her husband without seeming to concur with him, or even suspect his schemes; but when afterwards, in the tenth scene of the third act, she sees the improper use to which the napkin is applied, and the great distress which the loss of it occasioned to Desdemona, without so much as wishing to explain the misunderstanding, she is no more the open and virtuous Emilia, but a coadjutor with her dark and unfeeling husband. This is a remarkable violation of every appearance of probability, when we contrast it with her noble and spirited conduct afterwards. We are surprised to find a slip of so much magnitude from the clear and piercing judgment of Shakspeare, especially when we consider that it would have been very easily remedied by removing her during this interview.j

W. N.

If we consider Shakspeare, as I am persuaded we must do, not intending to represent Emilia as by any means a perfectly correct character, this seeming inconsistency will immediately vanish. Of this opinion is Schlegel, who says: " to give still greater effect to the angelic purity of Desdemona, Shakspeare has, in Emilia, associated with her a companion of doubtful virtue. From the sinful levity of this woman, it is also conceivable that she should not confess the abstraction of the handkerchief, when Othello violently demands it back this would, otherwise, be the circumstance in the whole piece the most difficult to justify."-Lectures on Dramatic Literature, vol. ii. p. 192.

Anderson's Bee, vol. i. p. 176 ad p. 181.

No. IX.

CRITICISM ON THE CHARACTER AND TRAGEDY OF HAMLET.

CRITICISM, like every thing else, is subject to the prejudices of our education or of our country. National prejudice, indeed, is, of all deviations from justice, the most common and the most allowable; it is a near, though perhaps an illegitimate, relation of that patriotism which has been ranked among the first virtues of characters the most eminent and illustrious. To authors, however, of a rank so elevated as to aspire to universal fame, the partiality of their countrymen has been sometimes prejudicial; in proportion as they have unreasonably applauded, the critics of other countries, from a very common sort of feeling, have unreasonably censured; and there are few great writers, whom prejudice on either side may not, from a partial view of their works, find some ground for estimating at a rate much above or much below the standard of justice.

No author, perhaps, ever existed, of whom opinion has been so various as Shakspeare. Endowed with all the sublimity, and subject to all the irregularities of genius, his advocates have room for unbounded praise, and their opponents

for frequent blame. His departure from all the common rules which criticism, somewhat arbitrarily perhaps, has imposed, leaves no legal code by which the decision can be regulated; and in the feelings of different readers, the same passage may appear simple or mean, natural or preposterous, may excite admiration, or create disgust.

But it is not, I apprehend, from particular passages or incidents that Shakspeare is to be judged. Though his admirers frequently contend for beauty in the most distorted of the former, and probability in the most unaccountable of the latter; yet it must be owned that in both there are often gross defects which criticism cannot justify, though the situation of the poet, and the time in which he wrote, may easily excuse. But we are to look for the superiority of Shakspeare in the astonishing and almost supernatural powers of his invention, his absolute command over the passions, and his wonderful knowledge of nature. Of the structure of his stories, or the probability of his incidents, he is frequently careless,-these he took at random from the legendary tale, or the extravagant romance; but his intimate acquaintance with the human mind seldom or never forsakes him; and amidst the most fantastic and improbable situations, the persons of his drama speak in the language of the heart, and in the style of their characters.

Of all the characters of Shakspeare, that of Hamlet has been generally thought the most

difficult to be reduced to any fixed o principle. With the strongest purposes of he is irresolute and inactive; amidst th of the deepest melancholy, he is gay and and while he is described as a passionate seems indifferent about the object of his a It may be worth while to inquire whe leading idea can be found, upon whi apparent contradictions may be reconcile character so pleasing in the closet, and applauded on the stage, rendered as una in the general as it is striking in detail venture to lay before my readers some tions on this subject, though with the due to a question of which the public has and much abler critics have already writt

The basis of Hamlet's character seems extreme sensibility of mind, apt to be impressed by its situation, and overpo the feelings which that situation excites rally of the most virtuous and most am positions, the circumstances in which placed unhinged those principles of actio in another situation, would have deligh kind, and made himself happy. That distress which he suffered was, beyond a calculated to produce this effect. Hi tunes were not the misfortunes of accider though they may overwhelm at first, will soon call up reflections to alleviate, to cheer they were such as reflection oi

to irritate, such as rankle in the soul's tenderest part, her sense of virtue, and feelings of natural affection; they arose from an uncle's villainy, a mother's guilt, a father's murder !-Yet amidst the gloom of melancholy, and the agitation of passion, in which his calamities involve him, there are occasional breakings-out of a mind richly endowed by nature, and cultivated by education. We perceive gentleness in his demeanour, wit in his conversation, taste in his amusements, and wisdom in his reflections.

That Hamlet's character, thus formed by nature, and thus modelled by situation, is often variable and uncertain, I am not disposed to deny. I will content myself with the supposition that this is the very character which Shakspeare meant to allot him. Finding such a character in real life, of a person endowed with feelings so delicate as to border on weakness, with sensibility too exquisite to allow of determined action, he has placed it where it could be best exhibited, in scenes of wonder, of terror, and of indignation, where its varying emotions might be most strongly marked amidst the workings of imagination, and the war of the passions.

This is the very management of the character by which, above all others, we could be interested in its behalf. Had Shakspeare made Hamlet pursue his vengeance with a steady determined purpose, had he led him through difficulties arising from accidental causes, and not from the doubts