Samuel Johnson, in his Preface to Shakespeare (1765) and The Plays of Shakespeare (1765 edition with extensive commentary), engages with Hamlet as a study of human conduct, moral responsibility, and the consequences of reflection and delay. For Johnson, Hamlet’s tragedy derives from the tension between moral perception, passionate feeling, and practical indecision, making him a prime example of Shakespeare’s genius for portraying complex ethical and emotional life.
This essay examines Johnson’s perspective on Hamlet, highlighting his moral framework, approach to hesitation, assessment of character, and ethical didacticism, along with textual references and critical analysis.
1. Johnson’s Moral Perspective on Hamlet
Johnson foregrounds ethical reflection as the lens through which Hamlet should be understood. He critiques critics who valorize excessive introspection and emphasizes that action and moral consequence are inseparable:
“Hamlet is naturally a good and great man, but the faculties of thought are too active for his resolution; he weighs consequences while passion demands instant execution” (Preface to Shakespeare, 1765).
This interpretation situates Hamlet as a morally sensitive individual whose intellect and conscience produce hesitation, rather than a figure of mere melancholy or weakness.
1.1 Ethical Reflection and Responsibility
Johnson interprets Hamlet’s delay as a moral necessity, reflecting the interplay of conscience and judgment. He writes:
“The delay of Hamlet is not merely the effect of melancholy, but the natural operation of a mind conscious of duty and of the weight of human action” (The Plays of Shakespeare, 1765).
Unlike Coleridge, who emphasizes ethical imagination, Johnson emphasizes practical morality: Hamlet’s reflection is ethically required because actions have real consequences, and rashness can corrupt virtue.
2. Hesitation and Human Nature
Johnson famously argues that Hamlet’s hesitation is psychologically credible and morally intelligible. In his view:
- Hesitation results from the conflict of reason and passion.
- Action is difficult when the mind comprehends the moral complexity of revenge.
- Hamlet’s inward struggle is a study in human fallibility and moral consciousness.
He observes:
“The mind of Hamlet is formed to reflection rather than enterprise; the promptness of action is incompatible with the moral and intellectual vigor of a man conscious of guilt in others and the responsibility of vengeance” (The Plays of Shakespeare, 1765).
This aligns with Hazlitt’s emphasis on psychological realism, though Johnson emphasizes ethical and practical considerations over Romantic imagination.
3. Character Analysis and Ethical Didacticism
3.1 Hamlet as a Moral Example
Johnson perceives Hamlet as a figure whose greatness is intertwined with moral and intellectual refinement:
“Hamlet’s situation is calculated to show the power of thought and the force of conscience; he is excellent in the perception of duty, but the excellence of reflection produces his sufferings” (Preface, 1765).
In Johnson’s interpretation, the tragedy is didactic: the audience learns that excessive contemplation can delay moral action, yet reflection is essential to ethical life.
3.2 The Balance of Passion and Reason
Hamlet’s passions are intense but governed by moral reflection. Johnson highlights that Shakespeare’s depiction is consistent with observed human behavior:
“Few men act with promptness when conscience is awake and passions are keen; Hamlet shows the natural mixture of thought and feeling which belongs to human life” (The Plays of Shakespeare, 1765).
Hamlet embodies the equilibrium of moral discernment and emotional intensity, demonstrating that reflection, while necessary, can also constrain action.
4. Hamlet’s Soliloquies and Ethical Insight
Johnson devotes attention to Hamlet’s soliloquies as windows into the interplay of thought, conscience, and emotional depth:
- “O, that this too too solid flesh would melt” (Act 1, Scene 2) – reveals ethical despair and emotional response to moral corruption.
- “To be or not to be” (Act 3, Scene 1) – explores the moral and practical consequences of suicide, suffering, and human duty. Johnson interprets this soliloquy as a deliberation of conscience, not idle philosophizing:
“The question of existence is moral and practical; Hamlet considers what is due to himself, to the living, and to the world” (The Plays of Shakespeare, 1765).
5. The Supernatural and Moral Responsibility
Johnson addresses the role of the ghost of King Hamlet pragmatically. He interprets the ghost as a narrative device to instigate moral action, rather than an object of Romantic imagination or poetic speculation:
“The ghost reminds Hamlet of his duty and incites him to action; it is essential to the moral plot, showing the necessity of responding to justice with deliberation and courage” (Preface, 1765).
For Johnson, the supernatural serves ethical and structural purposes rather than purely imaginative or symbolic functions.
6. Critique of Over-Reflection
Johnson warns against overvaluing Hamlet’s reflection, suggesting that excessive moral deliberation can hinder effective action:
“The reader must distinguish between thought that enlightens duty and thought that paralyses it; Hamlet shows the danger of reflection untempered by execution” (Preface, 1765).
This caution aligns with Johnson’s broader moralist approach: reflection is essential, but excessive contemplation without action is morally problematic.
7. Comparison with Other Critics
| Aspect | Goethe | Coleridge | Hazlitt | Johnson |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Focus | Ethical inwardness | Moral imagination | Human nature & psychology | Moral responsibility & practical reflection |
| Hesitation | Ethical reflection | Ethical-imaginative deliberation | Organic interplay of intellect & passion | Reflection constrained by conscience & duty |
| Supernatural | Secondary | Moral-poetic catalyst | Dramatic stimulus | Moral-instructional device |
| Ethical emphasis | Ideal conscience | Ethical imagination | Psychological ethics | Duty and moral consequence |
| Didacticism | Implicit | Philosophical-poetic | Humanistic realism | Explicit moral teaching |
Johnson’s criticism precedes Romantic approaches (Coleridge, Hazlitt) and emphasizes Hamlet as a moral example, reinforcing the link between thought, conscience, and responsible action.
8. Key Textual Evidence
- “O, that this too too solid flesh would melt” (Act 1, Scene 2) – moral despair.
- “To be or not to be” (Act 3, Scene 1) – reflection on suffering, duty, and life.
- Play-within-the-play (Act 3, Scene 2) – moral discernment and testing conscience.
- Confrontation with Claudius and Gertrude (Act 3, Scene 4) – ethical judgment in action.
Johnson emphasizes that each speech demonstrates ethical deliberation and the consequences of reflection, rather than abstract melancholy or Romantic idealization.
9. Legacy of Johnson’s Criticism
- Moral Framework: Influenced later critics who emphasize ethics in Shakespeare.
- Practical Reflection: Johnson foregrounded the consequences of reflection in moral and dramatic life.
- Character Realism: Helped establish Hamlet as a credible study of moral psychology.
- Pre-Romantic Influence: Johnson’s interpretation set the stage for Hazlitt, Coleridge, and Romantic criticism by linking thought, conscience, and human action.
Conclusion
Samuel Johnson’s reading of Hamlet emphasizes:
- Ethical and practical reflection as central to human action.
- The tension between conscience, intellect, and passion as psychologically and morally credible.
- Hesitation as ethically grounded, with consequences that illuminate moral and human truths.
- The moral role of the supernatural as a structural and didactic device.
In Johnson’s view, Hamlet is the moral man in extremis, whose greatness arises from ethical sensitivity, intellectual acuteness, and conscientious reflection. Shakespeare’s genius lies in presenting a character whose reflection and action illuminate the principles of moral and human life, making Hamlet an enduring subject of ethical, psychological, and dramatic study.