The criticism of Hamlet is marked by its extent, its variety and its frequent aggressiveness. A. A. Raven’s A Hamlet Bibliography and Reference Guide 1877–1935 (Chicago, 1936) listed 2167 items: in the last twenty years the tide has not slackened. The Prince has been seen as too sensitive for the rough world, as given to metaphysical speculation, as shocked out of normality by incest and murder, as an effective stage-figure resistant to psychological probing, as a man of sanguine temperament falling into melancholy adust, as the victim of an Oedipus complex, and as an altogether vigorous and right-thinking young man who would stir no suspicion in the mind of an immigration officer. The play presents itself to some as good craftsman’s work; to others it is a palimpsest, with fragments of sources and early drafts unsatisfactorily showing themselves in the final version. For most critics the Prince dominates the play and their interest, but some would have us give at least comparable importance to other figures or would remind us that a dramatic poem exists primarily as a pattern of words. And it is possible, but rare, to be modest and tentative in writing of this play: more frequently we are offered a ‘solution’ which is, for good and all, to pluck out the play’s heart and banish its mystery. Because of the vast extent of this critical writing, it can happen that such a ‘solution’ is an old acquaintance innocently offered as new. The extreme divergence of critical opinion may suggest a flaw in the play, that the dramatist did not come to a full awareness, or at least a full dramatic realization, of his central idea.