Notes and Queries, Number 42, August 17, 1850 | Page 9

misunderstood
Shakspeare's system, than that the latter should have used intelligible
words, and precise forms of words, so at random? And, moreover, does
not the critic confound two meanings of the word _delightful_; the one
obsolete, _full of delight_, the other the common one, _giving delight_,
or _gratifying_?

Now by a violent figure which Shakspeare sometimes uses, delighted
may mean delightful in the former sense; perhaps, rather, filled with
delight. The word then would be formed directly from the noun, and
must not be regarded as a participle at all, but rather an ellipsis, from
which the verb (which may be represented by _give_, _fill_, _endow_,
&c.) is omitted. Take, as an instance, this passage in _Measure for
Measure_:--
"_Clau._ Death is a fearful thing!
"_Isa._ And shamed life a hateful."
The meaning here is not _life ashamed_, but life covered with shame.
In this sense MR. HALLIWELL, apparently without knowing why, has
adopted the term _delightful_; but then the two succeeding words of his
explanation, "sweet, pleasant", he would appear to have taken at
random from a dictionary, forgetting that he was not using the word in
its ordinary sense; for it is not possible that he can suppose Shakspeare
to have used the word in the sense of the active participle. Now, though
I do not think this at all the expression that Shakspeare would use, it is
undoubtedly allowable as a general characteristic; but the word actually
used would appear to imply the result of a particular action, which
would have been productive of anything but delight. In short, as we are
agreed that the word delighted in the passage in question in its present
sense is unintelligible, so also are we, I think, agreed that the substitute,
if any, must be used in a passive sense.
Now, with regard to the first instance furnished by MR. HALLIWELL
of the use of the passive for the active participle, if I were sure that the
delinquent were well out of hearing, and not likely "to rise again and
push us from our stools," I should be disposed to repeat the charge of
impertinence against the editor who altered "professed" to "professing".
The word professed is one of common use, and in the present instance
perfectly intelligible. "To your bosom, professed to entertain so much
love and care for our father, I commit him," seems to express the sense
of the passage: a doubt is implied by the expression, but there is a
directness of insult in the term professing quite inconsistent with the
character of Cordelia.

"Becomed love" is love suited or fitted to the occasion. The use of the
passive participle is every way more appropriate than that of the active,
though the latter is more common now.
In the next instance, I have to observe that there is no such verb as to
guile. Guile is a noun; and "guiled shore" is _guile-covered_, or
charactered shore. According to this rule, the modern word _talented_,
that is, _talent-endowed_, has been formed, it not having been
considered that licences are allowed in poetry that are unsuited to
ordinary language.
The passage next referred to is conditional, and I regard the use of the
passive participle here, too, as correct.
I have thus reduced MR. HALLIWELL'S list to that number which
usually forms the exception rather than the rule; and if accident,
misprint, error in copying, or other special circumstance be not held
sufficient to account for the single remaining instance, I have then only
to say that I prefer deformed to _deforming_, as an epithet applied
disparagingly to Time's hand as more in accordance with Shakspeare's
practice, who was not in the habit of repeating the same idea, which, in
the latter case, would occur again in the word "defeatures" in the
following line.
MR. HALLIWELL may, doubtless find other instances, perhaps more
felicitous than these; at present, all I can say is that he has failed to
show that the use of the passive for the active participle was common
with Shakspeare. As to other variations between the grammatical usage
of Shakspeare's day and that of our own, I call assure him that I am not
quite so ignorant of the fact as he imagines.
SAMUEL HICKSON
August 1. 1850.
* * * * *
ENGLISH COMEDIANS IN GERMANY.

I am glad to be enabled to reply to MR. BOLTON CORNEY'S Query
(Vol. i., p. 439.) respecting a German book of plays.
The learned illustrator of the Curiosities of Literature would find the
information he desires in the Vorrath zur Geschichte der deutschen
dramatischen Dichtkunst of the formerly celebrated J. Christoph
Gottsched (Leipzig, 1767-69, 2 vols. 8vo.). But as this book, now
somewhat neglected, would perhaps be difficult to be found even in the
British Museum, I will transcribe the