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 pharmacopœia 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.

F. G. T.

Many of your readers no doubt feel much indebted to your correspondent for his able summary of the eisell controversy; an example which it is to be hoped will be followed in other cases. It has induced me to collect a few passages for the purpose of showing that Shakspeare was accustomed to make use of what may be termed localisms, which were frequently as occult as in the instance of the eisell; and that he was especially fond of establishing himself with the children of his brain in the particular country by means of allusion to the neighbouring seas and rivers. What appropriate signs are the Centaur and the Phœnix for the city of Ephesus, the scene of the Comedy of Errors! The Italian, Iachimo, speaks of—

"—— lips as common as the stairs