Arnold on Hamlet

One essay in the Bloom anthology (see 10/11/15 post) is entitled "Hamlet Once More," by Matthew Arnold.  I remember Arnold's poem, "Dover Beach," from my high school sophomore English class.  (Admittedly, I don't recall much else about the poem.)

Arnold characterizes Hamlet as "tantalising and ineffective."  He explains the reason for that statement.

"To the common public Hamlet is a famous piece by a famous poet, with crime, a ghost, battle, and carnage; and that is sufficient.  To the youthful enthusiast Hamlet is a piece handling the mystery of the universe, and having throughout cadences, phrases, and words full of divinest Shakespearian magic; and that, too, is sufficient.  To the pedant, finally, Hamlet is an occasion for airing his psychology; and what does pedant require more?"

Arnold's problem with Hamlet is precisely its mutability.  As he puts it, "The rest is puzzle."  It lacks the "perfect comprehension and profoundest emotion, which is ideal for tragedy."  Instead, it presents difficulty in interpretation and solution.  That, for Arnold, is an issue.

I can agree with Arnold, to a point.  (Maybe the line about pedant makes me defensive.)  I think part of the greatness of the play is its adaptability.  Hamlet fits (or can fit) different historical periods.  It can be relevant to different generations of playgoers.  Unfortunately, this can lead to abuses as well.  Just because Hamlet can be adapted does not mean that every adaptation is valid.  If it were less of a puzzle, perhaps directors would be less likely to commit the transgressions that I have detailed in previous posts.  On the other hand, though, if every performance of Hamlet were exactly the same it would make for boring theatre.  It's that directorial balancing act that makes it such fun to watch (and about which to pontificate post after post).