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 14.0591  Thursday, 27 March 2003

[1]     From:   Bob Grumman <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
        Date:   Monday, 24 Mar 2003 10:38:11 -0500
        Subj:   Re: SHK 14.0578 Re: Love's Labour's Wonne

[2]     From:   Bill Lloyd <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
        Date:   Tuesday, 25 Mar 2003 19:14:58 EST
        Subj:   Re: SHK 14.0578 Re: Love's Labour's Wonne


[1]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Bob Grumman <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
Date:           Monday, 24 Mar 2003 10:38:11 -0500
Subject: 14.0578 Re: Love's Labour's Wonne
Comment:        Re: SHK 14.0578 Re: Love's Labour's Wonne

Larry Weiss <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 > writes,

>Isn't it obvious that LLW is a sequel, or second part, of LLL?

But how could LLW have been lost?  So many  plays were found for the
First Folio that could not have been poorer than LLW.  But the sequel
idea suggests another possibility: that the sequel was promised by name
and talked about but never delivered.  Then Meres heard gossip about it
that left out the fact that it was never written.  But I don't see that
a sequel is advertised, so hold with Shrew as a follow-up play that some
called LLW.  It was all about labouring to win a wife.

--Bob G.

[2]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Bill Lloyd <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
Date:           Tuesday, 25 Mar 2003 19:14:58 EST
Subject: 14.0578 Re: Love's Labour's Wonne
Comment:        Re: SHK 14.0578 Re: Love's Labour's Wonne

Hello all --

I guess John Drakakis' point is that as it stands we'll never really be
able to answer the Love's Labour's Won question. He's right.

Bob Grumman need not have reservations based on Shrew's date, since
there's a problem only if we take Meres' list as being absolutely
complete-- but it's not. So Shrew may just not have been mentioned and
could be from 1593 or 1589 without being LLW. In fact that early date
makes the identification with LLW less likely. If, as most agreee, LL
Won is the sequel and LL Lost came first, then LLW would have to date no
earlier than 1594 or so. But Shrew it's agreed is almost certainly no
later than 1593, and so could not be the sequel to a play not yet
written.

Russell McKenzie Fehr-- I'm not sure what I agreed to discuss-- though
I'm agreeable to discussing most things. Are we discussing Cardenio?
More Love's Labour's Won?

I agree with Larry Weiss that it ought to be obvious that LLW would be a
direct sequel with the same characters, and his quotations are very
persuasive. I guess the thing that makes me want to identify it with a
[version of an] extant play is that otherwise it seems to have
disappeared so completely. It was written 1594<>1598 for the Lord
Chamberlain's players, was in print by 1603 [the other day I incorrectly
said 1602], but is then never heard of again, is not included in the
First Folio, does not get a later post-Folio publication... just poof!

It's not inconceivable that Love's Labour's Won was by someone other
than Shakespeare, but that Meres, knowing of the existence of a play of
that title, just assumed it was by WS. The sequel to Taming of the Shrew
is by someone other than Shakespeare.

Regards,
Bill Lloyd

_______________________________________________________________
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.