Aug. 17. 1850.] 



NOTES AND QUERIES. 



183 



Sir Christopher Sihthorp. — Can any of your read- 

 ers furnish nie with information as to the ancestry 

 of Sir Cliristopher Sibthorp, whose name appears 

 in the title-page of the following tract: A friendly 

 Advertisement to the pretended Catholics of Ireland, 

 by Christopher Sibthorp, Knt., one of H. M. Jus- 

 tices of his Court of Chief Place in Ireland, 1622, 

 Dublin ; and also as to. the crest, arms, and motto 

 borne by him. De Baldoc. 



Alarm (Vol. ii., p. 151.). — The derivation of 

 alarm, and the French alarme, from a Varme, 

 •which your correspondent M. has reproduced, has 

 always struck me as unsatisfactory, and as of the 

 class of etymologies suspiciously ingenious. I do 

 not venture to pronounce that the derivation is 

 •wrong: I merely wish to ventilate a doubt through 

 "Notes and Queries," and invite some of your 

 more learned readers to help to decide the question. 



Of the identity of the words alarm and alarum 

 there is no doubt. The verb alarm is spelt alarum 

 in old writers, and I have seen it so spelt in manu- 

 scripts of Charles II.'s reign, but uutbrtunately 

 have not taken a " Note." Dr. Johnson says 

 alarum is a corruption oi alarm. Corruption, how- 

 ever, usually shortens words. I cannot help having 

 a notion that alarum is the original word; and, 

 though I may probably be showing great ignorance 

 in doing so, I venture to propound the following 

 Queries : — 



1. How far back can the word alarum be traced 

 in our lansuajre, and how far back alarm ? 



2. Can it be ascertained whether the French 

 took alarme from our alarm, or we alarm from 

 them ? 



3. Can any explanation be given of alarum, sup- 

 posing it to be the origin:il word ? Is it a word 

 imitative of sound ? 



A larmc, instead of aux armes, adds to the sus- 

 piciousness of this derivation. CH. 



SHAKSPEABe's use of " DELIGHTED." 



Although Dr. Kennedy does not think I have 

 discovereil tlie source from whence Shakspeare's 

 word delighted is derived, I :nn gratified to find 

 that he concurs witli me in drawing a distinction 

 between tliis and the more common word. His 

 failure to convince me is a source almost of regret, 

 so happy do I regard the derivation he proi)oscs 

 in tlie last passage cited. Hut in the passage 

 ironi Pleasure for Measure, it does not appear to 

 me to express the sense wliich I deduce from tlie 

 context ; and as I look upon the word in question 

 as the same in each of the tlirec passages, I feel 

 more inclined to adliere to my view, that it is a 

 word of Englisii manuf'actuie, according to the 

 analogy referred to. 1 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 sliow that Shakspeare did not use 

 delighted in the ordinary sense of highly gratified, 

 I am better prepared to meet j\1k. Halliwele. 

 This gentleman does me no more than justice in 

 the remark, mtt expressed, though, I hope, im- 

 plied, 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. Halliwel^, 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 pai-ticiple, it is evi- 

 dent that, however " cool" I may consider the cor- 

 rection, 1 have not called it an " impertinence." 

 But he has no mind that I should escape so ensily ; 

 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 incon- 

 sistent in its champion. 



When I am charged with an "entire want of 

 acquaintance with the grammatical system" em- 

 ployed 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 par- 

 ticular attention to this subject ; but he must not 

 conclude that all wlio presume to diflFer 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 writei''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, more- 

 over, that before I have ended, I shall convince 

 him that it would not have been amiss had he e.x- 

 ercised a little more reflection ere he began. In 

 the passage in Othello, I oliject to the substitution 

 of delighting or delightful lor delighted, as vwak 

 ei)ithcts, and such as I do not believe that Shaks- 

 peare would have used. It was not as a school- 

 master or grammarian, but in reference to the 

 peculiar fitness and force of his expressions, and 

 his perfect acciuaintance with the powers of the 

 English language, and his masteri/ over it, that I 

 called Shakspeare its greatest master. 



But to return to the first passage I cited — that 

 from Measure for Measure, — Mu. Halliwell will 

 be surprised to find that in the only remark 1 made 



