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 particular attention to this subject; but he must not conclude
that all who presume to differ 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
writer'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, moreover, that before I have ended, I shall
convince him that it would not have been amiss had he exercised a little
more reflection ere he began. In the passage in _Othello_, I object to
the substitution of _delighting_ or _delightful_ for _delighted_, as
_weak_ epithets, and such as I do not believe that Shakespeare would
have used. It was not as a schoolmaster or grammarian, but in reference
to the peculiar fitness and force of his expressions, and his perfect
acquaintance with the powers of the English language, and his _mastery_
over it, that I called Shakespeare its greatest master.

But to return to the first passage I cited--that from _Measure for
Measure_,--MR. HALLIWELL will be surprised to find that in the _only_
remark I made {184} upon it as it stands he actually agrees with me. I
said that the passage "in our sense of the term" is unintelligible. I
still say so; and he who attempts to mend it, or modernise the form,
says so too. The question next arises, Does he not mean _no system_,
when he says _system_? Otherwise, why does he say that Shakspeare uses
the passive for the active participle, when he explains the word not by
the active participle, but by an adjective of totally different meaning?
Is it not more likely that MR. HALLIWELL may have misunderstood
Shakspeare's system, than that the latter should have used intelligible
words, and precise forms of words, so at random? And, moreover, does not