(Vol. ii., pp. 113. 139. 200. 234.)
I should have been content to leave the question of the meaning of the word
_delighted_ as it stands in your columns, my motive, so kindly appreciated
by Mr. SINGER, in raising the discussion being, by such means to arrive at
the true meaning of the word, but that the remarks of L.B.L. (p. 234.)
recall to my mind a canon of criticism which I had intended to communicate
at an earlier period as useful for the guidance of commentators in
questions of this nature. It is as follows:--Master the grammatical
construction of the passage in question (if from a drama, in its dramatic
and I scenic application), deducing therefrom the general sense, before you
attempt to amend or fix the meaning of a doubtful word.
Of all writers, 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 he would not be guilty of faults
of construction such as would disgrace a school-boy's composition; and yet
how unworthily is he treated when we find some of his finest passages
vulgarised and degraded through misapprehensions arising from a mere want
of that attention due to the very least, not to say the greatest, of
writers. This want of attention (without attributing to it such fatal
consequences) appears to me evident in L.B.L.'s remarks, ably as he
analyses the passage. I give him credit for the faith that enabled him to
discover a sense in it as it stands; but when he says that it is perfectly
intelligible in its natural sense, it appears to me that he cannot be aware
of the innumerable explanations that have been offered of this very clear
passage. The source of his error is plainly referable to the cause I have
pointed out.
It is quite true that, in the passage referred to, the condition of the
body before and after death is contrasted, but this is merely incidental.
The natural antithesis of "a sensible warm motion" is expressed in "a
kneaded clod" and "cold obstruction;" but the terms of the other half of
the passage are not quite so well balanced. On the other hand, it is not
the contrasted condition of each, but the separation of the body and
spirit--that is, _death_--which is the object of the speaker's
contemplation. Now with regard to the meaning of the term _delighted_,
L.B.L. says it is applied to the spirit "_not_ in its state _after death_,
but _during life_." I must quote the lines once more:--
"Ay, but to die, and go we know not where;
To lie in cold obstruction, and to rot;
This sensible warm motion to become
A kneaded clod; _and_ the delighted spirit
To bathe in fiery floods," &c.
And if I were to meet with a hundred thousand passages of a similar
construction, I am confident they would only confirm the view that the
spirit is represented in the _then present_ state as at the termination of
the former clause of the sentence. If such had not been the view
instinctively taken by all classes of readers, there could have been no
difficulty about the meaning of the word.
As a proof that this view of the construction is correct, let L.B.L.
substitute for "delighted spirit", _spirit no longer delighted_, and he
will find that it gives precisely the sense which he deduces from the
passage as it stands. If this be true, then, according to his view, the
negative and affirmative of a proposition may be used indifferently, in the
same time and circumstances giving exactly the same meaning.
MR. SINGER furnishes another instance (Vol. ii., p. 241.) of the value of
my canon. I think there can be no doubt that his explanation of the meaning
of the word _eisell_ is correct; but if it were not, any way of reading the
passage in which it occurs would lead me to the conclusion that it could
not be a river. _Drink up_ is synonymous with _drink off_, _drink to the
dregs_. A child, taking medicine, is urged to "drink it up." The idea of
the passage appears to be that each of the acts should go beyond the last
preceding in extravagance:--
"Woo't weep? Woo't fight? Woo't fast? Woo't tear thyself?
Woo't drink up eisell?"
And then 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 crowning extravagance. The notion of
drinking up a river would be both unmeaning and out of place.