in the story as already represented on the stage, lay in a new conception of Hamlet’s character and so of the cause of his delay.  And, lastly, when we examine the tragedy, we observe two things which illustrate the same point.  First, we find by the side of the hero no other figure of tragic proportions, no one like Lady Macbeth or Iago, no one even like Cordelia or Desdemona; so that, in Hamlet’s absence, the remaining characters could not yield a Shakespearean tragedy at all.  And, secondly, we find among them two, Laertes and Fortinbras, who are evidently designed to throw the character of the hero into relief.  Even in the situations there is a curious parallelism; for Fortinbras, like Hamlet, is the son of a king, lately dead, and succeeded by his brother; and Laertes, like Hamlet, has a father slain, and feels bound to avenge him.  And with this parallelism in situation there is a strong contrast in character; for both Fortinbras and Laertes possess in abundance the very quality which the hero seems to lack, so that, as we read, we are tempted to exclaim that either of them would have accomplished Hamlet’s task in a day.  Naturally, then, the tragedy of Hamlet with Hamlet left out has become the symbol of extreme absurdity; while the character itself has probably exerted a greater fascination, and certainly has been the subject of more discussion, than any other in the whole literature of the world.

Before, however, we approach the task of examining it, it is as well to remind ourselves that the virtue of the play by no means wholly depends on this most subtle creation.  We are all aware of this, and if we were not so the history of Hamlet, as a stage-play, might bring the fact home to us.  It is to-day the most popular of Shakespeare’s tragedies on our stage; and yet a large number, perhaps even the majority of the spectators, though they may feel some mysterious attraction in the hero, certainly do not question themselves about his character or the cause of his delay, and would still find the play exceptionally effective, even if he were an ordinary brave young man and the obstacles in his path were purely external.  And this has probably always been the case. Hamlet seems from the first to have been a favourite play; but until late in the eighteenth century, I believe, scarcely a critic showed that he perceived anything specially interesting in the character.  Hanmer, in 1730, to be sure, remarks that ’there appears no reason at all in nature why this young prince did not put the usurper to death as soon as possible’; but it does not even cross his mind that this apparent ‘absurdity’ is odd and might possibly be due to some design on the part of the poet.  He simply explains the absurdity by observing that, if Shakespeare had made the young man go ‘naturally to work,’ the play would have come to an end at once!  Johnson, in like manner, notices that ’Hamlet is, through the whole piece, rather an instrument than an agent,’