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 12.2387  Thursday, 18 October 2001

[1]     From:   Briggs John <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
        Date:   Thursday, 18 Oct 2001 09:50:53 +0100
        Subj:   RE: SHK 12.2366 Re: LLW

[2]     From:   Robin Hamilton <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
        Date:   Thursday, 18 Oct 2001 11:53:24 +0100
        Subj:   Re: SHK 12.2366 Re: LLW


[1]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Briggs John <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
Date:           Thursday, 18 Oct 2001 09:50:53 +0100
Subject: 12.2366 Re: LLW
Comment:        RE: SHK 12.2366 Re: LLW

I am amused that Larry Weiss is unperturbed by the absence of LLW from F
despite it being printed (presumably in quarto) and listed by Meres as
being written by Shakespeare.  Clearly, a man of Larry's equanimity
would be useful in a crisis!  I maintain my position that no one
hypothesis fits all the facts as they stand. The "lost play" hypothesis
demands that it was consciously omitted from F for reasons that we
cannot even guess at.  Any hypothesis demands the relaxation of one or
more of the conditions.  Actually, the simplest hypothesis (although not
my favourite) would be to assume that Meres was mistaken, and that the
play was not by Shakespeare, but a sequel or continuation written by
another member of Shakespeare's company, or a rival company.  This would
explain its absence from F.  Whether that makes the loss of the Q text
more or less plausible is a moot point.  Q0 of LLL would still be
missing, which might look like a suspicious coincidence.  Are there
up-to-date statistics for the probability of survival of an individual
edition of a playtext, whether by Shakespeare or not?

John Briggs

[2]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Robin Hamilton <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
Date:           Thursday, 18 Oct 2001 11:53:24 +0100
Subject: 12.2366 Re: LLW
Comment:        Re: SHK 12.2366 Re: LLW

> From:           Clifford Stetner <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >

> For what it's worth, in ending his discourse on platonic and petrarchan
> love conventions with a one year deferral,

I'm a little baffled by this -- is a conflation between Platonism and
Petrarchism being suggested?  Admittedly, there are overlaps between the
two, but I totally fail to see any influence of Platonic conventions in
_LLL_.  Indeed, given that Sidney's _Astrophil and Stella_ had been
published in 1591, the most plausible context is an immediate one, the
upsurge of interest in sonnet writing at this time.  A context,
incidentally, which would better be termed Petrarchist (referring to the
conventions developed by Petrarch's followers) than Petrarchan (which
should be restricted to conventions within the _Canzoniere_
themselves).  If this distinction is alloWednesday, Wyatt (at least in
his translations of Petrarch) is in the ambit of the Petrarchan
conventions, _LLL_, if it falls into this area at all, is in the
Petrarchist ambit.

> Shakespeare would only have
> been following the precedent of Chaucer's Parliament of Fowls (a
> possible source for Phoenix and the Turtle).

Well, as Fluellen says, there are birds in both.  But I fail to see any
link between a medieval poem rooted in the bird-debate tradition, and a
Renaissance lyric which +can+ be be seen to have Platonic elements.

Among other elements of the poem:

   Reason, in itself confounded,
   Saw division grow together,
   To themselves yet either neither,
   Simple were so well compounded ...

... calls up the _Timaeus_, and Aristophanes' speech in _The Symposium_
(perhaps mediated by Ficino).

A juxtapositon of _LLL_ with "The Phoenix and the Turtle"  simply
emphasises the distinct differences between Platonic concepts and
Petrarchist conventions.

Robin Hamilton

_______________________________________________________________
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.