"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.