Oct. 19. 1850.] 



NOTES AND QUEEIES. 



329 



SHAKSPEARE S USE OF THE WORD " DELIGHTED. 



(Vol. ii., pp. 113. 139. 200. 234.) 



I should have been content to leave the question 

 of the meaning of the word delighted as it stands 

 in your columns, my motive, so kindly appreciated 

 by Mr. Singer, in raising the discussion being, by 

 such means to arrive at the true meaning of the 

 word, but that the remarks of L. B. L. (p. 234.) 

 recall to my mind a canon of criticism which I 

 had intended to communicate at an earlier period 

 as useful for the guidance of commentators in 

 questions of this nature. It is as follows : — Mas- 

 ter the grammatical construction of the passage in 

 question (if from a drama, in its dramatic and 

 scenic application), deducing therefrom the general 

 sense, before you attempt to amend or fix the 

 meaning of a doubtful word. 



Of all writers, none exceed Shakspeare in logical 

 correctness and nicety of expression. With a 

 vigour of thought and command of language at- 

 tained by no man besides, it is fair to conclude, 

 that he would not be guilty of faults of construc- 

 tion such as would disgrace a school-boy's com- 

 position ; and yet how luiworthily is he treated 

 when we find some of his finest passages vulgarised 

 and degi'aded through misapprehensions arising 

 from a mere want of that attention due to the 

 very least, not to say the greatest, of writers. 

 This want of attention (without attributing to it 

 such fatal consequences) appears to me evident in 

 L. B. L.'s remarks, ably as he analyses the pas- 

 sage. I give him credit for the faith that enabled 

 bun to discover a sense in it as it stands ; but 

 when he says that it is perfectly intelligible in its 

 natural sense, it appears to me that he cannot be 

 aware of the innumerable explanations that have 

 been offered of tliis very clear passage. The 

 source of his error is plainly referable to the cause 

 I have pointed out. 



It is quite true that, in the passage referred to, 

 the condition of the body before and after death 

 is contrasted, but this is merely incidental. The 

 natural antithesis of "a sensible warm motion" is 

 expressed in "a kneaded clod" and "cold ob- 

 struction ;" but the terms of the other half of the 

 passage arc not quite so well balanced. On the 

 otlicr hand, it is not the contrasted condition of 

 each, but tlie separation of the body and spirit — 

 that is, death — whicli is tlie object of the speaker's 

 conteuiplation. JsTow with regard to the meaning 

 of the term delighted, L. B. L. says it is applied to 

 the spirit " not in its state after death, but during 

 life." I must (piote the lines once more : — 



" Ay, but to die, and go we know not where; 

 To lie in cold obstruction, and to rot; 

 This sensible warm motion to become 

 A kneaded clod ; and the dcliglited spirit 

 To bathe in (iery floods," &c. 



And if I were to meet with a liundrcd thousand 



passages of a similar construction, I am confident 

 they would only confirm the view that the spirit 

 is represented in the then present state as at the 

 termination of the former clause of the sentence. 

 If such had not been the view instinctively taken 

 by all classes of readers, there could have been no 

 difScLdty about the meaning of the word. 



As a proof that this view of the construction is 

 correct, let L. B. L. substitute for " deliglited 

 spirit," spirit no longer delighted, and he will find 

 that it gives precisely the sense which he deduces 

 from the passage as it stands. If this be true, then, 

 according to his view, the negative and affirmative 

 of a proposition may be u.sed indiflferently, in the 

 same time and circumstances giving exactly the 

 same meaning. 



Mr. Singer furnishes another instance (Vol. ii., 

 p. 241.) of the value of my canon. I think there 

 can be no doubt that his explanation of the mean- 

 ing of the word eisell is correct ; but if it were 

 not, my way of reading the passage in which it 

 occurs would lead me to the conclusion that it 

 could not be a river. Drink up is synonymous 

 with drink off, drink to the dregs. A child, taking 

 medicine, is urged to " drink it up." The idea of 

 the passage appears to be that each of the acts 

 should go beyond the last preceding in extrava- 

 gance : — 



" Woo't weep? Woo't fight? Woo't fast? Woo't tear 

 thyself? 



Woo't drink up eisell? " 



And then comes the climax — "eat a crocodile?'* 

 Here is a regular succession of feats, the last but 

 one of which is sufliciently wild, though not un- 

 heard of, and leading to the crowning extrava- 

 gance. The notion of drinking up a river would 

 be both unmeaning aixd out of place. 



Samuel Hickson. 

 September IS. 1850. 



THE COLLAR OE ESSES. 



I shart look with interest to the documents an- 

 nounced by Dr. Rock (Vol. ii., p. 280.), which in 

 his mind connect the Collar of Esses with the 

 " Sanctus, Sanctus, Sanctus" of the Salisbury 

 liturgy : but hitherto I have found nothing in any 

 of the devices of livery collars that partakes of 

 religious allusion. I am well aware that many 

 of the collars of knighthood of modern Europe, 

 headed by the proud order of the vSaint Esprit, 

 display sacred emblems and devices. But the livery 

 collars were perfectly distinct from collars of 

 knighthood. The latter, indeed, did not exist 

 until a subsccpicnt age ; and this was one of tiio 

 most monstrous of the popular errors which I had 

 to combat in my papers in the Gentleman's Maga- 

 zine. A Frenchman named Favyn, at the com- 

 mencement of the seventcenthceutury, published 



