More developed critical approaches
Hamlet – Critical Approaches
18th Century: Moral Instruction
Eighteenth-century observers tended to view Hamlet as a vehicle for moral instruction. The
Earl of Shaftesbury praised it as "almost one continued moral" and as the drama of "one
single accident and calamity" (1710), suggesting the play offered a unified ethical lesson
rather than a chaotic tragedy.
Samuel Johnson praised Shakespeare for his "just representation of general nature" —
meaning Shakespeare captured universal human truths rather than merely depicting specific
historical or local events. For Johnson, Hamlet succeeded because its characters and
situations felt broadly applicable to all people.
Romantic Criticism (Late 18th – Early 19th Century): Character and Emotion
Romantic criticism shifted focus away from morality and towards the inner life of characters
— their psychology, emotion, and identity.
Goethe was perhaps the first to focus extensively on Hamlet's inability to act, describing him
as lacking the emotional strength that characterises a hero. He saw Hamlet as a "gentle soul"
crushed by a task too great for him — "amazement and sorrow overwhelm the solitary
young man." This framing essentially invented the idea of Hamlet as a tragic sensitive
intellectual, rather than a flawed avenger.
Coleridge argued that Hamlet lacked a healthy balance between "the real and the imaginary
worlds" — he is so consumed by reflection and abstraction that he cannot function in
practical reality. Coleridge famously identified with Hamlet on this point, and critics have
since suggested he was partly reading his own personality into the character.
William Hazlitt declared "It is we who are Hamlet" — meaning Hamlet embodies the
universal human tendency to overthink and delay action. Rather than being a flaw unique to
Hamlet, his paralysis becomes something the reader or audience recognises in themselves.
19th Century: Focus on the Women
The 19th century brought slightly more attention to the female characters, particularly
Ophelia.
Anna Jameson wrote sympathetically of Ophelia as "too soft, too fair, too good" for the
brutal world she inhabits — a delicate creature forced to "fall and bleed upon the thorns of
life." This was an early example of reading Ophelia as a tragic victim of circumstance rather
than a minor supporting character.
Thomas Campbell criticised Hamlet directly for his cruelty and insensitivity in his treatment
of Ophelia, shifting some of the moral blame onto the protagonist.
Ophelia's drowning became the subject of numerous paintings, most famously John Everett
Millais's Ophelia (1851-52), which helped cement a romanticised, aestheticised image of her
death in the Victorian imagination.
George Eliot's The Mill on the Floss (1860) offered an ironic glance at the play, suggesting
that if Ophelia had lived, Hamlet might have married her and achieved a peaceful life "with a
reputation for sanity." The joke cuts both ways — it highlights how the tragedy pivots on
contingency, and how Ophelia's survival might have saved Hamlet from himself.
Early 20th Century
Hamlet – Critical Approaches
18th Century: Moral Instruction
Eighteenth-century observers tended to view Hamlet as a vehicle for moral instruction. The
Earl of Shaftesbury praised it as "almost one continued moral" and as the drama of "one
single accident and calamity" (1710), suggesting the play offered a unified ethical lesson
rather than a chaotic tragedy.
Samuel Johnson praised Shakespeare for his "just representation of general nature" —
meaning Shakespeare captured universal human truths rather than merely depicting specific
historical or local events. For Johnson, Hamlet succeeded because its characters and
situations felt broadly applicable to all people.
Romantic Criticism (Late 18th – Early 19th Century): Character and Emotion
Romantic criticism shifted focus away from morality and towards the inner life of characters
— their psychology, emotion, and identity.
Goethe was perhaps the first to focus extensively on Hamlet's inability to act, describing him
as lacking the emotional strength that characterises a hero. He saw Hamlet as a "gentle soul"
crushed by a task too great for him — "amazement and sorrow overwhelm the solitary
young man." This framing essentially invented the idea of Hamlet as a tragic sensitive
intellectual, rather than a flawed avenger.
Coleridge argued that Hamlet lacked a healthy balance between "the real and the imaginary
worlds" — he is so consumed by reflection and abstraction that he cannot function in
practical reality. Coleridge famously identified with Hamlet on this point, and critics have
since suggested he was partly reading his own personality into the character.
William Hazlitt declared "It is we who are Hamlet" — meaning Hamlet embodies the
universal human tendency to overthink and delay action. Rather than being a flaw unique to
Hamlet, his paralysis becomes something the reader or audience recognises in themselves.
19th Century: Focus on the Women
The 19th century brought slightly more attention to the female characters, particularly
Ophelia.
Anna Jameson wrote sympathetically of Ophelia as "too soft, too fair, too good" for the
brutal world she inhabits — a delicate creature forced to "fall and bleed upon the thorns of
life." This was an early example of reading Ophelia as a tragic victim of circumstance rather
than a minor supporting character.
Thomas Campbell criticised Hamlet directly for his cruelty and insensitivity in his treatment
of Ophelia, shifting some of the moral blame onto the protagonist.
Ophelia's drowning became the subject of numerous paintings, most famously John Everett
Millais's Ophelia (1851-52), which helped cement a romanticised, aestheticised image of her
death in the Victorian imagination.
George Eliot's The Mill on the Floss (1860) offered an ironic glance at the play, suggesting
that if Ophelia had lived, Hamlet might have married her and achieved a peaceful life "with a
reputation for sanity." The joke cuts both ways — it highlights how the tragedy pivots on
contingency, and how Ophelia's survival might have saved Hamlet from himself.
Early 20th Century
