Notes and Queries, Number 42, August 17, 1850

    CH.

REPLIES

SHAKSPEARE'S USE OF "DELIGHTED."

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 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.

    SAMUEL HICKSON

August 1. 1850.

ENGLISH COMEDIANS IN GERMANY

I am glad to be enabled to reply to MR. BOLTON CORNEY'S Query (Vol. i., p. 439.) respecting a German book of plays.

The learned illustrator of the Curiosities of Literature would find the information he desires in the Vorrath zur Geschichte der deutschen dramatischen Dichtkunst of the formerly celebrated J. Christoph Gottsched (Leipzig, 1767-69, 2 vols. 8vo.). But as this book, now somewhat neglected, would perhaps be difficult to be found even in the British Museum, I will transcribe the contents of the Schau-Bühne englischer und franzõsischer Comõdianten auff welcher werden vorgestellt die schõnsten und neuesten Comõdien, so vor wenig Jahren in Frankreich, Teutschland und andern Orten … seynd agirt und präsentirt worden.—Frankfurt, 1670, 3 vols. 8vo.

Vol. I.—

1. Amor der Arzt.

2. Die Comödia ohne Comödia.

3. Die köstliche Lächerlichkeit.

4. Der Hahnrey in der Einbildung.

5. Die Hahnreyinn nach der Einbildung.

6. Die Eyfreude mit ihr Selbst.

7. Antiochus, ein Tragicomödia.

8. Die buhlhaffte Mutter.

9. Damons Triumph-Spiel.

Vol. II.—

10. Von Sidonia und Theugene.

11. Der Verliebtell Kllnstgriffe.

12. Lustiges Pickelharings-Spiel, darum er mit einem Stein gar artige Possen macht.

13. Von Fortunato seinem Wünschhütlein und Seckel.

14. Der unbesonnene Liebhaber.

15. Die grossmüthige Thaliklea.

Vol. III.—

16. Vom Könige Ahasvero und Esther und dem hoffartigen Hamon.

17. Vom verlohrnen Sohn, in welchem die Verzweifflung und Hoffnung gar artig introducirt werden.

18. Von Königs Mantalors unrechtmässiger Liebe und derselben Straffe.

19. Der Geitzige.

20. Von der Aminta und Sylvia.

21. Macht den kleinen Knaben Cupidinis.

22. George Damlin, oder der verwirrte Ehmann.

Some years before, another similar collection had been published. The first vol. printed in 1620, and reprinted in 1624, has this title:

"Englische Comedien und Tragedien, d. i. Sehr schöne, herrliche und ausserlosene, geist- und weltliche Comedi- und Tragedi-Spiel (sic), sampt dem Pickelhering, welche wegen ihrer artigen Inventionen kurtzweiligen auch theils wahrhafftigen Geschichte halbet, von den Engelländern in Deutschland (I beg to notice these words) an Königlichen, Chur- und Furstlichen Höfen, auch in vornehmen Reichs- See- und Handel Städten seynd agirt und gehalten worden, und zuvor nie im Druck aussgangen."

The volume contains 10 plays. The 1, 2, 3, 5, and 10, are the 16, 17, 13, 10, and 12, of the collection of 1670. The other five are the following: