The question is, whether by the word under discussion we are to understand _vinegar_ (or some such liquid) or _a river_. It will be proper, in taking a view of the matter, to "begin from the beginning," and to see, in the first place, what the earlier commentators have said. 1. What the critics before Theobald thought of the word, is not quite certain; but Theobald states that it had, "through all the editions, been distinguished by Italic characters, as if it were the proper name of a river; and so," he adds, "I dare say all the editors have from time to time understood it to be." But not being able to satisfy himself what river could be meant, he preferred to understand it of vinegar, and interprets the passage, "Wilt thou swallow down large draughts of vinegar?" 2. Sir Thomas Hanmer, on the contrary, was so convinced that a river was signified, that he actually altered the passage, _arbitrio suo_, to "Wilt drink up _Nile_? or eat a crocodile?" 3. Johnson was silent, and left the explanation of the word to Steevens, who, observing that Hamlet meant to rant (as he says he will), supposed him to defy Laertes "to drink up a river, or try his teeth on an animal whose scales are supposed to be impenetrable." The word, he thinks, may be irrecoverably corrupted, but he finds plenty of rivers in Denmark of a somewhat similar sound, any one of which should "serve Hamlet's turn." 4. Malone, in his first edition, deeming that Hamlet was not speaking of "impossibilities," but merely of "difficult or painful exertions," decided on adhering to Theobald and his vinegar. But in his second edition he repented, and expressed his conviction that "Mr. Steevens's interpretation is the true one," remarking that "this kind of hyperbole is common among our ancient poets." 5. Steevens, before he published his second edition, read the observations in favour of _vinegar_ given in Malone's first edition but, though he allowed them to be "acute," was not moved by anything advanced in them to depart from his opinion that a river was intended. 6. Boswell followed Malone's second thoughts. 7. Mr. Singer, in his edition printed in 1826, had so little notion that _vinegar_ could be signified, that he does not even advert to a single argument in behalf of that opinion, attending only to the consideration "what river, lake, or firth, Shakspeare meant." 8. Mr. Collier makes no decision, observing only that _eyesel_ is certainly the old word for _vinegar_, but that there is considerable doubt whether that be meant here and that "some of the commentators suppose Hamlet to challenge Laertes to drink up the river Yssell or Eisell." 9. Mr. Knight favoured the river, remarking that "there is little doubt that Shakspeare referred to the river Yssell, Issell, or Izel, the most northern branch of the Rhine, and that which is nearest to Denmark."