7. Mr. Singer, in his edition printed in 1826, had so little notion that
_vinegar_ could be signified, that he does not even advert to a single
argument in behalf of that opinion, attending only to the consideration
"what river, lake, or firth, Shakspeare meant."
8. Mr. Collier makes no decision, observing only that _eyesel_ is
certainly the old word for _vinegar_, but that there is considerable
doubt whether that be meant here and that "some of the commentators
suppose Hamlet to challenge Laertes to drink up the river Yssell or
Eisell."
9. Mr. Knight favoured the river, remarking that "there is little doubt
that Shakspeare referred to the river Yssell, Issell, or Izel, the most
northern branch of the Rhine, and that which is nearest to Denmark."
Thus we have, on the side of _vinegar_, Theobald, and Malone's first
edition, on the side of the _river_, Sir T. Hanmer, Steevens, Malone's
second edition, Boswell, Mr. Singer in 1826, and Mr. Knight; six against
two. I say nothing of Johnson, whom, however, we may consider to have
been favourable to Steevens; or of the earlier editors, who, according
to Theobald, printed the word in Italics as a proper name.
So the matter remained; most readers, as well as critics, being, I
believe, of opinion that a river was intended, until MR. SINGER, in the
46th No. of "NOTES AND QUERIES," revived the notion that some kind of
drink was signified.
10. Let us now consider what testimonies are advanced by the various
critics on behalf of each of these opinions. That _eysell_ (the 4to.,
1604, reads _esil_, and the folio _esile_) was used as synonymous with
one kind of drink, viz. _vinegar_, is apparent from the following
authorities. Malone observes that it occurs in Chaucer and Skelton, and
also in Sir Thomas More, _Works_, p. 21., edit. 1557
---- "with sowre pocion
If thou paine thy taste, remember therewithal
That Christ for thee tasted _eisil_ and gall."
He also remarks that it is found in Minsheu's _Dictionary_, 1617, and in
Coles's _Latin Dictionary_, 1679.
Shakspeare himself, as Farmer was the first to point out, has, in his
111th Sonnet,
---- "like a willing patient I will drink
Potions of _eysell_ 'gainst my strong infection;
No bitterness that I will bitter think,
Nor double penance to correct correction."
From Chaucer, Richardson's _Dictionary_ supplies,
"She was like thing for hunger deed
That lad her life only by breed
Kneden with _eisel_ strong and agre,
And thereto she was lean and megre."
_Romaunt of the Rose._
and another passage thus:
"Then these wretches full of all frowardnesse
Gave him to drink _eisel_ temp'red with gall."
_Lamentation of Mary Magdalen._
Todd, also, in his edition of Johnson, says that the old English _aysel_
for _vinegar_ is used by Wicliffe.
11. Next comes the consideration whether, if _vinegar_ were intended,
the expression _drink up_ could properly have been used in reference to
it. On this point Theobald says nothing, except intimating that "drink
up" is equivalent to "swallow down." Steevens denies that if Shakspeare
had meant Hamlet to say, "Wilt thou drink vinegar?" he would have used
"the term _drink up_," which means "_totally to exhaust_." Malone, in
his first edition, remarks on the subject as follows:
"On the phrase _drink up_ no stress can be laid, for our poet has
employed the same expression in his 114th Sonnet, without any idea
of entirely exhausting, and merely as synonymous to _drink_:
'Or whether doth my mind, being crowned with you,
_Drink up_ the monarch's plague, this flattery?'
"Again, in the same Sonnet:
---- 'Tis flattery in my seeing
And my great mind most kingly _drinks_ it _up_.'
"Again, in _Timon of Athens_:
'And how his silence _drinks up_ his applause.'
"In Shakspeare's time, as at present, to _drink up_ often meant no
more than simply _to drink_. So in Florio's _Italian Dictionary_,
1598: '_Sorbire_, to sip or _sup up_ any drink.' In like manner we
sometimes say, 'When you have _swallowed down_ this potion,'
though we mean no more than, 'When you have _swallowed_ this
potion.'"
In his second edition, however, Malone abandoned his first
interpretation, and his remarks on _drink up_ then went for nothing.
Discussion on this point has occupied some paragraphs in "NOTES AND
QUERIES." MR. SINGER, in his first paper (Vol. ii., p. 241.), asserts
that "_to drink up_ was commonly used for simply _to drink_." MR.
HICKSON, too (No. 51.), affirms that "_drink up_ is synonymous with
_drink off_, _drink to the dregs_," and observes that "a child taking
medicine is urged to _drink it up_." But H. K. S. C., or Mr. H. K. S.
CAUSTON, as he afterwards signs himself, denies that _drink up_ can be
used of _eysell_, or any other liquid, unless a _definite quantity_ of
it be signified; that is, you may say to any one, if you please, in
allusion to a _definite quantity of vinegar_, "Drink it up;" but if you
allude to _vinegar in general_, without limitation of quantity, you will
say merely, "Drink vinegar." So if you would ask your friend whether he
drinks wine or water, you would say, "Do you drink wine or water?" not
"Do you drink up wine or water?" which would be to ask him whether he
drinks up _all_ the wine or water in the world, or at least _all the
definite quantities of either_ that come within his reach. MR. SINGER
professes not to understand this doctrine, and refers MR. CAUSTON to the
nursery rhyme:
"_Eat up_ your cake, Jenny,
_Drink up_ your wine,"
"which," he says, "may perhaps afford him further apt illustration;" but
which supplies, MR. CAUSTON rejoins, only another example that _drink
up_ is applied to definite quantity; a quantity which, in this case, is
"neither more nor less than the identical glass of wine which Jenny had
standing before her." The line in Shakspeare's 114th Sonnet is, MR.
CAUSTON adds, "a parallel passage." To _drink up_, therefore, he
concludes, must be used of "a noun implying _absolute entirety_, which
might be a river, but could not be grammatically applied to any
unexpressed quantity." In these remarks there seems to be great justness
of reasoning. MR. CAUSTON might also have instanced the lines:
"Freely welcome to my cup,
Couldst thou sip, and sip it up:"
that is, "couldst thou _go on sipping_ till thou hast _sipped up_, or
_entirely exhausted, the whole definite quantity_ in the cup."
12. But MR. SINGER in 1850, differing so much from Mr. Singer in 1826
(who thought that a river was signified), supposes that though a sort of
drink is intended, it is not _vinegar_, but _wormwood-wine_. To this
purpose he cites the lines of Shakspeare's 111th Sonnet, which we have
already transcribed:
"Whilst like a willing patient I will drink
Potions of _eysell_ 'gainst my strong infection;
No _bitterness_ that I will bitter think
Nor double penance to correct correction."
"Here we see," he observes, "that it was a _bitter potion_ which it was
a penance to drink." This does not seem to be clearly apparent from the
passage for it is not absolutely certain that the _bitterness_ in the
third line refers to the _eysell_ in the second. But he adds another
quotation from the _Troy Boke_ of Lydgate:
"Of _bitter eysell_, and of eager wine."
After which he subjoins:
"Numerous passages in our old dramatic writers show that it was a
fashion with the gallants of the time to do some extravagant feat,
_as a proof of their love_, in honour of their mistresses; and
among others, the swallowing some nauseous potion was one of the
most frequent: but vinegar would hardly have been considered in
this light; _wormwood_ might. In Thomas's _Italian Dictionary_,
1562, we have 'Assentio, _Eysell_;' and Florio renders that word
[Assentio] by _Wormwood_. What is meant, however is _absinthites_,
or _wormwood wine_, a nauseously bitter medicament then much in
use; and this being evidently the _bitter potion_ of _eysell_ in
the poet's sonnet, was certainly the nauseous draught proposed to
be taken by Hamlet, among the other extravagant feats as tokens of
love."
The reader will judge with what justice the words "evidently" and
"certainly" are used. MR. SINGER then cites Junius, but to little
purpose; Hutton's _Dictionary_, to prove that _absinthites_ meant
"wormwood-wine;" and Stuckius's _Antiquitates Convivales_ to show that
absinthites was a _propoma_; but Stuckius, be it observed, mentions this
_propoma_ only as a stomachic, _quod vim habet stomachum corroborandi et
extenuandi_.
It is not surprising, therefore, that LORD BRAYBROOKE (Vol. ii., p.
286.) should quote against MR. SINGER'S theory the following paragraph:
"If, as MR. SINGER supposes, '_Eisell_ was absinthites, or
wormwood-wine, a nauseously bitter medicament then much in use,'
Pepys's friends must have had a very singular taste, for he
records on the 24th of November, 1660:
'Creed, and Shepley, and I, to the Rhenish wine-house, and there I
did give them two quarts of wormwood wine.'
"Perhaps the beverage was doctored for the English market, and
rendered more palatable than it had been in the days of Stuckius."
Two other correspondents of the "NOTES AND QUERIES" also, C. H. (Vol.
iii., p. 508.) and GOMER (_ibid._), assert that _eysell_, if it means
any potion at all, must mean vinegar; C. H. referring to a MS. at
Cambridge (Dd. i. fol. 7.), date about 1350, in which occurs,--
"Þe iewis herde þis word wet alle
And anon _eysel_ þei mengid wiþ galle:"
and GOMER relying on the support of the Welsh word _Aesell_, which
implies verjuice or vinegar. D. ROCK, too, adduces the 'Festival' in the
sermon for St. Michael's day:
"And other angellis with h[=i] (St. Michael) shall bring all the
Instrum[=e]tis of our lordis passyon; the crosse; the crowne;
spere; nayles; hamer; sponge; _eyseel_; gall, &c."
There is therefore, it appears, ample testimony to show that _eysell_
was used for _vinegar_; but to prove that it meant _wormwood-wine_, MR.
SINGER'S instances seem insufficient.
13. Before we proceed further, let us, supposing that no bitter or sour
potion, but a river, is meant, advert to the consideration what river
may be intended? Theobald observed that there was no river of that name
in Denmark, nor any resembling it in name but "_Yssel_, from which the
province of Overyssel derives its name in the German Flanders."
Steevens, however, is well content to take this _Yssel_ as that which
Hamlet had in his thoughts. "But," he adds, "in an old Latin account of
Denmark, and the neighbouring provinces, I find the names of several
rivers little differing from _Esil_ or _Eisill_ in spelling or
pronunciation. Such are the Essa, the Oesil, and some others.... The
poet," he further remarks, "might have written the Weisel; a
considerable river, which falls into the Baltic Ocean, and could not be
unknown to any prince in Denmark." MR. SINGER of 1826 suggests that the
_Issel_ is perhaps meant, but that the firth of _Iyze_ is nearest to the
scene of action. MR. KNIGHT has little doubt that the Yssell, Issell, or
Izel, the most northern branch of the Rhine, and that which is nearest
to Denmark, is signified.
MR. HICKSON, indeed, who favours MR. SINGER'S wormwood-wine, says (Vol.
iii., p. 119.), that the word cannot mean a river, because the definite
article is omitted before it. But this is an assertion of very little
weight. H. K. S. C. (Vol. iii., p. 68.) very justly observes, that we
may as correctly say,--"Woul't drink up Thames?" without the article, as
"Woul't drink up Eisell?" without the article. Let MR. HICKSON call to
mind Milton's lines on English rivers:
"And sullen Mole, that runneth underneath
And Severn swift, guilty of maiden's death,"
ending with--
"And Medway smooth, and royal-tower'd Thame,"
and ask himself whether the names of rivers are not with perfect
propriety used without the article. Pope has--
"And sails far off, among the swans of Thames."
And is not Sir Thomas Hammer quite correct in expression, when he alters
the hemistich into "Wilt drink up _Nile_?" But to multiply examples on
such a point would be idle.
14. It is now to be considered whether, supposing that the word might
mean _a potion_ (whether of _vinegar_ or _wormwood_) or _a river_, the
potion or the river is the more applicable to the passage in which it
occurs. It cannot be denied that the whole passage is full of rant and
extravagance. Laertes begins to rant, and Hamlet answers him in a
similar strain:
"Now pile your dust (says Laertes) upon quick and dead,
Till of this flat a mountain you have made,
T' o'ertop old Pelion, or the skyish head
Of blue Olympus."
This is surely extravagant enough. Hamlet retorts, in correspondent
tone,--
"What is he whose grief
_Bears such an emphasis_? whose phrase of sorrow
_Conjures the wand'ring stars, and makes them stand
Like wonder-wounded hearers_?"
Then comes the struggles in which they are parted by the attendants
after which Hamlet cries out with like "emphasis:"
"Why I will fight with him upon this theme
_Until my eye-lids can no longer wag_.
...
I lov'd Ophelia; _forty thousand brothers_
Could not, with all their quantity of love,
Make up my sum--what wilt thou do for her?"
On which the king exclaims, with much reason,
"O, he is mad, Laertes."
Hamlet continues, as if to make his madness indisputable:
"Zounds! show me what thoul't do:
Woul't weep? woul't fight? woul't fast? woul't tear thyself?
Woul't drink up _Esil_? eat a crocodile?
I'll do't. Dost thou come here to whine?
To outface me with leaping in her grave?
Be buried quick with her, and so will I:
And, if thou prate of mountains, let them throw
_Millions of acres on us_; till our ground,
_Singeing his pate against the burning zone,
Make Ossa like a wart! Nay, an thoul't mouth,
I'll rant as well as thou_."
The queen justly observes:
"This is _mere madness_."
Hamlet goes off, but maintains his extravagance of language to the last:
"Let Hercules himself do what he may,
The cat will mew, and dog will have his day."
If, then, a literary jury be required to decide this question, the point
on which they have to give a verdict is, whether _to drink vinegar_ (or
wormwood-wine) or _to drink up a river_ is more in consonance with the
tenor of Hamlet's speech. Theobald indeed says, that "Hamlet is not
proposing any _impossibilities_ to Laertes, such as drinking up a river
would be, but rather seems to mean, Wilt thou resolve to do _things the
most shocking and distasteful to human nature_?" But on what ground does
this assertion rest? Laertes himself commences with what we may surely
call an impossibility:
"Till of this flat," &c.
And Hamlet speaks of more impossibilities, when he talks of throwing up
"millions of acres," to "make Ossa like a wart." The drinking up a
river is certainly more in unison with these extravagant proposals than
a defiance "to swallow down (as Theobald has it) large draughts of
vinegar;" or, as Malone gives it, "to drink a potion of vinegar." Such a
proposition, Theobald admits, "is not very grand;" "a challenge to
hazard a fit of the heartburn or the colic, is," says Steevens, "not
very magnificent." But it is not only far from "grand" and
"magnificent," but, what is worse, it is utterly tame and spiritless, in
a place where anything but tameness is wanted, and where it is, quite
out of keeping with the rest of the speech. MR. HICKSON, it is true,
says (Vol. ii, p. 329.), that "the notion of drinking up a river would
be quite unmeaning and out of place;" but this assertion is as
groundless as Theobald's, and is somewhat surprising from a gentleman
who exhorts those who would be critics "to master the grammatical
construction of a passage, deducing therefrom its general sense," and,
we may presume, its _general drift_, "before they attempt to fix the
meaning of a doubtful word." Had MR. HICKSON looked to the _general
drift_ of this passage, before he attempted to fix the meaning of
_eisell_, or to concur with MR. SINGER of 1850 in his attempt to fix it,
he would, we may suppose, have been less ready to pronounce the notion
of drinking up a river _out of place_. It would have been better for him
to have adhered to the judgment of Archdeacon Nares, as cited by MR.
SINGER (Vol. ii., p. 241.):--"The challenge to drink _vinegar_, in such
a rant," says the Archdeacon, "is so inconsistent, and even ridiculous,
that we must decide for the _river_, whether its name be exactly found
or not. To drink up a river, and eat a crocodile with his impenetrable
scales, are two things equally impossible. There is no kind of
comparison between the others."
15. Though examples of similar rant are quite unnecessary to support
this opinion, let us nevertheless conclude by noticing those which the
critics have adduced on this passage:
"This sort of hyperbole," says Malone, in his second edition, "was
common among our ancient poets. So, in Eastward Hoe, 1609:
'Come drink up Rhine, Thames, and Meander, dry.'.
"So also in Greene's _Orlando Furioso_, 1599:
'Else would I set my mouth to Tigris' streames,
And drink up overflowing Euphrates.'
"Again, in Marlowe's _Jew of Malta_:
'As sooner shalt thou drink the ocean dry,
Than conquer Malta.'"
To which Boswell adds:
"Our author has a similar exaggeration in _Troilus and Cressida_,
Act III. Scene 2.:
'When we (_i. e._ lovers) vow to weep seas, live in fire, eat
rocks, tame tigers,' &c.
"In Chaucer's _Romaunt of the Rose_, we find the following lines:
'He underfongeth a grete paine,
That undertaketh to drink up Seine.'"
Steevens notices _King Richard II._, Act II Scene 2.:
"The task he undertakes,
Is numb'ring sands, and _drinking oceans dry_."
But enough. The majority of readers, like the majority of critics, will
surely be for the river, in the proportion of at least six to two.
_Verbum non amplius addam._