2005

Love's Labours Won

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 16.0798  Tuesday, 26A April 2005

[1]     From:   Kathy Dent <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Monday, 25 Apr 2005 09:46:55 +0100
        Subj:   RE: SHK 16.0781 Love's Labours Won

[2]     From:   John Briggs <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Monday, 25 Apr 2005 14:39:37 +0100
        Subj:   Re: SHK 16.0769 Love's Labours Won

[3]     From:   Melvyn R. Leventhal <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Monday, 25 Apr 2005 10:16:21 EDT
        Subj:   Re: SHK 16.0769 Love's Labours Won


[1]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Kathy Dent <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Monday, 25 Apr 2005 09:46:55 +0100
Subject: 16.0781 Love's Labours Won
Comment:        RE: SHK 16.0781 Love's Labours Won

 >The title page of the 1598 Quarto has no apostrophes whatsoever-"Loues
 >labors lost"-while the second apostrophe in the F title is distinctly
 >ambiguous-at the least, it's less certain than the (clear) apostrophe on
 >"Love's".
 >
 >Robin Hamilton

Just to clarify this information, Robin Hamilton is right about the
quarto title page, but the page headers in the book all have Loues
Labour's lost, with a clear apostrophe on the second word.  Robin's
information about the First Folio is wrong.  At the beginning of the
play and on all the page headers, the title is Loues Labour's lost -
with no apostrophe on the first word and no ambiguity about the
apostrophe on the second word.  However, in the catalogue at the front,
the play is listed as Loues Labour lost: no apostrophes at all and no S
on the second word.  Would anyone care to comment on early modern use of
apostrophe S to indicate possession?  I had thought that they didn't do
it, but I'm not an expert.  The title page of the First Folio certainly
doesn't bother, when it says: Mr William Shakespeares Comedies,
Histories, & Tragedies.  And there are quartos referring to the Kings
Majesties servants with no apostrophe and publishers in Paules
churchyard - also no discernable apostrophes to indicate possessives.

Kathy Dent

[2]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           John Briggs <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Monday, 25 Apr 2005 14:39:37 +0100
Subject: 16.0769 Love's Labours Won
Comment:        Re: SHK 16.0769 Love's Labours Won

David Basch has a genius (and I do not use the word lightly) for firmly
grasping the wrong end of the stick.  He may well be right that "Love's
Labour's Lost" is marginally more probable than "Love's Labours Lost",
but the former case would mean 'the labour of love (or Love) is lost',
and the latter 'the labours of love (or Love) are lost'.  As Todd
Pettigrew has pointed out, 'to lose one's labour' is proverbial for
'wasting one's effort', and actually used by Shakespeare.  The only
remaining issue is whether "Love" means love in general (or of
particular people), or the personification of love, i.e. Cupid or Amor.

What no-one has pointed out so far in this debate is that "Love's
Labours Won" is actually meaningless (you cannot 'win' your labour) -
and so is less likely to have been used as a title by Shakespeare.

Kathy Dent has kindly informed me of the contents of Lukas Erne's
mysterious footnote.  What Erne has done in categorising "Love's Labours
Won" as the 'popular title' for another play (e.g. "Much Ado About
Nothing") is to completely undermine the status of the evidence of the
'bookseller's list'. Only if it referred to a printed work with that
title could the 'bookseller's list' be regarded as evidence independent
of, but additional to, the list given by Meres.

John Briggs

[3]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Melvyn R. Leventhal <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Monday, 25 Apr 2005 10:16:21 EDT
Subject: 16.0769 Love's Labours Won
Comment:        Re: SHK 16.0769 Love's Labours Won

[By way of brief introduction -- for those not familiar with the debate
-- in 1598 Francis Meres published a book which provided a list of
Shakespeare's comedies; that list included the unknown play Love's
Labours Won.  For hundreds of years scholars believed that LLW was in
fact another name for a known play written by Shakespeare. In 1953, an
English bookseller's list dated 1603 was discovery which, among other
titles, recorded LLW.  This has led some to argue that LLW is clearly a
lost play by Shakespeare and not a known play popularly referred to as
LLW.]

In my post to the list of April 21, I state that Lukas Erne has
persuasively argued: a) that the Bookseller's List, does not prove that
LLW is a lost play; and b) that LLW is a '"popular title" for Much Ado
About Nothing. John Briggs, in response, rightly chides me: "if the case
is persuasive [ly stated by Mr. Erne] in a footnote, can it not be
summarised here?"

Here is Mr. Erne's argument followed by my own footnote:

1.   Edward IV published in 1599 and reprinted in 1600 as The First and
Second Parts of King Edward the Fourth is recorded on the 1603
Bookseller's List only by its "popular title" "Jane shore."  Contrary to
T. W.  Baldwin's assertion, "Jane shore'" cannot be characterized as a
"shortened title" for Edward IV because "Jane shore" is not part of the
full title. Instead, the reference to "Jane shore," is compelling
evidence that the bookseller, in compiling his list, was comfortable
using popular as opposed to printed titles.

Accordingly, the case for LLW being a separate but now lost play, based
on the Bookseller's List, is not "as strong" as T.W. Baldwin and the
Oxford editors would "have it." Instead, the view held by scholars for
hundreds of years, that LLW is a popular title for another play by
Shakespeare, continues to be viable.

2.   The Bookseller's List does, however, help us tease-out the name of
the known play for which LLW might have been a popular title.  Mr. Erne
points out that the known play:  a) had to  have been published by 1603;
and b) could not be any other play mentioned with LLW by Meres in his
Palladis Tamia published on September 7, 1598 (e.g., LLW cannot be
Midsummer's Night Dream because both titles appear in the 1598 list).

Mr. Erne identifies Much Ado About Nothing as the only play that
satisfies both conditions "a" and "b" above.   We know that Much Ado was
published in Quarto in 1600 and therefore could be the play the
Bookseller was referring to in 1603.   And Much Ado is not mentioned in
Palladis Tamia.

He concludes his footnote by stating that he is "indebted to a
conversation with Peter Blayney about this issue."

Let me add a footnote in support of Mr. Erne's thesis:

A.   Implicit in Mr. Erne's argument is that the Bookseller's List does
enable us to rule out other plays that scholars have argued were also
known as LLW. Thus, the bookseller's reference to LLW cannot be a
reference to Taming of The Shrew because that play was first printed in
the 1623 Folio.   Similarly, LLW cannot be a reference to All's Well
because that play -- at least the only version we have found -- was
first printed in the 1623 Folio. Finally, LLW cannot be a reference to
the Taming of A Shrew because A Shrew is also on the Bookseller's List.

B. There is one other obvious reason to believe that Much Ado is LLW.
The two main love plots of Much Ado are both very much about love
winning out, after considerable labor.

C.   There is one very important issue that is only dealt with by Mr.
Erne in passing. If Meres was referring to Much Ado when he listed LLW
as one of Shakespeare's comedies, then we must establish that he knew
about Much Ado by September 1598. Mr. Erne addresses this issue only by
stating that the play "may have" been performed before September 7,
1598.   [As for when Much Ado  first appeared on stage, the title page
of the Quarto of 1600 refers to Much Ado as having been "sundrie times
publikely acted" by the "Lord Chamberlain his servants;" the play was
entered in the Stationers' Register on August 23, 1600.]

While there is no conclusive evidence on this question, I believe that
the argument for Much Ado being known to Meres in September 1598 is much
stronger than Mr. Erne's passing comment relating to the play in
performance:

i) The Oxford editors say Much Ado was written "between summer 1598 and
spring, 1599." Sheldon Zitner in his Oxford Shakespeare concludes that
the play was "probably written during the last third of 1598." However,
this dating is based in substantial part on Zitner's belief that Meres
would have listed Much Ado in Palladis Tamia if it had been written by
September 1598. Professor Zitner does not consider the possibility that
Much Ado is LLW and therefore, in fact, was listed in Palladis Tamia.
Moreover, Profession Zitner does point out that Meres included a title
in his list of works (by an author other than Shakespeare) that was
published a few weeks after September 7, 1598.   This establishes that
the September 7, 1598 cutoff date is not without some "play in the joints."

ii) I think it is entirely possible not only that Much Ado was performed
by September 1598, as stated by Mr. Erne, but that Meres knew about it
before it was publicly performed. Marchette Chute in "Shakespeare of
London," states that it is likely that Meres was "acquainted with
someone in Shakespeare's own circle."  At the very least, he made
himself The Expert on Shakespeare's work. This is the only way Meres
could have known and written in 1598 that Shakespeare was circulating
"sugared sonnets among his private friends." That Meres had "inside
information" is also supported by his ability to list so many of
Shakespeare's plays which theretofore had been published anonymously.
Thus, it is reasonable to conclude  that Meres would have been one of
the first to learn of Much Ado -- indeed that LLW might have been an
early or a "working title" for Much Ado.

Is it possible that the copyright owner of LLL, which was published in
1598, objected to Shakespeare naming his new play LLW, which Shakespeare
responded to by changing the name from LLW to Much Ado About Nothing?

Melvyn R. Leventhal

_______________________________________________________________
S H A K S P E R: The Global Shakespeare Discussion List
Hardy M. Cook, This email 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.

Ralph Crane: Accidental Editor

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 16.0797  Tuesday, 26 April 2005

From:           John Briggs <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Monday, 25 Apr 2005 14:11:58 +0100
Subject: 16.0783 Ralph Crane: Accidental Editor
Comment:        Re: SHK 16.0783 Ralph Crane: Accidental Editor

Elliott H. Stone wrote:

 >I would like to congratulate Mr Briggs for pointing out to the readers
 >the obvious connection in the "Lady of the Strachey" between William
 >Strachey and Ben Jonson found in TN.

There are things which are obvious to Elliott H. Stone, but withheld
from lesser mortals.  Much excitement was caused by the conjecture that
"The Lady of the Strachy married the yeoman of the wardrobe" was an
allusion to a liaison between the wife of William Strachey and the
wardrobe-master of the Blackfriars Theatre, David Yeomans.  The sanest
comment on this is that of T.W. Craik in Arden2: "Unfortunately, since
nothing discreditable is known of these two persons as yet, Sisson's
conjecture must remain no more than conjecture: the curious may,
however, live in hope."

I have said before (and will, no doubt, say again): if Jonson had really
edited Shakespeare's First Folio, we would not have had all our textual
problems - and Jonson's footnotes would have put the entire Shakespeare
industry out of business!

John Briggs

_______________________________________________________________
S H A K S P E R: The Global Shakespeare Discussion List
Hardy M. Cook, This email 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.

Martin Green on 'Quondam

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 16.0794  Tuesday, 26A April 2005

From:           John Briggs <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Monday, 25 Apr 2005 13:01:03 +0100
Subject: 16.0776 Martin Green on 'Quondam'
Comment:        Re: SHK 16.0776 Martin Green on 'Quondam'

I thought it was well known that the most likely derivation of the
18th-century word "condom" was from the Latin "condominium", in the
extended sense of 'protection'.

John Briggs

_______________________________________________________________
S H A K S P E R: The Global Shakespeare Discussion List
Hardy M. Cook, This email 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.

How to Play Henry V act 1 scene 2

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 16.0795  Tuesday, 26A April 2005

From:           Al Magary <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Sunday, 24 Apr 2005 22:21:27 -0700
Subject: 16.0779 How to Play Henry V act 1 scene 2
Comment:        Re: SHK 16.0779 How to Play Henry V act 1 scene 2

The chroniclers of the time from whom Shakespeare borrowed, Hall and
Holinshed, devote much space to the parliamentary speeches on invading
France or, alternatively, dealing with Scotland, either of which
campaigns the churchmen preferred to the king's attempt to extract more
money from them.  The accounts can be read online at Penn's SCETI
collection; text is in blackletter but the page images are high resolution.

Hall's Chronicle (1550), Henry V chapter, fol. 3r & ff:
http://dewey.library.upenn.edu/sceti/printedbooksNew/index.cfm?TextID=halle&PagePosition=81

Holinshed's Chronicles (1587), Vol. 3 (History of England after the
Conquest), p. 545ff:
http://dewey.lib.upenn.edu/sceti/PrintedBooksnew/index.cfm?TextID=holinshed_chronicle&PagePosition=1784

Cheers,
Al Magary

_______________________________________________________________
S H A K S P E R: The Global Shakespeare Discussion List
Hardy M. Cook, This email 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.

Shakespeare's Flowers and Plants

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 16.0793  Tuesday, 26A April 2005

From:           John Webb <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Monday, 25 Apr 2005 08:54:07 +0100
Subject: 16.0774 Shakespeare's Flowers and Plants
Comment:        Re: SHK 16.0774 Shakespeare's Flowers and Plants

 >Doctors, lawyers, scientists and the clergy have all claimed that
 >Shakespeare came from their ranks. So why not gardeners?

This subject is discussed in "Shakespeare's Imagery" by Caroline
Spurgeon, pp80-91. Here are a few extracts:

"One occupation, one point of view, above all others, is naturally his
[Shakespeare's], that of a gardener; watching, preserving, tending and
caring for growing things. All through his plays he thinks most easily
and readily of human life in terms of a gardener. The tendency to think
of matters human as of growing plants expresses itself in fullest detail
in Richard II (3.4), but is ever present in Shakespeare's thought and
imagination, so that nearly all his characters share in it... He is
repeatedly impressed, as all gardeners must be by the vitality and
strength of weeds, and he is continually conscious of a similar strength
and powers in the weeds and faults of human character... Nothing more
brings out his close knowledge of growing things than a comparison of
his gardening images with those of his contemporaries. In the first
place he has a great many more - proportionally - than they; and
secondly he shows a much closer knowledge of the growth and care of
plants... I do not find, in all my search of other dramatists any single
image of frosts and sharp winds nipping buds, which is so common in
Shakespeare, and not a trace of love or care for the plant, so
characteristic of him... In Richard III, the number of tree and garden
images is unusual even for Shakespeare, and the Royal house is
definitely thought of as a tree. The repeated use of the verbs plant,
pluck, crop, wither, as applied to the Royal house, shows how
continually this picture of a garden is in Shakespeare's mind."

In "The Renaissance Garden in England", by Sir Roy Strong, he writes:

"One of the threads of this book is the link between the Renaissance
garden in England and the Tudor idea of monarchy. The garden under
Elizabeth I becomes drawn into a network of symbolic royalist imagery.
It is a phenomenon deeply related to the cult of monarchy, dwelling upon
the almost magical powers of the sovereign over the physical universe."

_______________________________________________________________
S H A K S P E R: The Global Shakespeare Discussion List
Hardy M. Cook, This email 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.

Subscribe to Our Feeds

Search

Make a Donation

Consider making a donation to support SHAKSPER.