Notes and Queries, Number 43, August 24, 1850 | Page 9

for a moment that Shakspeare used delighted for delight_ing_, the sense of the passages would, I presume, be in _Measure for Measure_, "the spirit affording delight;" in _Othello_, "if virtue want no beauty affording delight;" in _Cymbeline_, "the gifts delighting more from being delayed." Here we have a simple, and, in the last two instances, I think, a more satisfactory meaning than Mr. Hickson's sense of _lightened_, _disencumbered_, affords, even could it be more unquestionably established.
I have, however, met with a passage in Sir Philip Sidney's Arcadia (ed. 1598, p. 294.) which might lead to a different interpretation of delighted in these passages, and which would not, perhaps, be less startling than that of Mr. Hickson.
"All this night (in despite of darknesse) he held his eyes open; and in the morning, when the delight began to restore to each body his colour, then with curtains bar'd he himselfe from the enjoying of it; neither willing to feele the comfort of the day, nor the ease of the night."
Here, delight is apparently used for _the return of light_, and the prefix de is probably only intensive. Now, presuming that Shakspeare also used delighted for _lighted_, illuminated the passage in Measure for Measure would bear this interpretation: "the delighted spirit, i.e., the spirit _restored to light_," freed from "that dark house in which it long was pent." In _Othello_, "if virtue lack no delighted beauty," i.e. "_want not the light of beauty_, your son-in-law shows far more fair than black." Here the opposition between light and black is much in its favour. In _Cymbeline_, I must confess it is not quite so clear: "to make my gifts, by the dark uncertainty attendant upon delay, more lustrous (delighted), more radiant when given," is not more satisfactory than Mr. {201} HICKSON'S interpretation of this passage. But is it necessary that delighted should have the same signification in all the three passages? I think not.
These are only suggestions, of course, but the passage from Sidney is certainly curious, and, from the correct and careful manner in which the book is printed, does not appear to be a corruption. I have not seen the earlier editions. I have only further to remark, that none of our old authorities favour DR. KENNEDY'S suggestion, "that the word represents the Latin participle delectus."
Since the above was written, Mr. HICKSON'S reply to MR. HALLIWELL has reached me, upon which I have only to observe that he will find to guile was used as a verb. Thus in Gower, _Confessio Amantis_, fo. 135. ed. 1532:
"For often he that will begyle, Is gyled with the same gyle, And thus the gyler is begyled."
We most probably had the word from the old French _Guiller_=tromper, and the proverb is to the purpose:--
"Qui croit de Guiller Guillot, Guillot le Guile."
Horne Tooke's fanciful etymology cannot be sustained. MR. HICKSON'S explanation of "guiled shore," is, however, countenanced by the following passage in _Tarquin and Lucrece_:--
"To me came Tarquin armed, so _beguil'd_ With outward honesty, but yet defil'd With inward vice."
MR. HICKSON has, I think, conferred a singular favour in calling attention to these perplexing passages in our great poet and these remarks, like his own, are merely intended as hints which may serve to elicit the true interpretation.
S.W. SINGER.
Mickleham, August 20. 1850.
* * * * *
FAMILY OF LOVE.
I do not know whether the following Notes on "The Family of Love" will be deserving a place in the pages of "NOTES AND QUERIES;" as I may possibly have been anticipated in much of what I send.
The Family of Love attracted notice as early as 1575, but not in such a manner as to call for direct coercion. An apology was published for them, from which it might be inferred that they possessed no distinct opinions, but merely bound themselves to a more exalted interpretation of Christian duties, on the principle of imitating the great love of God manifested in their creation and retention. This principle, unrestrained by any confession of faith or system of discipline, naturally attracted to it the loose and irregular spirits that were at that time so prevalent, and the sect became the receptacle for every variety of opinion and disorder, exposing itself to more particular notice from its contempt for outward observances, and its opposition to the civil government. The Evangelium Regni of Henry Nicholas, the acknowledged founder of the sect, is written in such a manner as to include all religious persuasions, and permits all parties to hold whatever sentiments they please, if they merely declare themselves members of the Family of Love.
"Omnes vos, O amatores veritatis! qui amabilem vitam charitatis diligitis vocatmini et invitamini." (cap. 41.) ... "Omnes peribunt, qui extra Christum extra communionem charitatis manent." (Ibid.)
A confutation of this sect was written in the year 1579; the privy council called upon