Notes and Queries, Number 42, August 17, 1850 | Page 8

alarum be traced in our language, and
how far back _alarm_?
2. Can it be ascertained whether the French took alarme from our
_alarm_, or we alarm from them?
3. Can any explanation be given of _alarum_, supposing it to be the
original word? Is it a word imitative of sound?
_A l'arme_, instead of _aux armes_, adds to the suspiciousness of this
derivation.
CH.
* * * * *

REPLIES.
SHAKSPEARE'S USE OF "DELIGHTED."
Although Dr. Kennedy does not think I have discovered the source
from whence Shakspeare's word delighted is derived, I am gratified to
find that he concurs with me in drawing a distinction between this and
the more common word. His failure to convince me is a source almost
of regret, so happy do I regard the derivation he proposes in the last
passage cited. But in the passage from _Measure for Measure_, it does
not appear to me to express the sense which I deduce from the context;
and as I look upon the word in question as the same in each of the three
passages, I feel more inclined to adhere to my view, that it is a word of
English manufacture, according to the analogy referred to. I express my
opinion with hesitation and there can be no doubt the question is
deserving of full and attentive consideration.
Strengthened, however, in my main purpose, which was to show that
Shakspeare did not use delighted in the ordinary sense of _highly
gratified_, I am better prepared to meet MR. HALLIWELL. This
gentleman does me no more than justice in the remark, not expressed,
though, I hope, implied, that I would not knowingly make use of an
offensive expression towards him or any living man; and I appreciate
the courtesy with which he has sweetened the uncomplimentary things
he has felt constrained to say of me. I trust it will be found that I can
repay his courtesy and imitate his forbearance. As a preliminary remark,
however, I must say that MR. HALLIWELL, in his haste, has
confounded the "cool impertinence" for which I censured one editor,
with the "cool correction" which was made by another; and, moreover,
has referred the remark to _Measure for Measure_, which I applied to
the notes to the passage in Othello. As I have not yet learned to regard
the term "delightful" as an _active participle_, it is evident that,
however "cool" I may consider the correction, I have not called it an
"impertinence." But he has no mind that I should escape so easily; and
therefore, like a true knight-errant, he adopts the cause without
hesitation, as though to be first satisfied of its goodness would be quite
inconsistent in its champion.

When I am charged with an "entire want of acquaintance with the
grammatical system" employed by Shakspeare, I might take exception
to the omission of the words "as understood by Mr. Halliwell," this
gentleman assuming the very point in question between us. I believe he
has paid particular attention to this subject; but he must not conclude
that all who presume to differ from him "judge Shakspeare's grammar
by Cobbett or Murray." And if I were disposed to indulge in as
sweeping an expression, I should say that the remark excites a
suspicion of the writer's want of acquaintance with the spirit of
Shakspeare's works. I do not think so, though I think MR.
HALLIWELL has formed his opinion hastily; and I think, moreover,
that before I have ended, I shall convince him that it would not have
been amiss had he exercised a little more reflection ere he began. In the
passage in _Othello_, I object to the substitution of delighting or
delightful for _delighted_, as weak epithets, and such as I do not
believe that Shakespeare would have used. It was not as a schoolmaster
or grammarian, but in reference to the peculiar fitness and force of his
expressions, and his perfect acquaintance with the powers of the
English language, and his mastery over it, that I called Shakespeare its
greatest master.
But to return to the first passage I cited--that from _Measure for
Measure_,--MR. HALLIWELL will be surprised to find that in the only
remark I made {184} upon it as it stands he actually agrees with me. I
said that the passage "in our sense of the term" is unintelligible. I still
say so; and he who attempts to mend it, or modernise the form, says so
too. The question next arises, Does he not mean _no system_, when he
says _system_? Otherwise, why does he say that Shakspeare uses the
passive for the active participle, when he explains the word not by the
active participle, but by an adjective of totally different meaning? Is it
not more likely that MR. HALLIWELL may have