Make a Donation

Consider making a donation to support SHAKSPER.

Subscribe to Our Feeds

Current Postings RSS

Announcements RSS

Home :: Archive :: 2001 :: October ::
Re: LLW
The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 12.2343  Monday, 15 October 2001

[1]     From:   Larry Weiss <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
        Date:   Friday, 12 Oct 2001 13:43:51 -0400
        Subj:   Re: SHK 12.2332 Re: LLW

[2]     From:   Mike Jensen <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
        Date:   Saturday, 13 Oct 2001 22:12:59 -0700
        Subj:   Re: SHK 12.2332 Re: Malvolio, Toby, and LLW


[1]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Larry Weiss <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
Date:           Friday, 12 Oct 2001 13:43:51 -0400
Subject: 12.2332 Re: LLW
Comment:        Re: SHK 12.2332 Re: LLW

> my solution is as follows:  the lost quarto (probably a "bad"
> quarto) was entitled "Love's Labours Lost, Love's Labours Won", and this
> title was independently mistaken by both Meres and bookseller as being
> two works.  I know this is a bit messy, but as I said before, no one
> theory fits all the facts!

I don't think John Briggs's solution fits very many of the facts.  For
one thing, Meres lists ":his Love's Labours Lost, his Love's Labours
Wonne" -- clearly two titles, not one.  Secondly, the bookseller's
inventory lists each play on a separate line.  Thirdly, "Love's Labors
Lost, Love's Labours Won" is not a particularly good title for this
play.

The end of LLL contains strong suggestions that the story is to be
continued and language reminiscent to me of modern broadcasters'
exhortations to "stay tuned ... same time, same station," such as
Berowne's "that's too long for a play." Shakespeare was in all other
cases quite insistent on marrying off the main characters (consider
M/M), it seems inherently improbable that he would end a play with none
of the four main couples getting married, and, instead, assigning tasks
to all four male characters that would be potentially amusing to see
executed but which we are left only to imagine.

It seems to me that the very simple inference that WS wrote a sequel
which is unfortunately lost to us.  This theory fits all the facts.

As for Bob Grumman's question:  Yes, T/S was listed separately in the
bookseller's list.   His argument that LLW would have been in F1 if it
existed as a separate play strikes me as essentially circular and
somewhat wishful.

[2]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Mike Jensen <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
Date:           Saturday, 13 Oct 2001 22:12:59 -0700
Subject: 12.2332 Re: Malvolio, Toby, and LLW
Comment:        Re: SHK 12.2332 Re: Malvolio, Toby, and LLW

The lack of *Love's Labour's Won* in F is a good argument, but not a
clinching argument.  There were apparently problems clearing rights for
some plays.  In fact, one of the plays is not in some copies of F, and
is in others.  *T&C*?  Sorry.  I just tried to look it up in the book I
thought had this info, and could not find it.  I'll be grateful if
someone will please confirm and supply a reference or three.  We know
better than to trust my memory.

Also note, *Cardineo* is also not in F.  A collaborative play, yes, but
so, we believe, is the F text *HVIII.*

All the best,
Mike Jensen

_______________________________________________________________
S H A K S P E R: The Global Shakespeare Discussion List
Hardy M. Cook, 
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 
The S H A K S P E R Webpage <http://ws.bowiestate.edu>

DISCLAIMER: Although SHAKSPER is a moderated discussion list, the
opinions expressed on it are the sole property of the poster, and the
editor assumes no responsibility for them.
 

©2011 Hardy Cook. All rights reserved.