And if I were to meet with a hundred thousand passages of a similar
construction, I am confident they would only confirm the view that the
spirit is represented in the _then present_ state as at the termination of
the former clause of the sentence. If such had not been the view
instinctively taken by all classes of readers, there could have been no
difficulty about the meaning of the word.

As a proof that this view of the construction is correct, let L.B.L.
substitute for "delighted spirit", _spirit no longer delighted_, and he
will find that it gives precisely the sense which he deduces from the
passage as it stands. If this be true, then, according to his view, the
negative and affirmative of a proposition may be used indifferently, in the
same time and circumstances giving exactly the same meaning.

MR. SINGER furnishes another instance (Vol. ii., p. 241.) of the value of
my canon. I think there can be no doubt that his explanation of the meaning
of the word _eisell_ is correct; but if it were not, any way of reading the
passage in which it occurs would lead me to the conclusion that it could
not be a river. _Drink up_ is synonymous with _drink off_, _drink to the
dregs_. A child, taking medicine, is urged to "drink it up." The idea of
the passage appears to be that each of the acts should go beyond the last
preceding in extravagance:--

"Woo't weep? Woo't fight? Woo't fast? Woo't tear thyself?
Woo't drink up eisell?"

And then comes the climax--"eat a crocodile?" Here is a regular succession
of feats, the last but one of which is sufficiently wild, though not
unheard of, and leading to the crowning extravagance. The notion of
drinking up a river would be both unmeaning and out of place.