MEANING OF EISELL.
(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
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?"[[6]]
—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 Œsil, 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
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.
H.K.S.C.
Brixton.
Footnote 6:[(return)]
So the folio, according to my copy. It would be advantageous, perhaps, to note the spelling in the earliest edition of the sonnet whence MR. SINGER quotes "potions of eysell:" a difference, if there be any, would mark the distinction between Hamlet's river and the Saxon derivative.