not appear to me to express the sense which I deduce from the context;
and as I look upon the word in question as the same in each of the three
passages, I feel more inclined to adhere to my view, that it is a word
of English manufacture, according to the analogy referred to. I 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 show that
Shakspeare did not use _delighted_ in the ordinary sense of _highly
gratified_, I am better prepared to meet MR. HALLIWELL. This gentleman
does me no more than justice in the remark, not expressed, though, I
hope, implied, 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. HALLIWELL, 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 participle_, it is evident that, however
"cool" I may consider the correction, I have not called it an
"impertinence." But he has no mind that I should escape so easily; 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 inconsistent in its champion.

When I am charged with an "entire want of acquaintance with the
grammatical system" employed by Shakspeare, I might take exception to