PR 
 
The original of tiiis book is in 
 tine Cornell University Library. 
 
 There are no known copyright restrictions in 
 the United States on the use of the text. 
 
 http://www.archive.org/details/cu31924013258417 
 
REPRINT 
 
 FROM THE 
 
 TRANSACTIONS 
 
 OF THE 
 
 ASSOCIATION OF OHIO COLLEGES. 
 
 1889. 
 
EUPHUISM. 
 
 BY J. M. HART, UNIVERSITY OF CINCINNATI. 
 
 The following paper is offered, not as an original con- 
 tribution to knowledge, but as an attempt to summarize the 
 investigations of others and make them available for the gen- 
 eral reader. The writings chiefly followed are : 
 
 1. Landmann, der Euphuismus, sein Wesen, seine 
 Quelle, seine Geschichte. Giessen, 1881. (Doctoral Dis- 
 sertation.) 
 
 2. Breymann, Engl. Studien v., 409-421. (A search- 
 ing review of No. i.) 
 
 3. Schwan, Engl. Studien vi., 94-111. (A review ol 
 Landmann's paper in the Transactions of the New Shake- 
 speare Society, 1880-1882.) 
 
 4. Landmann, Euphues, the Anatomy of Wit, by John 
 Lyly. Edited with Introd. and Notes. Heilbronn, 1887. 
 
 Guevarism. — It was the fashion until quite recently to 
 apply the terms Euphuism and Euphuistic indiscriminately to 
 every vice or extravagance of style, whether in prose or in 
 verse, from the time of Elizabeth to the so-called Augustan 
 pieriod of Queen Anne, or even to the Victorian period. But 
 since the publication of Landmann's Dissertation in 1881, 
 sounder views have obtained. Step by step the field of 
 Euphuism has been narrowed : a, to the time of Elizabeth ; 
 b, to the period from 1560-1590 ; c, to prose in distinction from 
 poetry ; d, to one peculiar and sharply defined variety of 
 rhetorical and unimaginative prose. 
 
 From the crude beginnings under Wyatt and Surrey 
 (Henry VIII.) to the finished productions of Shakespeare 
 
2 EUPHUISM. 
 
 (last years of Elizabeth and first years of James), English 
 literature was emphatically in a nascent state. Hence, like 
 other nascent organisms, it was easily swayed by influences 
 from without. These influences were numerous, and , the: 
 study of them has not yet yielded thoroughly satisfactory 
 results at all points. But in the matter of Euphuism, at least, 
 we stand now upon solid ground. 
 
 In the days of Charles V. and Philip II. Spain was at 
 the summit of its greatness. It was, indeed, the world- 
 empire. Hence it would be only natural for Spanish literature 
 to exert an influence somewhat akin to that exerted by Span- 
 ish armies and navies. In the year 1529 the Spanish writer 
 Antonio de Guevara published a book, entitled Marcus Aure- 
 lius, with the Clock of Princes. This book was half romance, 
 half philosophic dissertation upon the training and life of an 
 ideal ruler. It was based in good part upon the then com- 
 paratively unknown but now very well known Meditations of 
 the great Roman emperor. It -was written, the author him- 
 self informs us, in "lofty style," alto cstilo. Guevara, 
 impressed with the greatness of such Latin authors as Cicero, 
 conceived the idea of rivalling them, by inventing a style in 
 which rhetorical finish should be aehieved by using lavishl}' 
 the well known figures of pointed antithesis and pai'isonic 
 balanced clauses, in connection with a general climactic 
 structure of the sentence or period, the emphatic or antithetic 
 words being marked by rhyme or b}' consonance. The book 
 became immediately popular, partly by, virtue of its subject, 
 partly through its novelty of style. It passed through several 
 editions, and was translated into many languages, even into 
 Latin. Subsequently Guevara wrote other books in a like 
 style, and these were also translated. 
 
 Guevara's Marcus Aurelius was given to the English 
 public first in 1534, in a translation bj- Lord Berners. Its 
 popularit}' is evinced by the circumstance that nine editions 
 of this translation were printed between 1534 and 1560, and 
 five more between 1560 and 1588. In 1557 appeared a new 
 translation, by Sir Thomas North, based upoa an augmenteji 
 
filTPHUtSM. 3 
 
 version of Guevara's work. North's translation, like that b}' 
 Earners, ran through numerous editions. Guevara's other 
 writings in alto estilo were englished by Sir Francis Bryan, 
 Tymme, Fenton, Savage, and Hellowes. North translated, 
 in part, at least, directly from the Spanish. As to the trans- 
 lations by Berners, Bryan and the others, it is not yet clearly 
 determined whether they were made directly from the Spanish, 
 or only at second-hand from French renderings. 
 
 In this way alto estilo. or Guevarism as we may call it, 
 was introduced into England, exciting the admiration of many 
 English scholars of note, and arousing some of them to imi- 
 tation. Among such imitators we may mention Roger 
 Ascham, George Pettie, Lyly (in whom Guevarism reached 
 its climax), and Lyly's followers, viz. : Robert Greene (in 
 his prose stories), Stephen Gosson, Barnaby Rich, Thomas 
 Nash, and Thomas Lodge. Subsequently Nash, and Lodge 
 discarded the fashion and joined Gabriel Harvey and Sidney 
 in ridiculing it. 
 
 The following extract from Guevara's Spanish and 
 North's translation will sufficiently illustrate the style : 
 
 ''No ay oy generoso Senor ni delicada Senora,que antes 
 no suffriesse una pedrada en la cabeca que no una enchilada 
 en la fama ; porque la herida de la cabeca en un mes se la 
 dara sana, mas la mazilla de la fama no saldra en toda su 
 vida." 
 
 North's rendering is quite literal : 
 
 "There is not at this daye so greate or noble a Lorde, 
 nor Ladye so delicate, but had rather suffer a blow on the 
 head with a stone than a blbt on their good name with an evil 
 tongue. For the vvounde of the heade in a moneth or two 
 maye well be healed ; but the blemmishe of their good name ' 
 during life will never be removed." 
 
 The -reader will observe the "balancing" of generoso, 
 delicada; senor, senora ; pedrada, enchilada : cabeca, fama; 
 herida, mazilla. In North: lorde, lady; blow, blot; head, 
 name ; stone, tongue ; wounde, blemmishe ; healed, removed. 
 
4 EUPHUISM. 
 
 Also, in the Spanish, pedrada and enchilada rhyme ; the coi'- 
 responding English words blow, blot, alliterate. 
 
 The following sentence from Guevara will show his 
 knack of combining parisonic antithesis with rhyme and word- 
 play: 
 
 " Ellos trabajando de las servir ; y ellas no rehusando de 
 ser vistas," i. e. : They (the cavaliers) striving to serve them 
 (the dames) ; and they (the dames) not refusing to be seen. 
 The balancing of trabajando and rehusando is strictly pari- 
 sonic ; the word-play (almost a pun) upon servir and ser vistas 
 is untranslatable. 
 
 Italianism, so-called* — Italian writers (chiefly poets) of 
 the i6th century, actuated by a spirit not unlike that of Gue- 
 vara, strove — as they fondly believed — to make their style 
 nobler by making it more intense. Their intensity, not 
 checked by sound taste, ran into extravagance. They luxu- 
 riated in figurative language, in tropes and similes, the 
 farther-tetched the better, in contradictions in terms (para- 
 dox) , and in high-sounding boasts. Their English translators 
 and imitators reproduced and even exaggerated these faults. 
 And in England certainly, if not in Italy itself, the manner- 
 ism spread from poetry to prose. Instead of attempting to 
 define Italianism in England, — it is too vague and too com- 
 posite to be strictly definable, — we may characterize it as the 
 use (and abuse) of far-fetched similes, comparisons and ideas 
 (technically "conceits," from the Italian concetti), the coinage 
 of new words and phrases, the trick of prefixing to nouns an 
 alliterating adjective {e.g., "trickling tears," "sobbing sighs," 
 " a doubtful, dying, doleful Dame"), the resort to euphemism 
 (the substitution of long and elegant words and phrases for 
 short, homely ones), the exchange of flowery compliments, 
 and bombast in general. The alliteration of noun and adjec- 
 
 * Schwan is responsible for this term and most of the statements made in con- 
 nection with it. Whether the stylistic peculiarities designated by it are so exclusiyely, 
 or even so peculiarly, the property of Italians as to be dubbed Italian by eminence, 
 may, perhaps, be questioned. But there can bt no question about the peculiaritiea 
 themselves. They are unmistakeable. 
 
EUPHUISM. 5 
 
 tive is not used, as by Lyly, to point an anthisesis but to give 
 a quasi metrical jingle. 
 
 It is quite safe to assert that all the English poets of the 
 i6th and early part of the 17th century, /. e., from W5'attand 
 Surrey to and including Milton (in his youth, at least), were 
 in this broad sense Italianists. The prose-writers are less 
 easily summed up. Some of them escaped both. Guevarism 
 (Euphuism) and Italianism, while falling into other vices of 
 style. But very many were either Guevarists (Euphuists) or 
 Italianists. Among the latter a notable instance is Sidney. 
 
 In the latter part of Elizabeth's reign it became the fash- 
 ion at court to parley Italianism. This was doubtless due in 
 great measure to Sidney's Arcadia, published first in i590> 
 but well known for many years in manuscript. Italianism 
 was a manner easily acquired by one apt in speech and fairly 
 well read. And when once acquired was readily practiced. 
 
 The following table of dates (drawn up by Schwan) will 
 make clear the evolution in England : 
 
 1534-1559 — Appearance of Guevarism. 
 
 1553 — Appearance of Italianism. 
 
 1568— 1585 — Growth of Guevarism. 
 
 1581 — Sidney attacks both Guevarism and Italianism. 
 
 1585-1588 — Culmination of Guevarism in Euphuism. 
 
 1589 — Gabriel Harvey attacks Euphuism. Somewhat 
 later Nash and Lodge also attack it. 
 
 1590 — Italianism popular at court. 
 
 1 589-1 596 — Decline of Euphuism ; general spread of 
 Italianism. 
 
 Lyly and Euphuism. — Euphuism has been characterized 
 as Guevarism carried to its climax. It is now necessary to 
 define this more particularly. 
 
 In 1578 appeared Lyly's memorable work, Euphues, the 
 Anatomy of Wit. It was followed, 1580, by a continuation, 
 Euphues and his England. The Greek term Euphues desig- 
 nated originally a man of fine physique, then a man of fine 
 mental parts ; still later — in the time of Isocrates — it was 
 applied with a touch of sarcasm to a man who shone in con- 
 
6 fiUPHUISM. 
 
 versation. Lyly named his hero Euphues probably because 
 he wished to suggest a model young man of gentle birth and 
 good breeding. Thus he reverts to the primary meaning. 
 And he may have bon-owed the word from Roger Ascham, 
 rather than directly from the Greek. * 
 
 Apart from similarit}' of stjde. there are many resem- 
 blances of matter between Lyly's book and Guevara's. In its 
 contents Euphues, treating both poets as one book, is a mere 
 imitation of North's translation of Guevara. Lyly contrasts 
 the ancient Italy of Marcus Aurelius with the England of 
 Elizabeth. The hero Euphues is a queer mixture of Gue- 
 v^ara's philosophy, the courtier and lover of Lyly's times, and 
 the scholar of an English universit}'. 
 
 Euphues made a profound impression. This was due 
 quite as much to the matter of the book as to its manner. It 
 is of course easy for us to ridicule the author's affectations. 
 But underneath them all was a substratum of common sense 
 that then had the charm of novelty, not to say originality. 
 
 In style Lyly far outstripped his master. He carries the 
 device of antithesis to such a pitch that word balances word, 
 phrase balances phrase, with the monotonous regularity of a 
 pendulum. Not infrequently the balancing words contain 
 exactly the same number of letters I He abounds in the 
 rhetorical question. To Guevara's style he adds two features : 
 a, play on words, often amounting to downright punning ; d, 
 alliteration. (A third peculiarity of Lyly, his so-called 
 "unnatural natural history," is not in strictness a feature of 
 style, but of subject matter. It will be treated subsequently.) 
 As to play on words, Guevara himself, we have seen, 
 indulges in it occasionally ; but Lyly carries it to excess. As 
 to alliteration, it is not to be found in Guevara for the reason 
 that the Spanish language scarcely admits of it. We have 
 
 * Ev(pnii(; is he, that is apte by goodness of witte, aud appliable by readiness of 
 will, to leain'ng, having all other qualities of the minde and partes of the bodie, that 
 must an other day serve learning, not trobted, mangled, and halfed, but sounde, 
 whole, full, and hable to do their office, &c , &c. — The Schotemaster, pp. 38-39 
 (^ArbcT's Reprint). 
 
EUPHUISM. 7 
 
 seen that Guevara occasionally marks his antithetic words by- 
 rhyme ; instead of rhyme Lyly uses alliteration, and uses it 
 also in excess. Lyly's alliteration, be it observed, differs in 
 one respect very markedlj' from tlie alliteration in Anglo- 
 Saxon and Early English poetry. This early poetic allitera- 
 tion consisted in the repetition of the same initial sound at 
 regular intervals in one and the same time, serving thereby to 
 mark the verse-flow. Thus, from the paraphrase of Genesis, 
 8th century : 
 
 Satan ic thasr secan wille, he is on thsere sweartan helle ; 
 which may be tolerably reproduced by 
 
 Satan I there seek will, he is on the swart hell. 
 
 As a sample of vowel alliteration, this from the Chroni- 
 cle, Anno 938 : 
 
 Aethelstan cyning, eorla drihten. 
 
 Athelstan King, of earls the lord. 
 
 Modern English poets echo successfully such allitera- 
 tion, e. g. : 
 
 They wept and wailed, but led the way. — Tennyson. 
 
 The leaves along tlie limpid streams of Eden. — Byron. 
 
 But in Lylj' the alliteration is (usually, at least), trans- 
 verse, instead of continuous, e. g. : " Although I have 
 5^rined thee in my /leart for a z^rustie y?'iend, I will i^unne 
 thee /hereafter as a irothless yhe."' In order to get at the 
 alliteration we have to dislocate the words shrine, qhunne ; 
 heart, hereafter; trustie, trothless ; friend, foe. We even get 
 occasional!}' what might be called a repeated transverse allit- 
 eration, e. g., "a .s^i'cet dPanther with a devouring paunch, a 
 .rower ^oyson in a 5/lver _^otte." 
 
 The full effect of balancing may be seen in the follow- 
 ing passage : "As you may svispect me of idleness in giving 
 eare to your talke, so you may convince me of lightnesse in 
 answering such toyes ; certes, as you have made my eares 
 glow at the rehearsal of your love, so have you galled my 
 heart with the remembrance of your folly." Talk and toyes, 
 
8 EUPHUISM. 
 
 suspect and convince, eares and heart, not only balance, but 
 they count up (nearly or quite) the same number of letters. 
 
 For a sample of the rhetorical question, in connection 
 with balanced clauses, the following passage will suffice : 
 "Dost thou thincke Euphues will deem thee constant to him, 
 when thou hast been unconstant to his friend ? Weenest thou 
 that he will have no mistrust of thy faithfulnesse, when he 
 hath had tryall of thy ficklenesse? Will he have no doubt 
 of thine honour, when thou thy selfe callest thine honour in 
 question ? " 
 
 To illustrate climactic structure coupled with punning, 
 we may examine this, from Lyly's petition to the Master of 
 the Revels for pecuniary aid. He begs for : " Some land, 
 some good fines, or forfeitures, that should fall by the just fall 
 of those most false traitours, that seeing nothing will come by 
 the Revels, I may prey upon the Rebels [/. e., in Ireland]. 
 Thirteen years your Highness' servant, but yet nothing. 
 Twenty friends that, though they say they will be sure, I find 
 sure to be slow. A thousand hopes, but all nothing ; a hun- 
 dred promises, but yet nothing. Thus casting up the inven- 
 tory of my friends, hopes, promises, and times, the summa 
 totalis amounting to just nothing. My last will is shorter 
 than my invention ; but three legacies, patience to my cred- 
 itors, melancholy without measure to my friends, and beggary 
 without shame to my family." 
 
 Current Mistakes Concerning Euphuism. — These are 
 more numerous and more serious than one might suppose. 
 And they are due either to inability to adhere rigorously to 
 simple definitions and premisses, or to unfamiliarity with the 
 general phenomena of literary history. 
 
 I. Prof. Minto, in his Manual of English Prose, persists 
 in treating Lyly's " Unnatural Natural History " as an essential 
 feature of Euphuism. In so doing he appears to forget that 
 an author's style consists not so much in what he says as in 
 how he says it. Now it is quite true that Lyh^'s writings 
 abound in moral illustrations taken from animals, birds, 
 plants, and stones that never existed or that never possessed 
 
EUPHUISM. 9 
 
 tlje properties ascribed to them, e.g.: " The bird Attagen, 
 who never singeth any time after she is taken ;" " The hart, 
 being perced with the dart, runneth to the herb Dictannum 
 and is healed;" "The precious gemme Draconites, that is 
 ever taken out of the poisoned dragon ;" " Anchusa [a root], 
 though it be hardened with water, yet it is made soft with 
 oyle," etc., etc. No naturalist ever saw the bird Attagen, or 
 an herb Dictannum with such healing gifts, or a precious gem 
 extracted from a dragon, or a root that hardens in water and 
 softens in oil. Such phantasies are plentiful in Lyly. Yet 
 modern critics have exaggerated their importance and mis- 
 understood their origin. If extracted from the text of Euphues 
 and printed all together, they would — to use Carlyle's phrase — 
 " bulk large." On the other hand we are to bear in mind that 
 Euphues is a rather large book. In Mr. Arber's Reprint it 
 fills 478 pp. The pseudo-natural history in it would scarcely 
 make fifteen per cent, of the whole. Whereas the author's 
 peculiar sentence-structure pervades every page. 
 
 Furthermore Lyly is not in any sense the inventor of his 
 impossible beasts, birds, plants, and stones. Every one of 
 the four passages cited above has been traced to Pliny's Nat- 
 ural History. As for the marvelous herb Dictannum, the 
 reader of Virgil will find it, ^neid xii., 412-415. Pliny may 
 have borrowed from Virgil, Virgil probably from Aristotle. 
 Marlowe, the great dramatist contemporary with Lyly, wrote 
 in his Edw. II., v., scene r : " The forest deer, being.struck, 
 Runs to an herb thatcloseth up the wound." Jeremy Taylor, 
 a generation or two later than Lyly, writes : "No creature 
 among beasts, but being smitten, will fall upon the way to 
 relieve itself, except a blind, incogitant sinner. . . The fishes 
 in the fresh water, being struck with a tool of iron, will rub 
 themselves upon the glutinous skin of the tench, to be cured. 
 The hart, wounded with an arrow, runs to the herb dittany to 
 bite it, that the shaft may fall out that stuck in his body. The 
 swallow will seek out the green tetter-wort to recover the eyes 
 of her young ones when they are blinded." 
 
 The histor}^ of popular belief in the marvels of nature is 
 
lO EUPHUISM. 
 
 an interesting subject, but is altogether too large for this place. 
 It would demand a volume to itself. Enough to say here 
 that it may be traced to the most ancient times, and all through 
 the middle ages, and even to-day is not wholly extinct. Ae 
 long as we speak of mermaids, or look upon the opal as an 
 unlucky stone, or believe in curing hydrophobia with the mad- 
 stone, we are treading in the footsteps of Pliny, Virgil, Mar- 
 lowe, Lyly, and Taylor. In the age of Elizabeth and the 
 early Stuarts not a writer is wholly free froni such delusions. 
 Even Bacon, with all his hard scepticism, could accept "the 
 doctrine of appetites and passions and inclinations and dis- 
 likes and horrors in inorganic nature." 
 
 Of Lyly in particular we need only say that he cultivated 
 such delusions more than his contemporaries and used them 
 to excess to point a moral. But if we wish to see at a glance 
 the difference between euphuistic style and non-euphuistic, 
 we have but to contrast Lyly with Shakespeare at the point 
 where both employ the same fable of natural history. Thus 
 Lyly writes : "The fairer the stone is in the toade's head, 
 the more pestilent the poison is in her bowelles." Shake- 
 speare, in As You Like It, ii., sc. i, makes the outlawed Duke 
 exclaim : 
 
 " Sweet are the uses of adversity. 
 Which, like the toad, ugly and venimous. 
 Wears 3'et a precious jewel in his head." 
 2. Another error concerning Euphuism is the belief that 
 it was at one time the fashion at Elizabeth's court. This belief 
 seems to rest chiefly upon the preface by Blount to his 
 re-edition of Lyly 's dramas, in 1632, in which he asserts: 
 "That beautie in court which could not parley Euphuisme 
 was as little regarded as shee which now there speakes not 
 French." Lyly had then been dead a quarter of a centuiy, his 
 style out of vogue nearly half a century. Blount's assertion, 
 therefore, has not the weight of contemporary evidence. Prob- 
 ably it was little more than a book-seller's puff. At all events 
 it lacks corroboration. Furthermore antecedent probability 
 is against any assumption that Euphuism, even in the milder 
 
EUPHUISM. II 
 
 form of Guevarism, could ever have been popular anywhere, 
 as a mode of conversation. For the simple reason that it is 
 too difficult. To write, still more to talk, in the manner of 
 Euphues, would require an immense amount of practice and 
 ■self-correction, yet these are precisely the questions in v/hich 
 Elizabeth's dames and cavaliers were sorely deficient. 
 Euphuism is unmistakably the style of a pedant, not of a 
 child of the world. Those who hold it to have been a court- 
 fashion, confound it with Italianism. 
 
 3. Many Elizabethan writers have been taxed with 
 Euphuism who are wholly free from it. Notably Sidney and 
 Shakespeare. In Sidney, it is true, we occasionally find a 
 sentence balanced somewhat after Lyly's fashion. But these 
 are quite sporadic, and merely indicate that Sidney, like many 
 a writer before and since the days of Lyly, was capable now 
 and then of a rhetorical flourish. As for Shakespeare, there 
 are in his plays scarcely a dozen sentences savoring in the 
 least of Euphuism, e, g. : "Our virtues would be proud, if 
 our faults whipped them not, and our crimes would despair 
 if they were not cherished by our virtues." — All's Well i., sc. i. 
 
 In one passage alone is Shakespeare out-and-out Euphu- 
 istic, and here he is directly parodying Lyly. In Henry IV., 
 Part I, ii. sc. 4, Prince Hal and Falstaff are bantering each 
 other with sham moral harangues. Of course Lyly's pedantic 
 affectation is in thorough keeping with the situation. And 
 the phrase in particular : " for though the Camomile, the more 
 it is trodden on the faster it grows, yet youth, the more it is 
 wasted the sooner it wears," is evidently a burlesque of Lyly's 
 phrase: "Asthehearbe Camomile, the more it is trodden 
 down the more it spreadeth abroad." 
 
 4. One of Shakespeare's early plays has been persist- 
 ently misunderstood, viz. : Love's Labour's Lost. It has been 
 characterized as a satire upon Euphuism, whereas in truth 
 there is scarcely a trace of that mannerism in it. On the 
 ■other hand the play is a palpable satire upon Italianism, then 
 
12 EUPHUISM. 
 
 high in favor at court.* All the leading characters indulge- 
 in Italianism of the most recognizable type. We see it in the 
 excessive use of the adjective " sweet" ; " most divine ;" in 
 paradoxes like "This senior-junior giant dwarf Don Cupid"; 
 strained figures, e. ^., the comparing of a beauty's eyes to 
 "two pitch balls stuck in her face"; in such euphemisms as- 
 "in the posterior of the day, which the rude multitude call the 
 afternoon." As one of the characters, Biron, admits, they 
 deal in 
 
 "Taffeta phrases, silken terms precise, 
 Three piled hyperboles, spruce affectation, 
 Figures pedantical." 
 In like manner one scene, at least, in Hamlet, act v., sc.. 
 2, is a satire upon Italianism. It is the interview between 
 Hamlet and Osric : 
 
 Osric. Sir, here is newly come to court Laertes, believe 
 me, an absolute gentleman, full of excellent differences, of 
 very soft society and great showing ; indeed, to speak feel- 
 ingly of him, he is the card or calendar of gentry; for you 
 shall find in him the continent of what part a gentleman 
 would see. 
 
 Hamlet [ironically outdoing his interlocutor] . Sir, his 
 define'ment suffers no perdition in you; though, I know, to- 
 divide him inventorially would dizzy the arithmetic of mem- 
 ory. . . . But, in the verity of extolment, I take him to be a 
 soul of great article, and his infusion of such dearth and rare- 
 ness as, to make true diction of him, his semblance of him 
 is his mirror, and w^ho else would trace him, his umbrage> 
 nothing more. 
 
 *In 1884 Mr. F. G. Fleay, who arrogates to himself a place in the front rank 
 of Shakespearean scholars, published, Anglia vii., 223-231, an article upon Shakes* 
 peare and Puritanism, in which he evinced the grossest ignorance of the first princi- 
 ples of Euphuism, by pronouncing Armado to be a portrait of Lyly ! In fact there 
 is not an utterance of Armado's that has the faintest likeness to anything in Lyly's. 
 acknowledged writings. In all probability the hint for Armado was taken by Shakes- 
 peare from Fantastic Monarcho, a well known Italian, who died in London about 
 1580. The name Monarcho, indeed, occurs in the play, Act iv.. Scene I. 
 
EUPHUISM. 13 
 
 As satirist Shakespeare is, of course, not responsible for 
 the style that he ridicules*. But it must be admitted that the 
 great dramatist, certainly in his earlier writings, could be an 
 Italianist on his own account, e. g. , in the following outburst 
 in Romeo and Juliet, iii. , 2 : " Beautiful tyrant, fiend angel- 
 ical ! Dove-feathered raven, wolvish ravening lamb" ; or in 
 Lucrece, where the despairing victim "wipes the brinish 
 pearl from her bright eyes." Venus and Adonis is full of 
 strained figures, e. g. : 
 
 " Once more the ruby-coloured portal opened. 
 Which to his speech did honey-passage yield." 
 
 It is not surprising that Shakespeare's ardent imagination 
 should go astray in an age when every extravagance was not 
 only tolerated but encouraged. 
 
 Sidney, too, although professing to attack both Euphu- 
 ism and Italianism, falls more than once into the snares of the 
 latter. In truth, his Arcadia is plentifully interspersed with 
 euphemisms and strained figures, e. g.: "About the time 
 that the candles begun to inherit the sun's office" ; or, the 
 scattered lances "flew up in pieces, as if they would threaten 
 heaven because they failed on earth"; or in this description 
 of the wounded Parthenia, " her neck, a neck indeed of ala- 
 baster, displa3'ing the wound which with most dainty blood 
 laboured to draw his own beauties ; so as here was a river of 
 purest red, there an island of perfectest white, each giving 
 lustre to the other, with the sweet countenance, God knows, 
 full of an unaffected languishing." 
 
 After all, Sidney seems to have objected strenuously to 
 only one form of Italianism, viz., the introduction of new- 
 fangled words, or foreign words, or so-called ink-horn terms, 
 or the misuse of legitimate English words. That is, he was 
 a purist in his vocabulary. But his purism did not extend to 
 his ideas and imagery. 
 
 Even Lj'ly himself slips occasionally into an Italianism, 
 as in this paradox : "Now must I paint. . . a life posting to 
 death, a death galloping from life, a wavering constancy, an 
 unsettled resolution." — Alex, and Ciampaspe, iii., sc. 5. 
 
14 EUPHUISM. 
 
 Subsequent History and Present Status of Eufhuism 
 and Italianism* — Euphuism as an acknowledged school of 
 writing passed away before the cloSe of the i6th century. 
 Italianism lived much longer. We detect it in one or other 
 of its Protean shapes all through the poetry of the 17th cen- 
 tury, in the early .poems of Milton, in Donne, Cowley, 
 Crashawe, in the Heroic drama of Dry den and Davenant, 
 so justly ridiculed in the Rehearsal. It got its quietus from 
 the great satirical school, which Dryden himself founded and 
 Pope perfected. We do not detect it again until the begin- 
 ningofthe 19th century, in the Romantic school. Coleridge, 
 the leader of the school, indulges occasionally in an Italian- 
 ism. So do Byron and Keats, possibly also Shelley. In our 
 day Tennyson, in his youthful poems, and Swinburne. This 
 is only natural. Italianism, be it observed once for all, is the 
 play of the imaginative faculty either misdirected or uncon- 
 trolled. Each one of the poets just named is highly imagi- 
 native and therefore liable to err. Yet each one, being at 
 the same time a great poet, has learned to bridle and chasten 
 his imagination, as Shakespeare and Milton did. We need 
 not hesitate to admit that Italianism is deep-rooted in the 
 human spirit, and will always manifest itself sporadically in 
 an imaginative era. Of course it will not re-assert itself as a 
 school of writing. That was possible only in a nascent 
 period, like the Elizabethan. English literature is now too 
 mature, too conscious of its history, to permit such a repetition. 
 
 How is it with Euphuism? Again we may safely admit 
 that although departed it can never become wholly extinct. 
 It appeals, not indeed to man's imagination, but to his 
 ingenuity. It will always strike an echo in every writer who 
 pays more heed to the moulding of his sentences than to the 
 elaboration of his thought and the adjustment of his thought 
 to precise words. Thus Sir William Temple, Di-yden (in his 
 prose). Dr. Johnson, Macaulay evince more or less of a ten- 
 
 *The following remarks are quite independent of anything in Landmann, Brey- 
 mann, Schwan, or the other investigators of Euphuism. 
 
EUPHUISM. 15 
 
 dency towards euphuistic structure. Temple, for instance, in 
 his parallel between Homer and Virgil : " To the first must 
 be allowed the most fertile invention, the richest vein, the most 
 general knowledge, and the most lively expression ; to the 
 last, the noblest ideas, the justest institution, the wisest con- 
 duct, and the choicest elocution. . . . Homer had more fire 
 and rapture, Virgil more light and swiftness; or at least the 
 poetical fire was more raging in one but clearer in the other, 
 which makes the first more amazing and the latter more 
 agreeable, etc., etc." Dryden imitates both opinion and style 
 of Temple, in the Preface to his Fables : "Virgil was of a 
 quiet, sedate temper ; Homer Vv'as violent, impetuous, and full 
 of fire. The chief talent of Virgil was propriety of thoughts 
 and ornament of words ; Homer was rapid in his thoughts, 
 and took all the liberties, both of numbers and of, expression, 
 which his language and the age in which he lived allowed 
 him. Homer's invention was more copious, Virgil's more 
 confined, etc." Johnson, the follower of Dryden, thus delivers 
 his estimate of Dryden's style, thereby marking his own : 
 "Nothing is cold or languid; the whole is airy, animated, and 
 vigorous; what is little is gay, what is great is splendid. . . . 
 Though all is easy, nothing is feeble ; though all seems care- 
 less, there is nothing harsh ; and though since his earlier works 
 more than a century has passed, they have nothing yet 
 uncouth or obsolete." Macaulay : " But a community which 
 has heard the voice and experienced the pleasures of liberty, 
 in which the merits of statesmen and of systems are freely 
 canvassed, in which obedience is paid not to persons but to 
 laws, in which magistrates are regarded not as the lords but 
 as the servants of the people, in which the excitement of party 
 is a necessity of life, in which political warfare is reduced to 
 a system of tactics ; such a community is not easily reduced 
 to servitude." 
 
 Even Carlyle, in his younger days, could draw a par- 
 allel in the old-fashioned style : " Schiller seems to have the 
 greater genius, Alfieri the more commanding character. . . . 
 Schiller is magnificent in his expansion, Alfieri in his xon- 
 
i6 fitrPiiUIsM. 
 
 densed energy ; the first inspires us with greater admiratioil, 
 the last with greater awe." 
 
 Such a passage in Carlyle is all the more striking for its 
 contrast with his later and characteristic style. In this later 
 style he disregards utterly mere rhetorical arrangement of 
 word and phrase, and concerns himself solely with the exact- 
 ness of his thoughts and the precise choice of his words. Yet 
 even in Chartism, which is pure Carlylese, we may note this ': 
 " He that will not work according to his faculty, let him perish 
 according to his necessity." By merely changing "work" to 
 " labour," we should get perfect parisonic balance. 
 
 Temple, Dryden, Johnson, Macaulay, Carlyle are as- 
 suredly not Euphuists. They do not, after the manner of 
 Lyly, point their anvfiithesis with alliteration. They do not 
 play or toy with words. They do not balance nicely word 
 with word, phrase with phrase for page after page through- 
 out a whole chapter or a whole book. Their style is not all 
 parallel or contrast. They use their rhetorical device in 
 moderation. Yet they do use it, and it behooves us to recog- 
 nize the tendency. 
 
 It also behopves us to pi'ofit conscientiously by the labours 
 of scholars and hold fast by what they have established, not 
 suffering ourselves to be led astray by slip-shod writers who 
 persist in labelling anything and everything " eupliuistic" that 
 they fail to understand or approve. Thus the Hon. Roden 
 Noel, in his essay on Robert Buchanan's poetry, comments 
 upon such as find fault with that poet : " What seems to be 
 desiderated' is this — that costermongers and street women 
 should say very hard, harsh, and commonplace things, per- 
 haps blaspheme, only in turgid, euphuistic English." Had 
 the H^on. Roden Noel taken the least pains to look into Euphu- 
 ism, he would have learned that the euphuistic style, be its 
 faults what they may, is never turgid, but on the contrary is 
 always trim, precise and to the point, and wholly compatible 
 with plain every-day wordp ; that the essence of Euphuism 
 consists not in the favouring of long or so-called elegant words 
 over short and plain ones, but in the arrangement of words in 
 
BtrPHUlSM. i^ 
 
 ^arisonic balance. In short, the Hon. Roden Noel would 
 never have confounded euphuisttc with eufhemisttc. 
 
 One of the characters of modern fiction has attracted 
 considerable attention because of its supposed resemblance to 
 Lyly's Euphues, viz., SirPercie Shafton, in Scott's Monastery. 
 Scott informs his readers that Shafton is modelled after 
 Euphues. But this does not tally with the facts as we now 
 understand thena, and Prof. Minto is quite right in his remark 
 that the style of Shafton " is far from being a reproduction of 
 Euphuism as it is in Lyly." But when he adds : "Perhaps 
 the nearess prototype of Shafton is Sidney's caricature of a 
 pedantic schoolmaster, Rhombus, in The Lady of the May," 
 he himself is in error.* Shafton is a mixture (scarcely a 
 blending) of types. When he exclaims (ch. xx.) : "Many 
 will say that in thus indulging the right of a gentleman to 
 the son of a clod-breaking peasant [viz., in accepting Hal- 
 bert Glendenning's challenge], I derogate from my sphere, 
 even as the blessed sun would derogate should he condescend 
 to compare and match his golden beams with the twinkle of 
 a pale, blinking, expiring, gross-fed taper," he is somewhat 
 of an Italianist. Still more evident is the Italianism of the 
 following passage (ch. xxvi.) : "What cause hath moved 
 the ruby current of life to rush back to the citadels of the 
 heart, leaving pale those features in which it should have 
 delighted to meander forever ! Let me approach her . . . with 
 this sovereign essence, distilled by the fair hands of the divine 
 Urania, and powerful to recall fugitive life, even if it were 
 trembling on the verge of departure." But when Shafton 
 discourses thus (ch. xvi.) : "Certes, reverend Sirs, I may 
 well heave such a suspiration, who have, as it were, exchanged 
 heaven for purgatory, leaving the lightsome sphere of the 
 royal court of England for a remote nook in this inaccessible 
 desert, quitting the tilt-yard, where I was ever ready among 
 
 *Gray entitles the piece Tlie Lady of May, and spells the name Rombus. 
 
I§ EUPMUISM. 
 
 my compeers to splinter a lance, either for the love of honour 
 or for the honour of love, in order to couch my knightly spear 
 against base and pilfering besognios and marauders — ex- 
 changing the lighted halls, wherein I used nimbly to pace the 
 swift coranto or to move with a loftier grace in the stately 
 galliard, for this rugged and decayed dungeon of rusty- 
 coloured stone," it must be admitted that his, syntax is euphu- 
 istic. Lastly, when he breaks out (ch. xiv.) : "Ah, that'I 
 had with me my Anatomy of Wit, that all-to-be-unparalleled 
 volume, that quintessence of human wit, that exquisitely- 
 pleasant-to-read and inevitably-necessary-to-be-remembered 
 manual of all that is worthy to be known, which indoctrines 
 the rude in civility, the dull in intellectuality, the heavy in 
 jocosity, the blunt in gentility, the vulgar in nobility, and all 
 of them in that unutterable perfection of human utterance, that 
 eloquence which no other eloquence is sufficient to praise, that 
 art which, when we call it by its own nameof Euphuism, we 
 bestow on it its richest panegyric," he is neither Italianist nor 
 Euphuist, but a tertium quid that the present writer is unable 
 to identify, but which is not Sidney's Rombus. ' 
 
 How much did Scott know at first-hand of Lyly's 
 Euphues? In the narrative, just after the passage last cited, 
 Christie of the Clinthill is mentioned as having no idea that 
 all these rich and splendid epithets were lavished upon " a 
 small quarto volume." The phrase suggests, without neces- 
 sarily implying, that Scott had seen and examined or possibly 
 owned a copy. This can be proved, of course, onl}^ by direct 
 evidence from the library at Abbotsford. Yet in Scott's day 
 Euphues was a livre introuvable. In the Introduction to the 
 Monastery Scott discourses about Euphuism and the French 
 frecieuses ridicules, about Nym, Pistol, Don Armado, Holo- 
 fernes, and Mercutio, in so bewildering a way that we cannot 
 help judging that if he really possessed a copy of Lyly's 
 book, he failed to master its style. Nym is a pronounced 
 "humour" of the Ben Jonson type. Pistol is half humour, 
 Armado, Holofernes, and Mercutio are Italianists. As for 
 the French frecieuses, their absurdity consists more in their 
 
EUPHUISM. . 19 
 
 sentimentality than in their language, and in their language 
 more by reason of its grammatical pedantry than by reason of 
 its phrase-structure. 
 
 Inasmuch as Sidney's Lady of Ma}'- is quite out of reach 
 of the ordinary reader, it has seemed to the present writer 
 worth while to introduce here its action and quote a good deal 
 of its phraseology. The reader will see at a glance that the 
 piece, slight as it is, provokes not a little curiosity. The fol- 
 lowing resume is based upon the edition in The Miscellaneous 
 Works of Sir Philip Sidney, by William Gray ; Boston, 
 Burnham ; i860, pp. 263-279.* The piece was composed by 
 Sidney for the entertainment of Queen Elizabeth, while she 
 was the guest of Leicester at Wanstead House, 1578. The 
 scene begins by representing her as walking with her retinue 
 in Wanstead Garden. A country woman demands to be 
 received in audience. She throws herself at the Queen's feet 
 and narrates how her daughter is persecuted by two rival 
 wooers and their respective friends. She begs the Queen to 
 restore peace, and departs leaving in her hands a written sup- 
 plication. I Thereupon is heard a confused noise; six shep- 
 herds on one side, six foresters on the other, pulling and 
 hauling the Lady of May, who does not incline to either 
 party. Rombus, the schoolmaster, trying to restore order 
 with learned wisdom, gets several unlearned blows for his 
 pains. But at sight of the Qiieen the fracas quickly stops. 
 Lalus, an old shepherd, addressing the Queen, explains to 
 her how the beauty of the young woman has upset, or as he 
 puts it, "disannulled the brain-pans of two of our featiest 
 young men." But, he adds, the schoolmaster can better "dis- 
 
 *Gray designates the play as a Masque. Whether this designation is taken 
 from Sidney himself, does not appear from Gray's method of editing. In any case it 
 is a misnomer. The play has none of the characteristic features of the Masque, but 
 is merely in general an Interlude. 
 
 t This supplication is in verse. Apparently it has no bearing whatever upon the 
 affair of the daughter. One is tempted to regard it as a covert declaration of undy- 
 ing devotion on Leicester's part, couched in the usual extravagance of Elizabethan 
 adulation. 
 
20 EUPHUISM, 
 
 nounce the whole foundation of the matter." Accordingly 
 Rombus delivers himself to this effect : 
 
 " Now the thunder-thumping Jove transfund his dotes into 
 your excellent formosity, which have, with your resplendent 
 beams, thus segregated the enmity of these rural animals : I 
 am, potentissima domina, a schoolmaster; that is to say, a 
 pedagogue, one not a little versed in the disciplinating of the 
 juvenile fry, wherein to my laud, I use such geometrical pro- 
 portion as neither wanted mansuetude nor correction : for so 
 it is described 
 
 Parcare subjectos et debellire superbos. 
 Yet hath not the pulchritude of my virtues protected me from 
 the contaminating hands of these plebeians ; for coming 
 solummodo to have parted their sanguinolent fray, they 
 yielded me no more reverence than if I had been some 
 pecorius asinus. I, even I, that am, who am I? Dixi, vertus 
 sapiento satum est. But what said that Trojan ^neas when 
 he sojourned in the surging sulks of the sandiferous seas? 
 
 Haec olim memonasse juvebit. 
 Well, well, ad propositos revertebo ; the purity of the verity 
 is that a certain pulchra puella profecto, elected and constituted 
 b}'^ the integrated determination of all this topographical region 
 as the sovereign lady of this dame Maia'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 delivered his dire dolorous dart." 
 
 Here he is interrupted by the Lady, who bids to be off, 
 for a tedious fool. At this Master Rombus ejaculates : "O 
 tempori, O moribus ! in profession a child ; in dignity a 
 woman ; in years a lad}^ ; in cjeteris a maid ; should thus 
 turpify the reputation of my doctrine with the superscription 
 of a fool ! O tempori, O moribus." 
 
 The Lady now addresses the Queen in the usual strain 
 of fulsome flattery, professing her inability to decide between 
 her suitors and begging the Queen to decide for her. In this 
 speech we may note such a passage : "I like them both and 
 love neither ; Espilus [the shepherd] is the richer, but Therion , 
 
EUPHUISM. 21 
 
 [the forester] the livelier. . . Now the question is — whether 
 the many deserts and many faults of Therion, or the very 
 small deserts and no faults of Espilus be to be preferred." 
 This is ordinary rhetorical antithesis, it falls short of specific 
 Euphuism. 
 
 The suitors, Therion and Espilus, then sing a few six- 
 hne stanzas, turn about, each in commendation of his own 
 superior ci-aims. The quality of the verse is that of the aver- 
 age of pre-Spencerian poetry. Noteworthy is the alliteration 
 in the line : 
 
 Warm well thy wits, if thou wilt win her well. 
 When Espilus asserts : 
 
 More high than stars, more firm than flinty field. 
 Are all my thoughts, in which I live or die, 
 and Therion replies : 
 
 The highest note comes oft from basest mind. 
 As shallow brooks do yield the greatest sound, 
 the lines recall to the present vvrriter some other Elizabethan 
 passage that he is unable to locate definitely. 
 
 Pending the Queen's decision, Dorcas, a shepherd, and 
 Rixus, a forester, quarrel over the merits of the singers. We 
 may note the use of the word "harlotry" by Dorcas : "If the 
 proud heart of the harlotry [_i. e.. Lady of May] lie not down 
 to thee [Espilus] now, the sheep's rot catch her," in the sense 
 of a foolish, pettish girl. Compare Glendower's speech : 
 " She [m}' daughter] is desperate here ; a peevish, self-willed 
 harlotry, one that no persuasion can do good upon." I. 
 Henry IV., iii., sc. i; also Capulet's : "A peevish, self- 
 willed harlotry it [Juliet] is." Rom. andjul., iv., sc. 2. The 
 word in this sense is not , given by Halliwell, Nares, Davies, 
 nor has the present writer discovered it elsewhere in Eliza- 
 bethan writings. 
 
 Rombus tries to restore due logical order with another 
 outburst. " Heu ! Ehem ! Hei ! Insipidum ! Inscitium vul- 
 gorum et populorum ! Why, you brute nebulons, have you 
 had my corpusculum so long among you, and cannot yet 
 tell how to edify an argument? Attend and throw your ears 
 
'22 EUPHUISM. 
 
 to me, for I amgravidated with child till I have endoctdrinate 
 your plumbeous cerebrosities. First, you must divisionate 
 your point, quasi you should cut a cheese into two particles ; 
 for thus must I uniform my speech to your obtuse concep- 
 tion ; for, prius dividendum oratio antequam definiendum ; 
 exemplum gratia, either Therion must conquer this dame 
 Maia's nymph, or Espilus must overthrow her, and that 
 secundum their dignity, which must also be sub-divisionated 
 into three equal species, either according to the penetrancy of 
 their singing, or the meliority of their functions, or lastly the 
 supremacy of their merits. De singing satis. Nunc are you 
 to argumentare of the qualifying of their estate first ; and then, 
 whether [sc. which of the two] hath more infernally, I mean 
 deeply, deserved." 
 
 Dorcas, in a long speech, regrets that he was not sent to 
 school in his youth, that he might the better xmderstand Mas- 
 ter Rombus. Yet he himself ends with a simile containing 
 at least one term, "odible," as inkhorn-ish as any in Rombus : 
 " Let him [who scorns the innocent lambs] be hated as much 
 as a filthy fox, . . his sight more odible than a toad in one's 
 porridge." When he boasts : " How many courtiers . .have 
 I heard making their woful complaints ; some, of their Mis- 
 tress's estate, which dazzled thteir eyes and yet burned their 
 hearts ; some, of the extremity of her beauty mixed with 
 extreme cruelty ; some of her too much wit, which made all 
 their loving labours folly," his syntax has a euphuistic squint. 
 
 Again Rombus interposes : " O tace, tace ! or all the fat 
 will be ignified ; first, let me dilucidate the very intrinsical 
 marrowbone of the matter. He [Dorcas] doth use a certain 
 rhetorical invasion into the point, as if, indeed, he had con- 
 ference with his lambs ; but the truth is, he doth equitate you 
 in the mean time, Master Rixus ; for thus he saith, that the 
 sheep are good, ergo, the shepherd is good, an enthymeme a 
 loco contingentibus, as my finger and thumb are contingentes. 
 Again, he saith, who liveth well is likewise good ; but shep- 
 herds live well, ergo thej"- are good ; syllogism in Darius, King 
 of Persia, a conjugatis ; as you would say, a man coupled 
 
KUPHUISM. 23 
 
 to his wife, two bodies but one soul ;but do you but acquiescate 
 to my exhortation and you shall extinguish him. Tell him 
 his major is a knave, his minor is a fool, and his conclusion 
 both. Et ecce homo blancatus quasi lilium." 
 
 Rixus puts in a fresh plea for the superiority of foresters, 
 Rombus says a few (unimportant) words, and the Lady cuts 
 them all short, beseeching the Queen to give her decision. 
 It is given in favor of Espilus, "but what words, what reasons 
 she used for it, this paper, which carrieth so base names, is 
 not worthy to contain."* Espilus sings a song, partly to 
 express his own joy, partly to console his vanquished rival, 
 and the Lady closes with some words of leave-taking. 
 
 Rombus's speeches have been given in full, that the 
 reader may judge for himself. It is clear that lie is neither a 
 caricature of Euphues, nor the prototype of Shafton. All 
 three characters, it is true, are pedants. But pedantry, we are 
 to remember, may be of very different kinds. Some men are 
 pedants in displaying their learning out of place or out of 
 reasonable measure. Such pedants are Euphues and Shafton. 
 Others are pedants in affecting the show of learning without 
 the reality. Such an one is Rombus. He not only " murders 
 Priscian" (a fault of which Lyly's characters would be inca- 
 pable), but he uses his Greco-Latin comages with a very 
 feeble sense of their force. What does he mean, e. g., by 
 "transfund his dotes into your excellent formosity," or "segre- 
 gated the enmity of these niral animals," or "the surging 
 sulks of the sandiferous seas," or "uniform my speech to your 
 obtuse conceptions," or " a certain rhetorical invasion into the 
 point." 
 
 Whatever aesthetic value we may set upon the effusions 
 of Euphues and Shafton, we can not withhold from them the 
 
 *How are we to interpret this? In form it is, of course, a fresh bit of that 
 arrant flattery that haunts Elizabethan literature. But is it also, in substance, a 
 veiled allusion, and if so, to what ? Various little turns in the piece suggest the infer- 
 ence that it might have been an attempt, by Sidney's 'prentice hand, to dramatize 
 some incident of real life, that occurred in connection with or just before Elizabeth's 
 visit at VVanstead. The present writer is not sufficiently conversant with the details 
 of life at Elizabeth's court in 157S to hazard a conjecture. 
 
24 EUPHUISM. 
 
 .credit of at least talking coherent sense, whereas Rombug; 
 utters mere verbiage. Besides, Eupuhes and Shafton use their 
 words correctly, we are never at a loss for the meaning ; 
 whereas Rombus is a blunderer, almost as bad as old Lalusf 
 who coins the remarkable verb " disnounce " probably through 
 a confusion of " announce " and " discourse." In short, Roip- 
 bus belongs in the category with Lalus, Bottom, Dame Quig- 
 ley, Mrs. Malaprop, and Mrs. Partington, but with certainly 
 one important difference. Bottom and the others are naive 
 blunderers, merely echoing words and phrases that they do 
 not pretend to understand. Rombus really flatters himself that 
 he does understand, hence his ire that any one " should turpify, 
 the reputation of his doctrine with the superscription of a 
 fool." In Rombus Sidney is castigating the would-be learned 
 blockheads of his times. 
 
Cornell University Library 
 PR 427.H32 
 
 Euphuism. 
 
 3 1924 013 258 417 
 
'•^A- 
 
 E^tlT®?