114 



NOTES AND QUERIES. 



[No. 38. 



gests for tlie word delight in this passage, also, a 

 new derivation ; using de as a negation, and light 

 (lux), delighted, removed from tlie 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 con- 

 firmation it receives in another passage of Shak- 

 speare, which runs as follows : 



" If virtue no delighted beauty lack, 

 Your son-inlaw shows far more fair than black." 



Othello, Act i. Se. 3. 



Passing by the cool impertinence of one editor, 

 who asserts that Shakspeare frequently used the 

 past for the present participle, and the aluiost 

 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 no- 

 thing. Yet, as we xmderstand the term " de- 

 lighted," 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 ele- 

 ments — then your son-in-law, black though he is, 

 shows fiir 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 un- 

 essential. 



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 what- 

 ever might detract from their value, that is, re- 

 fined 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 IIickson. 



St. John's Wood. 



AUTHORS OF " THE BOLLIAD. 



The subjoined list of the authors of The 

 Holliad, though less complete than I could have 

 wished, is, I believe, substantially correct, and 

 may, therefore, be acceptable to your readers. The 

 names were transcribed by me from a copy of the 

 ninth edition of The RolUad (1791), still in the 

 library at Sunninghill Park, in which they had 

 been recorded on the first page of the respective 

 papers. 



There seems to be no doubt that they were ori- 

 ginally communicated by Mr. George Ellis, who 

 has always been considered as one of the most 

 talented contributors to The Holliad. He also 

 resided for many years at Sunninghill, and was in 

 habits of intimacy with the owners of the Park. 

 Your correspondent C. (Vol. ii., p. 43.) may re- 

 mark that Lord John Townshend's name occurs 

 only twice in my list ; but his Lordship may have 

 written some of the papers which are not in the 

 Sunninghill volume, as they appeared only in 

 the editions of the work printed subsequently to 

 1791, and are designated as Political Miscellanies. 



Maines of the 



Dedication to Kenyon 

 Family of the Rollos 

 E.\tract from Dedica- 

 tion 

 Criticisms from the 

 Rolliad 



Criticisms not in the 

 original, but pro- 

 bably written by 



Criticisms, &c. Part. il. 



Criticisms, not in the 

 original 



Authors of the RolUad. 



Dr. Laurence. 

 Tickell, &c. 



General Fitzpatrick. 



No. 



George Ellis 1 & 2. 



Dr. Laurence 3. 



Richardson 4. 



General Fitzpatrick 5. 



Dr. Laurence 6, 7, 8. 



General Fitzpatrick 9. 



Richardson 10 & II. 



General Fitzpatrick 12. 



Dr. Laurence 13 & 14. 



George Ellis 1 & 2. 



Richardson 3 & 4. 



General Fitzpatrick 5. 



Mr. Reid 

 Dr. Laurence 



6. 



7. 



Political Eclogues, 



Rose 



Tl;e Liars 

 Margaret Nicholson 

 Charles Jeiikinson 

 Jekyl 



Dr. Laurence. 

 General Fitzpatrick. 

 Mr. Adair. 

 George Ellis. 

 Lord John Towns- 

 head. 



Trobutionary Odes, 



All the Preliminaries 

 Irregular Ode 

 Ode to the New Year 

 Ode 



Duan 



Mr. Tickell. 

 l\lr. Tickell No. I. 



George Ellis 2, 



Rev. H. Bate Dudley 3. 

 Richardson 4. 



John Ellis 5. 



