Perhaps you would kindly allow me to say thus much; for the remembrance
of the papers just alluded to renders a necessary protest against that
gentleman's observations on the meaning of the word _delighted_ somewhat
gentler. I happen to be one of the unfortunates (a circumstance unknown
to MR. HICKSON, for the work in which my remarks on the passage are
contained is not yet published) who have indulged in what he terms the
"cool impertinence" of explaining _delighted_, in the celebrated passage
in _Measure for Measure_, by "delightful, sweet, pleasant;" and the
explanation appears to me to be so obviously correct, that I am
surprised beyond measure at the terms he applies to those who have
adopted it.

But MR. HICKSON says,--

"I pass by the nonsense that the greatest master of the English
language did not heed the distinction between the past and the
present participles, as not worth second thought."

I trust I am not trespassing on courtesy when I express a fear that a
sentence like this exhibits the writer's entire want of acquaintance
with the grammatical system employed by the great poet and the writers
of his age. We must not judge Shakspeare's grammar by Cobbett or Murray,
but by the vernacular language of his own times. It is perfectly well
known that Shakspeare constantly uses the passive for the active
participle, in the same manner that he uses the present tense for the
passive participle, and commits numerous other offences against correct
grammar, judging by the modern standard. If MR. HICKSON will read the
first folio, he will find that the "greatest master of the English
language" uses plural nouns for singular, the plural substantive with
the singular verb, and the singular substantive with the plural verb. In