Kitabı oku: «Notes and Queries, Number 43, August 24, 1850», sayfa 4

REPLIES

SHAKSPEARE'S USE OF THE WORD "DELIGHTED."

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

Although Mr. Hickson's notion of the meaning of delight, in the three passages of Shakspeare he has cited, is somewhat startling, it was not to be summarily rejected without due examination; and yet, from a tolerably extensive acquaintance with old English phraseology, I fear I cannot flatter him with the expectation of having it confirmed by instances from other writers.

I believe that lighted is rather an unusual form to express lightened, disencumbered, but that it was sometimes used is apparent; for in Hutton's Dictionary, 1583, we have "Allevo, to make light, to light."—"Allevatus, lifted up, lighted." And in the Cambridge Dictionary, 1594, "Allevatus, lifted up, lighted, raised, eased or recovered." The use of the prefix de in the common instance of depart for to part, divide, is noticed by Mr. Hickson; and demerits was used for merits by many of our old writers as well as Shakspeare. I find decompound for compound in Heylyn's Microcosmos, 1627, p. 249., thus:—"The English language is a decompound of Dutch, French, and Latin."

These instances may serve to show that it is not at all improbable Shakspeare may have used delighted for lighted==lightened==freed from incumbrance; and it must be confessed that the sense and spirit of the passage in Measure for Measure would be much improved by taking this view of it.

On the other hand, it certainly does appear that the poet uses the termination -ed for -ing, in the passages cited by Mr. Halliwell, where we have professed for professing, becomed for becoming, guiled for guiling, brooded for brooding, and deformed for deforming: it was not unreasonable, therefore, to conclude that he had done so in these other instances, and that delighted stood for delighting, and not for delightful, as Mr. Halliwell implies. How far the grammatical usages of the poet's time may have authorised this has not yet been shown; but it appears also that the converse is the case, and that he has used the termination -ing for -ed; e.g. longing for longed, all-obeying for all-obeyed, discontenting for discontented, multiplying for multiplied, unrecalling, for unrecalled. Dr. Crombie (Etymology and Syntax of the English language, p. 150.) says:

"The participle in ed I consider to be perfectly analogous to the participle in ing, and used like it in either an active or passive sense, belonging, therefore, neither to the one voice nor the other exclusively."

Supposing for a moment that Shakspeare used delighted for delighting, the sense of the passages would, I presume, be in Measure for Measure, "the spirit affording delight;" in Othello, "if virtue want no beauty affording delight;" in Cymbeline, "the gifts delighting more from being delayed." Here we have a simple, and, in the last two instances, I think, a more satisfactory meaning than Mr. Hickson's sense of lightened, disencumbered, affords, even could it be more unquestionably established.

I have, however, met with a passage in Sir Philip Sidney's Arcadia (ed. 1598, p. 294.) which might lead to a different interpretation of delighted in these passages, and which would not, perhaps, be less startling than that of Mr. Hickson.

"All this night (in despite of darknesse) he held his eyes open; and in the morning, when the delight began to restore to each body his colour, then with curtains bar'd he himselfe from the enjoying of it; neither willing to feele the comfort of the day, nor the ease of the night."

Here, delight is apparently used for the return of light, and the prefix de is probably only intensive. Now, presuming that Shakspeare also used delighted for lighted, illuminated the passage in Measure for Measure would bear this interpretation: "the delighted spirit, i.e., the spirit restored to light," freed from "that dark house in which it long was pent." In Othello, "if virtue lack no delighted beauty," i.e. "want not the light of beauty, your son-in-law shows far more fair than black." Here the opposition between light and black is much in its favour. In Cymbeline, I must confess it is not quite so clear: "to make my gifts, by the dark uncertainty attendant upon delay, more lustrous (delighted), more radiant when given," is not more satisfactory than Mr. HICKSON'S interpretation of this passage. But is it necessary that delighted should have the same signification in all the three passages? I think not.

These are only suggestions, of course, but the passage from Sidney is certainly curious, and, from the correct and careful manner in which the book is printed, does not appear to be a corruption. I have not seen the earlier editions. I have only further to remark, that none of our old authorities favour DR. KENNEDY'S suggestion, "that the word represents the Latin participle delectus."

Since the above was written, Mr. HICKSON'S reply to MR. HALLIWELL has reached me, upon which I have only to observe that he will find to guile was used as a verb. Thus in Gower, Confessio Amantis, fo. 135. ed. 1532:

 
"For often he that will begyle,
Is gyled with the same gyle,
And thus the gyler is begyled."
 

We most probably had the word from the old French Guiller=tromper, and the proverb is to the purpose:—

 
"Qui croit de Guiller Guillot, Guillot le Guile."
 

Horne Tooke's fanciful etymology cannot be sustained. MR. HICKSON'S explanation of "guiled shore," is, however, countenanced by the following passage in Tarquin and Lucrece:—

 
"To me came Tarquin armed, so beguil'd
With outward honesty, but yet defil'd
With inward vice."
 

MR. HICKSON has, I think, conferred a singular favour in calling attention to these perplexing passages in our great poet and these remarks, like his own, are merely intended as hints which may serve to elicit the true interpretation.

S.W. SINGER.

Mickleham, August 20. 1850.

FAMILY OF LOVE

I do not know whether the following Notes on "The Family of Love" will be deserving a place in the pages of "NOTES AND QUERIES;" as I may possibly have been anticipated in much of what I send.

The Family of Love attracted notice as early as 1575, but not in such a manner as to call for direct coercion. An apology was published for them, from which it might be inferred that they possessed no distinct opinions, but merely bound themselves to a more exalted interpretation of Christian duties, on the principle of imitating the great love of God manifested in their creation and retention. This principle, unrestrained by any confession of faith or system of discipline, naturally attracted to it the loose and irregular spirits that were at that time so prevalent, and the sect became the receptacle for every variety of opinion and disorder, exposing itself to more particular notice from its contempt for outward observances, and its opposition to the civil government. The Evangelium Regni of Henry Nicholas, the acknowledged founder of the sect, is written in such a manner as to include all religious persuasions, and permits all parties to hold whatever sentiments they please, if they merely declare themselves members of the Family of Love.

"Omnes vos, O amatores veritatis! qui amabilem vitam charitatis diligitis vocatmini et invitamini." (cap. 41.) … "Omnes peribunt, qui extra Christum extra communionem charitatis manent." (Ibid.)

A confutation of this sect was written in the year 1579; the privy council called upon the convocation of the year 1580 to notice it. We find the sect still described in the publications of 1641, and continuing under the same name with its preachers and congregations in 1645.

Bp. Cooper, in speaking of the sect in 1589 (Admonition, &c., p. 146.), terms them "that peevish faction of the 'Familie of Love,' which have been breeding in this realm the space of these thirty years."

Fuller (Ch. Hist., 17th cent., p. 610.) says that in his time "they had obtained the name of Ranters."

Leslie, in his Works (vol. ii. p. 609.), considers the sect "identical with that of the Quakers."

That this was not the case is evident, I conceive, from George Fox, the father of the Quakers, having severely chastised this "Family of Love," because they would take an oath, dance, sing, and be cheerful. See Sewel's History of the Quakers, iii. p. 88, 89, 344.

The founder of the sect, Henry Nicolai, was born at Munster, and commenced his career about 1546 in the Netherlands; thence he passed over to England, in the latter years of Edward VI.'s life, and joined the Dutch congregation. But his sect did not become visible till some time in the reign of Elizabeth.

In 1575 they presented a confession of their faith to parliament, along with a number of their books, and prayed toleration.

Nicolai, or Nicolas, their founder, published a number of tracts and letters in Dutch for the edification of his followers: and now I will propose a Query, in hopes that some of your correspondents will solve it. Is there extant any list of their writings as presented to parliament in 1575, and has their confession been published, and when? Perhaps the following works, none of which I am able to consult, would furnish the means of solving my Query, all of which treat of the subject:—

J. Hombeck's Summa Controversiarum. Godfr. Arnold's Kirchen- und Kitzer-historie. Ant. Wilh. Bohm's Englische Reformations-historie. Schroekh's Kirchengesch. seit der Reformation.

These sources would, I conceive, be useful to N.B., who inquires into their tenets and lives.

I find I have omitted to mention one of their assailants, "the last and most learned," Henry More, the English divine. See his Mystery of Godliness, book vi., chap. 12-18.

[Hebrew: SP'T]

The Family of Love.—In addition to the work of John Rogers, referred to by DR. RIMBAULT (Vol. ii., p. 49.), the two following treatises, which were also published in the year 1579, will present your readers with much curious information respecting the "Family of Love." The first is entitled,—

"A Confutation of certaine Articles delivered unto the Familye of Loue, with the exposition of Theophilus, a supposed elder in the sayd Familye, upon the same Articles, by William Wilkinson, Maister of Artes, and student of Divinitye, &c. &c. At London: Printed by John Daye, dwelling ouer Aldersgate, Au. 1579."

In the Epistle Dedicatorie, dated Cambridge, September 30, 1579, and addressed to Richard (Cox), Bishop of Ely, the author describes the new doctrine as,—

"The most pestiferous and deadly Heresie of all others, because there is not almost any one particular erroneous and schismaticall phantasie, whereof the Familie of Loue hath not borrowed one braunche or other thereof, to peece vnto themselves this their Religion."

A passage is then added which may serve in some measure as a reply to N.B. (Vol. ii., p. 89.) It seems to slow that, however vile might be the theology of this sect, their morals were not at least publicly offensive.

"The encrease of this Familie is great, and that dayly, because the withstanders are not many; the defenders are wily as serpentes, and would fayne in lyfe seeme innocent and vnblameable. In profession of the one they boast very much: of the other they walkyng very closely do iustifie themselues, because fewe haue to finde fault with them, yet haue they their lothsome spottes and ougly deformities, as in this booke to the diligent reader playnely may appeare."

The "lothsome spottes" here intended are the 13th and 14th articles of Wilkinson's indictment. They run as follows;—

(1.) "H.N. (i.e. Henry Nicholas) saith, It is lawfull for one of his Familie to dissemble," (i.e., to conceal his religion when questioned by the magistrate); and (2.) "H.N. maketh God the Author of sinne, and the sinner guiltless," (but no proof is alleged that this speculative impiety was carried out into actual life).

The title of the second treatise to which I alluded is—

"A Confutation of monstrous and horrible Heresies, taught by H.N., and embraced of a number who call themselves the Familie of Love, by I. Knewstub. Imprinted in London, at the Three Cranes in the Vinctree, by Thomas Dawson, for Richard Sergies. 1579."

He characterises the doctrine of the "Familists" as—

"A masse or packe of Poperie, Arianisme, Anabaptisme, and Libertinisme. Respecting their morals we are told, that although for their loosenesse of life, they are from the toppe to the toe nothing but blottes, yet bragge they of all perfection, euen vnto a verie deifying of themselues."

Some further light is thrown upon this point by a letter sent to Knewstub from a "godly learned man, W.C." He says,—

"Howsoeuer, they seduce some goodly and zealous men and women of honest and godly conuersation, placing them at the porch of their synagogue to make a shewe of holinesse, and to stand there as baites and stalles to deceiue others; yet, alas! who can without blushing vtter the shame that is committed in the inwarde roomes, and as it were in the heart of that synagogue of Satan."

Appended to Knewstub's book is a further—

"Confutation of the doctrine of Dauid George, and H.N., the father of the Familie of Loue, by M. Martyn Micronius, minister of the woorde in the Dutche Churche, at London."

It was originally written in Latin during the reign of Edward VI. The author charges the "Familists" with maintaining that—

"Idolatry, superstition, and outwarde vices are free and pure vnto them, which, vnder the pretence of a certaine fayth and inwarde puritie, boast that they knowe no sinne in the heart." (Fo. 87 b.)

Two features particularly distinguish them from other sectaries of the age: they professed obedience to the civil magistrate, whatever might be his religion; and they argued in favour of unlimited toleration both in regard to themselves and others.

C.H.

St. Catharine's Hall, Cambridge.