July 27. 1850.] 



NOTES AND QUERIES. 



139 



I mention Indt and its meanings merely as a pa- 

 rallel case to noise, if it be, as I think, that " a loud 

 sound" is its primary, and " a rumour" its secondary 

 meaning. 



I have no doubt there are many instances, and 

 old ones, among our poets, and prose writers too, 

 of the use of the noun annoy. I only remember at 

 present Mr. Wordsworth's — 



" There, at Blencatharn's rugged feet, 

 Sir Lancelot gave a safe retreat 

 To noble Clifibrd ; from annoy 

 Concealed the persecuted boy." 



3. Parliament. — Fbanciscds's etymology of Par- 

 liament (Vol. ii., p. 85.) is, I think, fit companion 

 for Me. Hickson's derivations ol' news and noise. I 

 take Fkanciscus for a wag : but lest others of 

 your readers may think him serious, and be seduced 

 into a foolish explanation of the word Parliament 

 by his joke, I hope you will allow me to mention 

 that palam mente, literally translated, means before 

 the mind, and that, if Franciscus or any one else 

 tries to get " freedom of thought or deliberation" 

 out of this, or to get Parliament out of it, or even 

 to get sense out of it, he will only follow the for- 

 tune which Fkanciscus says has befallen all his 

 predecessors, and stumble in limine. The presence 

 of r, and the turning of mens into mentum, are 

 minor difficulties. If Franciscus be not a wag, 

 he is perhaps an anti-ballot man, bent on finding 

 an argument against the ballot in the etymology 

 of Parliament : but whatever he be, I trust your 

 readers generally will remain content with the old 

 though humble explanation oi parliament, that it is 

 a modern Latinisation of the French wovtX parlement, 

 and that it literally means a talk-shoj), and has 

 nothing to do with open or secret voting ; though 

 it be doubtless true that Roman judges voted clam 

 vel palam, and that palum and mens ase two Latin 

 words. CH. 



SHAKSFEARE S USE OF THE WORD 



■ DELIGHTED. 



''Delighted" (Vol. ii., p. 11.3.). — I incline to 

 tliink that the word delighted in Shakspeare repre- 

 sents the Latin participle delectus (from deligere), 

 " select, choice, exquisite, refined." This sense 

 will suit all the passages cited by jNIr. IIickson, 

 and particularly the last. If this be so, the sug- 

 gested derivations from the adjective light, and 

 from the sidjstantive light, fall to the ground : but 

 Mr. IIickson will have been right in distinguish- 

 ing Sliakspearc's delighted from the participle of 

 the usual verb to delight, delcctui-e=i<^raUi'y. The 

 roots of the two are distinct : that of the former 

 being leg-ere 'to choose;' of the latter, lac-ci-e ' to 

 tice.' B. II. Kennedy. 



Meaning of the Word " Delighted." — I am not 

 the only one of your readers who have read with 



deep interest the important contributions of Mr. 

 HicKSON, and who hope for fm-ther remarks on 

 Shakspearian dithculties from the same pen. His 

 papers on the learning of the Shrew were of special 

 value ; and although I do not quite agi-ee with all 

 he has said on the subject, there can be no doubt 

 of the great utility of permitting the discussion of 

 questions of the kind in such able hands. 



Perhaps you would kindly allow me to say thus 

 much ; for the remembrance of the papers just 

 alluded to renders a necessary pi'otest against that 

 gentleman's observations on the meaning of the 

 word delighted somewhat gentler. I happen to 

 be one of the unfortunates (a circumstance un- 

 known to AIr. Hickson, lor the work in which my 

 remarks on the ])ass:ige are contained is not yet 

 published) who have indulged in what he terms 

 the ''cool impertinence" of explaining delighted, 

 in the celebrated passage in Measure for Measure, 

 by " delightful, sweet, pleasant ; " and the explan- 

 ation appears to me to be so obviously correct, 

 that I am surprised beyond measure at the tei'ms 

 he applies to those who have adopted it. 



But Mr. Hickson says, — 



" 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." 



I trust I am not trespassing on courtesy when I 

 express a fear that a sentence like this exhibits the 

 writer's entire want of acquaintance with the gram- 

 matical system employed by the great poet and the 

 writers of his age. We must not judge IShak- 

 speure's grammar by Cobbett or Murray, but by 

 the vernacular language of his own times. It is 

 perfectly well known that Shakspeare constantly 

 uses the passive for the active participle, in the 

 same manner that he uses the present tense for the 

 passive particl[)le, and commits numerous other 

 offences against correct grammar, judging by the 

 modern standard. If Mr. Hickson will read the 

 first folio, he will find that the " greatest master of 

 the English lauKuaue" uses plural nouns for sin- 

 gular, the plural substantive with the singular 

 verb, and the singular substantive with the plural 

 verb. In fact, so numerous are these instances, 

 modern editors have been continually compelled 

 to alter the original merely iu deference to the 

 ears of modern readers. They have not altered 

 delighted to delightful; but the meaning is beyond 

 a doubt. "Example is better than precept," and 

 perhaps, if Mr. Hickson will have the kindness to 

 consult the following passages with attention, he 

 nuiy be inclined to arrive at the conclusion, it is 

 not so very dark an offence to assert that Shak- 

 speare did use the passive partici[)le for the active ; 

 not in ignorance, but because it was an ordinary 

 practice in the literary com[)ositions of his age. 

 "To your professed bosoms I commit him." 



King Lew, Act i. Sc. I. 



