Although Dr. Kennedy does not think I have discovered the source from
whence Shakspeare's word _delighted_ is derived, I am gratified to find
that he concurs with me in drawing a distinction between this and the
more common word. His failure to convince me is a source almost of
regret, so happy do I regard the derivation he proposes in the last
passage cited. But in the passage from _Measure for Measure_, it does
not appear to me to express the sense which I deduce from the context;
and as I look upon the word in question as the same in each of the three
passages, I feel more inclined to adhere to my view, that it is a word
of English manufacture, according to the analogy referred to. I express
my opinion with hesitation and there can be no doubt the question is
deserving of full and attentive consideration.
Strengthened, however, in my main purpose, which was to show that
Shakspeare did not use _delighted_ in the ordinary sense of _highly
gratified_, I am better prepared to meet MR. HALLIWELL. This gentleman
does me no more than justice in the remark, not expressed, though, I
hope, implied, that I would not knowingly make use of an offensive
expression towards him or any living man; and I appreciate the courtesy
with which he has sweetened the uncomplimentary things he has felt
constrained to say of me. I trust it will be found that I can repay his
courtesy and imitate his forbearance. As a preliminary remark, however,
I must say that MR. HALLIWELL, in his haste, has confounded the "cool
impertinence" for which I censured one editor, with the "cool
correction" which was made by another; and, moreover, has referred the
remark to _Measure for Measure_, which I applied to the notes to the
passage in _Othello_. As I have not yet learned to regard the term
"delightful" as an _active participle_, it is evident that, however
"cool" I may consider the correction, I have not called it an
"impertinence." But he has no mind that I should escape so easily; and
therefore, like a true knight-errant, he adopts the cause without
hesitation, as though to be first satisfied of its goodness would be
quite inconsistent in its champion.
When I am charged with an "entire want of acquaintance with the
grammatical system" employed by Shakspeare, I might take exception to
the omission of the words "as understood by Mr. Halliwell," this
gentleman assuming the very point in question between us. I believe he
has paid particular attention to this subject; but he must not conclude
that all who presume to differ from him "judge Shakspeare's grammar by
Cobbett or Murray." And if I were disposed to indulge in as sweeping an
expression, I should say that the remark excites a suspicion of the
writer's want of acquaintance with the spirit of Shakspeare's works. I
do not think so, though I think MR. HALLIWELL has formed his opinion
hastily; and I think, moreover, that before I have ended, I shall
convince him that it would not have been amiss had he exercised a little
more reflection ere he began. In the passage in _Othello_, I object to
the substitution of _delighting_ or _delightful_ for _delighted_, as
_weak_ epithets, and such as I do not believe that Shakespeare would
have used. It was not as a schoolmaster or grammarian, but in reference
to the peculiar fitness and force of his expressions, and his perfect
acquaintance with the powers of the English language, and his _mastery_
over it, that I called Shakespeare its greatest master.
But to return to the first passage I cited--that from _Measure for
Measure_,--MR. HALLIWELL will be surprised to find that in the _only_
remark I made {184} upon it as it stands he actually agrees with me. I
said that the passage "in our sense of the term" is unintelligible. I
still say so; and he who attempts to mend it, or modernise the form,
says so too. The question next arises, Does he not mean _no system_,
when he says _system_? Otherwise, why does he say that Shakspeare uses
the passive for the active participle, when he explains the word not by
the active participle, but by an adjective of totally different meaning?
Is it not more likely that MR. HALLIWELL may have misunderstood
Shakspeare's system, than that the latter should have used intelligible
words, and precise forms of words, so at random? And, moreover, does not
the critic confound two meanings of the word _delightful_; the one
obsolete, _full of delight_, the other the common one, _giving delight_,
or _gratifying_?
Now by a violent figure which Shakspeare sometimes uses, _delighted may_
mean _delightful_ in the _former_ sense; perhaps, rather, _filled with
delight_. The word then would be formed directly from the noun, and must
not be regarded as a participle at all, but rather an ellipsis, from
which the verb (which may be represented by _give_, _fill_, _endow_,
&c.) is omitted. Take, as an instance, this passage in _Measure for
Measure_:--
"_Clau._ Death is a fearful thing!
"_Isa._ And _shamed_ life a hateful."
The meaning here is not _life ashamed_, but _life covered with shame_.
In this sense MR. HALLIWELL, apparently without knowing why, has adopted
the term _delightful_; but then the two succeeding words of his
explanation, "sweet, pleasant", he would appear to have taken at random
from a dictionary, forgetting that he was not using the word in its
ordinary sense; for it is not possible that he can suppose Shakspeare to
have used the word in the sense of the active participle. Now, though I
do not think this at all the expression that Shakspeare would use, it is
undoubtedly allowable as a general characteristic; but the word actually
used would appear to imply the result of a particular action, which
would have been productive of anything but delight. In short, as we are
agreed that the word _delighted_ in the passage in question in its
present sense is unintelligible, so also are we, I think, agreed that
the substitute, if any, must be used in a passive sense.
Now, with regard to the first instance furnished by MR. HALLIWELL of the
use of the passive for the active participle, if I were sure that the
delinquent were well out of hearing, and not likely "to rise again and
push us from our stools," I should be disposed to repeat the charge of
impertinence against the editor who altered "professed" to "professing".
The word _professed_ is one of common use, and in the present instance
perfectly intelligible. "To your bosom, _professed_ to entertain so much
love and care for our father, I commit him," seems to express the sense
of the passage: a doubt is implied by the expression, but there is a
directness of insult in the term _professing_ quite inconsistent with
the character of Cordelia.
"Becomed love" is love suited or fitted to the occasion. The use of the
passive participle is every way more appropriate than that of the
active, though the latter is more common now.
In the next instance, I have to observe that there is no such verb as
_to guile_. _Guile_ is a noun; and "guiled shore" is _guile-covered_, or
_charactered shore_. According to this rule, the modern word _talented_,
that is, _talent-endowed_, has been formed, it not having been
considered that licences are allowed in poetry that are unsuited to
ordinary language.
The passage next referred to is conditional, and I regard the use of the
passive participle here, too, as correct.
I have thus reduced MR. HALLIWELL'S list to that number which usually
forms the exception rather than the rule; and if accident, misprint,
error in copying, or other special circumstance be not held sufficient
to account for the single remaining instance, I have then only to say
that I prefer _deformed_ to _deforming_, as an epithet applied
disparagingly to Time's hand as more in accordance with Shakspeare's
practice, who was not in the habit of repeating the same idea, which, in
the latter case, would occur again in the word "defeatures" in the
following line.
MR. HALLIWELL may, doubtless find other instances, perhaps more
felicitous than these; at present, all I can say is that he has failed
to show that the use of the passive for the active participle was common
with Shakspeare. As to other variations between the grammatical usage of
Shakspeare's day and that of our own, I call assure him that I am not
quite so ignorant of the fact as he imagines.