(Vol. iv., pp. 64. 135.)
I can easily suppose, after the space you have given to J. S. W. (Vol.
iv., p. 64.) to sum up on the long-protracted controversy of the
_Eisell_ interpretation, that you will scarcely permit it to be renewed.
J. S. W.'s judgment, though given with much amenity and fulness, I
cannot think satisfactory, as towards its close he evidently sinks into
the advocate.
Theobald, a most admirable annotator, has narrowed the controversy very
properly, to the consideration whether Hamlet was here proposing
possibilities or impossibilities. J. S. W. dwells on the whole of the
dialogue between Hamlet and Laertes as a rant; and sinks all the lines
and passages that would bring it down to sanity. But this seems to line
singularly unjust. Imprimis, Hamlet is not enraged like Laertes, "who
hath a dear sister lost," and is a very choleric, impetuous, and
arrogant young gentleman. It is this quality which irritates Hamlet, who
is otherwise in the whole of this scene in a particularly moralising and
philosophic mood, and is by no means "splenetic and rash." Hamlet, a
prince, is openly cursed by Laertes: he is even seized by him, and he
still only remonstrates. There is anything but rant in what he (Hamlet)
says; he uses the most homely phrases; so homely that there is something
very like scorn in them:
---- "What wilt thou _do_ for her?"
is the quietude of contempt for Laertes' insulting rant; and so, if my
memory deceive me not, the elder Kean gave it; "_Do_ for her" being put
in contrast with Laertes' braggadocio _say_. Then come the
possibilities:
"Woul't weep, fight, fast, tear thyself,"
(All, be it noted, common lover's tricks),
"Would drink up eisell, eat a crocodile,
I'll do't."
Now the eating a crocodile is the real difficulty, for that looks like
an impossibility but then, no doubt, the crocodile, like all other
monstrous things, was in the pharmacopoeia of the time, and was
considered the most revolting of eatables. Eat a crocodile, does not
mean a whole raw one, but such as the alligator mentioned in the shop of
Romeo's apothecary, probably preserved in spirits.
Here we have possibilities put against the rant of Laertes; _the doing_
against _the saying_; the quietude of the philosophic prince, against
the ranting of the robustious Laertes; things that _could be done_,--for
Hamlet ends with "I'll do it." That is, he will weep, fight, fast, tear
himself, drink bitterness, and eat monstrosities: and this is his
challenge of Laertes to the true testimony of his love, in contrast to
his wordy lamentation. But his quick imagination has caught an impetus
from its own motion, and he goes on, "Nay, I will even outprate you;"
and then follows his superior rant, not uttered with sincere vehemence,
but with quiet and philosophic scorn; and he ends with the reproof of
Laertes' mouthing; a thing particularly distasteful to him. And now, in
accordance with this dignified contempt is his final remonstrance and
his exit speech of--
"I lov'd you ever; but it is no matter;
Let Hercules himself," &c.
We thus see that there is no real rant in Hamlet; he is not outbragging
Laertes; but institutes the possible, in contradiction to swagger and
mouthing. The interpretation of _eisell_ thus becomes a matter of
character, and to a great degree would determine an actor's mode of
rendering the whole scene. This result I do not see that any of your
correspondents have taken notice of; and yet it really is the main thing
worth discussing.
This interpretation too has the advantage of coinciding with
Shakspeare's perpetual love of contrast; the hot, hasty, wordy Laertes
being in strong contrast to the philosophic, meditating, and melancholy
young prince; always true to his character, and ever the first in every
scene by his own calm dignity. He never rants at all, but rides over his
antagonist by his cool reasoning and his own magnificent imagination.
The adoption of Theobald and Hickson's interpretation of the word
_eisell_ becomes therefore of great importance as indicating the
character of Hamlet.