the critic confound two meanings of the word _delightful_; the one
obsolete, _full of delight_, the other the common one, _giving delight_,
or _gratifying_?

Now by a violent figure which Shakspeare sometimes uses, _delighted may_
mean _delightful_ in the _former_ sense; perhaps, rather, _filled with
delight_. The word then would be formed directly from the noun, and must
not be regarded as a participle at all, but rather an ellipsis, from
which the verb (which may be represented by _give_, _fill_, _endow_,
&c.) is omitted. Take, as an instance, this passage in _Measure for
Measure_:--

"_Clau._ Death is a fearful thing!

"_Isa._ And _shamed_ life a hateful."

The meaning here is not _life ashamed_, but _life covered with shame_.
In this sense MR. HALLIWELL, apparently without knowing why, has adopted
the term _delightful_; but then the two succeeding words of his
explanation, "sweet, pleasant", he would appear to have taken at random
from a dictionary, forgetting that he was not using the word in its
ordinary sense; for it is not possible that he can suppose Shakspeare to
have used the word in the sense of the active participle. Now, though I
do not think this at all the expression that Shakspeare would use, it is
undoubtedly allowable as a general characteristic; but the word actually
used would appear to imply the result of a particular action, which
would have been productive of anything but delight. In short, as we are
agreed that the word _delighted_ in the passage in question in its
present sense is unintelligible, so also are we, I think, agreed that
the substitute, if any, must be used in a passive sense.