Читать книгу Notes and Queries, Number 38, July 20, 1850 - Various - Страница 1

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:

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:

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 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:

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:

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.

SAMUEL HICKSON.

St. John's Wood.