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

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 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._