How did Samuel Taylor Coleridge interpret Shakespeare’s characters differently from earlier critics?

Samuel Taylor Coleridge and other Romantic critics diverged from earlier Neoclassical perspectives, such as those held by John Dryden, which often criticized Shakespeare for lacking "judgment" and decorum. While earlier critics viewed Shakespeare as a "native genius" whose plays required refinement to remove "vulgar" impurities, Coleridge championed Shakespeare’s work as an expression of organic form rather than mechanical regularity.12

Coleridge interpreted Shakespeare’s characters by focusing on their "inward nature," emphasizing "internal emotions" and "retired recesses" of the human heart. He moved away from the Neoclassical focus on external rules, instead viewing Shakespeare’s characters as embodiments of an "implicit wisdom deeper even than our consciousness". By prioritizing the "inward" over the "mechanical," Coleridge reconciled the "tragedy of fate" with the "tragedy of character," arguing that fate in Shakespeare’s plays is often an expression of interior compulsion. This shift allowed Coleridge to appreciate Shakespeare’s "variety" and the complex, often contradictory, psychological depths of his characters, which he viewed as an imitation of nature rather than a mere copy.23