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:
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--