I wish to call attention to the peculiar use of a word, or rather to a
peculiar word, in Shakspeare, which I do not recollect to have met with
in any other writer. I say a "peculiar word," because, although the verb
_To delight_ is well known, and of general use, the word, the same in
form, to which I refer, is not only of different meaning, but, as I
conceive, of distinct derivation the non-recognition of which has led to
a misconception of the meaning of one of the finest passages in
Shakspeare. The first passage in which it occurs, that I shall quote, is
the well known one from _Measure for Measure_:
"Ay, but to die, and go we know not where;
To lie in cold obstruction, and to rot,
This sensible warm motion to become
A kneaded clod; and the _delighted_ spirit
To bathe in fiery floods, or to reside
In thrilling regions of thick-ribbed ice;
To be imprison'd in the viewless winds
And blown with restless violence round about
The pendant world." Act iii. Sc. 1.
Now, if we examine the construction of this passage, we shall find that
it appears to have been the object of the writer to separate, and place
in juxtaposition with each other, the conditions of the body and the
spirit, each being imagined under circumstances to excite repulsion or
terror in a sentient being. The mind sees the former lying in "cold
obstruction," rotting, changed from a "sensible warm motion" to a
"kneaded clod," every circumstance leaving the impression of dull, dead
weight, deprived of force and motion. The spirit, on the other hand, is
imagined under circumstances that give the most vivid picture
conceivable of utter powerlessness:
"Imprison'd in the viewless winds,
And blown with restless violence round about
The pendant world."
To call the spirit here "delighted," in our sense of the term, would be
absurd; and no explanation of the passage in this sense, however
ingenious, is intelligible. That it is intended to represent the spirit
simply as _lightened_, made light, relieved from the weight of matter, I
am convinced, and this is my view of the meaning of the word in the
present instance.
_Delight_ is naturally formed by the participle _de_ and _light_, to
make light, in the same way as "debase," to make base, "defile," to make
foul. The analogy is not quite so perfect in such words as "define,"
"defile" (file), "deliver," "depart," &c.; yet they all may be
considered of the same class. The last of these is used with us only in
the sense of _to go away_; in Shakspeare's time (and Shakspeare so uses
it) it meant also _to part_, or _part with_. A correspondent of Mr.
Knight's suggests {114} for the word _delight_ in this passage, also, a
new derivation; using _de_ as a negation, and _light (lux), delighted_,
removed from the regions of light. This is impossible; if we look at the
context we shall see that it not only contemplated no such thing, but
that it is distinctly opposed to it.
I am less inclined to entertain any doubt of the view I have taken being
correct, from the confirmation it receives in another passage of
Shakspeare, which runs as follows:
"If virtue no _delighted_ beauty lack,
Your son-in-law shows far more fair than black."
_Othello_, Act i. Sc. 3.
Passing by the cool impertinence of one editor, who asserts that
Shakspeare frequently used the past for the present participle, and the
almost equally cool correction of another, who places the explanatory
note "*delightful" at the bottom of the page, I will merely remark that
the two latest editors of Shakspeare, having apparently nothing to say
on the subject, have very wisely said nothing. Yet, as we understand the
term "delighted," the passage surely needs explanation. We cannot
suppose that Shakspeare used epithets so weakening as "delighting" or
"delightful." The meaning of the passage would appear to be this: If
virtue be not wanting in beauty--such beauty as can belong to virtue,
not physical, but of a higher kind, and freed from all material
elements--then your son-in-law, black though he is, shows far more fair
than black, possessing, in fact, this _abstract_ kind of beauty to that
degree that his colour is forgotten. In short, "delighted" here seems to
mean, _lightened_ of all that is gross or unessential.
There is yet another instance in Cymbeline, which seems to bear a
similar construction:
"Whom best I love, I cross: to make my gifts
The more delay'd, _delighted_."
Act v. Sc. 4.
That is, "the _more_ delighted;" the longer held back, the better worth
having; lightened of whatever might detract from their value, that is,
refined or purified. In making the remark here, that "delighted" refers
not to the recipient nor to the giver, but to the gifts, 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 a second thought.
The word appears to have had a distinct value of its own, and is not to
be explained by any other single word. If this be so, it could hardly
have been coined by Shakspeare. Though, possibly, it may never have been
much used, perhaps some of your correspondents may be able to furnish
other instances from other writers.