PR2P22 GRAY, Henry D. 
 A2G73 The original vers: en of 
 Love's labour's lest.
 
 (unouiOjouj 
 
 ODwaa 
 
 LIBRARY 
 
 UNIVERSITY CF CALiFORrO 
 
 RIVERSIDE
 
 LIBRARY 
 UNlVEKSin OF CALIFORNIA 
 !^ RIVERSIDE 
 
 if '^ 
 
 LELAND STANFORD JUNIOR UNIVERSITY PUBLICATIONS 
 
 UNIVERSITY SERIES 
 
 THE ORIGINAL VERSION OF 
 
 "LOVE'S LABOUR'S LOST 
 
 WITH A CONJECTURE AS TO 
 
 "LOVE'S LABOUR'S WON" 
 
 jy 
 
 BY 
 
 HENRY DAVID GRAY 
 
 ASSOCIATE PHOFESSOB OF ENGLISH 
 
 PUBLISHED BY THE UNIVERSITY 
 
 STANFORD UNIVERSITY^ CALIFORNIA 
 
 19IS
 
 UNIVERSITY SERIES 
 
 Inheritance in Silkworms^ I. Vernon Lyman Kellogg-. Professor 
 of Entomology. 89 pp., 4 plates. 1908. Price $1.00. 
 
 The Opisthobranchiate Mollusca of the Branner-Agassiz Expe- 
 dition TO Brazil. Frank Mace McFarland, Professor of His- 
 tology. 105 pp., 19 plates. 1909. Price $1.00. 
 
 A Study of the Normal Constituents of the Potable Water of 
 THE San Francisco Peninsula. John Pearce Mitchell, Assist- 
 ant Professor of Chemistry. 70 pp., 1 map. 1910. Price 50c. 
 
 Synopsis of the True Crabs (Brachyura) of Monterey Bay, Cali- 
 fornia. Frank Walter Weymouth, 64 pp., 14 plates. 1910. 
 Price 50c. 
 
 The Osteology of Certain Scombroid Fishes. Edwin Chapin Starks, 
 Assistant Professor of Zoology. 49 pp., 2 plates, 1 text figure. 
 
 1911. Price 50c. 
 
 A Physical Theory of Electrification. Fernando Sanford, Profes- 
 sor of Physics. 69 pp., 2 plates. 1911. Price 50c. 
 
 The Matzke Memorial Volume. Papers by John Ernst Matzke, late 
 Professor of Romanic Languages, and Thirteen Colleagues. 162 
 pp. 1911. Price $1.00. 
 
 Das Historische Prasens in der Alteren Deutschen Sprache. Bruno 
 Boezinger, Assistant Professor of Germanic Languages. 91 pp. 
 
 1912. Price 50c. 
 
 The Effect of a Strictly Vegetable Diet on the Spontaneous 
 
 Activity, -the Rate of Growth, and the Longevity of the 
 
 Albino Rat. James Rollin Slonaker, Assistant Professor of 
 
 Physiology. 36 pp., 1 plate, 15 text figures. 1912. Price 50c. 
 Catalogue de Tous les Livres de Feu M. Chapelain. (Bibliotheque 
 
 Nationale, Fonds Frangais, Nouv. Acq., No. 318.) Colbert 
 
 Searles, Associate Professor of Romanic Languages. 119 pp., 2 
 
 plates. 1912. Price 75c. 
 The Dudley Memorial Volume. Papers by William Russell Dudley, 
 
 late Professor of Botany, and Several Colleagues. 137 pp., 12 
 
 text figures, 9 plates. 1913. Price $1.00. 
 The Fishes of the Stanford Expedition to Brazil. Edwin Chapin 
 
 Starks, Assistant Professor of Zoology. 77 pp., 15 plates. 1913. 
 
 Price 75c. 
 The Birds of the Latin Poets. Ernest Whitney Martin, Associate 
 
 Professor of Greek. 260 pp. 1914. Price $1.00. 
 Acceleration in the Development of the Fossil Cephalopoda. 
 
 James Perrin Smith, Professor of Paleontology. 30 pp., 15 plates. 
 
 1914. Price 75c. 
 A Morphological Study of Some Members of the Genus Pallavi- 
 ciNiA. Douglas Houghton Campbell, Professor of Botany, and 
 
 Florence Williams. 44 pp., 23 text figures. 1914. Price 50c. 
 The Evolution of Brazil Compared with that of Spanish and 
 
 Anglo-Saxon America. Manuel de Oliveira Lima, Minister of 
 
 Brazil to Belgium. 160 pp. 1914. Price $1.00. 
 
 {Continued on third page of cover.)
 
 LELAND STANFORD JUNIOR UNIVERSITY PUBLICATIONS 
 
 UNIVERSITY SERIES 
 
 THE ORIGINAL VERSION OF 
 
 'MOVE'S LABOUR'S LOST" 
 
 WITH A CONJECTURE AS TO 
 
 LOVE'S LABOUR'S WON" 
 
 4 i, 
 
 BY 
 
 HENRY DAVID GRAY 
 
 * i 
 
 Associate Professor of English 
 
 PUBLISHED BY THE UNIVERSITY 
 STANFORD UNIVERSITY, CALIFORNIA 
 
 1918
 
 
 STANFORD UNIVERSITY 
 PRESS
 
 CONTENTS 
 
 Page 
 
 Preface 7 
 
 Introduction 9 
 
 A Key to the Text of the Original Version of Love's Labour's Lost.... 21 
 
 Supplementary Notes 23 
 
 A Conjecture as to Love's Labour's Won 41
 
 THE ORIGINAL VERSION OF 
 
 "LOVE'S LABOUR'S LOST"
 
 "It would be without doubt a pleasure to any man, curious 
 in things of this kind, to see and know what was the first essay 
 of a fancy like Shakespeare's." -Nicholas Rowe.
 
 PREFACE 
 
 Althou^^h it has always been recognized that Love's Labour's Lost 
 contains a certain amount of work which does not belong to Shakespeare's 
 first period, yet the play as it stands is regularly taken to illustrate his 
 characteristics at the very start of his dramatic career, and passages from 
 the play are indiscriminately cited as typical of his earliest manner. Thus, 
 for example, Mr. Garnett, in the Garnett and Gosse English Literature 
 (II, 203), speaks of "A jest's prosperity lies in the ear Of him that hears 
 it" as showing how sane a maxim Shakespeare could formulate when he 
 first began to write, and comments that "the concluding songs are as 
 finished as anything he ever wrote." Both maxim and songs belong to 
 the revision. In like manner. Professor Brander Matthews, following the 
 general tradition, says that Shakespeare at the beginning of his career 
 "satirizes the affected foppery of speech which was more or less prevalent 
 at the time" (Shakespeare as a Playzvright, p. 69). But the satirizing 
 comes in the revision ; the original version shows only the influence of 
 Lyly. What is more serious is that careful scholars often judge the patch- 
 work structure of the play as marking Shakespeare's limitations when he 
 began to write (see, for instance. Professor Baker's The Development of 
 Shakespeare as a Dramatist), whereas the early comedy, relieved of its 
 "patchwork structure," shows an overexactitude of symmetry and a most 
 careful attention to dramatic details. Again, we have grown accustomed 
 to consider the characters of Holofernes and Nathaniel, the formlessness 
 of the masque of the Worthies, and the sudden introduction of a deeper 
 motive with the news of the Princess's father's death as anticipations of 
 Shakespeare's later work, when, as I hope to show, all these belong to the 
 later date. 
 
 The value of restoring what is, in a sense, a lost play of Shakespeare 
 (though lost only in its own overcoat) is not alone that we may rightly 
 consider his characteristics at the start, but that we may observe precisely 
 how he revised his work at a later date. In this instance we must admit 
 that the revision was hastily and carelessly done, and consisted almost 
 wholly in engrafting upon his early comedy such new features as would 
 be most likely to please the sentimental and pageant-loving queen ; and 
 this cannot be taken as typical of his method. But what Shakespeare did 
 in any instance is of the greatest consequence.
 
 8 PREFACE 
 
 I have attempted in this essay to furnish a key to the original version 
 of Lore's Labour's Lost, so that anyone interested may mark the passages 
 in his own working edition of the play. I have attempted to justify my 
 conclusions in a general introduction, saving more detailed considerations 
 for supplementary notes. In the latter will be found also such textual 
 emendations as I care to suggest. I am indebted for friendly comments 
 to my colleagues, Professor R. M. Alden and Professor W. D. Briggs. 
 
 H. D. G. 
 
 Stanford University 
 March, 1918
 
 INTRODUCTION 
 
 Love's Labour's Lost is now by common consent regarded as Shake- 
 speare's earliest comedy and the earliest play wholly of his writing. Its 
 date is usually set as not later than 1591, when Shakespeare was twenty- 
 seven years old, and much of the play seems to indicate a younger author- 
 ship than that. The First Quarto, 1598, contains on the title page the 
 words, "As it was presented before her Highnes this last Christmas. 
 Newly corrected and augmented. By W. Shakespeare." If the play was 
 published within three months after its performance, the Christmas re- 
 ferred to would be that of 1598; otherwise it would be that of 1597. For 
 convenience I shall take 1597 as the more probable year for the additions 
 and 1590 for the original version of the piece, though my argument does 
 not involve the exact date of either writing.^ 
 
 The commentators who have noted the passages and scenes which 
 most clearly show Shakespeare's maturer work have been in substantial 
 agreement, — excepting, of course, the too ingenious Fleay; their differ- 
 ences have been chiefly in including less or more. They have all observed 
 that the "augmentations" must have come chiefly (if not wholly) in the 
 last two acts, since these acts are by far the longest;- and that the "cor- 
 rections" also must have come in these two acts, since they are as a whole 
 so far superior to the first three. All have noted — no careful reader could 
 avoid noting — that there are two short passages (one in act IV and the 
 other in act V) which are repeated and amplified in the lines which imme- 
 
 1 The earliest date we can select for the first writing of this play is probably 
 the true one, and our problem would be only how early Shakespeare could have 
 become acquainted with Lyly's Endymion and with the names which he takes over 
 from contemporary French history. The youth of the author becomes more appar- 
 ent with the removal of the 1597 passages, which, by attraction, have probably led 
 us to date the play too late. Indeed, the drama as I have here set it forth sounds 
 more like seventeen than twenty-seven. The Russian incident which gave point to 
 V. ii, 78-264 occurred in 1584; the Endymion was 1586; the names of Biron and 
 the others may have become fairly familiar shortly after this, and would not have 
 been appropriately used as they are here if the civil war in France had made these 
 men distinct historical personalities. On the evidence of style, I should dispute any 
 date after 1588, when Shakespeare was twenty- four years old. 
 
 2 Sir Sidney Lee thinks the disproportion a fault of the original writing and 
 that the revision even in these acts "can hardly have touched their main drifts." 
 (Introduction to L. L. L. in the Caxton Shakespeare, p. xxxiii.)
 
 10 THE ORIGINAL VERSION OF 
 
 diately follow them, indicating unmistakably^ that these two passages were 
 revised and that a portion of the original version was retained in the quarto 
 merely by oversight. Beyond these rather palpable deductions most critics 
 do not go with any assurance. Spedding, substantially followed by Furni- 
 vall,* indicated what he thought were the added portions, and with most 
 of his conclusions I find myself in agreement. But Spedding's was an 
 esthetic criticism merely. In making a more detailed and scientific ex- 
 amination of the problem I have been forced to depart somewhat from his 
 conclusions and to include among the additions of 1597 much that has 
 hitherto remained unquestioned. 
 
 It is of course from the two repeated passages that one must 
 take his start. The first occurs in act IV, scene iii, where 
 lines 296-304 are repeated and expanded in 318-354.^ This 
 single and sustained burst of poetry is the first passage to 
 remove from the 1590 version. In this same scene, which we 
 know that Shakespeare did revise, at line 221, beginning "Who sees 
 the heavenly Rosaline," we come upon another extended passage which 
 has been generally recognized as beyond Shakespeare's powers in 1590. 
 It forms a more startling contrast to the lines immediately before it than 
 we ever find in a play which shows consecutive work. There is an easy 
 mastery and a fullness of tone in these quatrains which place them at once 
 with the work Avhich Shakespeare did after he had attained a fuller com- 
 mand over his poetic faculties. Fine passages abound in Shakespeare's 
 earliest dramas ; but there is no instance in them of such careless ease in 
 the command of meter and imagery as we find here. 
 
 Now the passage under consideration extends from line 220 to 281 
 without interruption, and obviously belongs to a single writing. There 
 is an organic completeness in it which seems to me to make wholly im- 
 possible such a conjecture as Dr. Furnivall's, that because so many "con- 
 secutive fours or alternates" are set in a row some of them must belong 
 to "the first cast of the play." Toward the end, the inspiration seems to 
 have exhausted itself ; the work becomes perfunctory, and ends in a 
 quatrain of mere indecency. This is the passage which furnishes us with 
 the often quoted analogy to the "Dark Lady" sonnets ; and there is one 
 line in the play which clearly indicates that Shakespeare did not think of 
 
 3 Unmistakably, it would seem ; and yet Knight goes astray even here. See 
 note on the passage. 
 
 ^ Furnivall quotes Spedding in full in the Introduction to the Leopold Shake- 
 speare, and, with his own comment added, in the Forewords to the Griggs fac- 
 simile of the First Quarto. 
 
 ^ My scene and line numbering in this Introduction and in the notes refers 
 to Professor Neilson's text, which conforms to the Globe edition.
 
 << 
 
 love's labour's lost" 11 
 
 Rosaline in 1590 as answering to the description he gives of her in 1597. 
 "A whitely wanton with a velvet brow" (III, i, 198), belongs to the 
 earlier version ; and the many suggested emendations of the word 
 "whitely" are therefore quite gratuitous. These characterizations of the 
 appearance of the heroine, as a white-cheeked brunette in 1590 and as 
 dark-hued as well as dark-eyed in 1597, must not of course be confused 
 with the conventional praise of any beauty in terms of "white" and dis- 
 praise in terms of "black," which we naturally find here as elsewhere. 
 Biron is dilating on Rosaline's "complexion," on her "fair cheek," just 
 before he admits and praises her very blackness ; and Katherine, who is 
 distinctly characterized as "red" and "golden," is blandly referred to by 
 Biron himself as a "raven." We cannot therefore determine anything as 
 to the two versions from other references, such as those to Rosaline's 
 "white hand" (III, i. 169: IV, ii. 136; V, ii, 230 and 411), nor to her 
 being called a "beauty dark" (\\ ii, 20), for these are either conventional 
 or mean no more than that Rosaline was pictured in the first version d.i> a 
 brunette. The inconsistency which exists between the "whitely wanton" 
 and the "Dark Lady" passage only indicates what everything about the 
 revision will substantiate, — that that revision was done very hastily and 
 with no thought of maintaining a strict consistency with the earlier 
 writing. Remembering his heroine as a brunette, Shakespeare wrote on 
 in 1597 in the vein in which he w^as then writing his "Dark Lady" sonnets ; 
 for the analogy is too close to permit us to believe that any great interval 
 separated them. Only one or two of the most extreme theorists have been 
 able to believe that the "Dark Lady" sonnets could have been written as 
 early as 1591 ; and if not then, both the sonnets and the revision of the 
 play must have come together in 1597.*' 
 
 Toward the close of this scene in which we have found one passage 
 surely inserted in 1597 and another which looks unmistakably in the same 
 direction, we come upon a few lines (370-380) which at least demand in- 
 spection. Let one read the passage 318-354, redolent of the high ecstasy 
 of love, then 290-317, which is by comparison so cold and argumentative, 
 looking upon the subject not with the light of love but selfishly ; and then 
 220-246, where the revision again supplies the enthusiasm. Now the end- 
 in? of the scene contains a double motive : that of 366-369, which carries 
 out the earlier attitude, and 370-380, which is more in keeping with the 
 later impulse. The first of these is worked out in the Muscovite episode ; 
 the second leads directly to the ]\Iasque of the Worthies. 
 
 « Sarrazin dates the Sonnets 1592-96. and brings Lore's Labour's Lost down to 
 1593 in order to account for the parcllelisms to Lucrccc and Richard IIL But no 
 one, so far as I know, has accepted his conclusions.
 
 12 THE ORIGINAL VERSION OF 
 
 Let US now turn to the second place where we have positive evidence 
 that Shakespeare added something in the revision. The last scene of the 
 play is nearly as long as the first three acts put together, and the expan- 
 sion of lines 827-832 into 847-879 must be only a slight indication of what 
 took place. 
 
 The main difference between Rosaline's answer in the extended pas- 
 sage of the revision and her earlier reply, which we may read side by side 
 with it, is that in place of condemning Biron to his year's stay in a hospital 
 to punish him for his sins in general and, in particular, for his having 
 broken his oath by falling in love with her, she now prescribes this penalty 
 as a cure for his flippancy ; that is, she supplies a serious motive in place 
 of an arbitrary whim ; and she holds out a more definite promise of ac- 
 cepting him in the end. 
 
 Now by a careful examination of the scene, what may we add to the 
 earlier and what to the later versions as we find them in Rosaline's earlier 
 and later attitudes? Dumain's question is worded in the same way as 
 Biron's in the first draft, and Katherine's reply is half encouraging and 
 half teasing, with again a reference to the fact that he is "forsworn" in 
 loving her. It belongs, therefore, to 1590. It is quite impossible that 
 Dumain should have repeated Biron's line, and Longaville not have done 
 so; and Maria's brief "At the twelvemonth's end I'll change my black 
 gown for a faithful friend" is obviously supplied in place of another such 
 answer as her friends and as the Princess herself must have given in the 
 original version. The black gown, as well as the frank acceptance, belongs 
 to the revision, just as surely as Katherine's light tone and reference to 
 the broken oath belong to the earlier writing. The same thing must hold 
 in the Princess's answer to the King. Lines 800-808, which name the pen- 
 alty, fit the tone and the theme of the original drama; and that the 
 Princess must have given this as a penalty for the broken oath is shown 
 by Rosaline's original answer to Biron, "You must be purged too." This 
 fits in with the scheme of the play as we find it in the first three acts, where 
 there is but slight evidence of any revision nor room for any additions of 
 importance. In her first meeting with the King the Princess says in refer- 
 ence to the King's oath, " 'Tis deadly sin to keep that oath, my lord. And 
 sin to break it" (II, i, 105, 106) ; and Cartwright wonders at our never 
 hearing again of these "remarkable words." We do hear again of this 
 matter. In the first passage which we examined (IV, iii, 290 f ) Biron (in 
 the earlier version) is offering some youthful sophistry as a "salve for 
 perjury" to show that their loving is lawful and their "faith not torn." 
 In V, ii, 346-356, the Princess again prepares us for the original denoue- 
 ment of the piece by an almost vehement insistence upon her hatred of 
 perjury, and in line 440 she returns more playfully to this theme. The
 
 "love's labour's lost" 13 
 
 oath with which the play opens, against which Biron protests, and the 
 breaking of which is the main theme of the drama, must in the original 
 play have been the determining factor in the outcome ; and there is 
 enough of the early version left to show that it was so. And I take it that 
 whatever departs from this plan and obscures this original idea belongs to 
 the additions of 1597. 
 
 It is evident that when he came to revise his early venture in comedy, 
 Shakespeare did not not care to preserve a fourfold imposing of a durance 
 vile upon the too eager and frivolous suitors merely by way of penalty 
 and test, however much more truly that denouement might accord with 
 the mere chaff and banter of the first three acts. The young poet of the 
 original version no doubt took great joy in thus breaking away from the 
 conventional and expected "happy ending" ; but much as Shakespeare 
 might have delighted in this at twenty-four, his older and wiser judgment 
 was not content with it. In the revision, therefore, he felt it necessary to 
 supply a more reasonable motive ; and this motive was obviously provided 
 by the death of the Princess's father. It is with Mercade's entrance that 
 Spedding and others have noticed evidences of the maturer hand ; and 
 indeed all that concerns this introduction of a serious motif is distinctly 
 in the later style. 
 
 The question then arises, how did the play originally end if the 
 present solution was not offered? Did Mercade not appear upon the 
 scene at all? Again, a consideration of what the original version pre- 
 pared us for will supply the answer. An apparently needless digression as 
 to the exact situation of the Aquitaine matter (II, i, 129-168), about 
 which the Princess has come to Navarre, has been wholly lost sight of, 
 except for a line or two which scarcely arrest the attention. The Princess 
 says, in preparing for her departure (V, ii, 748, 749), "Excuse me so, 
 coming too short of thanks For my great suit so easily obtained." Such 
 a brief dismissal of an important matter which Shakespeare held to be no 
 longer of any interest accords with his failure to take the least account of 
 Christopher Sly after the comedy of the Shrew had been adjusted. But 
 that Mercade originally brought in the "packet" mentioned in II, i, 164, 
 that the King acknowledged his error, and the Princess, her mission ended, 
 at once prepared to leave, is an assumption which there is not the faintest 
 reason to doubt. The whole scheme of the play prepares us for this, and 
 for nothing but this. When the Princess would leave, the King proposes, 
 as of course he still does in the revision ; and the whole spirit of the 
 youthful comedy cries out "No! You made a vow ; it wouldn't do at all 
 to break it!" But it is a sin to keep such an oath. And so — perhaps — 
 after a year and a day — to be spent by way of atonement for perjury in 
 "some forlorn and naked hermitage," — well, we'll see about it ! And
 
 14 THE ORIGINAL VERSION OF 
 
 what to Biron ? He must be purged too : let him spend a year in a 
 hospital. And what to Dumain ? A wife, a beard, and fair health ! Let 
 him come again after a year, and if Katherine has much love she'll give 
 him some. And w^hat to Longaville? Obviously the same sort of re- 
 sponse from I\Iaria. Love's labour's lost! The title of the drama, which 
 has puzzled the critics from Gildon on, was certainly clear enough at the 
 start. Biron says, in lines which have distinctly an end-of-the-drama ring 
 to them, 
 
 "Our wooing doth not end like an old play ; 
 Jack hath not Jill. These ladies' courtesy 
 ]\Iight well have made our sport a comedy. 
 
 King. Come, sir, it wants a twelvemonth and a day, 
 And then 'twill end. 
 
 Biron. That's too long for a play." 
 
 It will be noticed that this ending not only explains the title and 
 accords with the whole spirit of the piece, but particularly characterizes 
 Shakespeare at the outset of his dramatic career. Grant White, in speak- 
 ing of the omission of a jester from this drama, says : "It is ever the am- 
 bitious way of youthful genius to aim at novelty of form in its first essays 
 . . . Afterward it is apt to return to established forms, and to show orig- 
 inality in treatment." However far the additions may surpass the earlier 
 version in poetic power, I do not believe that Shakespeare would have 
 written any of them in 1590 if he had been able to do so ; and indeed, as 
 will be more and more apparent, the additions sacrifice the youthful love 
 of symmetry as recklessly and even perhaps purposely, as they do the care- 
 ful endeavor after dramatic technique. 
 
 If I am right in supposing that the 1590 drama ended with the lines 
 quoted above, then surely something was done to the Masque of the 
 Worthies, to which I have already had occasion to refer. It is always 
 said that the inferiority of this masque to that in the Midsummer-Night's 
 Dream proves that it was written earlier. It does no such thing. One 
 might as w^ell say that the poorer characterization of Falstaff in The 
 Merry Wives of Windsor shows that play to be earlier than Henry IV. 
 In preparing Love's Labour's Lost for a Christmas celebration perform- 
 ance before the insatiable Elizabeth, Shakespeare would naturally intro- 
 duce such a masque as we find here for the very reason that it had proved 
 a successful expedient in a former play. The "tedious brief scene" of 
 Pyramus and Thisbe is most carefully worked up; whereas the Masque 
 of the Worthies shows, for the most part, rather the carelessness of haste 
 than the shortcomings of inexperience. 
 
 This masque, however, is not easily disposed of, since there is clearly 
 nothing in it which was above Shakespeare's ability in 1590, and in spite
 
 "love's labour's lost" 15 
 
 of the Merry Wives it is hard to assign it to Shakespeare in his maturity. 
 But the text itself solves our difficulty by showing that there was a masque 
 of the Worthies in the play which was different from the one we have. 
 At least I submit that Costard's announcement in lines 485-488 could not 
 have been written for the present masque of The Nine Worthies. 
 
 For observe just what we have given us. Costard enters to know if 
 the three Worthies shall come in ; he is asked if there are but three, and 
 answers that every one presents three ; he is told to "bid them prepare," 
 and goes out. Almost immediately afterwards Armado enters to an- 
 nounce the coming of five Worthies. This is the masque that is given, at 
 least until the entrance of Mercade interrupts it at the end of the "first 
 show." But as Shakespeare seems to have thrown away very little of his 
 original material, even if what he added did not strictly accord with it, 
 it is presumable that some if not all of the original masque of three 
 Worthies has been incorporated in the present arrangement. But before 
 we can decide what this is, a further consideration, and this is the chief 
 of my contentions on this subject, must detain us. 
 
 It is in keeping with the 1590 play that there should be a masque of 
 three Worthies, each one presenting three, perhaps interrupted after the 
 first round. It is like the 1597 revision to break up this youthful artificial- 
 ity and supply instead variety and vitality. The show of five Worthies 
 involves the appearance of Holofernes and Nathaniel, whereas the show 
 of three would take only Costard, Armado, and Moth. It is not arbi- 
 trarily that I choose these three to the exclusion of the Pedant and the 
 Curate ; they have been in the play from the start ; Costard carries Biron's 
 and Armado's letters, the confusion of which in the delivery forms the 
 main complication of the drama ; and ]\Ioth is of course a "sequel" to 
 Armado, with a part to play in the Muscovite incident. There is a com- 
 pletely different story to tell with reference to Holofernes and Sir 
 Nathaniel : they are abruptly introduced in the fourth act, and except for 
 receiving Biron's love sonnet and sending it on to the King, of which I 
 shall have more to say presently, they have not the faintest excuse for 
 being in the play except to take part in the 1597 version of the masque.'' 
 
 Granting that the original masque of three Worthies could not have 
 
 ~' "We take an entirely fresh start in the announcement that Holofernes and 
 his friends are to act The Nine Worthies before the Princess and her attendants. 
 The interests in the final act have been, so to speak, thrust in from the outside 
 rather than developed from elements of the story started in the earlier acts." — 
 Baker's Development of Shakespeare as a Dramatist, p. 111. But Professor Baker 
 takes this "patchwork" construction to show Shakespeare's limitations at the start 
 of his career. The recognition of the "fresh start" should have suggested a fresh 
 solution.
 
 16 THE ORIGINAL VERSION OF 
 
 involved Holofernes and Nathaniel, let us look at the other two scenes in 
 which these characters appear. Act V, scene i, was thought by Spedding 
 to show so many traces of "the maturer hand" that he added, "and may 
 have been inserted bodily." Furnivall agreed, as far as line 34. Johnson 
 spoke of the "finished representation of colloquial excellence" which dis- 
 tineuishes the "character of the schoolmaster's table-talk." What takes 
 place in this scene is that Armado comes to Holofernes and Nathaniel to 
 ask their assistance in presenting "some delightful ostentation" before the 
 Princess, and Holofernes proposes "The Nine Worthies." He proceeds 
 to cast the pageant at once, and here comes in a most interesting fact. 
 Moth and Costard he casts as they appear in the show ; to Armado he 
 assigns Judas Maccabaeus, the part which he assumes himself ; Nathaniel 
 is given Joshua, though he plays /\lexander, and, apparently, his own 
 part has been left blank, to be filled in later.® 
 
 Now if this was added, and Shakespeare planned to expand his 
 masque of three Worthies into a show of five, he would naturally put 
 down the three already in the play quite correctly, while he might assign 
 the new characters at random, or leave the assignment blank. Such a 
 matter, in a hastily written copy, would be easily adjusted at rehearsal, or 
 corrected only in the individual actor's part.^ 
 
 This falls short of proof that Armado was Judas Maccabaeus in the 
 1590 version; and yet the more one considers the matter the more in- 
 clined he becomes to believe that this was the case. The appearance of 
 Moth with Judas is in itself some indication ; but what is most nearly a 
 warrant for this assumption is the appearance which Holofernes gives 
 of being a personal caricature, and the opportunity which is made out of 
 the part of Judas in this direction. The portrait and the part of Nathaniel, 
 too, bear out this inference ; but of this matter I must speak later. In any 
 event, act V, scene i, gives the appearance of being wholly an insertion, 
 written simply to develop the characters of Holofernes and Nathaniel in 
 preparation for their appearance in the masque. We have still to ex- 
 amine the other scene in which they appear, in which they are first intro- 
 duced to us, act IV, scene ii. 
 
 In this scene Costard and Jaquenetta bring in Biron's love letter. 
 This fact, which at first seems to indicate that the Pedant and Curate 
 must have been in the play from the first, soon reveals the much greater 
 likelihood that they were added. P^or there is really no reason why the 
 second of the two love letters should be delayed in its journey to the 
 
 s For a fuller discussion of this matter, see notes on the passage. 
 8 One must remember, however, the disparity between the casting and the 
 performance of the masque in A Midsummer-Night's Dream.
 
 "love's labour's lost" 17 
 
 King-. The clown receives Biron's and Armado's letters in act 111, which 
 forms the climax of the slender plot. In the first scene of act IV he 
 wrongly delivers Armado's letter to the Princess, surrounded by her 
 ladies; in what was the second (and only other) scene in this act, he 
 carries Biron's letter to the King, surrounded by his lords. The symmetry 
 of this was inherent in the older drama. Jaquenetta has the line of ex- 
 cuse, "Our parson misdoubts it ; 'twas treason, he said" ; and this gave 
 Shakespeare the opportunity to have the letter first opened and read by 
 a parson (as Jaquenetta persists in calling the Curate) in company with 
 his friend, the schoolmaster. 
 
 From what I have already said, two things should be apparent re- 
 garding the delivery of Biron's letter. One is, that the 1590 play cries 
 aloud for its presence in scene three, that it may be read after each of the 
 three other love poems has revealed the sad fall of its doting author to 
 the constantly increasing delight of the audience ; and the other thing is 
 that Shakespeare must have had some more satisfying reason for re- 
 moving the sonnet, and to some extent spoiling his climax, than merely 
 to give Holofernes and Nathaniel something to talk about. This reason, 
 I take it, was deliberately to break up the artificial symmetry which the 
 1590 drama carried much too far. One who follows through this argu- 
 ment with me in friendly patience may or may not accept the reason I 
 offer for Shakespeare's removing the sonnet to his new scene in 1597; 
 but that the young poet who built this drama did in the first instance 
 intend to have this scene of the reading of the love poems capped and 
 completed by the reading of Biron's sonnet, is, I think, obvious. 
 
 In adding act I\^ scene ii, to the list of augmentations I lack the 
 authority of Spedding ; and indeed there is comparatively little in this 
 scene which one would remove from the original drama on the argument 
 of style, while there are many lines which might easily have been written 
 by Shakespeare in 1590. But for that matter, one might find, if he would 
 look in the same spirit, abundance of dialogue in any of the plays which 
 was not above Shakespeare's powers at the start. It is therefore doubtful 
 whether Dull's stupid conundrum in IV'. ii, 36, with its answer in 40, 41, 
 also in doggerel, was put in by Shakespeare in 1597 simply because it was 
 easy enough to do so and he saw no reason why he shouldn't, or was 
 taken from some discarded scene of the original drama. The lines which 
 end the scene just before this one. Costard's "Armado o' the one side," 
 etc., are obviously misplaced, as Staunton "more than suspected," and 
 just as surely they do not fit in any scene of the drama as we have it. If 
 these lines come from a scene discarded in the revision, then Bull's riddle 
 and Moth's banter in V, i, may also have been taken and slightly altered. 
 
 It seems fairly clear, however, that Shakespeare threw away the 
 
 2
 
 18 THE ORIGINAL VERSION OF 
 
 speech that ]\Ioth must have had when he appeared in the masque for 
 Hercules. Moth would scarcely have been introduced in the first draft of 
 the play as a silent Worthy, and his mere appearance and exit while the 
 rest have pieces to speak looks very suspicious. But in revising the play, 
 Shakespeare's interest in the masque — I cannot free myself from this con- 
 viction — was apparently in its satirical possibiUties and in its rough and 
 boisterous elements. 
 
 I am not of those who incline to see personal references in Eliz- 
 abethan drama, and my faith is somewhat taxed and strained even by 
 allusions which are well accredited. I am especially averse to reading 
 such suggestions into Shakespeare, since at the best they are distasteful, 
 and him I honor, on this side idolatry, as much as any. I should be re- 
 luctant to revive Warburton's much-condemned theory that Florio was 
 intended by Holofernes, and I have no great interest in knowing who 
 might have been the victim of Shakespeare's ridicule. But that both 
 Holofernes and Nathaniel were intended as caricatures which would be 
 identified at the court performance, I am unable to doubt. It is a slight 
 indication that Armado originally played the part of Judas that we have 
 the reference to his ugliness in V, ii, 611-627, which at once recalls 
 Jaquenetta's "With that face ?" (I, ii, 146) . If the ugliness had been given 
 originally to Armado, and Holofernes was introduced as a personal satire 
 on Florio, for example, nothing would be more natural than that the part 
 of "Jude-ass" should be given over to him. The reference to "plain 
 Judas" might indicate that the subject of the satire was a false friend.^" 
 
 i°If the Christmas referred to on the title page of the Quarto was that of 
 1598, then there was abundant time for Shakespeare to introduce the character 
 of Holofernes after Florio's World of Words was published. Hunter says: "If I 
 were disposed to defend the position taken by [Warburton and Farmer], I should 
 press into the service a passage in Act i, sc. ii, regarding Holofernes and Armado 
 as being jointly John Florio." He then cites Jaquenetta's "With that face?" and 
 comments on Florio's appearance. If Florio took umbrage at the portrait of 
 Armado, and Holofernes was introduced in 1598 as a much more obvious cari- 
 cature, we could understand what now is a bit puzzling, a certain generic similarity 
 between the Braggart and the Pedant. But I do not feel any personal satire to be 
 inevitably present in Armado ; and the possible choice of 1598 for the Christmas 
 performance would equally increase the chance that Holofernes was patterned on 
 Rombus, in Sidney's May-Lady, as Johnson thought; for this was also published 
 for the first time in 1598. Rombus not only introduces Latin phrases, but he 
 "affects the letter" and defines with a series of synonyms. Note the following 
 sentence : "Well, well, ad propositos revertebo; the puritie of the veritie is that 
 certain Fulcra puella profecto, elected and constituted by the integrated determ- 
 ination of all this topographical region, as the Sovereign Ladie of this Dame Maie's 
 month, hath been quodammodo hunted, as you would say, pursued by two, a brace, 
 a couple, a cast of young men, to whom the crafty coward Cupid had inquam de- 
 livered his dire-dolorous dart."
 
 <( 
 
 love's labour's lost" 19 
 
 The treatment of the Curate. Sir Nathaniel, also suggests a personal 
 attack, which reaches the point of open insult when he appears for Alex- 
 ander. It is possible that the Constable, Dull, originally took this part, for 
 Dull would have made an admirable Worthy, and he would fit the com- 
 ments which are made on Alexander in a way that the Curate distinctly 
 does not. Biron's strong implication that the actor does not smell like the 
 Worthy he presents implies that this person was of a lower walk in life 
 than Sir Nathaniel ; for Shakespeare always imputes offensive breath to 
 the "vulgar" ; and Costard's patronizing familiarity toward his good 
 neighbor (and very good bowler) does not at all suggest his relation to 
 the Curate to whom in duty he and Jaquenetta bring Biron's letter. But 
 the original masque does not seem to have allowed for Dull as Alexander ; 
 and a personal invective gives much more point to the whole passage. 
 Costard and Armado are not ridiculed in the same way ; the references 
 are either to the physical proportions of the actors, or are mere inter- 
 ruptions for fun's sake (except "More calf, certain"), and end in ob- 
 scenity and riot to delight the audience. It is not fanciful to see a dis- 
 tinct difference in the treatment of Holofernes and Sir Nathaniel. Still, I 
 have not been able to separate the two versions of the masque with any 
 assurance of complete exactitude, and I offer my text at this point as only 
 substantially correct. 
 
 One is naturally reluctant to deprive the comedy of 1590, fragile at 
 its best, of the only vital characters in the whole play. It may be objected, 
 too, that the Pedant suggests a youthful parody of the Stratford school- 
 master ; but what, then, should one say, by analogy, of Shakespeare's 
 sketch of Justice Shallow in the Merry Wives? 
 
 I have now indicated the main additions of 1597 as they have ap- 
 peared to me after repeated examinations. Removing from the play 
 the portions I have now indicated, I find in the resultant length of the 
 acts an almost startling confirmation of my thesis. In place of a dispro- 
 portion as amazing as it is unique in Elizabethan drama, we have a normal 
 proportion in the acts and a total of lines somewhat greater than the 
 number in TJie Comedy of Errors and somewhat less than the number 
 in the two comedies which succeeded it. The additions of 1597 bring 
 Love's Labour's Lost even beyond the length of the Shrczu and the Mer- 
 chant of Venice, which are some five or six hundred lines longer than the 
 comedies of the first group. The number of prose lines still remains 
 high, though cut nearly in half by removing the later additions ; but this 
 is due, I presume, to the nearness of the original play to the prose com- 
 edies of Lyly. With regard to the language and the meter I need only 
 say that the revision would of course be written, for the sake of unity of 
 impression, in imitation of the earlier manner, rhyming abundantly be-
 
 20 THE ORIGINAL VERSION OF 
 
 cause Shakespeare was abundantly able to rhyme, and consciously affect- 
 ing the earlier style except where the seriousness of the theme led to a 
 more natural and a nobler expression. But I shall not go into the implica- 
 tions of the now somewhat over-discredited methods of the over-laborious 
 line counters of the New Shakespeare Society. 
 
 I have found that the new material was added, as we should naturally 
 expect, for the purpose of strengthening the old play on the sides where 
 it was weakest, and contains such features as Shakespeare would most 
 naturally introduce for an entertainment to be "presented before her 
 Highness." The first two acts and the fourth receive a few opening 
 lines to set the deeper tone (the third act does not offer the opportunity 
 for this), and the more serious strain rises majestically in the finale. To 
 Biron and his lady the real ardor of love and its fitting response are 
 given, and their associates share somewhat in this deepening of character 
 and motive. Two new characters are created, of broad and vital humor, 
 the more real perhaps that they expose to ridicule the foibles of two men 
 the queen and court would delight to laugh at ; and they serve to trans- 
 form the set and stupid masque into a scene of rough and boisterous 
 merriment. The artificial symmetry of the Lyly-like play is ruthlessly 
 broken into, but the plot itself and all the scenes which developed it re- 
 main almost exactly as they were. It is this that enables us now to read 
 the play without the confusing and distorting elements which have ob- 
 scured its true character for 320 years. For though the additions of 1597 
 are beyond question the finest and most vital portions of the drama, it 
 must be admitted that the original version has a charm of its own, and 
 shows a careful sense of form and consistency of treatment which makes 
 this and not an ill-balanced and top-heavy method of construction the 
 prime characteristic of Shakespeare when he set about the making of his 
 earliest comedy.
 
 « 
 
 love's labour's lost" 21 
 
 A KEY TO THE TEXT OF THE ORIGINAL VERSION OF 
 LOVE'S LABOUR'S LOST 
 
 ACT I. Scene i. Omit lines 1-10 and question 24-33. 
 Scene ii remains as it stands. 
 
 ACT II. Scene i. Omit lines 1-20; but see note on this passage. The 
 minor characters may have been introduced in a second 
 scene. 
 
 ACT III. Scene i remains as it stands. The major characters may 
 have been introduced in a second scene. 
 
 ACT IV. Scene i. Omit lines 1-4. Omit from line 110 to the end of 
 the scene. (This passage does not belong here. It may have 
 been taken from a rejected scene belonging to act II; or it 
 may be an interpolation. See note.) 
 
 Omit scene ii. (The doggerel may also be taken from a re- 
 jected act II, scene ii. and slightly revised to fit the new- 
 characters. Biron's sonnet is to be carried forward to the 
 next scene.) 
 
 Scene iii. Question Longaville's sonnet, lines 60-73. Insert 
 Biron's sonnet from the previous scene after line 219 (but 
 see note on this passage). Omit lines 220-281. Question 
 lines 305-308. Omit lines 318-354. Question lines 363-365, 
 and 370-380. 
 
 ACT V. Omit scene i. 
 
 Scene ii. Question lines 315-334. Omit line 462. Omit the 
 prose lines 492-509, and read as one line, 
 
 I hope, sir, three times thrice, sir — 
 Biron. Go, bid them prepare. 
 
 Omit lines 515-549, questioning the doggerel 543-549 as re- 
 vised from the early play or as an interpolation. Question the 
 references to the "bigness" of Pompey in 453-455 and 562. 
 Question 559-564. Question the entire passage 565-634 as 
 rewritten, saving as probably a portion of the early play 599- 
 605, some of the references to the ugliness of the actor and 
 the doggerel at the end, substituting Armado for Holofernes. 
 Omit lines 635-721. saving merely the entrance of Mercade
 
 22 THE ORIGINAL VERSION OF 
 
 with his salutation. Mark the stage direction as "Enter a 
 ]\Iessenger, Monsieur Mercade [with a packet]." Omit lines 
 725-799, and supply in place of them a note to the effect that 
 the Princess receives the packet and delivers it to the King, 
 who thereupon acknowledges his error ■ and entreats the 
 Princess to marry him. Save lines 800-808 as a portion of her 
 original reply. The rest of her answer is revised, but may be 
 read with substantial correctness in lines 809, 810, 814, 815, 
 821, 822. Save lines 823-842, supplying after line 832 Biron's 
 reply in lines 880, 881. Omit lines 843, 844, supplying as line 
 843 the following : 
 
 Longaville. And what to me, my love ? and what to me ? 
 
 with the note that Maria makes him a response similar to 
 that given by the other ladies. Lines 845, 846 may go with 
 the original writing. Omit lines 847-879. Save as the orig- 
 inal ending of the play lines 882-888, omitting the rest from 
 Armado's re-entrance. 
 
 By marking out the passages I have indicated as surely or probably 
 belonging to the additions of 1597, it will be found that there remain 1912 
 lines, of which 541 are prose, 346 are blank verse, 778 are pentameter 
 rhymes, and the rest are short lines or doggerel. The blank verse con- 
 tains 5.9 per cent of double endings, and no weak or light endings; 11.9 
 per cent of the speeches end within the line ; and there are 8.7 per cent of 
 run-on lines according to my counting. 
 
 4 
 
 I
 
 'love's labour's lost" 23 
 
 SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES 
 
 ACT I, scene i, lines 1-10. The opening lines were, I think, added 
 in the revision. They are somewhat more involved and fuller in tone than 
 what follows. Line 1 1 makes a natural beginning for the original play. 
 
 24-33. I suspect that these lines also were added. One may detect 
 a difference in tone and an easier command of the meter. Line 34 joins 
 naturally to line 23. Spedding included Biron's protest in the lines that 
 follow as among the probable additions ; but the style is obviously early, 
 and this setting apart of Biron is inherent in the very structure of the 
 drama. 
 
 77 . The key to this line, somewhat darkened by its four "lights," 
 is that each of the four uses of the word is defined in exactly the order 
 in v.diich they occur in the line : our intellect seeking truth deprives the 
 eyes of sight. 
 
 80-93. That these fourteen lines happen to form an English sonnet 
 means nothing. Just beyond, lines 163-176 form a sonnet, though a 
 rhyming line precedes and another follows, the latter finishing the King's 
 speech. Again V, ii, 402-415, makes a sonnet. Nothing is more natural 
 than that in a play where alternates and couplets are freely used, three sets 
 of alternates should sometimes be followed by a couplet. These all be- 
 long to the early draft of the play. Shakespeare was probably as uncon- 
 scious of sonnet writing here as was M. Jourdain that he talked in prose. 
 
 114. The Second Folio first gives swore for szvoni. Brae violently 
 objects to our keeping the rhyme here, and gives examples of how Row- 
 ley, Rofife, Chapman, and Warner are content with a repetition of the 
 vowel sound. He cites also 307-311 in this scene; but the quatrain ut- 
 terly ignores the pseudo-rhyme of line 307. Have for barbarism spoke 
 occurs in this very passage, and have spoke in V, ii, 349, where again the 
 rhyme {provoke) triumphs over the grammar. Have chose also occurs 
 in this scene, at line 170: but it is needless to record instances of a use 
 so common in Shakespeare. 
 
 182. The King is referred to as "Duke" in three other places in 
 this play; once by Armado (L ii, 38), once more by Dull (I, ii, 132), and 
 once by the Princess (H, i, 38). On a similar confusion in Tzi'elfth Night 
 Fleay tries to distinguish an earlier and later version ; his argument in 
 this play is based on the substitution of Navarre for King, and Princess 
 for Queen, and a confusion of Holofernes and Nathaniel. See note on II,
 
 24 THE ORIGINAL VERSION OF 
 
 i, 21. Walker, cited and upheld by Furness, says, "King, count, and duke 
 were one and the same to the poet, all involving alike the idea of sov- 
 ereign power ; and thus might be easily confounded with each other in 
 the memory." Certainly no grounds for distinguishing the original ver- 
 sion can be found here. 
 
 Scene ii, line S7. Hart: "Morocco, Banks' famous horse . . . 
 seems to have been known first in 1591, but our play's received date has 
 been 1588 or 1589, and the passage would needs be regarded as a later 
 insertion — a disagreeable supposition, and it is preferable to regard the 
 allusion as evidence of the later date." Malone (cited by Furness) : 
 "Banks's horse had been exhibited in or before 1589, as appears from a 
 story recorded in Tarleton's Jests. Tarleton died in 1589." 
 
 131. Moth's line, "Forbear till this company be past," may have 
 been supplied in 1597. Compare his "Concolinel" in III, i, 3, and the note 
 on it. 
 
 183-187. Malone (Prolegomena) : "Shakespeare seems to have 
 had in his thoughts Saviola's Treatise Of honour and honourable quarrels, 
 published in 1595. This passage also may have been an addition." Halli- 
 well quotes a passage from this book which Furness cites with the com- 
 ment: "This quotation seems hardly apposite. . . ." (See his note for 
 details.) 
 
 187-190. Compare Sir Tophas in love; Lyly's Endymion, III, iii. 
 
 190. I have only one predecessor in preferring a sonnet to sonnet 
 (in the Oq and Ff), or sonnets, sonneteer, sonnetist, sonnet-maker, or 
 sonnet-monger. The change seems to me called for (in spite of 
 "turned orthography" in Much Ado), and the most natural and least 
 violent of the suggested emendations. The multiplication of this into 
 "whole volumes in folio" is natural enough. 
 
 ACT II, scene i, lines 1-20. This act, again, begins at a higher 
 level. Line 21 marks a natural beginning for the original version of this 
 act ; but it must be noted that Boyet was not named in the Princess's 
 speech if it began here and was not otherwise changed. The folio marks 
 this line as beginning a speech by the Princess, though the quarto does 
 not, which (if the first twenty lines were added in the revision) looks as 
 if the editors of the folio may have had a copy of the quarto with certain 
 mistakes not corrected. There are other evidences of this. Furnivall 
 noted four slight differences between the copy he used for the Griggs fac- 
 simile and the Capell copy in Trinity Library. 
 
 21. Fleay: "In II, i, the lines 21-114 were almost certainly added 
 in 1597. They begin with a prefix Prin. inserted in the middle of one of 
 the Queen's (Princess's) speeches; and in them only throughout the play 
 is the prefix Nav. (Navarre) used for King." — Life of Shakespeare, p.
 
 "love's labour's lost" 25 
 
 202. As a matter of fact, Princess is continued throughout this scene, 
 whereas Navarre goes back to Ferdinand in the Quarto and King in the 
 FoHo at hne 129. and King is continued in both throughout the rest of the 
 play. At the beginning of act IV, however, the Princess enters and the 
 Queen speaks ! Nothing regarding the added portions can be made of this 
 confusion of names. 
 
 45. Whenever I have read this play, I have stumbled over this line 
 and instinctively read it, "In arts well fitted ; glorious in arms," before I 
 found that this had been conjectured by Grant White and adopted by 
 Keightley. The change is too natural a one, and the line as not emended 
 too barbarous to permit me to believe that Shakespeare wrote it as it has 
 come down to us. 
 
 89. Capell introduced the stage direction "Ladies mask," which has 
 been generally adopted. Furness says that it "is to be construed strictly ; 
 it does not include the Princess." But how, then, does Biron recognize 
 the lady with whom he danced at Brabant? How does he know in the 
 next act, unless we are to suppose an unrecorded meeting, that she is "A 
 whitely wanton with a velvet brow, With two pitch-balls stuck in her face 
 for eyes"? If we are to supply Shakespeare with stage directions we 
 could just as well indicate that Rosaline masks after line 123 as an added 
 rebuff, and escape both of these difificulties. 
 
 115 fif. In the distribution of names I have preferred the folio, giving 
 both conversations to Biron and Rosaline. Furness thinks that "merely 
 on dramatic grounds" each of the ladies should have the opportunity to 
 "reveal her character." But it was much better, "merely on dramatic 
 grounds," to feature the hero and heroine, and let Dumain and Longaville 
 merely inquire the names of the ladies with whom they have been talking 
 in dumb show. 
 
 178. Furnivall asks us to contrast the rest of this scene with what 
 goes before, and so observe that the first 177 lines must belong to the re- 
 vision. No doubt he meant to extend the finer portion to the King's exit. 
 It is too bad to shelter so poor a suggestion behind so honored a name. 
 Though the last part of the scene is undeniably inferior, the first part is 
 no better than act I, scene i. and act III, scene i, which Furnivall accepts 
 as early, and which this .scene connects without any observable difference 
 of tone. 
 
 195. Our authorities both give Rosalitie here and Katheriiie in line 
 210. "That same" would s^em to refer to Rosaline, who has just been 
 speaking; and if she were the one in the cap. Boyet's misleading answer 
 to Biron would be appreciated by the audience (since they have just been 
 told that her name was really Rosaline). But judging from line 65. 
 Shakespeare did not mean Rosaline to be the heir of Alenqon ; and a mis-
 
 26 THE ORIGINAL VERSION OF 
 
 lead as to names here would be poor humor and worse dramaturgy. 
 Biron's exit and re-entrance would, however, make the reading of the 
 quarto and folio entirely possible. 
 
 ACT III, scene i, line 3. The word concolinel suggests the notes 
 of a yodel, and "warble" and "yodel" have sometimes been confused. Of 
 course Armado means for him to sing, and it would be like Moth to take 
 the word in a different sense, if that were possible. If the "warble" was 
 intended for a laugh, then Armado's "sweet air" was intended for another. 
 The folio has "Song" before Armado first speaks, and the quarto has not. 
 It is possible that as the play was first written Moth had a song both here 
 and at I, ii, 131, and that when the play was presented "before her High- 
 ness this last Christmas" the boy who played Moth could not sing. Hence 
 here we have a "warble" substituted, and in the former instance, after a 
 song was needlessly prepared for, Moth simply says, "Forbear till this 
 company be passed." 
 
 24-26. I have no authority for reading ''not be betrayed," but I be- 
 lieve the change is called for by the "men of note." In line 26 I omit men 
 after note; my warrant is that we have so many other instances where a 
 word from the line above has been repeated. I cannot bring myself to ac- 
 cept any of the various other emendations which have been offered. 
 
 7Z. I should take out the much disputed-over "in thee male." The 
 passage is obviously corrupt ; it is one of those marked with an obelus in 
 the Globe Edition ; no satisfactory emendation has been proposed. Cos- 
 tard's speech makes perfectly good sense with the words omitted ; and 
 since we cannot have Shakespeare's words, I prefer none at all to the un- 
 satisfying and confusing guess of any commentator. 
 
 121. Marry must surely be supplied. There is nothing to gain and 
 a trifle to lose, in omitting sirrah; and as Collier's MS., which gives 
 Sirrah Costard, marry, is without authority, I prefer to read the line, 
 "Marry, sirrah Costard, I will enfranchise thee." The same playing on the 
 word occurs in Romeo and Juliet and Richard III. 
 
 144 ff. Of the nine speeches of Biron from here to the end of the 
 scene, seven begin with O in the quarto, and all but that at line 148 are 
 copied in the folio. At II, i, 213, IV, iii, 283 and 289, the same thing 
 occurs, the folio correcting only the first. The Cambridge Editors sug- 
 gested that "the 'O' appears to have crept into the text from the last 
 letter of the stage direction 'Bero.' " This entirely satisfactory explana- 
 tion was contested by Furness on the ground that there are "twenty-six 
 lines here and there, spoken by various characters which begin with 'O'," 
 and he suggests that "it is conceivable that the interjection is due to the 
 embarrassment of the speaker in having to employ so ignoble a messenger 
 as Costard in sending a love letter." Of the ten places in the quarto where
 
 "love's labour's lost" 27 
 
 the O does not clearly belong in the play, all are to be accounted for by 
 the "o" of "Bero." Though O's are plentiful, the mistake does not occur 
 in this play under any other conditions. Bcr. is written for Bcroivne 
 (Biron) seventy-three times, and Bcro. fifty-nine times. The extraneous 
 O always occurs after Bcr. 
 
 171-174. J. AI.'s A Health to the gentlemanly Profession of Serving- 
 Men, according to the note in Furness's Variorum Edition at this point, 
 makes an incident out of this speech ; and if the book was published in 
 1598 (Collier's date), the implication is that Costard's speech was in the 
 original version. This is small comfort, since no one would ever doubt 
 it ; but I am not consciously passing over any matters that may bear upon 
 my problem. 
 
 175-207. Furnivall gives Biron's soliloquy as "surely" a part of "the 
 later work." The act is very short. It is conceivable that Shakespeare 
 introduced more of his main characters, and in revising shortened a full 
 scene to the present soliloquy. But the story of the drama does not call 
 for any such scene, and the "whitely wanton" (see next note) makes 
 against Furnivall's conjecture. To me, the style of the passage is as ob- 
 viously early as it could possibly be. 
 
 198. This line, which has given rise to so much comment because of 
 its contradiction to the "black" so strongly insisted upon later, belongs, I 
 am confident, to the early version. The difference in time between the 
 two writings, and the carelessness with which the revision was accom- 
 plished, are sufficient to account for the discrepancy. 
 
 ACT IV, scene i, lines 1-41. Spedding: "There are also a few 
 lines (1-3) at the opening of the fourth act which I have no doubt were 
 introduced in the corrected copy: [the lines are quoted.] It was thus 
 that Shakespeare learned to shade off his scenes, to carry the action be- 
 yond the stage." Line 4 would necessarily be included with 1-3. Hart : 
 "Also the opening of the Hunting Scene (IV, i). . . . wears a more 
 finished appearance than its surroundings." Line 5 would mark a natural 
 beginning for this scene, and I think the first four lines were added. .\ 
 few lines to set the tone at the beginning of a scene would be natural in 
 a revision of this sort. It is possible that this entire passage was touched 
 up. Four of the parallels to the Sonnets which McClumpha finds (Mod- 
 ern Language Notes, June, 1900) occur in this passage, and practically 
 all of his really significant parallels occur in the 1597 portions of the play. 
 
 108; 110-151. Johnson suggested "Come, Ladies, away." I have 
 had the courage to adopt this, and throw away all that follows the Exeunt 
 in the folio, as an interpolation. In the concluding lines of the scene we 
 have unmistakable evidence that something is wrong, and no imagining 
 that Costard sees Armado off the stage will explain it. The lines are not
 
 28 THE ORIGINAL VERSION OF 
 
 consistent here, nor at any other point in the drama. The reference to 
 Armado seems wholly inappropriate. "We have no knowledge" says 
 Furness, "that Costard had ever seen Armado in company with ladies, 
 kissing his hand, bearing their fans, etc." Yet this Armado of Costard's 
 description accords better with I, i, 163-179, where he is first mentioned, 
 than does the Armado whom we see. This consideration, taken by itself, 
 would indicate that Armado's part had been rewritten. This is possible, 
 for he is the only character of the original version who stands out as 
 having some reality. But I think the evidence far too faint. Furness 
 thinks that the use of Braggart for Armado may be due to the revision; 
 but a study of the text will not warrant any conclusions of this sort. 
 Martin Hume ("Some Spanish Influences in Elizabethan Literature" in 
 Transactions of the Royal Society of Literature, Second Series, XXIX, 
 No. 1) believes that Armado's part was rewritten, and in the 1597 or 1598 
 version Shakespeare ridiculed the style of Antonio Perez, who visited 
 England 1593-1595. In particular, Hume notes that Holof ernes applies 
 the term "peregrinate" to Armado (V, i, 15), and Perez signed himself 
 "Peregrino," (Pilgrim). But even if this is true, it is not necessary to 
 imagine that Armado's part was rewritten. Holofernes's reference and 
 x\rmado's style in the added portions would be sufficient to account for the 
 reference if it is indeed a true one. 
 
 Scene ii, line 5. If Shakespeare had meant to identify Florio by 
 using his definition, he certainly would not have omitted "the firmament." 
 How could one define caelo and terra, using a list of synonyms, and avoid 
 Florio's words ? 
 
 24-41. If doggerel can be parodied, it is certainly parodied here. 
 It may be that lines 26-29 are intended as one ungainly, burlesque line, 
 to be carried out of the realm of meter altogether and tied to the next 
 only by its rhyme, — which is the reductio ad absurdnm of doggerel verse. 
 For a modern equivalent (if this were really Shakespeare's intention), 
 see Gilbert's "Lost Mr. Blake" in the Bab Ballads, where some of the 
 lines actually reach the dimensions of this one. 
 
 67. The change of names which begins here in the quarto, and is 
 not corrected in the folio, extends in this scene to line 155. Fleay con- 
 tends from this, and V, i, 125, that Holofernes was originally the Curate, 
 and hence that the beginning and end of this scene belong to "the 1597 
 version." His reason is that the change was "intended to disguise a per- 
 sonal satire which, however pertinent in 1589, had become obsolete in 
 1597." No one has accepted Fleay's allegorical interpretation (Anglia, 
 VII, 228), nor his division of a scene which does not lend itself to any 
 such breaking up as he suggests. If the change of names was made by 
 Shakespeare, it would argue merely a change in his decision while writing
 
 "love's labour's lost" 29 
 
 the scene, and not a pointless alteration made years later to disguise an 
 allegory that was not there. It is easier to account for so extended a 
 mistake in the hastily written revision than in the careful copy of the 
 original play. Shakespeare may have written these additions to the play 
 with the names as we have them from here to line 155. and (so far as we 
 can tell) throughout the fifth act. (See note at V, i, 125.) In this 
 case, the desirability of changing them would have led to a partial re- 
 vision, not completed in the MS. which served as copy for the quarto. 
 
 99, 100. The Italian belongs to the revision, so Shakespeare's knowl- 
 edge of the language need not have been too early to be easily accounted 
 for. The Latin also is of the revision ; but this would perhaps give him 
 more time to forget than to acquire ! Yet it must be remembered that 
 we have no such indulgence in foreign words and phrases as we see in 
 the revision of this play until we come to Henry V and the Merry Wives. 
 In the early plays, beyond such words as ergo, sans, perdie, imprimus, 
 which one learned as he learned English, we have respice finem in The 
 Comedy of Errors (in a scene including the schoolmaster Pinch but not 
 spoken by him), and perhaps one or two phrases in the Shakespearean 
 parts of Titus Andvonicus. In the 1590 portions of this play we have 
 niinime, Veni, vidi, vici, Allans, and the equally innocent sans. We have 
 the "no point" pun also ; but nothing outside of Shakespeare's custom 
 before 1597 or 1598. 
 
 109-122. Biron's hexameter sonnet accords with his sentiments in 
 the 1590 version of the play, and does not introduce the thought which 
 distinguishes the 1597 portions, — that love itself is the sufficient justifi- 
 cation for the breaking of such vows as tlieirs. Strangely enough, this 
 idea is given to Longaville in his love sonnet ; and it is a fair assumption 
 that if Shakespeare had written a new sonnet for Biron he would have 
 given him this sentiment. It is somewhat doubtful, too, if he would have 
 written the sonnet in hexameters in 1597. 
 
 Scene iii, line 3; pitch. Johnson: "Alluding to Lady Rosaline's 
 complexion, who is through the whole play represented as a black beauty." 
 I should see no reason to suppose that Rosaline's complexion is here re- 
 ferred to, even if Dr. Johnson's suggestion did not conflict with my thesis. 
 
 5. If this refers to the end of act I, scene i, then they say should 
 be omitted ; for Biron himself is the only one who could have heard Cos- 
 tard's words. But it does not sound like an original remark with Costard 
 in the first place, and I imagine that some well-known reference was in- 
 tended. 
 
 40,41. This extra couplet, added to a sonnet which has so little to 
 do with the particular occasion that the King might well say, "How shall 
 she know my griefs?" even though he did drop the paper, may indicate
 
 30 THE ORIGINAL VERSION OF 
 
 that Shakespeare used a love sonnet which he had written later, in place 
 of the original lyric, and added the couplet for the revision of the play. 
 All of the lovers' poems in this scene far excel the surrounding dialogue; 
 and, except for Dumain's ode, the superiority seems greater than we 
 should naturally expect from their being set poems. 
 
 60-73. It is not only the superiority of Longaville's sonnet (the 
 only regular sonnet of the list) tliat makes me suspect that it belongs to 
 the revision. The sentiment of the sonnet is in accord with the 1597 por- 
 tions of Biron's speech, and offers an excuse for perjury which is out of 
 line \vith the early draft of the play. Dumain's ode, like the first part of 
 Biron's speech, gives only the plea: "Vow, alack, for youth unmeet. 
 Youth so apt to pluck a sweet." But the author of this sonnet did not 
 need to ask Biron for "some authority how to proceed ; Some tricks, 
 some quillets, how to cheat the devil" (lines 287, 288). 
 
 88, 91. These purely conventional references to Katherine's being 
 a "raven" or as fair as "a cloudy day" illustrate how far Shakespeare 
 could go in applying such terms to a lady whom apparently he did not 
 think of even as a brunette. Rosaline calls her "My red dominical, my 
 golden letter" (V, ii, 44). 
 
 153-173. Furnivall cites this passage as one of the unmistakable 
 instances of the early work. 
 
 186-188. Biron abruptly starts to go when he sees Costard and 
 Jaquenetta enter with a letter which he recognizes as his own. This, I 
 take it, is part of the preparation for the reading of the sonnet. 
 
 194. Nathaniel did not say the letter was treason, and it was the 
 Pedant w'ho sent Jaquenetta to the King. 
 
 199. That the letter was not torn to bits is shown by Longaville's 
 saying "Let's hear it," and consequently I should omit the direction Gath- 
 ering up the pieces, which is frequently supplied in modern editions. It 
 may be that the letter was read by one of the others after Longaville's 
 "Let's hear it." It would be possible to play the scene so, — Longaville 
 snatching the letter and Dumain looking over his shoulder, while the 
 King (by his authority) keeps Biron from interfering. This would per- 
 haps be the best moment dramatically ; but the attention of the audience 
 would be so much centered on Biron that no attention would be paid to 
 the sonnet itself. Or perhaps Biron read the sonnet after line 213. A 
 bit of the old dialogue may be lost where the revision begins. 
 
 221. Spedding begins here, in marking the additions, and includes 
 "nearly the whole" of the remainder of the act. 
 
 233-235. It is interesting to find the dark Rosaline thus convention- 
 ally praised for her brilliant complexion. Or had Shakespeare still not 
 created the swarthy Rosaline ?
 
 "love's labour's lost" 31 
 
 255. To the many substitutes offered for school of night, I add, 
 with due apologies, one more, namely, "sig)i of night." My only excuse 
 is that school is evidently a mistake, and I cannot read the passage with 
 any of the various words that have been suggested (scowl, stole, shade, 
 suit, soil, soul, seal, shroud, veil, cowl, caul, pall, wall, shell, roll, dowl, 
 mail, wheel, shale, scale, etc.), and believe that Shakespeare really would 
 have used that word in this place. I have tried each word with hope and 
 rejected it with despair. The word I offer is at least such a word as I 
 believe he could have written ; and since we must guess something in or- 
 der to make sense of the passage, let us make as innocent a guess as 
 possible. 
 
 296, 297. See lines 318, 319 in the revision. 
 
 299-304. These lines are usually bracketed because of their repeti- 
 tion and expansion in 320-323 and 350-354. Except Knight, who offered 
 the absurd suggestion that the repetition was intentional for oratorical 
 effect, all have agreed that the lines just indicated must belong to the 
 original version, left in the amended copy by mistake. 
 
 309-317. This takes up the third of the three points mentioned in 
 line 292. I have no doubt that Shakespeare intended to throw away this 
 entire passage, 290-317, with its exactness of symmetry, and its lack of 
 deep conviction. 
 
 316. After this line the old copies have the extra line, "With our 
 selves," which Staunton (Edition, 1864) believes came from the older 
 version. This would imply that the surrounding lines did not. Most 
 critics believe that Shakespeare did not write the words. 
 
 318-354. This wonderful burst of poetry would convince anyone who 
 read the play with sufficient care and appreciation that it belonged to a 
 later writing than the main body of the drama, even if we did not 
 have the words on the title page nor the corresponding lines of the ear- 
 lier version. It is interesting to see Shakespeare's method of revision 
 at this point. He begins with a mere paraphrasing of what he had writ- 
 ten, feeling his way, as it were, until the inspiration seizes him and bears 
 him aloft into the pure realms of fancy ; there he soars and sings like a 
 lark, until, at last, ready to descend, he comes back to the place he left 
 and alights gracefully. 
 
 368, 369. This clearly refers to the Muscovite disguise. 
 
 370-380. The lovers are still planning the Muscovite disguise when 
 we next hear of them (V, ii, 81f.), and Biron's sentiments here are a dis- 
 tinct anachronism. Compare lines 368, 369, with 379, 380. 
 
 ACT V, scene i. Spedding: "The whole of this scene between 
 Holofernes and Sir Nathaniel bears traces, to me. of the maturer hand, 
 and mav have been inserted bodily."
 
 32 THE ORIGINAL VERSION OF 
 
 2-6. Johnson : "I know not well what degree of respect Shake- 
 speare intends to obtain for his vicar, but he has here put into his mouth 
 a finished representation of colloquial excellence. It is very difficult to 
 add anything- to his character of the schoolmaster's table-talk, and per- 
 haps all the precepts of Castiglione will scarcely be found to comprehend 
 a rule for conversation so justly delineated, so widely dilated, and so 
 nicely limited." This has been quoted in support of the belief that the 
 passage belongs to the revision. Chalmers, however, gives an analogy 
 from Sidney's Arcadia (Furness, p. 330), with the comment, "Here, 
 then, was the original, in 1590, from which Shakespeare copied in 1592." 
 Drake, arguing for the date 1591, gives, "Secondarily, that, like Pericles, 
 it occasionally copies the language of the Arcadia, then with all the at- 
 tractive novelty of its reputation in full bloom." To find an analogy for 
 this particular speech does not help us much. The whole scene shows 
 Shakespeare's masterly command of prose, just as the excerpt from Bi- 
 ron's speech given above shows his poetic power, in marked contrast to 
 the first three acts of the play. The original version of Love's Labour's 
 Lost may antedate the publication of the Arcadia. 
 
 15. Peregrinate. See note at IV, i, 146. 
 
 24. The character of the Pedant should settle any doubts as to the 
 pronunciation. For the passage to have any point, Shakespeare must 
 have considered that d e t had triumphed, but that debt was still some- 
 times insisted upon by old-fashioned purists. Shakespeare himself rhymes 
 the word with Boyet. That Richard Quiney writes of his "debettes" 
 only illustrates the familiar fact that pronunciations which had become 
 obsolete in the city lasted on in the country and in smaller towns. 
 
 28. It is possible that infamy should be retained, and the passage 
 mean : It suggests villainy to me, — it would almost drive me to commit 
 crime; do you understand, domine? — to make frantic, lunatic — ? This 
 involves the change of of to to. 
 
 31. I fear that Theobald's ingenious Bone? — bone for bene in place 
 of the hopeless original Bonie boon for boon, with its necessary change 
 of the Curate's bene to bone, breaks Priscian's head, while the Cambridge 
 Bon, bon, fort bon does not explain the "scratch." Rolfe comments that 
 Nathaniel has previously, as well as here, used bene correctly (IV, ii, 33). 
 Holofernes has been talking of pronunciation. I read the passage: 
 
 Nath. Laus Deo, bene intelligo. 
 
 Hoi. Bene. Bene for bene. Priscian a little scratched, 'twill serve. 
 
 39-46. These speeches of Moth and Costard, especially the latter, 
 scarcely accord with the characters as they were first portrayed. 
 
 76. This reference to a passage which belongs to the earlier play 
 is so unlike what we find in most of the later portions that I am inclined
 
 "love's LAiiouu's lost" 33 
 
 to wonder if we have not here a part of the original drama. Moth is be- 
 having quite in his former manner, and the whole passage 50-80 is of a 
 piece with the former conversations between Moth and Armado. Per- 
 haps Armado's hncs were sUghtly revised and given to Holofernes; for 
 one feels still that there is an inappropriateness in the present arrange- 
 ment. If this passage were part of a scene rejected in the revision, then 
 Costard's lines, IV, i, 146-150, which are there out of place, may have 
 been a part of the same scene. 
 
 125. The quarto, followed by the folio, has Sir Holofernes, and this 
 is the only place in the entire fifth act where either name occurs. There 
 is no sufficient reason for supposing anything else than tliat Shakespeare, 
 in so far as he thought of names at all in connection with these char- 
 acters while writing the fifth act, had Sir Holofernes for the Curate. See 
 note at IV, ii, 67. I cannot believe that substituting Holofernes for Na- 
 thaniel is the sort of thing that a compositor could ever do ; and to do it 
 twice passes the limit of the really possible. So far as these characters 
 are concerned, Shakespeare may have revised backwards, beginning with 
 the masque. It was for the sake of the masque. I have contended, that 
 the new characters were introduced, and it was entirely natural that he 
 should think of them first as "Pedant" and "Curate." without concerning 
 himself about their names. It is very odd that Biron should refer to the 
 performers of the masque as "The pedant, the braggart, the hedge-priest, 
 the fool, and the boy." (V. ii. 545.) As a matter of fact, a character 
 in a drama should not refer to other characters in the same drama by 
 their conventional stage designations, — the Pedant, the Braggart. In 
 writing next this scene of preparation for the new masque, Shakespeare 
 may have felt the appropriateness of the name Holofernes while "the 
 Pedant" was speaking, and written it in, — or perhaps only have written 
 it in the margin. Various things might explain his final introduction of 
 the names into act I\', scene ii, and his decision to reverse them. 
 
 127. Read "assistance." The entertainment was to be given not bv 
 tlieir assistants but by themselves. If we insert the at we should also 
 read gentleman's. 
 
 129. Nothing in place of none. Nathaniel's reply shows that this 
 is surely the correct reading. The Pedant is talking of the entertain- 
 ment, not of the casting of it, in this speech. 
 
 133. Not having decided as yet how he would arrange the ^lasque 
 of the Worthies, Shakespeare either wrote in a name and scratched it out. 
 or frankly left it blank for the present. Read "Joshua yourself; 
 myself ; and this gallant gentleman Judas Maccabacus." 
 
 150. Perhaps this line led Shakespeare to scratch out the name of 
 the Worthy Holofernes had previously selected for himself. The line
 
 34 THE ORIGINAL VERSION OF 
 
 may have been due to each actor's presenting three Worthies in the origi- 
 nal masque. It does not anticipate the Dream, for it is only amusing 
 when we remember Bottom. 
 
 Scene ii, lines 12-29. This digression, with its reference to Rosa- 
 line's being "a beauty dark," and its momentary thought of death, may 
 belono^ to the revision. But the "dark" here does not indicate that Shake- 
 speare tliought of Rosaline as more than a pronounced brunette, con- 
 trasting with the "golden" Katherine; and the "Well bandied both" is 
 like other praisings of his own wit which Shakespeare put into the early 
 version. Pater : "The lines in which Katherine describes the blighting 
 through love of her younger sister are one of the most touching things in 
 older literature." The 1^/2 lines are not above Shakespeare's powers in 
 1590. (It was not said that the sister was younger.) 
 
 42. Fair as a text B in a copy-hook has been retained, I believe, by 
 all editors, and B has been explained as standing for black or Biron, or 
 as due to S's being a particularly black looking letter in a copy-book. 
 Read the line, "Fair as a text. Be in a copy-book!" "Beauteous as ink," 
 says the Princess ; and Katherine laughs, "Fair as a text. The place for 
 you is in a copy-book !" 
 
 45. It does not seem to me necessary to imagine Katherine marked 
 with smallpox. The jest would pass as a mere retort, merely as a way 
 for one to call the other ugly. 
 
 47. I should write To Katherine as a stage direction for Katherine 
 in the text. The word has been omitted by some editors, as it obviously 
 interferes with the meter, but is usually retained. It is easy to see how 
 the word crept into the text. 
 
 67. Read, "So pertinent" (i. e., so much to the point). Pertaunt 
 like (F) or perttaimt like (Q) wins an obelus in the Globe Edition. Of 
 the many guesses before mine I prefer Cartwright's pert'nently. This 
 seems to me the most appropriate word ; and if we may allow here the ad- 
 jective for the adverb, as we must so often in Shakespeare, we have a 
 word which could easily have been mistaken for "perttaunt," and the 
 compositor would naturally expand this into "perttaunt like" both for the 
 sake of the meter and in an endeavor to make sense. 
 
 115. Furnivall: "It has the certain sign of early work, the making 
 of the King and his nobles forget their dignity, and roll on the ground 
 gufifawing like a lot of hobbledehoys at the rehearsal of their Mask." 
 
 227. Furness : "Unless this mean that she bids his visor a double 
 adieu, as wishing never to see it again, and only half an adieu to himself 
 in the hope that it is not a full, complete farewell, — I do not understand 
 it." But the ladies are set upon giving not the least encouragement, and be- 
 sides this, Rosaline is now talking not with her lover but with the King. 
 
 \
 
 "love's labour's lost" 35 
 
 The adieu is a courtesy which she pays twice over to the visor in order 
 to contrast it with only half a good-bye to the King himself, which is as 
 much as she feigns to consider him worth. So at line 388 she says to 
 Biron, "that superfluous case That hid the worse and show'd the better 
 face." Dickens has a somewhat similar jest in Oliver Tzi'ist: " 'Make a 
 bow to the gentleman, Oliver,' said Mrs. Mann. Oliver made a bow, 
 which was divided between the beadle on the chair and the cocked hat on 
 the table." Sir Sidney Lee, however, gives Furness's explanation, with- 
 out questioning and without crediting it. (Caxton Shakespeare.) 
 
 264. I'^or simple I read subtle. The whole spirit of the piece is 
 against the King's having so scornful a slur. Biron admits that he is 
 "dry-beaten with pure scoff," and the King could scarcely have so easy 
 and triumphant an exit speech. There is enough innuendo in subtle as 
 Shakespeare uses it to make the word appropriate here. 
 
 269. Kingly-poor flout is too far removed from the King's line to 
 refer to it. The Princess's speech refers to the whole encounter, like 
 Rosaline's and Boyet's speeches just before, and hence, as she did not 
 talk with the King, kingly-poor is not appropriate. I should prefer Col- 
 lier's MS., kill'd by pure flout, but that I cannot bring myself to have the 
 lovers killed in one line only to hang themselves in the next ! The text 
 is garbled ; and probably if the right word were suggested it would be 
 uniformly rejected as too far away from what we have given us. Hart: 
 "The Princess retorts upon Rosaline's poverty in wit, in making such a 
 grievous pun on 'king' in her 'weW-Yiking'. . . . Her 'kingly-poor' is 
 merely 'well-liking' with an inserted quibble." But unfortunately, 
 Shakespeare seems to have applauded his puns and left the groaning 
 for us to do. 
 
 277. Is it possible that the French of Stratford atte Bowe still flour- 
 ished, and that enough English people pronounced French as it was 
 written to make this pun comprehensible? Capell says: "The speaker 
 that would convey a conception of Alaria's wit mu.st pronounce 'point' 
 something in the French manner, but inclining to point, meaning — point 
 of a sword." I should like to hear this done. Yet it occurs not only here 
 and at II, i, 190, but sufficiently often in other dramas to show that the 
 pun was possible even when spoken. It would not carry today if spoken 
 before an audience of which every person knew French. 
 
 279. Read cohn for qualm. White : "Plainly 'qualm' was pro- 
 nounced calm, which gave the Princess an opportunity for her jest; for 
 Longaville would surely not tell his mistress that she "came o'er his heart' 
 like a qualm!" Rolle notes "Sick of a calm" (2 Henry 11 \ II, iv, 40). 
 It is odd that die Princess should say "Go, sickness as thou art !" Per-
 
 36 THE ORIGINAL VERSION OF 
 
 haps this should go to RosaUne, and line 281 to the Princess, which would 
 be in keeping" with the general relation of these characters. 
 
 315-334. This looks like an insertion, though one may not be sure. 
 It is not at all an apt characterization of Boyet, and seems to proceed 
 from Shakespeare's aversion to the Osric type of courtier rather than 
 from any desire to disting-uish Boyet. Though Shakespeare seems always 
 to have had these sentiments regarding any "monsieur the nice," the 
 closest analogy to the present passage is Hotspur's tirade (1 Henry IV, 
 I, iii, 30-64), written about the time of the revision of this play. The 
 fact that the speech is written in couplets does not make against its be- 
 ing an insertion. Contrast the general movement of the lines with the 
 couplets above. Five run-on lines in a series of ten couplets (twenty- 
 five per cent) also strongly indicates the later date. Biron's line to Boyet 
 (552), "Well said, old mocker. I must needs be friends with thee," be- 
 longs to the 1590 version, and rather makes against than for this expres- 
 sion of contempt. Mercutio's similar characterization of the fiery Tybalt 
 {Romeo and Juliet, II, iv, 19-37), is equally inappropriate; and it is 
 equally difficult to say whether it belongs to the earlier or later draft. 
 
 346-356. This is "preparation," I take it, for the final outcome of 
 the play as first written. See note at II, i, 105. 
 
 414, 415. In speaking of evidences of the play's early date Fumi- 
 vall cites these lines, though, in another connection, he picks out 
 396-413 as belonging to the later work. Dr. Furnivall must have been 
 judging purely by his likes and dislikes. He admired 396-413, especially 
 the last lines, and concluded that this was Shakespeare at his best ; he did 
 not like 414, 415. and so called it early; but the passage, taken with what 
 follows, cannot be thus chopped up. I see no reason why the undeniable 
 excellence of Biron's speech cannot go with Shakespeare's powers in 1590. 
 
 421. Hart: "As applied to the pestilence the benediction [Lord 
 have mercy on iis\ seems unknown earlier than the 1592-1593 visitation. 
 The worst previous one of 1563-1564 does not seem to have adopted it. 
 . . . This plague passage is not consistent with the received date of the 
 play. I suggest that this is a later insertion (1593-4), alluding to the 
 1592 visitation." These "seems" are too vague to give us any assurance. 
 The connection between the plague and the prayer for mercy is too nat- 
 ural a one to permit us to ground upon it any date for their occurrence 
 together in a drama. 
 
 462. I think without question the line "To dash it like a Christmas 
 comedy" was written in for the performance "before her Highness this 
 last Christmas." The reference to the immediate occasion would be ap- 
 preciated ; and it illustrates the contrast between the easy carelessness 
 of the revision and the painstaking exactitude with which the young poet
 
 "love's labour's lost" "SI 
 
 worked when his spurs were yet to win. The original line, of course, 
 rhymed with zany. Capell deliberately omitted the word slight and wrote 
 zany, so as to get this lost rhyme; and Furness says: "Uncouth, nay. 
 almost abhorrent, as this rhyme sounds to us, Capell may be right." 
 Walker gives the line as "a singular mode of rhyming. — rhyming to the 
 eye, as at first sight it appears to be." If my conjecture is right, and I see 
 no other way to account either for the rhyme or the sudden reference to 
 "a Christmas comedy" in this very summer-like drama, it indicates clearly 
 that the Muscovite episode belonged to the original version. In line 293, 
 above, we have "Blow like sweet roses in this summer air." 
 
 553-564. The reference to "Big" recalls Holofernes's "this swain, 
 because of his great limb or joint" (V, i, 135), and suggests that the actor 
 cast for the part at the Christmas performance was a man of unusually 
 large build. Hence also the "Pompey the Huge" of line 691. The work 
 after line 552 seems more like the revision. In I, i, 351, Armado refers to 
 Costard as a "minnow," and just before. Costard speaks of himself as a 
 man that dares not fight. That he is "resolute" enough in the revision, 
 witness lines 690-712 in this scene. 
 
 569. For Your nose should we substitute My nose? 
 
 581. Malone: "One of these additions may have been the passage 
 which seems to allude to The Metamorphosis of Ajax, by Sir John Har- 
 rington, printed in 1596. This, however, is not certain; the quibble may 
 not have originated with Harrington, and may hereafter be found in 
 some more ancient tract." Hart: "Sir John Harrington may have bor- 
 rowed his quibble from this passage, but likely enough it was common 
 property earlier." That Shakespeare alludes to Harrington has been the 
 general opinion. The passage taken by itself does not look like an in- 
 sertion. 
 
 598. The line suggests Armado rather than Holofernes. The Exit 
 Boy of the old copies was retained by most of the older editors, not re- 
 membering that Moth speaks later. Moth must surely have had his say 
 in the original version, and then have left; his speech at line 706 belongs 
 w^ith the later additions. 
 
 599-634. It is impossible to say how much of this may have belonged 
 to the original writing. Note that "I Pompey am, Pompey surnamed the 
 Great," and "Judas I am. ycliped Maccabaeus," are kindred openings in 
 the same meter, and may perhaps indicate the style of the original masque. 
 
 612-623. I presume tiiat some of this was in the 1590 piece, and 
 more was added in the revision, but it is impossible to distinguish. Per- 
 haps the first round of four speeches (614-617) was the original allot- 
 ment.
 
 38 THE ORIGINAL VERSION OF 
 
 632-634. My warrant for regarding this as early is not so much the 
 doggerel as the characteristic line 632, which is much more in Armado's 
 tone than Holofernes's. But Armado's verse and perhaps a bit of the 
 dialogue between lines 617 and 629 are probably lost. 
 
 670. The old copies have Berozvne steps forth. Some editors have 
 omitted the words, and others have sent both Costard and Biron off stage. 
 But Shakespeare knew that it vv'ould be necessary to show the audience 
 Biron's plan to make it clear. On the stage, Biron would remain speak- 
 ing with Costard until the latter speaks. 
 
 678. Furnivall: "Arm. has known Jaq. 11/2 days." We cannot lay 
 this inconsistency to the revision, since Shakespeare always recorded the 
 passing of time in this manner, whether it could have so passed or not ; 
 and moreover, we are not told that Armado first meets Jaquenetta when 
 he finds her with Costard in the park. 
 
 699, 712. Another indication of the haste of the revision and not a 
 discrepancy between the two versions. Costard was the aggressor, which 
 was all that Dumain had in mind. 
 
 723. Spedding : "The whole close of the fifth act, from the entrance 
 of Mercade, has been probably rewritten, and may bear the same relation 
 to the original copy which Rosaline's speech 'oft have I heard of you, my 
 lord Berowne,' etc. [851-864] bears to the original speech [828-832] which 
 has been allowed by mistake to stand." Schlegel : "It may be thought 
 that the poet, when he suddenly announces the death of the King of 
 France, and makes the Princess postpone the answer to the young Prince 
 . . . falls out of the proper comic tone. But from the raillery which pre- 
 vails throughout the whole piece it was hardly possible to bring about a 
 more satisfactory conclusion ; the characters would return to sobriety 
 after their extravagance only by means of some foreign influence." 
 Hertzberg: "But the question has its serious side. Frivolity which sports 
 with oaths, which neglects the interests of state, the needful work for 
 human society, in order to indulge in selfish whims, — this is not expiated 
 and healed in making itself ridiculous. Wherefore, this comedy cannot 
 end as others end; it must have a serious perspective." Originally the 
 frivolity was expiated and healed. The revision sacrifices this in order that 
 the characters may "return to sobriety after their extravagance." 
 
 749. This is all the reference we have to the mission of the Princess 
 and its accomplishment. The line does not seem like a relic of the earlier 
 writing, incorporated in a passage which obviously belongs to the revis- 
 ion ; but much of this may be merely revised and not added bodily. 
 
 763. As at the close of his protestation earlier in this scene (406- 
 415), that he will express himself henceforth "In russet yeas and honest 
 kersey noes," Rosaline has immediately to answer "Sans 'sans,' I pray
 
 "love's labour's lost" 39 
 
 you" ; so here we have for his "honest plain words" the most involved 
 passag^e in the whole play. This may have been intentional, and hence we 
 should be particularly careful in amending. I should, however, adopt 
 Capell's It hath (T hath) for Have in line 778, and Pope's them in line 
 780. No one will complain that the speech is too simple with these slight 
 changes. 
 
 774, 775. Furness : "We here see the same hand that afterwards 
 wrote, 'The Poet's eye in a fine frenzy rolling, doth glance From heauen 
 to earth, from earth to heauen.' — Mid. N. D., V, i, 14." This was not in- 
 tended, I am sure, as implying that this particular passage belongs to the 
 early version, when it so obviously does not. But it illustrates the con- 
 fusion which so often attends chronological references to this play. 
 
 800-808. These lines may well belong to the original play. Note 
 the contrast both in tone and meter to the lines which precede them. 
 
 827-832. These lines are usually bracketed in modern texts because 
 they are given in the expanded form of the revision in 847-879. 
 
 834. Read, "Kath. A wife, a beard, fair health ; and honestly." 
 The Cambridge Editors have been generally followed in giving the words 
 A zvife? to Dumain, which has the double advantage of keeping the inter- 
 rogation point and honesty, for which I have had to substitute honestly, 
 much against my wishes. But it is so much better for Katherine to wish 
 Dumain "A wife, a beard, and fair health," rather than "A beard, fair 
 health, and honesty," that I am driven to my reading ; and my alteration 
 is less than the other. Hart avoids the "threefold" by putting an excla- 
 mation point after A zvife, and comments, "The [Cambridge Editors'] 
 alteration, besides being wrong in principle, spoils the effect of Dumain's 
 'I thank you. gentle wife.' " 
 
 843, 844. One may with confidence supply a lost line of Shakespeare : 
 "Long. And what to me, my love? and what to me?" Maria's answer 
 in the original version has been lost ; but I think it probable that 845, 846 
 were taken over from the early play. 
 
 851-879. \Miat was Rosaline to do during this year? She was much 
 more "replete with mocks" and "wounding flouts" than poor Biron. 
 
 880. 881. These lines surely followed 832. Biron's "Fll jest a twelve- 
 month in a hospital" is utterly inappropriate after this more serious pas- 
 sage. Nothing in the play shows more clearly how hastily and carelessly 
 Shakespeare joined his new material to his old. 
 
 882. It is presumable that this line rhymed with one now lost, but 
 this is by no means certain. 
 
 884-888. Hence the title of the drama. See Introduction. Furness 
 (Preface, xviii) : "We doubt much that this voice [of love] will echo 
 in his soul throughout his year of penance. His fertile wit will devise
 
 40 "love's labour's lost" 
 
 many a mean to stifle it should his task to move wild laughter in the 
 throat of death prove too irksome. His present love's lal3our will be lost, 
 and Jack will never have his Jill." This I believe would be a fair con- 
 clusion from the first version of the play ; but the revision w-as not meant 
 to leave any such impression. It is the older plan still showing through, 
 and the original title still retained, that must have given Dr. Furness this 
 impression.
 
 A CONJECTURE AS TO 
 
 "LOVE'S LABOUR'S WON"
 
 A CONJECTURE AS TO "LOVE'S LABOUR'S WON" 
 
 The method which Shakespeare employed in revising Love's Labour's 
 Lost may have been somewhat his method in revising Love's Labour's 
 Won. ¥ov though we do not know that we possess the companion ]Mece 
 to Love's Labour's Lost in its revised form, it is a natural enough assump- 
 tion that the only play mentioned by Meres of which we have no other 
 trace was the first cast of some comedy which was put into its present 
 form after 1598. I shall go farther without encountering serious preju- 
 dice, I am sure, if I take it for granted that Love's Labour's Won was 
 probably written immediately after Love's Labour's Lost ; and hence that 
 the two comedies it most nearly resembled were the original draft of 
 Love's Labour's Lost and TJic Comedy of Errors. 
 
 To a slight extent, it must be conceded, the results we have arrived 
 at regarding Love's Labour's Lost lend color to a contention in the 
 Quarterly Revieiv (LXV, 481) that this play had a double title: "Love's 
 Labours — comic labours — are both lost and won: lost because they led 
 to a year of penance ; and zvon, because, at the end of that year, they were 
 to receive their reward." We might substitute for this that they were 
 lost in 1590 and ivon in 1597; that the title of the drama as given before 
 Elizabeth may have been Love's Labour's Won, — the play being revised 
 sufficiently to warrant this change of name ; and that the original title was 
 restored in the Quarto. But there is no evidence for all this, and the pre- 
 sumption is decidedly against it. 
 
 I shall not recount the various arguments which have been put for- 
 ward to establish the identity of one or another comedy with the missing 
 Love's Labour's Won. These arguments are fairly and fully stated in 
 Professor Tolman's paper on the subject.^ Regarding Professor Tol- 
 man's own choice, The Taming of the Shre^w, three comments might be 
 made in addition to the obvious and familiar ones that Petruchio's labor 
 is scarcely one of love, and that the theme, the type of plot, the character- 
 ization, and indeed the whole tone and movement of the two plays are 
 widely different. These rejoinders to the special form the theory takes 
 in this last and fullest statement of it are: that The Taming of the Shrew 
 in all probability reached its present form before 1598, and hence Meres 
 
 1 Hamlet and Other Essays, pp. 245-313.
 
 44 A CONJECTURE AS TO 
 
 would not have referred to it by its previous title ; that there is no reason 
 why the Shrew should be named among the plays of which Shakespeare 
 was the original author and not the reviser ; - and that there is no need 
 to apologize for Shakespeare's extensive use of A Shrezv, nor to explain 
 it as a "reclaiming of his own," inasmuch as no question of literary pro- 
 prietorship entered into the matter. If Shakespeare was set the task of 
 revising A Shrezv, or rather the Christopher Sly and Katherine and 
 Petruchio portions of it, there was no reason, ethical or other, why he 
 should not retain as much of the old material as he could. He contributed 
 his new lines to the old play ; he made no claim of his own upon a drama 
 which was now to be acted under a title almost identical with the old one. 
 The play was still the company's play, improved by somebody. 
 
 In spite of clever arguments which have been put forward in favor of 
 Much Ado and other comedies, The Taming of the Shrezv remains the 
 only serious rival of All's Well that Ends Well for the distinction of being 
 the revised Love's Labour's Won. The arguments in favor of All's Well 
 are obvious and cogent, and the objections to it, though quite fatal, are 
 few. It is all but universally acknowledged that there exist side by side 
 in this play passages so different in style that the normal if not the only 
 way to account for them is to assign some to Shakespeare's earliest period 
 and the others to a much later time. We are asked to notice the incon- 
 sistencies in the character drawing and in the structure of the play, and 
 the abundance of rhyme and euphuism in the seemingly early portions. 
 All other considerations may be set aside if this fundamental matter is 
 disposed of ; for the aptness of the title "Love's Labour's Won" and such 
 other minor matters as have been brought out by various critics are only 
 worthy of mention in view of this main argument : given a comedy which 
 shows Shakespeare's early characteristics in some passages badly joined 
 to other passages obviously in his later manner, and there is no need to 
 look farther for the early play Love's Labour's Won. 
 
 Professor Tolman's objection is that no preliminary draft of All's 
 Well that Ends Well could ever have been a companion piece to Love's 
 Labour's Lost. "The central situation of All's Well, the desperate venture 
 of the indomitable Helena, would be intolerable if treated in the tone of 
 easy banter that distinguishes Love's Labour's Lost." In answer to this it 
 might be said that what is intolerable to us was not always intolerable to 
 the Elizabethans ; moreover, we have no means of knowing how com- 
 plete or fundamental a change might have been made in the revision ; nor 
 may we safely assume that the young Shakespeare was incapable of 
 
 ^ See the present writer's article on "The Authorship of Titus Andronicus" in 
 the Fliigel Memorial Volume, Stanford University Series, p. 115.
 
 "love's labour's won" 45 
 
 affectiiii.f a deliberate contrast in his balanced pair of comedies: Love's 
 Labour's Lost displaying nothing- but careless chaff and banter; Love's 
 Labour's Won, perversely, affecting the ironic and sardonic. 
 
 Unlikely as this is, I feel that the claim of All's Well easily topples 
 over the objection if the claim itself is sound. It is just this which I 
 flatly deny. I can find absolutely no trace in this play of Shakespeare's 
 earliest manner. When one reads All's Well, some parts do show in 
 striking contrast to the rest ; but I refuse to believe that any student with 
 an ear for Shakespeare's changing cadence came fresh from the study 
 of Love's Labour's Lost and found in All's Well a single passage which 
 reminded him of the earlier comedy. Let me place a few lines of blank 
 verse from an "early" passage in All's Well side by side with the opening 
 lines of the original version of Love's Labour's Lost: 
 
 Bertram. My lord, this is a fond and desperate creature, 
 Whom sometimes I have laughed with. Let your highness 
 Lay a more noble thought upon mine honour 
 Than for to •"' think that I would sink it here. 
 
 King. Sir, for my thoughts, you have them ill to friend 
 Till your deeds gain them. Fairer prove your honour 
 Than in my thought it lies. 
 
 All's Well, V, iii, 178-184. 
 
 King. Our late edict shall strongly stand in force. 
 Navarre shall be the wonder of the world. 
 Our court shall be a little Academe, 
 Still and contemplative in living art 
 You three, IJiron, Dumain, and Longaville. 
 Have sworn for three years' term to live with me 
 My fellow-scholars, and to keep those statutes 
 That are recorded in this schedule here. 
 Your oaths are passed ; and now subscribe your names, 
 That his own hand may strike his honour down 
 That violates the smallest branch herein. 
 
 L. L. L., T. i, 11-21. 
 
 Let me now bring two prose passages together, both presumably 
 illustrating the artificial and affected style of the young Shakespeare : 
 
 Steward. Aladam, 1 was very late more near her than I think 
 she wish'd me. Alone she was, and did communicate to herself iier 
 own words to her own ears ; she thought. I dare vow for her, they 
 touch'd not any stranger sense. Her matter was, she lov'd your 
 son. Fortune, she said, was no goddess, that had put such difference 
 betwixt their two estates ; Love, no god, that would not extend his 
 might, onlv where qualities were level ; Diana, no queen of virgins. 
 
 3 Boyle calls attention to this "lor to" as an added proof. Englische Studien, 
 XIV, p. 415.
 
 46 A CONJECTURE AS TO 
 
 that would suffer her poor knight surpris'd, without rescue in the 
 first assault or ransom afterward. This she deliver'd in the most 
 bitter touch of sorrow that e'er I heard virgin exclaim in ; which I 
 held my duty speedily to acquaint you \vithal ; sithence, in the loss 
 that may happen, it concerns you something to know it. 
 
 All's Well, I, iii, 110-126. 
 
 Biroii. The King he is hunting the deer. I am coursing myself; 
 they have pitched a toil, T am toiling in a pitch, — pitch that defiles ; — 
 defile ! a foul word. Well, "set thee down, sorrow !" for so they 
 say the fool said, and so say I, and I the fool : well proved, wit ! 
 By the Lord, this love is as mad as Ajax. It kills sheep; it kills me, 
 I a sheep : well proved again o' my side ! I will not love ; if I do, 
 hang me ; i' faith, I will not. O, but her eye, — by this light, but for 
 her eye, I would not love her ; yes, for her two e3^es. Well, I do 
 nothing in the world but lie, and lie in my throat. By heaven, I do 
 love ; and it hath taught me to rhyme and to be melancholy ; and 
 here is part of my rhyme, and here my melancholy. Well, she hath 
 one of my sonnets already ; the clown bore it, the fool sent it, and 
 the lady hath it : sweet clown, sweeter fool, sweetest lady ! By the 
 world, I would not care a pin, if the other three were in. Here 
 comes one with a paper ; God give him grace to groan ! 
 
 L. L. L., IV, iii, 1-21. 
 
 But, as it is the abundance of rhyme in All's IVcll that has chiefly 
 
 constituted its claim, let us by all means bring forth the passage most 
 
 frequently cited as illustrative of the early style of Shakespeare, and have 
 
 with it some of his genuinely early rhyme : 
 
 King. Art thou so confident? Within what space 
 Ilop'st thou my cure ? 
 
 Helena. The great'st Grace lending grace. 
 Ere twice the horses of the sun shall bring 
 Their fiery torcher his diurnal ring, 
 Ere twice in murk and occidental damp 
 Moist Hesperus hath quench'd her sleepy lamp. 
 Or four and twenty times the pilot's glass 
 Hath told the thievish minutes how they pass. 
 What is infirm from your sound parts shall fly, 
 Health shall live free and sickness freely die. 
 
 All's Well, II, ii, 162-171. 
 
 With that, all laugh'd and clapp'd him on the shoulder. 
 
 Making the bold wag by their praises bolder. 
 
 One rubb'd his elbow thus, and fleer'd and swore 
 
 A better speech was never spoke before ; 
 
 Another with his finger and his thumb, 
 
 Cried, "Via ! we will do't, come what will come ;" 
 
 The third he caper'd, and cried, "All goes well ;" 
 
 The fourth turn'd on the toe, and down he fell. 
 
 With that, they all did tumble on the ground." 
 
 L. L. L., V, ii, 107-115.
 
 "love's labour's won" 47 
 
 It is to be freely admitted that the subject-matter and the character 
 of the speaker tend to accentuate the differences between the passages 
 which 1 have brought together. iJut allowing fully for this, and with the 
 sincere desire to come at the truth of the matter, it is certainly demon- 
 strable that a greater difference separates the reputedly early passages 
 in All's Well from the undeniably early passages in Love's Labour's Lost 
 than can justly be claimed for different passages within the play itself. 
 This could not be the case if the first cast of All's Well had been the twin 
 comedy we are in search of. When one has separated the additions of 
 1597 from the original version, it is no longer possible to find any kin- 
 ship between the genuine Love's Lubour's Lost and this masquerading 
 Love's Labour's Won. 
 
 This is not the place to examine the fascinating and maddening prob- 
 lem of the composition of All's Well that Ends Well. I remark merely 
 that some of its supposedly early prose, with its involved construction 
 and unusual diction, is more like the prose of Cymbaline than that of the 
 early plays ; that the blank verse in one scene (I, iii) usually listed among 
 the Love's Labours Won portions reaches 35 per cent of double ending.6 ;* 
 that Helena's letter of farewell, written in the form of a sonnet, is to be 
 viewed in the light of the fact that this is not like those sonnets of 
 Shakespeare which we have most reason to regard as early ; that some 
 of the rhymes which have been cited in proof of early composition (II, 
 i, 152 f.) are not unlike the sententious couplets in Othello (I, iii, 202 f.), 
 and that other rhymed passages, such as Helena's soliloquy at the close 
 of the opening scene,^' with its six run-on lines out of fourteen (43 per 
 cent!) is more in the swing of Time's Chorus in The Winter's Tale than 
 it is in the trotting meter of the early plays. 
 
 The mechanical tests for determining the order of Shakespeare's 
 dramas are never more than suggestive or mutually corroborative. 
 Where there exists a conflict between them, as where the rhymed pas- 
 sages abound in run-on lines, we must necessarily choose between them ; 
 and the mere fact of rhyme seems to me much less significant than so 
 decided a characteristic as is reflected by an abundance of run-on lines. 
 The percentage of the latter*^ shows a more steady progress than is 
 indicated by any of the other tests. Allowing for such a slight fluctua- 
 
 * "Before 1598, feminine endings never reach twenty per cent of the total 
 number of pentameter lines ; after that date they are practically always above that 
 number, and show a fairly steady increase to the thirty-five per cent of The 
 Tempest." Neilson and Thorndike's The Facts About Shakespeare, p. 74. 
 
 s Quoted by Brandes and otiiers as belonging to Love's Labour's Won. 
 
 8 According to the table in Neilson and Thorndike's The Facts about Shake- 
 speare, p. 71.
 
 48 A CONJECTURE AS TO 
 
 tion as we should naturally expect, this test accords with an order of 
 the plays almost exactly as we would have it. The only notable excep- 
 tions are that it brings All's Well down to the time of Lear, where I 
 should personally prefer to place it, and sends Tivclfth Night forward to 
 the end of the first period, which anticipates what I am now to speak of. 
 The IVinter's Tale and The Tempest would be moved three plays up, and 
 Loir's Labour's Lost, owing to the later additions, would come some 
 distance down;' As You Like It and Othello fall three or four per cent 
 under their due allowance ; but none of these variations is beyond a 
 normal departure from a constantly increasing tendency. On the other 
 hand, the "rhyme test," as shown in Furnivall's table of proportions com- 
 puted from Fleay's countings,^ brings the Merry Wives next to the 
 Comedy of Errors, Tzvelfth Night before The Two Gentlemen of Verona, 
 Richard III and The Merchant of Venice next to Measure for Measure 
 and Cymbaline, and makes Julius Caesar the last but two of all the plays 
 wholly Shakespeare's. 
 
 It is my belief that there are more convincing reasons for regarding 
 Twelfth Night as the play which grew out of the early Love's Labour's 
 Won than can be put forward in the support of any other claimant for 
 this doubtful honor. 
 
 The Rev. F. G. Fleay made so many conjectures regarding Shakes- 
 peare that it would be odd if his extensive learning and nimble intellect 
 had not led him into many a true one. Mr. Fleay regarded All's Well 
 as the revision of Love's Labour's Won until Brae's argument (which 
 leaves me quite unmoved) took him over to Much Ado ; but he believed 
 that Tzvelfth Night show's two distinct plots which are easily separable, 
 and that this indicates that the play was written at two different periods. 
 The main plot — that of the Duke, Sebastian, Antonio, Viola, Curio, Val- 
 entine, and the Captain, — Fleay assigns at different times to different 
 years, the earliest he suggested being 1593. Beyond what he considered 
 "the young, fresh, clear poetry of Shakespeare's early time, the time of 
 A Midsummer-Night's Dream, his first period," Fleay found evidences 
 of early authorship in "the singular agreement of the plot with the 
 Comedy of Errors in the likeness of the twins, and with the Ttvo Gentle- 
 men of Verona, or rather with Apolonius and Silla, whence part of that 
 plot was derived;" and evidences of revision in II, iv, 1-14, "where Viola 
 was evidently intended to be the singer," and also in the fact that "Duke 
 
 '■ My own counting of the run-on lines in the original version of L. L. L. 
 gives a notably smaller percentage than any of the plays receive in the table cited 
 above. The method of counting run-on lines will differ with each counter; but 
 by any method the great majority of the run-on lines falls in the later additions. 
 
 * Transactions of the New Shakespeare Society, 1874, pp. 32, ZZ.
 
 "love's labour's won" 49 
 
 in this play is synonymous with Count, as it is with Emperor in The Two 
 Gentlemen of Verona, and with Kinj^^ in Love's Labour's Lost. Shake- 
 speare does not commit this mistake in plays written after 1595."* 
 
 It is odd that Fleay did not draw the natural conclusion that the 
 first writing of Tzcelfth Night was Love's Labour's Won. But there is 
 little in his argument which gives me 'comfort in now putting forward 
 this conjecture; for the scparableness of the two plots applies also to 
 Much Ado and to Troilus and Cressida ; the confusion of Duke and 
 Count leads us nowhere ; the shifting of the song from Viola to Feste 
 might have been a last-minute adjustment; and I see little either in the 
 thought or style of the play which is not appropriate to the usually ac- 
 cepted date of 1601. 
 
 It does seem to me, however, a matter of real significance that the 
 main plot of Twelfth Night so clearly belongs to what Furnivall calls 
 "the first or Mistaken-Identity group of plays," ^" and that it ])resents 
 us with the only story in Shakespeare's later comedies which naturally 
 belongs with Love's Labour's Lost and The Comedy of Errors. If 
 Tzvelfth Night furnished us with evidences of revision, then it would be 
 a natural supposition that the first version of the play dated from the 
 time of the comedies which are most like it in plot. There are some 
 evidences of revision ; and they are sufficiently well marked to be worthy 
 of careful consideration. 
 
 It may be noted, first of all. that the shifting of the song which had 
 obviously been intended for \'iola is the more odd inasmuch as she 
 herself says, 
 
 "For I can sing, 
 And speak to him in many sorts of music" (I. ii. 57, 58). 
 
 But what gives force to the claim that the change was not due to such 
 contemporary revision as plays constantly undergo at rehearsal is that a 
 difference in the verse is discernible within the scene itself. I should 
 give to the earlier writing lines 1-7, 83-109 (somewhat touched up, per- 
 haps), and the concluding couplet, 126, 127. Now in this scene there 
 occurs a frequently noted contradiction. Furness quotes the Cowden- 
 Clarkes as saying, "The Duke one moment owns his sex's fickleness, the 
 next maintains its superior strength of passion ; in one speech, proclaims 
 women's greater constancy ; in another, accuses them of incapacity for 
 steady attachment." The obvious answer is that given by Innes: "The 
 Duke, — very properly and entirely in character, — makes two flatly con- 
 
 » This, and whatever else is needed to get Fleay's point of view, is quoted by 
 Furness. 
 
 10 Old Spelling Shakespeare L. L. L., p. v.
 
 50 A CONJECTURE AS TO 
 
 tradictory statements . . /' " This is all very well as an interpretation 
 of a thing that is ; but a possible explanation of how the contradiction 
 happened to creep in we may find in that the first sentiment belongs 
 unquestionably to the revision and the other sentiment to the original 
 play ; and it really is, I believe, more like Shakespeare to write in an idea 
 in his contemporary attitude without regard to the resulting contradic- 
 tion than to characterize Orsino by giving him such a subtle conflict of 
 ideas as we have here. It is to be noted that the conflicting sentiments 
 occur in the contrasting types of verse. 
 
 A much more noticeable contrast is to be found between Viola's first 
 visit to Olivia in act I, scene v, and her second visit in act III, scene i. 
 A comparison of these two scenes has led me to the conviction that the 
 first may have been intended as a revision of the second ; that act III, 
 scene i, lines 95-117 and 141 to the end of the scene might well represent 
 the first meeting of Viola and Olivia in the comedy of Love's Labour's 
 Won; and that, if this is the case, Shakespeare may afterwards have de- 
 cided to leave the scene in to represent a less significant second meeting 
 in the play of Tzvelfth Night. For if he had composed this second scene 
 after he had written act I. scene v, it is scarcely to be believed that he 
 would have done it in just this way. 
 
 In the first place, the style, the meter, and the rhyme in the lines I 
 have indicated seem to be eminently characteristic of Shakespeare's 
 earliest work. I do not mean that it is inferior ; it is as good as the best 
 of the original version of Loves Labour's Lost or The Comedy of Errors, 
 — almost, one might say, as anything in The Tzvo Gentlemen of Verona; 
 indeed it is good enough, Shakespeare himself must have felt, to be 
 allowed to stand in TzvclftJi Night; but it looks to me like early work 
 just the same. Moreover, the characters of Viola and Olivia are not so 
 fully and subtly developed ; we miss especially the buoyancy and whim- 
 sicality of Viola's "skipping dialogue" wdiich charmed us as it did Olivia 
 in the previous interview. But what has really convinced me is the curi- 
 ous way in which the entire material of this scene is worked over and 
 expanded in act I, scene v. Let us note the series of correspondences and 
 the wonderful superiority with which the points are handled in the revised 
 first meeting of the two heroines. 
 
 I shall not pause over Viola's giving money to the Clown in order 
 to gain admittance to Olivia (a wholly unnecessary procedure after the 
 former meeting and the episode of the ring) nor contrast this with her 
 delightful impudence and clamor off stage on the previous occasion ; for 
 there is nothing in the scene before Olivia's entrance which is in the 
 
 11 New Variorum Twelfth Night, p. 147.
 
 << 
 
 love's labour's won" 51 
 
 earlier manner and style. If the first half of the scene belong^ed to the 
 original play, I think it must have been rewritten. I5ut with Olivia's 
 entrance the comparison and contrast between the two scenes becomes 
 striking': 
 
 Viola. Most excellent accomplished lady, the heavens rain 
 odours on you ! 
 
 Sir Andrciv. That youth's a rare courtier. "Rain odours;" 
 well. 
 
 Viola. My matter hath no voice, lady, but to your own most 
 pregnant and vouchsafed ear. (Ill, i, 95-lCO.) 
 
 This abrupt and bombastic exordium and request for a private inter- 
 view grows in the revised scene from five lines to fifty : 
 
 Viola. Most radiant, exquisite, and unmatchable beauty, — I 
 pray you, tell me if this be the lady of the house . . . 
 
 One cannot but remember the delightful progress of this speech and those 
 
 that follow through the entire passage, concluding, 
 
 Viola. It alone concerns your ear. I bring no overture of war, 
 no taxation of homage. I hold the olive in my hand. My words 
 are as full of peace as matter. ... To your ears, divinity ; to any 
 other's, profanation. (I, v, 181-234.) 
 
 Very naturally, upon the withdrawal of all but Viola and Olivia in 
 the scene which I am treating as that of their first meeting in Love's 
 Labour's Won, the former presents her compliments: "My duty, madam, 
 and most humble service;" and the latter inquires, "What is your name?" 
 In I, V, her question is. "What is your parentage?" — a more important 
 consideration to a lady who finds herself suddenly becoming fascinated 
 by a messenger. It will be said at once that Olivia may well wait for the 
 third act interview before making the less significant inquiry. If this 
 were not so, Shakespeare would never have allowed it to stand in a play 
 so carefully put together as Tzvclfth Night. My point is merely that the 
 question is quite in keeping with the scene as I am endeavoring to pre- 
 sent it. Note, now, how characteristic of Shakespeare's earliest manner 
 is the dialogue that ensues : 
 
 Vio. Cesario is your servant's name, fair princess. 
 OH. My servant, sir! Twas never merry world 
 Since lowly feigning was called compliment. 
 You're servant to the Count Orsino, youth. 
 
 Vio. And he is yours, and his must needs be yours. 
 Your servant's servant is your servant, madam. 
 
 OH. For him, I think not on him. For his thoughts. 
 Would they were blanks, rather than filled with me ! 
 
 Vio. Madam. I come to whet your gentle thoughts 
 On his behalf. 
 And then notice how abruptly the verse changes when Shakespeare writes
 
 52 A CONJECTURE AS TO 
 
 in the reference to the ring, which of course formed no part of the original 
 play. After the clock strikes (line 140), we have again the meter and the 
 manner of the older drama, the scene ending with a series of couplets 
 which are as like those in Shakespeare's earliest comedies as the couplets 
 in All's Well are unlike them. At least, where opinion is all we have to 
 go upon, I set down mine for what it may be worth. ^- 
 
 In the revision (still assuming that my conjecture is right), Viola's 
 cold and colorless statement of her mission, "Madam, I come to whet your 
 gentle thoughts On his behalf," gives place to her exquisite and impas- 
 sioned lines beginning, "If I did love you in my master's flame ;" and 
 Olivia's bald hint, "But would you undertake another suit," becomes the 
 subtly ambiguous "You might do much," and her speaking (as we learn 
 later) "in starts, distractedly." In like manner, her strange and sudden 
 "There lies your way, due west," after a brief and inconclusive interview, 
 is in I, V, more appropriately given to Maria: "Will you hoist sail, sir? 
 Here lies your way." ^^ Viola's vague line, shortly after, "That you do 
 think you are not what you are." becomes, "I see you what you are, 
 you are too proud ;" and her reference to her disguise, said for the en- 
 joyment of the audience, "Then think you right. I am not what I am," 
 we find in her more pointedly humorous response, "No, my profound 
 heart ; and yet, by the very fangs of malice I swear, I am not that I play." 
 Viola's reference to a wooing at cross purposes, due to her disguise (lines 
 169-172), is reflected somewhat in her soliloquy in II, ii, after she has re- 
 ceived the ring; but this theme had been elaborately played upon by 
 Rosalind in As Yon Like It. Olivia's concluding couplet. 
 
 Yet come again ; for thou perhaps mayst move 
 That heart, which now abhors, to like his love, 
 
 is worked out in this sending of the ring as it is in her last lines to Viola, 
 
 Let him send no more, — 
 Unless, perchance, you come to me again 
 To tell me how he takes it. . . . 
 
 In other words, every essential point in the dialogue in act III, scene i, is 
 
 covered and vastly improved upon in act I, scene v; and unless Shake- 
 
 12 Fleay considered these couplets as "surely of early date." 
 
 13 It would be more appropriate still if it were given to Malvolio. It is 
 marked "Ma." in the Folio, which might stand for either; but it sounds like Mal- 
 volio, and Viola's answer seems almost positively to prove that it was his I 
 believe, therefore, that Malvolio's Exit in the Folio is a mistake, due, perhaps, to 
 the fact that Maria's exit (which was his also) is not marked. Olivia said "Call 
 in my gentlewoman," and Malvolio makes the lordly announcement, "Gentlewoman, 
 my lady calls." If it had been Shakespeare's intention to send Malvolio out (for 
 no particular purpose, apparently), I think Olivia would have said, "Send in my 
 gentlewoman," and we should not have had Malvolio's line.
 
 "love's labour's won" 53 
 
 speare was making use of his old material I am unable to understand 
 why he should have repeated his ideas and in no way advanced the action 
 in this scene. 
 
 I do not find in Twelfth Nis^ht any other extended passage which 
 seems to me so clearly to belong to an earlier version of the drama; but 
 there are various scenes or parts of scenes which remind me of Shake- 
 speare's earlier work. If Shakespeare did revise his Love's Labour's Won 
 for a Twelfth Night celebration, he must have added much, and rewritten 
 practically all of the old material. What he would have started with 
 would be the Duke, attended by his lords, V'alentine and Curio, in love 
 with the Countess Olivia, who also had her lords and ladies about her, but 
 who has made a vow of seven years' seclusion, during which time she 
 will receive no suitors ; so much is quite in the manner of Love's Labour's 
 Lost, — and it is appropriate that this time the lady shall be the one to 
 make and break her oath. The twins, Viola and Sebastian, inevitably 
 mistaken for one another, each with his friendly sea captain to render 
 service, — this is in the spirit of The Comedy of Errors, — and one cannot 
 fail to notice also the similarity of Antonio and Aegeon in their relation 
 to the reigning Duke. What Shakespeare would have added, if the revi- 
 sion of Love's Labour's Lost was at all an analogous case, would be Mal- 
 volio and all his story, and perhaps Sir Toby as well ; though one might 
 as justly offer Sir Toby as Parolles for a first sketch of Falstaff." Added 
 also would be the pathos and poetry — and the satire ; for the artificiality 
 of the Duke's love making in Love's Labour s Won would account for the 
 obvious sentimentality of the Duke in Tzdfth Night. In discovering what 
 scenes belonged to the former play, one would naturally put in a claim for 
 enough of II, iii, to include the song "O mistress mine," inasmuch as the 
 song is like Shakespeare and could easily belong to the time of "Who is 
 Silvia?" Its publication in 1599 has caused those who date Twelfth 
 Night (as we all wish to) as late as 1601 to believe that an old song was 
 here made use of. It is some gain to have this song restored to its right- 
 ful owner.^^ 
 
 !•* "Dost thou think, because thou art virtuous, there shall be no more cakes 
 and ale?" One can almost hear FalstafF himself saying this. Sir Toby as we have 
 him, however, would be greatly improved. 
 
 ^5 In 1599 also came Jonson's reference which might have applied to Lore's 
 Labour's Won (just as in Bartholomew Fair he takes a fling at the early tragedy 
 of Titus Aitdronicus), but which is too early for Twelfth Sight: "That the argu- 
 ment of his comedy might have been of some other nature, as of a duke to be in 
 love with a countess, and that countess to be in love with the duke's son, and the 
 son to love the lady's waiting-maid; some such cross-wooing, with a clown to their 
 serving-man. . . ." {Every Man out of his Humour, III, i). But I do not feel 
 that this reference need apply, though the dates now make that possible.
 
 54 A CONJECTURE AS TO 
 
 Let us set down the scenes which would have made up the old comedy 
 of Loir's Labour's Won if it was indeed the play of which Twelfth Night 
 was the revision. 
 
 ACT I. Scene i. Duke, Curio, and other lords. The Duke is in 
 love with Olivia (but the love is now made overtly sentimental). Valen- 
 tine returns, not having- been admitted. 
 
 Scene ii. Viola, Captain, and Sailors arrive from shipwreck. They 
 speak of Sebastian's probable death, and Viola determines to serve Duke 
 Orsino disguised as a boy. 
 
 Scene iii. Sir Toby, Sir Andrew, and Maria. Sir Andrew loves 
 Olivia. He corresponds to Armado in being the comic lover. Little of 
 this scene (if any) need belong to the first cast of the play. The rest of 
 the act is wholly new. 
 
 ACT IL Scene i. Antonio and Sebastian. After identifying the 
 latter as Viola's brother, we learn of Antonio's devotion to him and his 
 determination to follow him to Orsino's court in spite of his many enemies 
 there. The scene is mostly in prose and could belong wholly to the old 
 play. 
 
 Scene iii. Sir Toby and Sir Andrew, with the Clown's song "O 
 mistress mine." 
 
 Scene iv. Viola, as Cesario, sings the Duke a love song (not "Come 
 away, death"). The Duke sends her to woo Olivia for him. 
 
 ACT in. Scene i. Viola goes on her errand. She meets Sir 
 Andrew and others, and then comes the interview with Olivia, practically 
 as given in Twelfth Night. 
 
 Scene iii. Antonio gives Sebastian his purse to carry. (The verse 
 here is not greatly different from that of the Comedy of Errors.) 
 
 Scene iv. Lines 221-237, a short scene between Viola and Olivia, 
 read very much like Shakespeare's early work. From Antonio's entrance 
 and his arrest by the officers we have the old story. Antonio mistakes 
 Viola for Sebastian ; and though he mentions Sebastian's name, Viola 
 lets him go without the least inquiry. That palpable improbability would 
 belong to the earlier writing. 
 
 ACT IV'. Scene i. Sebastian, the Clown, Sir Andrew and Sir 
 Toby. They mistake Sebastian for Viola. (Olivia enters, also mistakes 
 him and invites him to come with her. 
 
 Scene iii. Sebastian goes with Olivia and the Priest to be married. 
 
 ACT V. Scene i. The unraveling of the complication follows nat- 
 urally as it is given until we come to the mention of Alalvolio. The story 
 is completely told when we suddenly learn that the captain who has 
 Viola's "maid's garments" has been arrested at the suit of Malvolio, and 
 consequently the latter is sent for, and his story is taken up and com-
 
 "love's labour's won" 55 
 
 pleted. When Malvolio has left the stage, the Duke says, quite as sud- 
 denly, "He hath not told us of the captain yet," and then again brings the 
 play to an end. 
 
 It will be seen from this synopsis that there lies imbedded in Twelfth 
 Night just such a drama as Love's Labour's Won might well have been; 
 and this is something which can by no means be said of All's Well that 
 Ends Well. It should be apparent also that act III, scene i, takes its 
 place naturally in the scheme of the original drama as the first meeting 
 of Viola and Olivia; and, allowing for a certain amount of revision, it 
 reads much more consistently as such than as the brief and anti-climactic 
 second meeting in the drama as it stands. It may be argued, too, that the 
 awkward introduction of Malvolio at the end of the play looks like patch- 
 work ; though Shakespeare's carelessness with regard to his endings 
 must be taken into account. 
 
 I should not call attention to the peculiar appropriateness of the title 
 Love's Labour's Won to the story of Viola if it had not been so often 
 commented upon as applying particularly well to the story of Helena. 
 The title, as has been said, fits almost any comedy, — The Taming of the 
 Shrew being a rare exception. But that Viola wins by failing in her mis- 
 sion on behalf of Orsino, — that Orsino wins, but not the lady whom he 
 sought, — that Olivia wins, but not the youth she thought she was marry- 
 ing, — all these losings of love's labors atoned for by a better winning in 
 each case would give just such point to the title as the young Shakespeare 
 would delight in. And if this play was revised for a Twelfth Night cele- 
 bration, in so thorough a fashion as to demand a new name for the old 
 story of Love's Labour's Won, — it was natural enough for Shakespeare 
 simply to call it Twelfth Night — or What You Will.
 
 UNIVERSITY SERIES 
 
 The HemolyiMI'II Nodes of the SihiKp. Artliur William Meyer, Pro- 
 fessor of Anatomy. 74 pp., 1 plate, 4 colored plates. 1914. 
 Price $1.00. 
 
 An Introduction to the Study of the Endocrine Glands and Inter- 
 nal Secretions. (Lane Medical Lectures.) Sir Edward Schafer, 
 Regius Professor of Phvsiology in the University of Edinburgh. 
 94 pp. 1914. Price 75c., 
 
 The Pronoun of Address in English Literature of the Thirteenth 
 Century. Arthur Garfield Kennedy, Instructor in English Phi- 
 lology. 91 pp. 1915. Price $1.00. 
 
 The Anoplura and Mallopiiaga of North American Mammals. 
 Vernon Lyman Kellogg, Professor of Entomology, and Gordon 
 Floyd Ferris. 74 pp., 18 text figures, 8 plates. 1915. Price 75c. 
 
 The Flugel Memorial Volume. Papers by Ewald Fliigel, late Pro- 
 fessor of English Philology, his Colleagues and Students. 232 
 pp. 1916. Price $1.50. 
 
 The Sesamoid Articular: A bone in the mandible of fishes. Edwin 
 Chapin Starks, Assistant Professor of Zoology. 40 pp., 15 text 
 figures. 1916. Price 50c. 
 
 A Study of German Verbs compounded with aus, ein, etc. as con- 
 trasted with those compounded with iier.\us, hinaus, herein, 
 hinein, etc. Charles Reining, Instructor in German. 142 pp. 
 1916. Price $1.00. 
 
 The JPathology of Nephritis. William Ophiils, .Professor of Path- 
 ology. 103 pp., 64 text figures and plates. 1916. Price $1.00. 
 
 Bone and Joint Studies, I. Leonard W. Ely, Associate Professor of 
 Surgery, and John Francis Cowan, Assistant Professor of Sur- 
 gery. 139 pp., 41 text figures and plates. 1916. Price $1.00. 
 
 A Study of the Magmatic Sulfid Ores. C. F. Tolman, Jr., Associate 
 Professor of Economic Geology, and Austin F, Rogers, Asso- 
 ciate Professor of Mineralogy and Petrography. 76 pp., 7 text 
 figures, 20 plates. 1916. Prince $1.00. 
 
 The Genera of Fishes, from Linnaeus to Cuvier, 1758 to 1833 
 (seventy-five ye.ars), with the accepted type of each. David 
 Starr Jordan, Chancellor Emeritus. 161 pp. 1917. Price $1.00. 
 
 The Use of Ye in the Function of Thou in Middle English Liter- 
 ature from MS. Auchinleck TO MS. Vernon. Russell Osborne 
 Stidston, late Acting Instructor in English. 95 pp. 1917. Price 
 75c. 
 
 Emerson: A statement of New England Transcendentalism as 
 expressed in the philosophy of its chief exponent. Henry 
 David Gray, Associate Professor of English. 110 pp. 1917. 
 Price 75c. 
 
 The Neo-Classic Movement in Spain During the Xviii Century. 
 Robert E. Pellissier, late Assistant Professor of Romanic Lan- 
 guages. 187 pp. 1918. Price $1.00. 
 
 The Original Version of "Love's Labour's Lost," with a Conjec- 
 ture as to "Love's Labour's Won." Henry David Gray, Asso- 
 ciate Professor of English. 55 pp. 1918. Price 75c.
 
 
 I
 
 'a^nt- 
 
 mmilSmliSZiSS 
 
 '^^ 000 606 87