SHAKSPEARE'S USE OF THE WORD "DELIGHTED."
"Delighted" (Vol. ii., p. 113.).—I incline to think that the word delighted in Shakspeare represents the Latin participle delectus (from deligere), "select, choice, exquisite, refined." This sense will suit all the passages cited by MR. HICKSON, and particularly the last. If this be so, the suggested derivations from the adjective light, and from the substantive light, fall to the ground: but MR. HICKSON will have been right in distinguishing Shakspeare's delighted from the participle of the usual verb to delight, delectare=gratify. The roots of the two are distinct: that of the former being leg-ere "to choose;" of the latter, lac-ere "to tice."
B.H. KENNEDY.
Meaning of the Word "Delighted."—I am not the only one of your readers who have read with deep interest the important contributions of MR. HICKSON, and who hope for further remarks on Shakspearian difficulties from the same pen. His papers on the Taming of the Shrew were of special value; and although I do not quite agree with all he has said on the subject, there can be no doubt of the great utility of permitting the discussion of questions of the kind in such able hands.
Perhaps you would kindly allow me to say thus much; for the remembrance of the papers just alluded to renders a necessary protest against that gentleman's observations on the meaning of the word delighted somewhat gentler. I happen to be one of the unfortunates (a circumstance unknown to MR. HICKSON, for the work in which my remarks on the passage are contained is not yet published) who have indulged in what he terms the "cool impertinence" of explaining delighted, in the celebrated passage in Measure for Measure, by "delightful, sweet, pleasant;" and the explanation appears to me to be so obviously correct, that I am surprised beyond measure at the terms he applies to those who have adopted it.
But MR. HICKSON says,—
"I pass by the nonsense that the greatest master of the English language did not heed the distinction between the past and the present participles, as not worth second thought."
I trust I am not trespassing on courtesy when I express a fear that a sentence like this exhibits the writer's entire want of acquaintance with the grammatical system employed by the great poet and the writers of his age. We must not judge Shakspeare's grammar by Cobbett or Murray, but by the vernacular language of his own times. It is perfectly well known that Shakspeare constantly uses the passive for the active participle, in the same manner that he uses the present tense for the passive participle, and commits numerous other offences against correct grammar, judging by the modern standard. If MR. HICKSON will read the first folio, he will find that the "greatest master of the English language" uses plural nouns for singular, the plural substantive with the singular verb, and the singular substantive with the plural verb. In fact, so numerous are these instances, modern editors have been continually compelled to alter the original merely in deference to the ears of modern readers. They have not altered delighted to delightful; but the meaning is beyond a doubt. "Example is better than precept," and perhaps, if MR. HICKSON will have the kindness to consult the following passages with attention, he may be inclined to arrive at the conclusion, it is not so very dark an offence to assert that Shakspeare did use the passive participle for the active; not in ignorance, but because it was an ordinary practice in the literary compositions of his age.
"To your professed bosoms I commit him."
King Lear, Act i. Sc. 1.
"I met the youthful lord at Laurence' cell,
And gave him what becomed love I might.
Not stepping o'er the bounds of modesty."
Romeo and Juliet, Act iv. Sc. 3.
"Thus ornament is but the guiled shore
To a most dangerous sea."
Merchant of Venice, Act iii. Sc. 2.
"Then, in despite of brooded watchful day,
I would into thy bosom pour my thoughts."
King John, Act iii. Sc. 3.
"And careful hours, with time's deformed hand,
Have written strange defeatures in my face."
Comedy of Errors, Act v. Sc. 1.
In all these passages, as well as in that in Measure for Measure, the simple remark, that the poet employed a common grammatical variation, is all that is required for a complete explanation.
J.O. HALLIWELL.