from the influence of reason;
but it was natural on occasions that, stirred by his desire for revenge,
he should doubt the validity of his reasons for delay. A wide distinction
also must be drawn in the matter of time for vengeance, between action
resulting from sudden and that from remoter provocation.

There seems to have been in Hamlet, so far as regards the commands of the
apparition, an almost perpetual conflict between impulse and reason, each
in its turn being predominant. The desire for revenge is at times so
great that it is only by the strongest effort of will he resists
precipitate action, then, losing no pretext to find causes for its
exercise, overpowering the dictates of his penetrative genius. It is not
rashness in Hamlet on one occasion and procrastination on another, but a
power of instantaneous action that could be controlled by the very
briefest period of reflection, the great feature in his intellect being a
preternaturally rapid reflective power, and men of genius almost
invariably do meditate before action.

Among the numerous unsupported conjectures respecting this tragedy may be
mentioned that, when Shakespeare drew the characters of, 1. Hamlet; 2.
Horatio; 3. Claudius; 4. The Queen, he had in his mind, 1. The Earl of
Essex or Sir Phillip Sydney or himself; 2. Lord Southampton or Fulke
Greville; 3. The Earl of Leicester; 4. Mary, Queen of Scots. Although
some of these suggestions are ingeniously supported, there is not one of
them which rests on any kind of real evidence or external probability.

Burbage was the first actor of Hamlet in Shakespeare's tragedy. His
performance is spoken of in terms of high commendation, but there is no
record of his treatment of the character, his delineation probably
differing materially from that of modern actors. Stage tradition merely
carries down the tricks of the profession, no actor entirely replacing
another, and, in the case of Hamlet, hardly two of recent times, whose
performances I have had the opportunity of witnessing, but who are or
have been distinct in manner and expression, and even in idea. Few actors
or readers can be found to agree respecting Shakespeare's conception of
the character. This, however, may be safely asserted, that no criticism
on Hamlet will ever be permanent which does not recognize the sublimity
of his nature. Horatio understood Hamlet better than anyone, and his
judgment of him doubtless expressed Shakespeare's own estimate: