Jan. 25. 1851.] 



NOTES AND QUERIES. 



67 



accommodate his exposition to Shakspeare's sen- 

 tence, and to " get over the drink z//j," which still 

 stands in his way as it did in that ot jNIalone. 



Mb. Sixgeh gets over tlie difficulty by simply 

 Baying " to dritik up was commonly used for 

 simply to drink." The example he quotes, how- 

 ever, — 



" I will drink 

 Potions of eysell," — 



is not to his purpose ; it is only an equivalent by 

 the addition of the words ^''potions of" to give it 

 the same definite character. Omit those words, 

 and the question remains as before. 



Mb. Hickso:* (Vol. ii., p. 329.) has laid down 

 " a canon of criticism for the guidance of com- 

 mentators in questions of this nature," so appro- 

 priate and valuable, that I cannot except to be 

 bound by it in these remarks; and if in the sequel 

 Lis own argument (and his friend's proposition to 

 boot) shall be blown up by his own petard, it will 

 show the instability of the cause he has espoused. 



" Ma<^ter the grammatical construction of the passage 

 in question (if from a drama, in its dramatic and scenic 

 application), deducing therefrom the general sense, be- 

 fore you attempt to amend or fix the meaning of a 

 doubtful word," 



Such is the canon ; and ]\Ir. Hickson proceeds 

 to observe, in language that must meet the ap- 

 proval of every student of the immortal bard, 

 that — 



" Of all n'riters, none exceed Shakspeare in logical 

 correctness and nicety of expression. With a vigour of 

 thought and command of language attained by no man 

 besides, it is fair to conclude, that lie tcould not he guilty 

 of faults of construction such as icould disgrace a scheol- 

 bot/'s composition." 



With this canon so ably laid down, and these 

 remarks so apposite, Mr. Hickson, taking up the 

 weak point which Mr. Singer had slurred over, 

 observes — 



" Drink up is synonymous with drink off, drink to the 

 dregs. A child taking medicine is urged to ' drink it 

 up."' 



Ay, exactly so; drink up what ? tJw medicine ; 

 again a defined quantity ; dregs and all, — still a 

 definite quantity. 



]\Ib. IIickson proceeds : 



" The idea of the passage appears to be that each of 

 the acts should go beyond the last preceding in extra- 

 vagance. 

 ' Woo 't weep ? woo 't fight ? woo "t fast ? woo 't tear 

 thyself? 



Woo 't drink up eisell ? ' 



and tlien comes the climax — 'eat a crocodile?' Here 

 is a regular succession of feats, the last but one of 

 which is sufficiently wild, though not unheard of, and 

 leading to the cro\vnit)g extravagance. The notion of 

 drinking up a river would be botii unnaeaiiing and out 

 of place." 



From this argument two conclusions are the 

 natural consequences ; first, that from drinking up 

 wormwood, — a feat " sufficiently wild but not 

 unheard of," to eating a crocodile, is onlv a "re- 

 gular succession of events;" and, secondly, that 

 the " crowning extravagance," to eat a crocodile, 

 is, after all, neither "unmeaning" nor "out of 

 place;" but, on the contrary, quite in keeping 

 and in orderly succession to a "-drink up" of the 

 bitter infusion. 



Mr. Singer (Vol. ii., p. 241.) says: 



" Numerous passages of our old dramatic writers 

 show that it was a fashion with the gallants of the time 

 to do some extravagant feat as proof of their love." 



T quite agree with him, if he mean to say that 

 the early dramatists ascribe to their gallants a 

 fashion which in reality belongs to the age of Du 

 Gueslin and the Troubadours. But Hamlet him- 

 self, in the ccmtextof the passage in question, gives 

 the key to his whole purport, when, after some 

 further extravagance, he says : 



" Nay, an thoiil 't mouth, 

 I'll rant as well as thou." 



That being so, why are we to conclude that 

 each feat of daring is to be a tame possibility, 

 save only the last — the crowning extravagance ? 

 Why not also the one preceding? Why not a feat 

 equally of mere verbiage and rant ? Why not a 

 river? 



Adopting Mb. Hickson's canon of criticism, the 

 gramnuitical construction of the passage requires 

 that a definite substantive shall be employed to 

 explain the definite something that is to be done. 

 Shakspeare says — 



" Woul 't drink up esile ?"* 



— a totality in itself, without the expression of 

 quantity to make it definite. If we read " drink 

 up wormwood," what does it imply ? It may be 

 the smallest possible quantity, — an ordinary dose 

 of bitters; or a pailful, which would perhaps melt 

 the " madness ' of Hamlet's daring. Thus the 

 little monosyllable "up" must be disposed of, or 

 a quantity must be expressed to reconcile Me. 

 Singer's proposition with Mr. Hickson's canoii 

 and tlie grammatical sense of Shakspeare's line. 

 _ If with Steevens we understand esile to be a 

 river, " the Danish river CEsil, which empties it- 

 self into tlie Baltic," the Yssel, Wessel, or any other 

 river, real or fictitious, the sense is clear. Rather 

 let Sliaksj)eare have committed a geographical 

 blunder on the information of his day, than break 



* So the folio, according to my copy. It would be 

 advantageous, perha|)s, to note the spelling in the 

 earliest edition of the sonnet whence Mu. .Sinc.er (piotes 

 "potions ifcgselh" a difference, if there be any, would 

 mark the distinction between Hamlet's river and the 

 Saxon derivative. 



