[The allusion is to a puzzle for children--often used by grown children--which consists of a series of iron rings, on to or off which a loop of iron wire may be got with some labour by those who know the way, and which is very correctly designated _a tiring-iron_.] * * * * * Replies. THE MEANING OF EISELL. [This controversy is becoming a little too warm for our pages. But MR. CAUSTON is entitled to have some portion of the letter he has sent to us inserted. He writes with reference to the communications from MR. HICKSON and MR. SINGER in our 68th number, p. 119., in reply to MR. C.'S Article, which, although it had been in our hands a considerable time, was not inserted until out 65th Number, p. 66.; a delay which gave to that article the appearance of an attempt to revive a discussion, whereas it really was written only in continuance of one.] To MR. HICKSON I suggest, that whether the notion of "drinking up a river," or "eating a crocodile," be the more "unmeaning" or "out of place," must after all be a mere matter of opinion, as the latter must remain a question of taste; since it seems to be his settled conviction that it is not "impossible," but only "extravagant." Archdeacon Nares thought it quite the reverse; and I beg to remind your readers that Shakspearian crocodiles are never served _a la Soyer_, but swallowed _au naturel_ and entire. MR. HICKSON is dissatisfied with my terms "mere verbiage" and "extravagant rant." I recommend a careful consideration of the scene over the grave of Ophelia; and then let any one say whether or not the "wag" of tongue between Laertes and Hamlet be not fairly described by the expressions I have used,--a paraphrase indeed, of Hamlet's concluding lines: "Nay, an thou'lt _mouth_, I'll _rant_ as well as thou." Doubtless Shakspeare had a purpose in everything he wrote, and his purpose at this time was to work up the scene to the most effective conclusion, and to display the excitement of Hamlet in a series of beautiful images, which, nevertheless, the queen his mother immediately pronounced to be "mere madness," and which one must be as mad as Hamlet himself to adopt as feats literally to be performed. The offence is rank in the eyes of MR. SINGER that I should have styled MR. HICKSON his friend. The amenities of literature, I now perceive, do not extend to the case, and a new canon is required, to the effect that "when one gentleman is found bolstering up the argument of another, he is not, ever for the nonce, to be taken for his friend." I think the denial to be expressed in rather strong language; but I hasten to make the _amende_ suitable to the occasion, by withdrawing the "falsehood and unfounded insinuation."