Notes and Queries, Number 51, October 19, 1850 | Page 9

same cast in both. In
particular, Bochart is repeatedly cited in the Remarks and in the
Dissertations. The philosophical opinions appear likewise very similar.
On the whole, unless some strong reason can be given for questioning
the statement of this correspondent of the _Gentleman's Magazine_, I
conceive that S. Berington, of whom I regret that so little is known,
must be considered to be the author of The Memoirs of Gaudentio di
Lucca.
JAS. CROSSLEY.
Manchester, October 7. 1850.
* * * * *
ENGLEMANN'S BIBLIOTHECA SCRIPTORUM CLASSICORUM.

(Vol. ii., pp. 296. 312.)
The sort of defence, explanation, or whatever it may be called, founded
upon usage, and offered by ANOTHER FOREIGN BOOKSELLER, is
precisely what I wanted to get out, if it existed, as I suspected it did.
If your correspondent be accurate as to Engelmann, it appears that no
wrong is done to _him_; it is only the public which is mystified by a
variety of title-pages, all but one containing a suppression of the truth,
and the one of which I speak containing more.
I now ask you to put in parallel columns extracts from the title given by
Engelmann with the substitutes given in that which I received.
"Schriftsteller--welche vom "Classics ... that have Jahre 1700 bis zu
Ende des appeared in Germany and the Jahres 1846 besonders in
adjacent countries up to the Deutschland gedruckt worden end of
1846." sind."
I do not think it fair towards Mr. Engelmann, whose own title is so true
and so precise, to take it for certain, on anonymous authority, that he
sanctioned the above paraphrase. According to the German, the
catalogue contains works from 1700 to 1846, published especially in
Germany; meaning, as is the fact, that there are some in it published
elsewhere. According to the English, all classics printed in Germany,
and all the adjacent countries, in all times, are to be found in the
catalogue. I pass over the implied compliment to this country, namely,
that while a true description is required in Germany, a puff both in time
and space is wanted for England. I dwell on the injurious effect of such
alterations to literature, and on the trouble they give to those who wish
to be accurate. It is a system I attack, and not individuals. There is no
occasion to say much, for publicity alone will do what is wanted,
especially when given in a journal which falls under the eyes of those
engaged in research. I hope those of your contributors who think as I do,
will furnish you from time to time with exposures; if, as a point of form,
a Query be requisite, they can always end with, Is this right?
A. DE MORGAN.

October 14. 1850.
* * * * * {329}
SHAKSPEARE'S USE OF THE WORD "DELIGHTED."
(Vol. ii., pp. 113. 139. 200. 234.)
I should have been content to leave the question of the meaning of the
word delighted as it stands in your columns, my motive, so kindly
appreciated by Mr. SINGER, in raising the discussion being, by such
means to arrive at the true meaning of the word, but that the remarks of
L.B.L. (p. 234.) recall to my mind a canon of criticism which I had
intended to communicate at an earlier period as useful for the guidance
of commentators in questions of this nature. It is as follows:--Master
the grammatical construction of the passage in question (if from a
drama, in its dramatic and I scenic application), deducing therefrom the
general sense, before you attempt to amend or fix the meaning of a
doubtful word.
Of all writers, none exceed Shakspeare in logical correctness and nicety
of expression. With a vigour of thought and command of language
attained by no man besides, it is fair to conclude, that he would not be
guilty of faults of construction such as would disgrace a school-boy's
composition; and yet how unworthily is he treated when we find some
of his finest passages vulgarised and degraded through
misapprehensions arising from a mere want of that attention due to the
very least, not to say the greatest, of writers. This want of attention
(without attributing to it such fatal consequences) appears to me
evident in L.B.L.'s remarks, ably as he analyses the passage. I give him
credit for the faith that enabled him to discover a sense in it as it stands;
but when he says that it is perfectly intelligible in its natural sense, it
appears to me that he cannot be aware of the innumerable explanations
that have been offered of this very clear passage. The source of his
error is plainly referable to the cause I have pointed out.
It is quite true that, in the passage referred to, the condition of the body
before and