespeare's Hamlet. Yet I cannot see it. I thought that Hamlet never intentionally feigned madness at all, and that this is an unfounded assumption on the readers' part. Eliot himself writes: "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." Indeed, Hamlet finds the misunderstanding to be frustrating on many occasions: (Act III, scene 4) "It is not madness that I have uttered; bring me to the test/ And I the matter will re-word, which madness/ would gambol from." These are not words of confession but of frustration. "Mother, for love of Grace,/ Lay not a flattering unction to your soul,/ that not your trespass but my madness speaks." It is clear that the emotional utterance of Hamlet's is but truth, and it is the Queen's wrongs that hide behind the manner of its delivery and not Hamlet. This can be true for other similar instances with Claudius, Polonius, Laertes, and Ophelia, which I can produce if requested. This madness does not aid Hamlet's quest. It is not clear what causes it either. It is of a different nature each time: e.g. in the "to be, or not to be" soliloquy it even appears to have been caused by general philosophical thought. Hamlet's quest itself in unclear as Eliot points out: "In the final play of Shakespeare, ...there is a motive which is more important than that of revenge, and which explicitly "blunts" the latter." So, without clear intention, goal, or emotion, what is the purpose of all this in relation to the plot of the play? How does his madness lead to his actions? We don't know exactly. Emotion and action in Hamlet, Eliot argues, are simply disconnected.

The behaviour of Shakespeare's Hamlet is then inconsistent with the design of the original play and it does not work; and that makes it an artistic failure. "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." This direct comparison gives us a clue as to Eliot's meaning of art. Hamlet's inability to act upon his emotion is the embodiment of Shakespeare's inability to turn his intended emotion into art. Thus, "art" is the ability to interpret fluently and effectively the emotions of the character into his action. In a world where the ideal play has an ideal structure, he may be right. But what is the plot of "Waiting for Godot"? Should the artistic value of a play be judged by its structure in accordance with conventional dramatic standards and not those of nature? For all the disconnectedness of Hamlet's action, I cannot find the great obviously flaw within his reason. (By the way, if you're reading Virgil, I think I can defend the "from whose bourn no traveller returns" argument :) ) It expresses faithfully the great moral and emotional struggle of a prince in his situation. The irrelevance of the plot only increases this artistic value, not renders it a failure. Eliot mentions judging by the standards of art in Shakespeare's day. But how futile a judgement that would be!