If the passage from _Measure for Measure_, which has been the subject of
much controversy in your recent numbers, be read in its natural
sense--there is surely nothing unintelligible in the word "delighted" as
there used.
The object of the poet was to show how instinctively the mind shudders
at the change produced by death--both on body and soul; and how
repulsive it must be to an active and sentient being.
He therefore places in frightful contrast the condition of _each_ before
and after that awful change. The BODY, _now_ endowed with "sensible warm
motion," to become in death "a kneaded clod," to "lie in cold
obstruction, and to rot." The SPIRIT, _now_ "delighted" (all full of
delight), to become in death utterly powerless, an unconscious--passive
thing--"imprisoned in the viewless winds, and blown with restless
violence round about the pendant world," how intolerable the thought,
and how repulsive the contrast! It is _not_ in its state _after death_,
but _during life_, that the poet represents the spirit to be a
"delighted one." If we fall into the error of supposing him to refer to
the _former_ period, we are compelled to alter our text, in order to
make the passage intelligible, or invent some new meaning to the word
"delighted," and, at the same time, we deprive the passage of the strong
antithesis in which all its spirit and force consists. It is this strong
antithesis, this painfully marked contrast between the two states of
_each, body_ and _spirit_, which displays the power and skill of the
poet in handling the subject. Without it, the passage loses half its
meaning.
MR. HICKSON will not, I hope, accuse one who is no critic for presuming
to offer this suggestion. I tender it with diffidence, being conscious
that, although a passionate admirer of the great bard, I am all
unlearned in the art of criticism, "a plain unlettered man," and
therefore simply take what is set before me in its natural sense, as
well as I may, without searching for recondite interpretations. On this
account, I feel doubly the necessity of apologising for interfering with
the labours of so learned and able a commentator as MR. HICKSON has
shown himself to be.