(Vol. ii., pp. 241. 286. 329., &c.; Vol. iii., pp. 66. 119. 210., &c.)
After so much has "been said on both sides," in the pages of "NOTES AND
QUERIES," on the signification of _eisill_ or _esil_ in _Hamlet_, it
appears to me that the evidence requires to be carefully summed up. This
task I would willingly leave to other hands; but since no correspondent
attempts it, I will venture, if I may be allowed, to take it on myself,
and will strive to perform it to the best of my ability.
The question is, whether by the word under discussion we are to
understand _vinegar_ (or some such liquid) or _a river_. It will be
proper, in taking a view of the matter, to "begin from the beginning,"
and to see, in the first place, what the earlier commentators have said.
1. What the critics before Theobald thought of the word, is not quite
certain; but Theobald states that it had, "through all the editions,
been distinguished by Italic characters, as if it were the proper name
of a river; and so," he adds, "I dare say all the editors have from time
to time understood it to be." But not being able to satisfy himself what
river could be meant, he preferred to understand it of vinegar, and
interprets the passage, "Wilt thou swallow down large draughts of
vinegar?"
2. Sir Thomas Hanmer, on the contrary, was so convinced that a river was
signified, that he actually altered the passage, _arbitrio suo_, to
"Wilt drink up _Nile_? or eat a crocodile?"
3. Johnson was silent, and left the explanation of the word to Steevens,
who, observing that Hamlet meant to rant (as he says he will), supposed
him to defy Laertes "to drink up a river, or try his teeth on an animal
whose scales are supposed to be impenetrable." The word, he thinks, may
be irrecoverably corrupted, but he finds plenty of rivers in Denmark of
a somewhat similar sound, any one of which should "serve Hamlet's turn."
4. Malone, in his first edition, deeming that Hamlet was not speaking of
"impossibilities," but merely of "difficult or painful exertions,"
decided on adhering to Theobald and his vinegar. But in his second
edition he repented, and expressed his conviction that "Mr. Steevens's
interpretation is the true one," remarking that "this kind of hyperbole
is common among our ancient poets."
5. Steevens, before he published his second edition, read the
observations in favour of _vinegar_ given in Malone's first edition but,
though he allowed them to be "acute," was not moved by anything advanced
in them to depart from his opinion that a river was intended.