Make a Donation

Consider making a donation to support SHAKSPER.

Subscribe to Our Feeds

Current Postings RSS

Announcements RSS

Home :: Archive :: 2005 :: April ::
Love's Labours Won
The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 16.0838  Friday, 29 April 2005

[1]     From:   John Briggs <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
        Date:   Thursday, 28 Apr 2005 17:41:38 +0100
        Subj:   Re: SHK 16.0828 Love's Labours Won

[2]     From:   Larry Weiss <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
        Date:   Thursday, 28 Apr 2005 16:44:49 -0400
        Subj:   Re: SHK 16.0828 Love's Labours Won

[3]     From:   Sandra Sparks <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
        Date:   Friday, 29 Apr 2005 08:59:13 -0400
        Subj:   RE: SHK 16.0828 Love's Labours Won

[4]     From:   David Crosby <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
        Date:   Friday, 29 Apr 2005 10:17:44 -0500
        Subj:   RE: SHK 16.0755 Love's Labours Lost


[1]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From:           John Briggs <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
Date:           Thursday, 28 Apr 2005 17:41:38 +0100
Subject: 16.0828 Love's Labours Won
Comment:        Re: SHK 16.0828 Love's Labours Won

Melvyn R. Leventhal wrote:

 >The critical points made by Lucas Erne (and marginally reinforced by
 >me) are: a) Much Ado COULD BE another name for LLW and b) therefore,
 >contrary to the hypothesis of T.W. Baldwin, the Bookseller's List does
 >not prove that LLW is a lost work by Shakespeare.

But if LLW could be another name for 'Much Ado' in the "bookseller's
list", then that list loses its value as evidence.  This relied upon the
"bookseller's list" being a list of actual titles of actual books, and
thus providing *independent* corroboration of the list in 'Palladis
Tamia'.  If the titles of books in the list do not represent actual
titles, they could just as easily not represent actual books.  They
could then represent desiderata (culled from Meres), or orders from
customers (who could also have read Meres).  Baldwin's hypothesis was
not so much that LLW was a lost work by Shakespeare, as that it was the
actual title of an actual book.  The assumption that it was lost work by
Shakespeare followed from the (only other) evidence of Meres in
'Palladis Tamia' that it was the actual title of an actual play (by
Shakespeare, as it happens).

John Briggs

[2]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Larry Weiss <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
Date:           Thursday, 28 Apr 2005 16:44:49 -0400
Subject: 16.0828 Love's Labours Won
Comment:        Re: SHK 16.0828 Love's Labours Won

 >Please state the "internal evidence" that a sequel was contemplated for
 >LLL and that also rules out Much Ado as that sequel.

I thought I had done this.  The French ladies set amusing tasks for the
gentlemen to occupy their time until they resume their acquaintance in a
year.  Nothing remotely like that occurs in MA/N.

And, of course, Basch feels the need to chime in with a risibly
erroneous observation:

 > In each case, as noted in the play, "Jack has got his Jill."

Typically, Basch has it bass-ackward.  What Berowne says is the
opposite:  "Our wooing doth not end like an old play:/ Jack hath not
Gill."  (V.ii.874-75 [Riverside])

[3]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Sandra Sparks <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
Date:           Friday, 29 Apr 2005 08:59:13 -0400
Subject: 16.0828 Love's Labours Won
Comment:        RE: SHK 16.0828 Love's Labours Won

Something to consider:

Does anyone think that it could be possible, since it has been thought
that Rosaline was based upon WS's own Dark "Lady," that, if the
resemblance between Rosaline and, say, Emilia Lanier, had continued into
Love's Labours Won, that the messiness of his affairs with both the lord
of his love and his mistress and a too, too close resemblance, might
have caused him to withdraw LLW from his own canon?

Just shooting an arrow in the air here, seeing how it falls...

Sandra Sparks
Performer Atlanta Shakespeare Company

[4]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           David Crosby <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
Date:           Friday, 29 Apr 2005 10:17:44 -0500
Subject: 16.0755 Love's Labours Lost
Comment:        RE: SHK 16.0755 Love's Labours Lost

In the midst of all the quibbling about whether and where the
apostrophes fall (even a cursory look at a first folio will reveal the
near total inconsistency in the way possessives are treated
typographically), no one seems to have remarked that the Elizabethan
poets tended to speak, if not think, emblematically and allegorically.
The "Love" in the title is very likely to refer to a personified figure
of Love, either amor, eros, or cupid, and it is his labor that is lost.
The labor of Love, traditionally, is the shooting of arrows in all
directions, striking humans (and other supernaturals) and leading them
to perform all manner of silly and revolting things.

This would seem to be more sensible a reading of either title, LLL or
LLW.  Perhaps someone can even provide an emblem book with a picture of
Cupid having lost (or won) his labor?

Regards,
David Crosby
<
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 

_______________________________________________________________
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.