Make a Donation

Consider making a donation to support SHAKSPER.

Subscribe to Our Feeds

Current Postings RSS

Announcements RSS

Home :: Archive :: 2003 :: March ::
Re: Love's Labour's Wonne
The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 14.0578  Monday, 24 March 2003

[1]     From:   John Drakakis <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
        Date:   Friday, 21 Mar 2003 16:06:48 -0000
        Subj:   RE: SHK 14.0571 Love's Labour's Wonne

[2]     From:   Bob Grumman <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
        Date:   Friday, 21 Mar 2003 15:32:39 -0500
        Subj:   Re: SHK 14.0571 Love's Labour's Wonne

[3]     From:   Russell MacKenzie Fehr <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
        Date:   Saturday, 22 Mar 2003 00:24:54 EST
        Subj:   Re: SHK 14.0571 Love's Labour's Wonne

[4]     From:   Larry Weiss <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
        Date:   Saturday, 22 Mar 2003 11:40:49 -0500
        Subj:   Re: SHK 14.0571 Love's Labour's Wonne


[1]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From:           John Drakakis <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
Date:           Friday, 21 Mar 2003 16:06:48 -0000
Subject: 14.0571 Love's Labour's Wonne
Comment:        RE: SHK 14.0571 Love's Labour's Wonne

The secret's out:

Love's Labours Wonne is Midsummer Night's Dream, The Merry Wives of
Windsor, Measure For Measure (problem), All's Well That Ends Well, Much
Ado About Nothing etc. etc.

Mind you, whisper it noth in Gath, but Shakespeare wrote the script for
Robocop!

Cheers

John Drakakis

[2]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Bob Grumman <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
Date:           Friday, 21 Mar 2003 15:32:39 -0500
Subject: 14.0571 Love's Labour's Wonne
Comment:        Re: SHK 14.0571 Love's Labour's Wonne

>Love's Labour's Wonne... here's a wacky suggestion... and the dern thing
>is, I can't figure out if it's my own idea or if I copped it from
>somewhere. If you recognize it, please speak up as to its source.
>
>What if Love's Labour's Won is the title of the PREFALSTAFF version of
>Merry Wives of Windsor?

I like this suggestion a lot, but still hold to The Taming of the Shrew
as Loves Labours Wonne because I can't believe the Shrew could have been
written after 1598--and it also has all those references to
Shakespeare's home country, which were more common in his earlier plays,
I understand.

--Bob G.

[3]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Russell MacKenzie Fehr <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
Date:           Saturday, 22 Mar 2003 00:24:54 EST
Subject: 14.0571 Love's Labour's Wonne
Comment:        Re: SHK 14.0571 Love's Labour's Wonne

>Hello All...
>
>Russell MacKenzie Fehr <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 > wrote:
>
>     "...I hope for the day that a copy of "Cardenio" is found,
>     second only to "Love's Labors Won" (first if "LLW" is just an
>     alternative title for an existing Shakespearian work)"
>
>Love's Labour's Wonne... here's a wacky suggestion... and the dern thing
>is, I can't figure out if it's my own idea or if I copped it from
>somewhere. If you recognize it, please speak up as to its source.
>
>What if Love's Labour's Won is the title of the PREFALSTAFF version of
>Merry Wives of Windsor?
>
>Dover Wilson suggested that such a play existed [calling it The Jealous
>Comedy], and that when Queen Elizabeth asked for Falstaff in Love
>Shakespeare grafted Falstaff's crew onto his own pre-existent play,
>transforming a 'foolish gentleman' character and a foolish servant into
>Falstaff and Quickly, giving the foolish suitor an uncle [Shallow], and
>thrusting Bardolph, Nym, Pistol and the Page into the action as
>messengers and servants. But he didn't suggest that this play was called
>Love's Labour's Won.
>
>On the other hand, in the sweepstakes to be nominated the play for which
>LLW was an alternate title, Merry Wives is one of the leading
>contenders.  But it's always been  the extant Merry Wives as we know it
>that's been suggested to be LLW.
>
>Now combine those two suggestions... Shakespeare writes a sequel of
>sorts to Love's Labour's Lost. It doesn't use the same characters from
>LLL, but like it, it  features three couples [the Fords, the Pages and
>the youngsters], a series of wooings: a foolish gentleman woos two
>townswomen; and a young gentleman [the beloved] and a foolish rival vie
>for the hand of the young daughter of one of the townswomen. There is a
>full range comic eccentrics to populate the comic subplot[s]-- A French
>Doctor with an outrageous accent and a comic housekeeper and a foolish
>manservant; a Welsh Parson/Pedant with an outrageous accent; Mine Host
>of the Inn with an outrageous way of speaking. [To add 5 more comic
>characters -- Shallow, Bardolph, Nym, Pistol & the Page-- to something
>like this might seem too much-- how many comic eccentrics can one play
>have or need?]
>
>Now if the Falstaff version of the play was set in Windsor only because
>of its association with the Garter feast, then the play originally had
>SOME OTHER TITLE. Could that title have been Love's Labour's Won?
>Sequel-wise it continues some features from Love's Labor's Lost... The
>Fantastical Foreigner Armado leads on to the Fantastical Foreigner
>Caius;
>The Humorous Pedant  Holofernes and the Curate are combined as it were
>in the Humorous Parson/Pedant Evans. Like Love's Labour's Lost it ends
>with a quasi-dramatic event. I dunno...
>
>After the play was Falstaffized, there was no need for the Booke of the
>old version of the play, so it was sold to a printer, and a small
>edition [now completely lost] was printed. A copy of that edition was
>listed in a bookseller's inventory in 1602. Where have all the others
>gone? Hhmmm...  look in your attics?
>
>Regards,
>Bill Lloyd

Thank you for agreeing to discuss this, Mr. Lloyd, although the post in
question is different from what I originally posted. (Hardy, what did
you do to the first paragraph, where I talked about the various types of
manuscripts that Theobald's "Cardenio" could have been?)

Russell MacKenzie Fehr

[Editor's Note: I don't know what happened. Please submit the original
and I will post it. -Hardy]

[4]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Larry Weiss <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
Date:           Saturday, 22 Mar 2003 11:40:49 -0500
Subject: 14.0571 Love's Labour's Wonne
Comment:        Re: SHK 14.0571 Love's Labour's Wonne

Isn't it obvious that LLW is a sequel, or second part, of LLL?  Love's
Labours Lost is unique among the comedies in that it does not end with a
marriage or betrothal.  (Armado and Jacquenetta don't count.)  Berowne
even notes, "Our wooing doth not end like and old play:/ Jack hath not
Gill." (V.ii.874-75 [Riverside]).  Instead the main characters promise
to renew their wooing in a year, after the King and Berowne undergo
various potentially amusing privations.  This internal evidence suggests
that WS intended to pick up the thread in another play.  Indeed,
Berowne's complaint, "That's too long for a play" (V.ii.878) seems close
to an advertisement to stay tuned.

The signs of rewriting at the end of the play (see IV.iii.292-313,
V.ii.817-22) leads me to a conjecture that LLL was revised after it
achieved popularity to provide a lead-in to the sequel.

_______________________________________________________________
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 Web Site <http://www.shaksper.net>

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.