Some Remarks on the Tragedy of Hamlet, Prince of Denmark, Written by Mr. William Shakespeare (1736)

In Short

This work is a pioneering example of English dramatic criticism, written in 1736 to examine Hamlet with fresh eyes. Eschewing the rigid, "arbitrary" rules of French neoclassicism, the author evaluates the play based on reason, nature, and the "secret force" that captures an audience’s imagination. By meticulously tracing the plot from the opening sentry watch to the final catastrophe, the essay seeks to explain why the tragedy succeeds. It remains a vital document for readers interested in the evolution of how we interpret and value Shakespeare’s most complex work.

The Story

The essay begins by setting a high standard for the critic: to act as a guide who highlights beauties rather than a pedant searching for minor flaws. The author establishes a clear, methodical approach, walking the reader through the tragedy act by act and scene by scene. The argument centers on the idea that Hamlet is a masterpiece of design, where every incident—even those that might seem extraneous—serves the overarching purpose of the play.

The narrative progression of this critique follows the Prince’s journey. The author begins with the opening, praising the "majesty and simplicity" of the ghostly encounter on the platform, arguing that the atmosphere of terror is crafted with perfect naturalism. He defends the Ghost’s appearance as a necessary catalyst, noting that the characters' initial skepticism makes their eventual belief, and the audience's, feel entirely earned.

Moving into the court, the critic examines the political and familial tensions. He characterizes the King as a "smiling, damned villain" and notes the importance of the Queen’s moral struggle. A significant portion of the analysis is devoted to Hamlet’s feigned madness; the author offers a candid critique, suggesting that while the plot requires this deception, it ultimately hinders the Prince’s ability to exact revenge, creating a logical friction that Shakespeare does not entirely smooth over.

As the play moves toward its climax, the author focuses on the moral weight of the scenes. He applauds the play-within-a-play as a brilliant device for confirming the King’s guilt and praises the confrontation between Hamlet and his mother as a masterclass in emotional staging. He is particularly interested in the "poetical justice" of the conclusion, where the guilty are punished and the innocent pay a heavy price. Throughout this progression, the author consistently argues that the unity of action is upheld not by mechanical adherence to time or place, but by the psychological consistency of the characters. He defends the inclusion of the "bloody scenes"—the ghosts, the madness, and the final deaths—as essential to the play's power, rejecting the sanitized approach of contemporary French drama. He concludes that while the work has imperfections, it stands as a sublime achievement because it speaks to the fundamental truths of human nature, morality, and the complex, often unpredictable path of justice.

How It Unfolds

The call for reasoned criticism The author initiates his study by rejecting both the "ill-natured" habit of fault-finding and the "bigoted" habit of blind praise. He establishes a new, Addisonian standard that values how a work strikes the mind and why it succeeds in moving the audience.

The platform and the phantom The critique moves to the opening scenes, emphasizing the necessity of the Ghost’s appearance to establish the play's stakes. He argues that by making Horatio a skeptic, the playwright expertly bridges the gap between the audience’s doubt and the play’s supernatural reality.

The courtly deception The author analyzes the King’s initial speeches, highlighting their "fawning" and duplicitous nature. He notes how these interactions clarify Hamlet’s position as a grieving, isolated son before the central conflict of revenge fully takes hold.

The problem of madness Turning to the middle acts, the author confronts the "absurdity" of Hamlet’s feigned insanity. He argues that this tactic, intended for protection, actually serves as a barrier to the Prince’s objective, revealing a tension between the plot's requirements and the character’s logic.

The moral climax The focus shifts to the confrontation with the Queen and the subsequent death of Polonius. The author praises these moments for their psychological depth and their clear, instructive moral effect on the audience.

The final justice The essay concludes with an evaluation of the play’s final act. The author defends the necessity of the tragic end, finding it consistent with the "rules of nature" and the demands of poetic justice.

The People

Hamlet stands at the center of the essay, characterized not merely as a tragic hero but as a man of "heroical disposition" and profound filial piety. The author tracks his evolution from a mourning son to a man struggling with the moral burden of revenge. The King is depicted as the primary antagonist, a figure defined entirely by his "dissimulation" and moral corruption. His interaction with Hamlet serves as a litmus test for the Prince's own virtue. Ophelia is viewed primarily through the lens of her tragic circumstances, with the author suggesting her madness is a natural, albeit heart-wrenching, response to the loss of her father at the hands of the man she loves. Polonius is analyzed as a character of "natural" old age, whose forgetfulness and meddling contribute to the inevitability of the catastrophe. Together, these figures are not seen as static types but as individuals whose motivations and responses, however flawed, drive the play’s tragic design.

In Its Own Voice

The author sets a high bar for his own role as a critic, looking to previous masters for guidance:

"Happy! if I can but any ways follow such a Guide, though at ever so great a Distance; since I am well persuaded, that by this Means I can never be totally in Error, tho' I may sometimes deviate for want of proper Abilities!"

He defends the play’s use of the supernatural, noting how the playwright manages the appearance of the Ghost:

"In a Word, We have in this important Scene, our Indignation raised against a vile Murderer, our Compassion caus'd for the inhuman Death of a virtuous Prince; our Affection is heighten'd for the Hero of the Play; and, not to enter into more Particulars, we are moved in the strongest Manner, by every Thing that can gain Access to our Hearts."

What It's Really About

The central argument concerns the nature of dramatic illusion. The author posits that a play succeeds not when it follows "arbitrary rules" regarding time and place, but when it achieves a "unity of design" that captures the human imagination. He argues that Shakespeare’s genius lies in his ability to create a "delusion" that is consistent with human reason and morality. By examining the play’s ability to "work upon our passions by degrees," the author explores how tragedy functions as a moral tool. He concludes that the ultimate purpose of the theater is to provide an instructive representation of justice, where vice is inevitably punished and the audience is moved to a deeper understanding of human nature through the power of "sublime" poetry.

Why Read It Today

Readers who enjoy the history of ideas or the development of literary criticism will find this a fascinating window into the eighteenth-century mind. It offers a rare opportunity to see how an early, sophisticated reader encountered Hamlet before the heavy weight of centuries of academic scholarship. The tone is warm and conversational, yet precise—a refreshing departure from modern, jargon-heavy analysis.

However, the reader should be prepared for the author’s period-specific sensibilities. His focus on "poetical justice" and his occasional frustration with the play’s "absurdities" reflect the values of a time that prized moral order and clear, logical progression. Some of his dismissive remarks about specific scenes—such as his critique of the "fop Osrick" or the inclusion of prose—may strike modern readers as narrow, yet they provide valuable insight into how the play’s structure was perceived in 1736.

Ultimately, reading this work feels like sitting down with a learned, opinionated, and deeply appreciative mentor. You will come away not just with a better understanding of Hamlet, but with a renewed appreciation for the enduring, "secret force" of the theater itself. It is a brief, spirited, and thoughtful companion for anyone still wrestling with the mysteries of the Prince of Denmark.