(Vol. ii., pp. 241. 286. 315. 329)
After all that has been written on this subject in "NOTES AND QUERIES,"
from MR. SINGER'S proposition of wormwood in No. 46., to MR. HICKSON'S
approval of it in No. 51., the question remains substantially where
Steevens and Malone had left it so many years agone.
It is not necessary to discuss whether vinegar, verjuice, or wormwood be
the preferable translation of the Shakspearian word; for before either of
them can be received, the advocate is bound to {67} accommodate his
exposition to Shakspeare's sentence, and to "get over the _drink up_,"
which still stands in his way as it did in that of Malone.
MR. SINGER get over the difficulty by simply saying "to _drink up_ was
commonly used for simply to _drink_." The example he quotes, however,--
"I will drink
Potions of eysell,"--
is not to his purpose; it is only an equivalent by the addition of the
words "_potions of_" to give it the same definite character. Omit those
words, and the question remains as before.
MR. HICKSON (Vol. ii., p. 329.) has laid down "a canon of criticism for the
guidance of commentators in questions of this nature," so appropriate and
valuable, that I cannot except to be bound by it in these remarks; and if
in the sequel his own argument (and his friend's proposition to boot) shall
be blown up by his own petard, it will show the instability of the cause he
has espoused.
"Master the _grammatical construction_ of the passage in question (if
from a drama, in it dramatic and scenic application), deducing
therefrom the general sense, before you attempt to amend or fix the
meaning of a doubtful word."
Such is the canon; and Mr. HICKSON proceeds to observe, in language that
must meet the approval of every student of the immortal bard, that--
"Of all writers, none exceed Shakspeare in _logical correctness_ and
nicety of expression. With a vigour of though 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
schoolboy's composition_."
With this canon so ably laid down, and these remarks so apposite, MR.
HICKSON, taking up the weak point which Mr. SINGER had slurred over,
observes--
"_Drink up_ is synonymous with _drink off_, _drink to the dregs_. A
child taking medicine is urged to 'drink it up.'"
Ay, exactly so; drink up what? _the_ medicine; again a defined quantity;
dregs and all,--still a _definite_ quantity.
MR. HICKSON proceeds:
"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."
From this argument two conclusions are the natural consequences: first,
that from _drinking up_ wormwood,--a feat "sufficiently wild but not
unheard of," to eating a crocodile, is only a "regular succession of
events;" and, secondly, that the "crowning extravagance," to eat a
crocodile, is, after all, neither "unmeaning" nor "out of place;" but, on
the contrary, quite in keeping and in orderly succession to a "drink up" of
the bitter infusion.
MR. SINGER (vol. ii., p. 241.) says:
"Numerous passages of our old dramatic writers show that it was a
fashion with the gallants of the time to do some extravagant feat as
proof of their love."
I quite agree with him, if he mean to say that the early dramatists ascribe
to their gallants a fashion which in reality belongs to the age of Du
Gueslin and the Troubadours. But Hamlet himself, in the context of the
passage in question, gives the key to his whole purport, when, after some
further extravagance, he says:
"Nay, an thoul't mouth,
I'll rant as well as thou."
That being so, why are we to conclude that each feat of daring is to be a
tame possibility, save only the last--the crowning extravagance? Why not
also the one preceding? Why not a feat equally of mere verbiage and rant?
Why not a river?
Adopting MR. HICKSON'S canon of criticism, the grammatical construction of
the passage requires that a definite substantive shall be employed to
explain the definite something that is to be done. Shakspeare says--
"Woul't drink up esile?"[9]
--a totality in itself, without the expression of quantity to make it
definite. If we read "drink up wormwood," what does it imply? It may be the
smallest possible quantity,--an ordinary dose of bitters; or a pailful,
which would perhaps meet the "madness" of Hamlet's daring. Thus the little
monosyllable "up" must be disposed of, or a quantity must be expressed to
reconcile MR. SINGER'S proposition with Mr. HICKSON'S canon and the
grammatical sense of Shakspeare's line.
If with Steevens we understand _esile_ to be a river, "the Danish river
_Oesil_, which empties itself into the Baltic," the _Yssel_, _Wessel_, or
any other river, real or fictitious, the sense is clear. Rather let
Shakspeare have committed a geographical blunder on the information of his
day, than break {68} Priscian's head by modern interpretation of his words.
If we read "_drink up esile_" as one should say, "_woul't drink up
Thames?_"--a task as reasonably impossible as setting it on fire
(nevertheless a proverbial expression of a thirsty soul, "He'll drink the
Thames dry"),--the task is quite in keeping with the whole tenor of
Hamlet's extravagant rant.