Thomas Hazlitt, in his seminal work Characters of Shakespeare’s Plays (1817), offers a vivid and psychologically acute analysis of Hamlet. Unlike Goethe, who emphasizes ethical inwardness, or Coleridge, who foregrounds imagination and moral reflection, Hazlitt centers on human nature, character consistency, and the interplay of intellect and passion. He portrays Hamlet as a figure whose greatness emerges from intellectual subtlety, ethical discernment, and profound feeling, but who is also inevitably constrained by the complexities of human psychology.
1. Hazlitt’s Humanistic Approach
Hazlitt is fundamentally concerned with Shakespeare’s fidelity to human nature. He considers Hamlet an exemplar of Shakespeare’s insight into the workings of the human mind, capturing the interplay between reason, emotion, and moral conscience.
1.1 Hamlet as a Man of Feeling
Hazlitt observes:
“Hamlet is one of those characters in which the mind is so delicate and refined that the feelings are perpetual stimulants or checks upon action” (Characters of Shakespeare’s Plays, 1817).
Here, Hazlitt emphasizes the intensity of feeling as both the source of Hamlet’s greatness and the cause of his hesitation. Hamlet’s reflective faculties are inseparable from his emotional depth; every act of thought is simultaneously an act of feeling.
1.2 Moral and Intellectual Delicacy
Hazlitt further notes that Hamlet’s intellect is so subtle that it constantly weighs moral and practical consequences, producing the well-known hesitation:
“The mind of Hamlet is too refined for action; it calculates, considers, and doubts, while the passions are impatient of restraint” (Characters of Shakespeare’s Plays, 1817).
This insight resonates with Coleridge’s ethical-imaginative perspective but emphasizes psychological realism rather than abstract moral or poetic theory.
2. Hamlet’s Complexity of Character
Hazlitt sees Hamlet’s greatness in the combination of thought, passion, and moral consciousness, producing a multi-faceted and consistent character. Unlike critics who reduce Hamlet to indecision or melancholy, Hazlitt emphasizes that the character’s hesitation is psychologically necessary.
2.1 Intellectual and Emotional Interplay
Hazlitt writes:
“Hamlet’s mind is a theatre of conflicting passions, where thought and feeling are perpetually contending. His intellect is the chief instrument of his suffering and his genius” (Characters, 1817).
Hamlet’s hesitation is therefore an organic result of his complex nature: he cannot act without thought, but thought deepens his awareness of the consequences, generating ethical and existential tension.
2.2 Tragic Depth
Hazlitt identifies the tragic dimension of Hamlet as stemming from his conscious engagement with the human condition. The combination of moral sensitivity, intellectual acuteness, and emotional richness produces both greatness and vulnerability:
“The audience admires Hamlet not for his promptness, but for the magnitude of his intellect and the delicacy of his heart” (Characters, 1817).
3. Hamlet and Human Nature
Hazlitt consistently frames Hamlet within universal human experience, emphasizing that Shakespeare’s art captures psychological truth. Hamlet is simultaneously extraordinary and deeply human, reflecting:
- Intellectual perception – an acute understanding of motives, consequences, and moral stakes.
- Moral sensibility – a conscience aware of justice, honor, and ethical responsibility.
- Emotional depth – sensitivity to love, grief, betrayal, and revenge.
Hazlitt asserts:
“Hamlet is not merely a prince of Denmark, but a prince of human nature, in which all the faculties of the mind and heart are displayed in their full tension” (Characters, 1817).
4. Hamlet’s Hesitation and Action
Hazlitt emphasizes the organic relation of reflection to action:
- Thoughtful hesitation: Hamlet’s reflective mind prevents rash action, ensuring moral and psychological integrity.
- Passion as constraint: The intensity of feeling amplifies the burden of reflection.
- Tragic inevitability: The combination of mind and heart produces deliberation, delay, and eventual tragedy.
Hazlitt’s approach diverges from Goethe’s ethical inwardness and Coleridge’s moral imagination, focusing instead on human psychology and character consistency.
5. Hamlet’s Ethical Dimension
Though Hazlitt emphasizes psychology, he recognizes an ethical core: Hamlet’s deliberation is tied to justice, conscience, and the moral order. His moral sensitivity deepens the tragedy of delay:
“Hamlet’s moral faculties are too delicate for the corrupt world; he cannot reconcile the duty of revenge with the perfection of his own conscience” (Characters, 1817).
Hazlitt thus frames the tragedy as the tension between inner ethical ideal and external moral corruption, reinforcing the psychological realism of Shakespeare’s design.
6. Hamlet and Shakespeare’s Art
Hazlitt celebrates Shakespeare’s genius for portraying character as a product of human nature, rather than abstract moral principles. Hamlet is an integrated human being, whose reflection, feeling, and ethical awareness are consistently realized in action and speech.
- Dialogue and soliloquy: reveal Hamlet’s thought process, moral concern, and emotional state.
- Interactions with other characters: show the interplay of intellect, ethics, and emotion.
- Tragic outcomes: arise naturally from character rather than contrived plot devices.
Hazlitt asserts:
“The delight of Hamlet arises from observing a character of such exquisite refinement that it gives reality to the passions, reason to the feelings, and a unity to the whole human mind” (Characters, 1817).
7. Comparison with Coleridge and Goethe
| Aspect | Goethe | Coleridge | Hazlitt |
|---|---|---|---|
| Focus | Ethical inwardness | Moral imagination | Human nature and psychological realism |
| Hesitation | Ethical reflection | Ethical-imaginative deliberation | Organic interplay of intellect and passion |
| Supernatural | Secondary | Moral-poetic catalyst | Functional, dramatic stimulus |
| Emphasis | Ethical consciousness | Ethical and poetic imagination | Psychological truth and character consistency |
| Contribution | Archetype of inwardness | Imaginative-moral synthesis | Psychological and humanistic realism |
Hazlitt bridges Coleridge’s ethical-poetic emphasis and Goethe’s inwardness by rooting Hamlet in human psychology, emphasizing how reflection, feeling, and morality interact naturally.
8. Key Textual References Supporting Hazlitt
- “O, what a rogue and peasant slave am I!” (Act 2, Scene 2) – reflection and emotional self-awareness.
- “To be or not to be” (Act 3, Scene 1) – conflict of thought and feeling, psychological realism.
- Play-within-the-play (Act 3, Scene 2) – testing conscience and moral perception of others.
- Confrontation with Claudius and Gertrude – moral sensitivity, ethical deliberation, and psychological insight.
9. Legacy of Hazlitt’s Criticism
Hazlitt influenced both Romantic and Victorian criticism, emphasizing the humanistic dimension of Shakespeare. His approach helped future critics appreciate:
- The psychological realism of Hamlet.
- The organic interaction of intellect, emotion, and morality.
- Shakespeare’s faithfulness to human nature, making characters psychologically credible.
Hazlitt’s essays also informed later New Humanist criticism, which values character complexity and moral-psychological truth.
Conclusion
Thomas Hazlitt’s criticism of Hamlet emphasizes the interplay of intellect, passion, and moral sensitivity. Key insights include:
- Hamlet’s hesitation arises from the delicate balance of thought and feeling, not weakness.
- His reflective faculties and ethical awareness demonstrate the complexity of human nature.
- Shakespeare’s genius lies in portraying human psychology faithfully, integrating moral, emotional, and intellectual dimensions.
Hazlitt’s reading complements Goethe’s inwardness and Coleridge’s moral imagination by situating Hamlet in the realistic sphere of human psychology, offering one of the earliest systematic analyses of character that blends ethics, emotion, and intellect in a humanistic framework.