I observed before, that "the notion of drinking up a river would be both unmeaning and out of place." I said this, with the conviction that there was a purpose in everything that Shakspeare wrote; and being still of this persuasion, allow me to protest against the terms "mere verbiage" and "extravagant rant," which your correspondent applies to the passage in question. The poet does not present common things as they appear to all men. Shakspeare's art was equally great, {120} whether he spoke with the tongues of madmen or philosophers. H. K. S. C. cannot conceive why each feat of daring should be a tame possibility, save only the last; but I say that they are _all_ possible; that it was a daring to do not impossible but extravagant feats. As far as quantity is concerned, to eat a crocodile would be more than to eat an ox. Crocodile may be a very delicate meat, for anything I know to the contrary; but I must confess it appears to me to be introduced as something loathsome or repulsive, and (on the poet's part) to cap the absurdity of the preceding feat. The use made by other writers of a passage is one of the most valuable kinds of comment. In a burlesque some years ago, I recollect a passage was brought to a climax with the very words, "Wilt eat a crocodile?" The immediate and natural response was--_not_ "the thing's impossible!" but--"you nasty beast!" What a descent then from the drinking up of a river to a merely disagreeable repast. In the one case the object is clear and intelligible, and the last feat is suggested by the not so difficult but little less extravagant preceding one; in the other, each is unmeaning (in reference to the speaker), unsuggested, and, unconnected with the other; and, regarding the order an artist would observe, out of place. SAMUEL HICKSON. St. John's Wood, Jan. 27. 1851. P.S. In replying to Mr. G. STEPHENS, in reference to the meaning of a passage in the _Tempest_, I expressed a wish that he would give the meaning of what he called a "common ellipsis" "stated _at full_." This stands in your columns (Vol. ii., p. 499.) "at first," in which expression I am afraid he would be puzzled to find any meaning. * * * * * I might safely leave H. K. S. C. to the same gentle correction bestowed upon a neighbour of his at Brixton some time since, by MR. HICKSON, but I must not allow him to support his dogmatic and flippant hypercriticism by falsehood and unfounded insinuation, and I therefore beg leave to assure him that I have no claim to the enviable distinction of being designated as the friend of MR. HICKSON, to whom I am an utter stranger, having never seen him, and knowing nothing of that gentleman but what his very valuable communications to your publication conveys.