Notes

LLL TOC

Note I.

Dramatis Personæ. Biron is spelt ‘Berowne,’ Longaville ‘Longavill,’ in Q1 F1 Q2; Mercade ‘Marcade,’ in Qq Ff. Armado is written sometimes ‘Armatho.’ Mr Grant White suggests that Moth should be written ‘Mote,’ as it was clearly so pronounced. See note (vi). ‘Boyet’ is made to rhyme with ‘debt’ in V. 2. 334; ‘Longaville’ with ‘ill’ in iv. 3. 119, and with ‘mile’ in V. 2. 53; ‘Rosaline’ with ‘thine,’ iv. 3. 217. Costard, in the old stage directions, is called ‘Clown.’

Note II.

Mason says, ‘I believe the title of this play should be ‘Love’s Labours Lost,’ but it is clear, from the form in which it is written in the running title of Qq F1 F2 ‘Loves Labour’s Lost,’ that the full name was intended to be ‘Love’s Labour is Lost.’ On the title pages however of Q1 and Q2 it is written respectively ‘Loues labors lost,’ and ‘Loues Labours lost.’ It is called by Meres (1598) ‘Love Labour Lost,’ and by Tofte ‘Love’s Labour Lost,’ which is in favour of the ordinary spelling.

Note III.

As the scene through the play is in the King of Navarre’s park, and as it is perfectly obvious when the action is near the palace and when near the tents of the French princess, we have not thought it necessary to specify the several changes.

Note IV.

i. 1. 23. This is an instance of the lax grammar of the time which permitted the use of a singular pronoun referring to a plural substantive, and vice versa, as in The Two Noble Kinsmen, Act i. Sc. 1;

‘You cannot read it there; there, through my tears,
Like wrinkled pebbles in a glassy stream,
You may behold ’em.’

Note V.

i. 1. 110. Singer says that in a copy of F1 which he used, the reading is ‘sit.’

Note VI.

i. 2. 86. There is probably an allusion in the words, ‘for she had a green wit,’ to the ‘green withes,’ with which Samson was bound. In Shakespeare’s time, ‘mote’ was frequently written ‘moth,’ as in iv. 3. 157 of this play, and in Much Ado about Nothing (ii. 3) the same variety of spelling gives rise to an obscure pun, ‘Note notes, forsooth, and nothing.’ Compare, also, As You Like It, iii. 3. 5.

Note VII.

ii. 1. 88. We have retained in this passage the reading of the first Quarto, ‘unpeeled,’ in preference to the ‘unpeopled’ of the second Quarto and the Folios, which is evidently only a conjectural emendation, and does not furnish a better sense than many other words which might be proposed. In the same way, in Act iii. Sc. 1, line 61, we have followed the first Quarto in reading ‘volable’ instead of ‘voluble,’ as it has direct reference to Moth’s last words ‘thump, then, and I flee,’ and is in better keeping with the Euphuistic language of the speaker.

Note VIII.

In ii. 1. 114 sqq. the speakers are ‘Berowne’ and ‘Kather.’ in Q1. This is followed by Capell, who justifies it as follows: ‘When the King and his lords enter, the ladies mask, and continue mask’d ’till they go: Biron, while the letter is reading, seeks his mistress; accosts Catharine instead of her, finds his error, and leaves her: the King’s exit gives him an opportunity to make another attempt, and he then lights on the right but without knowing her; makes a third by enquiry, and is baffled in that too, for he describes Maria, and is told she is Catharine.’ In this and other scenes the characters are so confused in the old copies that they can be determined only by the context, in this play a very unsafe guide.

Note IX.

ii. 1. 212. In this line, as well as in iii. 1. 140, 142, &c. and iv. 3. 279, the ‘O’ is superfluous and appears to have crept into the text from the last letter of the stage direction ‘Bero.’ In the first instance in which this occurs the first Quarto stands alone, and the error is corrected in the second Quarto and the Folios, and we have therefore ventured to make the same correction in the other cases.

Note X.

iii. 1. 186. As ‘wightly,’ in the sense of ‘nimble,’ has no etymological connection with ‘white,’ we have thought it best to retain the spelling which is least likely to mislead.

Note XI.

iv. 2. 27. Which we of taste and feeling are, for those... In Qq Ff this passage stands as follows: ‘which we taste and feeling, are for those parts that do fructify in us more than he,’ except that Q1 F4 put a comma after ‘taste’ and Q2 omits ‘do.’ Theobald, on Warburton’s suggestion, reads, ‘parts (which we taste and feel ingradare) that do, &c.’ Hanmer is the first to print it as verse, reading,

‘And such barren plants are set before us, that we thankful should be,

For those parts which we taste and feel do fructify in us more than he.’

Johnson proposes, ‘When we taste and feeling are for those parts, &c.’ Tyrwhitt conjectured, ‘Which we of taste and feeling are, &c.’ and is followed by Collier and several modern editors. This reading appears to make the best sense with the least alteration. In Collier MS. we find ‘which we having taste and feeling &c.’

Note XII.

iv. 2. 63, 70, 74. In Qq Ff these three speeches are incorrectly assigned to Nath., Hol. and Nath. respectively, whereas the third evidently belongs to Holofernes. Similarly the speeches beginning with lines 79, 83, 89, 99 are assigned to Nath. instead of Hol., and vice versâ line 99 which properly belongs to Nath. is given to Hol. Again 115–122 and 125–129 are given to Nath. in consequence of which ‘Sir Nathaniel,’ in line 129, was written ‘Sir Holofernes,’ a title to which the pedant had no claim. The mistake probably arose from the stage direction ‘Ped.’ being confounded with ‘Per.,’ that is, Person or Parson. Besides, in line 114, the ‘Ped.’ of F1 is changed in the later folios to ‘Pedro.’

Note XIII.

iv. 3. 142. In Q1 this line stands at the top of the page. The catch-word on the preceding page is ‘Fayth,’ shewing that the word omitted, whatever it be, was not the first in the line.

Note XIV.

iv. 3. 178. By the kind permission of the Duke of Devonshire, we have collated the copy of the first Quarto, which is in his Grace’s library, with that which is in the Capell collection. Besides the important difference mentioned in the foot-note, the following are found:

E. 3. (r) line 5, paper (Capell) p a d e r (Devonshire).

E. 3. (v) line 12, corporall (Capell) croporall (Devonshire).

I. 3. (r) line 22, then w i (Capell) then w (Devonshire).

Note XV.

iv. 3. 244. Theobald’s note is: ‘O word divine! This is the reading of all the editions that I have seen; but both Dr Thirlby and Mr Warburton concurred in reading (as I had likewise conjectured) O wood divine!’

‘Wood,’ however, is the reading of Rowe’s first edition. It was perhaps only a happy misprint, as it is altered to ‘word’ in the second.

Note XVI.

iv. 3. 251. As ‘suiter’ was pronounced and sometimes written ‘shooter’ (iv. 1. 101), so probably ‘suit’ was sometimes written ‘shoote,’ a word easily corrupted into ‘schoole.’

Note XVII.

iv. 3. 285. Although it is not necessary to omit a syllable on account of the metre, as Mr Sidney Walker seems to have thought, we have adopted one of his conjectures for the reason mentioned in note (ix). A similar error, which has hitherto escaped notice, seems to occur in iv. 2. 83, where the word ‘Of,’ which in the original MS. was part of the stage direction ‘Holof.’, has crept into the text. If this hypothesis be true, it follows that the frequently recurring error of ‘Nath.’ for ‘Hol.’ is not due to the author himself, but to an unskilful corrector.

Note XVIII.

iv. 3. 295. Mr Dyce omits lines 295–300, For when would you...true Promethean fire; and lines 308–315, For where is...forsworn our books, which are repeated in substance, and, to some extent verbatim, in the latter part of the speech.

There can be no doubt that two drafts of the speech have been blended together, and that the author meant to cancel a portion of it; but as there also can be no doubt that the whole came from his pen, we do not venture to correct the printer’s error. We would ‘lose no drop of the immortal man.’ The error is indeed a very instructive one. It goes to prove that the first Quarto was printed from the author’s original MS.; that the author had not made a ‘foul copy’ of his work; and that he had not an opportunity of revising the proof sheets as they passed through the press.

For the same reason we have retained V. 2. 805–810.

Note XIX.

iv. 3. 341. We have here retained ‘make,’ because the inaccuracy is so natural, that it probably came from the pen of the author. It escaped correction in all the Quartos and Folios, as well as in Rowe’s and Pope’s editions.

Note XX.

v. 1. 24, 25. The reading which we have given in the text, and which had occurred to us before we discovered that Capell had hit upon nearly the same conjecture, comes nearer to the words and punctuation of the Quartos and Folios than Theobald’s, which, since his time, has been the received reading. Sir Nathaniel is not represented elsewhere as an ignoramus who would be likely to say ‘bone’ for ‘bene.’ Holofernes patronizingly calls him ‘Priscian,’ but, pedagogue-like, will not admit his perfect accuracy. ‘A little scratched’ is a phrase familiar to the schoolmaster, from his daily task of correcting his pupils’ ‘latines.’

Capell’s conjecture, given in his Notes, Vol. i. p. 44 of the Various Readings, is ‘Nath. Laus Deo bone intelligo. Hol. Bone! bon, fort bon; Priscian.’ In his printed text he follows Theobald.

Some corruption is still left in line 22: insanie: ne intelligis. Perhaps we should read insano fare: intelligis...

Note XXI.

v. 1. 110. There is some corruption in this passage, which cannot with certainty be removed. In the subsequent scene five ‘worthies’ only are presented, viz. Hector by Armado, Pompey by Costard, Alexander by Nathaniel, Hercules by the Page, and Judas Maccabæus by Holofernes.

Note XXII.

v. 2. 43. Johnson says ‘The former editions read Were pencils,’ and attributes the restoration of Ware to Hanmer. Mr Halliwell repeats the assertion. In reality, all the editions read Ware.

Note XXIII.

v. 2. 232. Mr Sidney Walker, in his Criticisms, Vol. ii. p. 153, remarks that, ‘and if (he means an if) is always in the old plays printed ‘and if.’ Here is an instance to the contrary. See also Mr Lettsom’s note, l. c. And, not an, seems to be printed in nine cases out of ten, whatever the following word be.

Note XXIV.

v. 2. 247. ‘Dutchman’ here, as usual, means ‘German.’ The word alluded to is ‘Viel,’ a word which would be likely to be known from the frequent use which the sailors from Hamburg or Bremen would have cause to make of the phrase ‘zu viel’ in their bargains with the London shopkeepers.

Note XXV.

v. 2. 312. Mr Collier says that in some copies of Q1 ‘thither’ is omitted.

Note XXVI.

v. 2. 528. The modern editors who have followed Hanmer’s reading ‘della,’ in preference to Theobald’s ‘de la,’ have forgotten that Armado is a Spaniard, not an Italian.