There is, assuredly, sufficient foundation for believing that the mind of Shakspeare, exercised on the old story of a simulated insanity, imagined the finer outline of a mental condition in which there is a partial disturbance of reason, and that not continual, but fitful, often rectified, often returning, and productive of perplexing inconsistency of thought and action. The opinion more generally entertained, that the madness of Hamlet was only assumed, seems to rest principally on his declaration to his friends, in the fifth scene of the First Act,

and

As I, perchance, hereafter may think meet

To put an antic disposition on

upon his saying to Rosencrantz and Guildenstern, in the second scene of the Second Act,

I am but mad north-north-west: when the wind is southerly, I know a hawk from a hand-saw.

These expressions, and his positive denial of madness, in answer to his mother's observation in the fourth scene of the Third Act, constitute all the passages that would appear to give direct support to the conclusion that bis eccentricities were merely acted.

This view of Hamlet's character, however, although it has been taken by many distinguished commentators, and has been generally, if not universally, adopted on the stage, has occasionally been questioned by critics peculiarly qualified by their mental habits to form a correct judgment concerning it. It is observed by Dr. Johnson that the incidents of this play are so numerous that the mere argument of it would make a long tale and certainly the diversities of opinion among those who have delighted to dwell on this great production are so many as to make a reconsideration of the question, and a new and careful perusal of the whole of the tragedy, if not absolutely necessary, at least excusable. The habitual readers of Shakspeare will require no excuse for such an attempt, or for its imperfection.

The fidelity of all the stage representations of Hamlet is certainly doubtful, although the names of all the most accomplished tragedians of the last and of the present century are associated with their performance of the principal character. All appear to have adopted the common view of it, as one in which

madness is feigned; and different actors do not scruple to modify particular scenes according to their own conceptions, without strict regard to the text. To some of these licences it may be necessary to refer, although with no diminution of respect for those who have devoted their great abilities to the personation of a part to which no performance can fully do justice. None of them have fallen so far into error as one to whose worship the shade of Shakspeare is most indebted; for Garrick made the bold experiment of omitting the scene with the grave-diggers, with all its wit and all its humorous sadness.

The Play itself ranks so highly among the works of genius as to justify the most devoted study. It has been declared by Coleridge, the most imaginative of those who have undertaken such a study, to be “the darling of every country in which the literature of England has been fostered ;" and it has been translated with the most faithful care into almost every language of Europe. The German translation of it, by Augustus William Schlegel, is considered by those most competent to form an estimate of its merits, as

approaching to an absolute transcript of the original, and as not merely rendering the expressions, but preserving the feelings and sentiment and poetry throughout.* It is to be regretted that the disappearance of a manuscript of a French translation by M. Léon de Wailly (referred to in vol. 83 of the "Edinburgh Review"), has deprived literature of a rare example of close and admirable translation of dramatic poetry from the English language into French. The specimens given of it by the reviewer, including the soliloquy in the beginning of the Third Act, and also the description of the manner of Ophelia's death, could not be surpassed. Among the great writers of other countries, who have recorded their admiration of this particular play, may be mentioned the honoured names of Goethe, Lessing, Wieland, Schroeder, Horn, Villemain, and Guizot, and more recently, Professor Gervinus. In our own country we can refer to Coleridge, Campbell, Wilson, Hallam, and to living commentators of various qualifications and attainTo the admiration thus implied, may be

ments.

* "Blackwood," vol. xxxvii., p. 242.

added the unmistakeable testimony of all readers and all playgoers in all countries. Gervinus remarks, that

whenever the name of Shakspeare is mentioned, the play of Hamlet first comes to remembrance; and John Kemble observed that in every copy of Shakspeare's works it appeared that Hamlet had been the play most read. It is plainly observable in our theatres that spectators, of all classes and ages, are never wearied of representations of it: crowded audiences listen to the truthful dialogues as if fearful to lose a word; and the calmer reader in his study derives gratification, at each perusal of the passionate soliloquies, from the belief that he knows more of Shakspeare's mind and meaning than he did before.

In the short life of any one man, the fleeting nature of literary fame is illustrated by the indifference of younger readers to works that were but half a century before in every reader's hands. Each generation seems to require to be instructed or amused in a new form, or delighted by new combinations of fancy, and new modes of expression. The exceptions