Characters of Shakespeare's Plays

by William Hazlitt

William Hazlitt is widely considered to be one of the greatest literature critics of all time. This new edition presents Hazlitt's analysis of Shakespeare's plays and insights into the author's timeless characters.

Genres: Shakespeare, Nonfiction, Essays, Literary Criticism, Classics, Criticism, Writing

198 pages, Paperback

First published January 1, 1817

About the author

William Hazlitt (1778-1830) was an English writer, remembered for his humanistic essays and literary criticism, and as a grammarian and philosopher. He is now considered one of the great critics and essayists of the English language, placed in the company of Samuel Johnson and George Orwell, but his work is currently little-read and mostly out of print. During his lifetime, he befriended many people who are now part of the 19th-century literary canon, including Charles and Mary Lamb, Stendhal, Samuel Taylor Coleridge and William Wordsworth.

Hazlitt was the son of the Unitarian minister and writer, William Hazlitt, who greatly influenced his work. Hazlitt's son, also called William Hazlitt, and grandson, William Carew Hazlitt, were also writers.

Librarian Note: There is more than one author by this name on Goodreads.

Reviews

[Bill Kerwin · Rating 4 out of 5]

The essays of William Hazlitt offer us a characteristic example of English Romantic style. Coleridge, De Quincey, and Lamb are equally excellent, but the power of their personae (the fragmentary genius, the languid eccentric, the sentimental bachelor) tend to overshadow our appreciation of the prose. But Hazlitt is not so calculating in his creation of a self; he merely speaks for his enthusiasms in literature and art in some of best prose of the period. (It is a shame most of his works are out of print today, and lucky for me that this one is easily available on line.)

His views on Shakespeare are thoroughly Romantic, inspired by the German critic Schlegel and dismissive of the classical, common sense opinions of Dr. Johnson. If it be a play in which the analytical and ironic predominate--Julius Caesar, for example, or Troilus and Cressida--Hazlitt sympathies remain unengaged and his insights limited. But if the play features a brooding hero with lightning moods, tumultuous crimes, or a self-sacrificing heroine, Hazlittt's sympathy produces portraits of its characters that—particularly in regard to the realm of emotion—contain some of the best criticism of any age.

If you acquire this book—or download it, as I did—you should be warned that, although the book may seems larger than you had anticipated, much of it consists of extensive excerpts from the plays themselves. Some people may find this irritating, just a way of padding a book, but I enjoyed the long Shakespeare passages, for it was gratifying having the best Shakespeare critic of England's Romantic Age take me on a guided tour of the works of The Bard.

Here follow a few excerpts.


HAMLET

We confess, we are a little shocked at the want of refinement in those who are shocked at the want of refinement in Hamlet. The want of punctilious exactness in his behaviour either partakes of the "license of the time," or else belongs to the very excess of intellectual refinement in the character, which makes the common rules of life, as well as his own purposes, sit loose upon him. He may be said to be amenable only to the tribunal of his own thoughts, and is too much taken up with the airy world of contemplation to lay as much stress as he ought on the practical consequences of things. His habitual principles of action are unhinged and out of joint with the time. His conduct to Ophelia is quite natural in his circumstances. It is that of assumed severity only. It is the effect of disappointed hope, of bitter regrets, of affection suspended, not obliterated, by the distractions of the scene around him! Amidst the natural and preternatural horrors of his situation, he might be excused in delicacy from carrying on a regular courtship.

MACBETH

Macbeth himself appears driven along by the violence of his fate like a vessel drifting before a storm: he reels to and fro like a drunken man; he staggers under the weight of his own purposes and the suggestions of others; he stands at bay with his situation; and from the superstitious awe and breathless suspense into which the communications of the Weird Sisters throw him, is hurried on with daring impatience to verify their predictions, and with impious and bloody hand to tear aside the veil which hides the uncertainty of the future...His speeches and soliloquies are dark riddles on human life, baffling solution, and entangling him in their labyrinths. In thought he is absent and perplexed, sudden and desperate in act, from a distrust of his own resolution. His energy springs from the anxiety and agitation of his mind. His blindly rushing forward on the objects of his ambition and revenge, or his recoiling from them, equally betrays the harassed state of his feelings.

DESDEMONA

The truth of conception, with which timidity and boldness are united in the same character, is marvellous. The extravagance of her resolutions, the pertinacity of her affections, may be said to arise out of the gentleness of her nature. They imply an unreserved reliance on the purity of her own intentions, an entire surrender of her fears to her love, a knitting of herself (heart and soul) to the fate of another...[H]er whole character consists in having no will of her own, no prompter but her obedience. Her romantic turn is only a consequence of the domestic and practical part of her disposition; and instead of following Othello to the wars, she would gladly have "remained at home a moth of peace," if her husband could have staid with her. Her resignation and angelic sweetness of temper do not desert her at the last.

[Mitchell · Rating 4 out of 5]

It seems like most of the books that I have read about Shakespeare have a thesis or gimmick and then exercise it by going through the whole canon of his work. Not that there is anything wrong with that! For instance, Will in the World told a biographical story of Shakespeare using the plays in order of being written to prompt what was happening in the authors life.

Hazlitt is interested here in showing the genius of Shakespeare by reviewing the major characters in all the plays. His analyses are wonderfully insightful and, in the case of the Romeo and Juliet discussion, rise to the ecstatic.

Some points I found interesting:

1- Hazlitt thinks the poems are pedestrian compared to the plays. He feels that the genius of Shakespeare comes out through the creation of an external character. Similar to what Sondheim says about his method of creation. Hazlitt feels he falls short when is merely expressing himself in the sonnets, etc. The passion is not there.

2- He concludes that the plays are more suited to 'the closet' than the stage, i.e, reading at home rather than experiencing a live performance. I never used to believe this. I felt the plays were living things that needed to breathe. Now I believe that they very rarely can be done justice in the theater. Think about it. When did you ever see a performance of Lear that ever came close to the cataclysm on the printed page?

[Esteban · Rating 4 out of 5]

Parece que a doscientos años de publicado este libro divide a la crítica literaria inglesa. La mejor mitad, la que privilegia la invitación a leer más y mejor que la prolijidad, está a su favor, e incluye a Harold Bloom.

Hazlitt intercala interpretaciones, opiniones y reflexiones teóricas de manera un poco caótica pero intensamente personal. Funciona muy bien con las obras menos conocidas; principalmente porque nos muestra de lo que nos estamos perdiendo no habiendo leído Ricardo II o Timón de Atenas, pero también porque su tratamiento de las obras principales es bastante superficial. En principio me parece justificable su decisión de dedicarle menos espacio a Hamlet, pero lo lleva demasiado lejos, al punto de que lo esencial de su interpretación no aparece en el capítulo correspondiente sino en una nota al pie muy posterior.

Señalando que "(T)he real madness of Lear is as different from the feigned madness of Edgar* as from the babbling of the fool..." abre una nota en la que afirma que "There is another instance of the same distinction in Hamlet and Ophelia. Hamlet´s pretended madness would make a very good real madness in any other author".

Ojalá eso fuera una ironía, porque Hamlet sí estaba loco. Era un loco fingiendo que su locura es fingida. Como tantas otras locuras, la suya era la expresión de una profunda inmadurez, que lo incapacitaba tanto para amar como para odiar. Aprender a odiar es casi tan importante como aprender a querer. El riesgo es caer en la idiotez esquizoide de la segunda infancia, en la incapacidad de resolver conflictos, en la introyección, la autodenigración y el resentimiento - los vicios que llevan a Hamlet a morir rodeado de cadáveres.

En cuanto a su incapacidad de amar, Juan Cirlot tenía razón en considerar que su rechazo de Ofelia inauguró una mancha, una falla esencial que desde entonces todos los hombres debemos cargar y reparar. Es una interpretación muy católica, sí, pero sitúa la culpa donde corresponde sin reducirnos a la condición de un miserable desesperado por que validen su arrepentimiento, y obligándonos en cambio a responsabilizarnos de acciones concretas o de sus omisiones.

Hazlitt le atribuía la locura a Ofelia, cuando era simplemente una mujer pasiva y sensible. No acepto su interpretación, pero valoro haberla volcado de una forma intensa y meditada. Son las virtudes de un buen crítico.

[mark · Rating 4 out of 5]

"Shakespeare we have always with us: actors we have only for a few seasons; and therefore some account of them may be acceptable, if not to our contemporaries, to those who come after us, 'if that rich and idle personage, Posterity,' should deign to look into our writings."

Hazlitt loves Shakespeare, and this work is a public love-affair with his works. And even though he is unapologetically biased, Hazlitt still convincingly extols the virtues of Shakespeare's best works--and his mediocre ones too. Hazlitt shares insight on the characters, settings, plots, devices, and themes; and when he starts to get repetitious, he offers critiques on actors, and even the public opinion of both his and Shakespeare's day on some of the plays.

Two pages into the essay on Hamlet, Hazlitt just slays me with the simplicity and exactness of his metaphors. I'll not spoil them here, as the truly need to be read in context, for which they will be appreciated as intended!

[Frank R · Rating 4 out of 5]

It's shameful that this wonderful commentary, by one of the great essayists of the English language, is out of print. I read portions of Hazlitt's commentary in college as part of a Shakespeare course, and found the entire text on Google Books. Highly recommended for any Bardolater.

[Teri-K · Rating 4 out of 5]

The way not to read this is straight through, which is what I did. I plan, however, to go back to individual chapters when I'm pondering a particular play. His focus is on the main characters of various plays, and of course I got a lot more out of the chapters about plays I know pretty well. I found the style quite readable and he has some strong opinions, which makes it fun, too.

I'm not a Shakespeare scholar, just someone who loves his plays, and there was a lot for me to think on here. I'm not sure I agree with everything he said, but one of the aspects of the plays that I love so much is the questions that arise about the MCs; I enjoy having even more to think about now. Hazlitt demonstrates with ample quotations and clearly lays out his reasoning, so even when I disagree I learned more about the plays and how to examine them. All in all this is a book I'm sure I'll return to again and again.

[Ian Banks · Rating 4 out of 5]

This is a very brief survey of each play in the Shakespearean canon as it stood 200 years ago. I would have loved for it to be longer because Hazlitt is very entertaining and has some genuine insights into the characters and the plays they are in: he’s great on Polonius and Lear, for example, and his passion for the topic is writ large on each page. However, I just wanted to read more about each one: a few pages per play just isn’t enough to be borough, especially when there are so many quotes from the plays.

The edition I read was also a bit rubbish in that there weren’t enough indicators of when the play quotes ended and Hazlitt began. It also lacked a table of contents and a copyright page - I know Hazlitt’s in the public domain, but it would be nice to know who published the book I’m reading.

[YAHYRA CASTRO · Rating 5 out of 5]

I personally think it is good and has a lot and it is a thick book put you learn a lot and I love it it gives you a huge fact of knowledge and feels good I am just very happy it has held me know more about william shakespeare and see all his poems makes me feel like learning a lot more.

[Guhnguh]

Kindle - partially read

[Eresa Jaquis]

Good for thesis.

[Hasina Aby]

Ch 36 P6 You will only warn someone who follows the reminder and dreads the mercy giving even though he is unseen. Proclaim forgiveness and generous payment to him.

[James F · Rating 3 out of 5]

The first aspect of Shakespeare's plays to be discussed at any length was his characterization. This book, and Coleridge's lectures of the same date which I will read next, were partly inspired by Schlegel's Lectures on Dramatic Art, which devotes about a third of the second volume, so near as I can tell from the contents, to Shakespeare. I will skip that, because I don't like reading partial books and the first volume on Greek and Roman drama, the Renaissance, and the French neo-classical drama would lead too far from my current project.

The work reminds me of a collection of somewhat longish book reviews, or an "Introduction" to Shakespeare for English students; Hazlitt deals with all the plays he regarded as genuine (all those presently accepted except Titus Andronicus and Pericles Prince of Tyre) individually, about seven or eight pages per play, with an emphasis on the development of his characters. What he says usually seems right, but misses out on a lot of other aspects of the plays; there is nothing here which is not obvious to anyone who has seen or read much Shakespeare, but perhaps at the time his insights were more original than after two more centuries of criticism. I think the famous description of Coleridge's lectures as "exclamatory criticism" applies equally well to Hazlitt; he tends to tell us in superlatives how wonderfully Shakespeare achieves this or that effect, rather than analyzing how he achieves it. For such short notes, there are a lot of long quotations, and as this book was in the Ultimate Shakespeare Kindle collection they are full of typos. Two short sections at the end deal with apocryphal plays and with the poetry (he doesn't like it, except partly for the Sonnets).

[Boweavil]

Whether or not one agrees with everything Hazlitt says about Shakespeare really doesn't matter, for it is simply a joy to read the things he writes. Oh, if only once in my life I could write a sentence as he does! Most of what he says about the plays and the longer poems is reasonable, but I don't agree with his thoughts on the sonnets. Nevertheless, this is a book that every well read being will want to dip into from time to time. No need to read it in one sitting. Taste it the way you'd eat a dessert.