[This controversy is becoming a little too warm for our pages. But MR.
CAUSTON is entitled to have some portion of the letter he has sent to
us inserted. He writes with reference to the communications from MR.
HICKSON and MR. SINGER in our 68th number, p. 119., in reply to MR.
C.'S Article, which, although it had been in our hands a considerable
time, was not inserted until out 65th Number, p. 66.; a delay which
gave to that article the appearance of an attempt to revive a
discussion, whereas it really was written only in continuance of one.]
To MR. HICKSON I suggest, that whether the notion of "drinking up a river,"
or "eating a crocodile," be the more "unmeaning" or "out of place," must
after all be a mere matter of opinion, as the latter must remain a question
of taste; since it seems to be his settled conviction that it is not
"impossible," but only "extravagant." Archdeacon Nares thought it quite the
reverse; and I beg to remind your readers that Shakspearian crocodiles are
never served _à la Soyer_, but swallowed _au naturel_ and entire.
MR. HICKSON is dissatisfied with my terms "mere verbiage" and "extravagant
rant." I recommend a careful consideration of the scene over the grave of
Ophelia; and then let any one say whether or not the "wag" of tongue
between Laertes and Hamlet be not fairly described by the expressions I
have used,--a paraphrase indeed, of Hamlet's concluding lines:
"Nay, an thou'lt _mouth_,
I'll _rant_ as well as thou."
Doubtless Shakspeare had a purpose in everything he wrote, and his purpose
at this time was to work up the scene to the most effective conclusion, and
to display the excitement of Hamlet in a series of beautiful images, which,
nevertheless, the queen his mother immediately pronounced to be "mere
madness," and which one must be as mad as Hamlet himself to adopt as feats
literally to be performed.
The offence is rank in the eyes of MR. SINGER that I should have styled MR.
HICKSON his friend. The amenities of literature, I now perceive, do not
extend to the case, and a new canon is required, to the effect that "when
one gentleman is found bolstering up the argument of another, he is not,
ever for the nonce, to be taken for his friend." I think the denial to be
expressed in rather strong language; but I hasten to make the _amende_
suitable to the occasion, by withdrawing the "falsehood and unfounded
insinuation."
MR. SINGER has further charged me with "want of truth," in stating that the
question remains "substantially where Steevens and Malone had left it."
Wherein, I ask, substantially consists the difference?
MR. SINGER has merely substituted his "wormwood wine" for Malone's vinegar;
and before he can make it as palatable to common sense, and Shakspeare's
"logical correctness and nicety of expression," as it was to Creed and
Shepley, he must get over the "stalking-horse," the _drink_ UP, which
stands in his way precisely as it did in that of Malone's more legitimate
proposition. MR. SINGER overleaps the difficulty by a bare assertion that
"to _drink_ UP was commonly used for simply to drink." He has not produced
any parallel case of proof, with the exception of one from Mr. Halliwell's
_Nursery Rhymes_. I adopt his citation, and shall employ it against him.
_Drink_ UP can only be grammatically applied to a determinate total,
whether it be the river Yssell or MR. HICKSON'S dose of physic. Shakespeare
seems to have been well acquainted with, and to have observed, the
grammatical rule which MR. SINGER professes not to comprehend. Thus:
"I will drink,
_Potions of_ eysell."
Shaksp. _Sonnet_ cxi.
and
"Give me to drink mandragora,"
_Ant. and Cleop._, Act I. Sc. 5.
are parallel passages, and imply quantity indeterminate, inasmuch as they
admit of more or less.