"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."